Dearest FD... may you have peace... and may I continue (I had to 'get back to work', sorry!)
In response to my statement that "the 'law' of the sons paying for the sins of the father was changed by God almost 3 millenniums ago...," you replied:
It was instituted by him in the first place!
The answer is yes, but ONLY for HIS people Israel, and those who 'went with' them... who AGREED to such law... for themselves AND their children... at Mt. Sinai. Yes?
And isn't he unchanging?
Ah, again, you have been misled. Does not my Father 'feel regret' and change His mind? I give you the Deluge, Nineveh, the Law Covenant, the New Covenant, choice of Saul, choice of Saul of Tarsus... etc., etc., etc.
His unchangeableness is in that no matter what WE do, He will be the same. Perhaps you have a father like that (or perhaps you don't, but hear me out, please), who is pretty steady in his ways and does not change... unless FORCED to change... either to discipline you... protect you from another... or save you. But once the 'deed' is done, he is himself once again, and if you really looked at it, he really was all along, yes? You can pretty much set time by him. My father was like that: one of THE meekest men you could ever know. NEVER raised his voice, NEVER touched us in a harmful way, NEVER had a controversy with anyone... that I knew of. Very quiet and peaceful. Until my stepmother... a woman who THRIVED on drama... entered his life. Pushed and pushed until he had no choice but to react. And yeah, sure, he 'changed'. But he hated it and eventually decided that although he loved her (or thought he did, whatever), he wasn't going to LET her 'change' him anymore. Took him awhile, but he got there.
In that light, I give you the Holy One of Israel, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, JAH OF ARMIES... and His 'relationship', at times, with mankind... but most often... with Israel. A man and a contentious 'wife'. Same scenario. (Please, ladies, do NOT take this to mean that all wives are like this and any man that treats them 'wrong' is justified. This was ONE example used to illustrate another... that's it; that's all.)
I give you a man who vowed to take care of his 'wife', be loyal only to HER, feed her, clothe her, protect her from her enemies, prosper her and her children, set her children on thrones... and more... and for what? In return, he wanted only her love, and her loyalty and faithfulness... to HIM... and her loving treatment of those in her 'household', his 'children'. Tell me, FunkyD, if YOU were that man and Israel was YOUR 'wife'... and she proved herself unfaithful, disloyal, fornicating with every guy she came in contact with, putting dirt all over your name, at home AND in the streets, and every time you left her she would cry and cry and BEG you to take her back... what would YOU do? Can you honestly say that you would leave her entirely at first? Right off the bat? Can you honestly say that you would not be 'provoked', even to the point of doing something you wouldn't have DREAMED of under better circumstances? Can you honestly say WHAT you would do?
As a WOMAN I am NOT saying I agree with it... I don't HAVE to... for God is not answerable to me. But I would be lying to you if I said I didn't UNDERSTAND it. I am a mother and although I do not believe in corporal punishment, if you think I've never smacked on of my kids, you're mistaken. I have. And although they are 20 and 25, I would still do so, if they drove me to it. And IF they did something quite harmful to another, I would feel it MY obligation to mete out their punishment before anyone else's, and don't think I necessarily believe anyone has a right to tell me how to do it. IF I believed in capital punishment and one of my children were guilty... I would throw the stone, or the switch, myself, rather than expect another to do it. It should be on MY conscience; not someone else's. My Father had the right to decide David's 'punishment', for David was HIS king.
And isn't he still punishing us for Adam and Eve's sin?
Again, you err, for you have been misled. We have NEVER been punished by God for Adam's sin. When God told Adam/Eve not to eat of the one tree, He didn't say, "For if you do, I will kill you." He said, "For in the day that you do, you will certainly die." Thus, HE WARNED THEM! Now, if Adam and Eve didn't LISTEN and HEED the warning... how is God to blame for that? HE TRIED!! Adam... and ONLY Adam... is responsible for our plight. Adam CHOSE to disobey... to his... and OUR... detriment. God CARED enough to warn him; however, HE didn't care enough to BE warned.
Modern lawmakers consider human life to be valuable.
Hehehehehe! Yeah, sure, right. Methinks you should visit a country where the 'lawmakers'... and not the PEOPLE... make the laws.
Laws that devalued human life have been changed.
Where do you live, honey? Such laws have only been changed in certain parts of the world, primarily the 'christian' parts, and ONLY because so-called 'christians' couldn't get AWAY with it anymore because the Book and man they CLAIM to follow SAYS they must value human life (even that of their enemies, which part they still can't seem to get...). And they were called on the carpet about it from the REST of the world, the world whose action they hypcritically condemned! The laws changed because the HYPOCRITS were exposed. However, ABSENT said book, the words of the One it speaks about, and failing the exposure of hypocrits, do you REALLY think such laws would have been changed? REALLY?
Surely that's a good thing?
Where I live, yes. But you wish me to believe that things like slavery, the holocaust, the treatment of women in Afghanistan... 'changed'... because of the 'goodness' of lawmakers. Oh, come on! Slavery was abolished to keep a nation from dividing. It was about economics, not humanitarianism. If the North freed slaves, then the South's economy wouldn't be able to support their part in the Civil War. The holocaust was ended, what, only AFTER 10 million Jews were killed? And why? Well, what Hitler did THERE was okay, but wait, we gotta stop him before he gets HERE!
And the women in Afghanistan: they have now received help, why, because we 'felt' for them? I don' think so, dear FD. It was because the U.S. is after some guy who bombed some buildings on THEIR 'turf' (can't have that, can we?) and rather than finding the guy, held responsible and punished the PEOPLE of the government they accused of hiding him. Funny thing, though: Taliban all gone... but Bin Laden (like Kadafi, Hussein, the Ayatollah - until he died)... still out there!
The U.S. wanted an alliance with Afghanistan. Have wanted them even since England tried it during the 19th century and Russia during the 20th. Why? Can you say OIL? Can you say, "strategic position in that area of the world, an interior position new Iran and Iraq? And now they have that, but helping some women was NOT the focal point. NEVER was the focal point. Certainly you know that. Those women are now being helped ONLY so the U.S. doesn't look like the bully it is, for killing a good many of them... and children... in the hopes of catching what amounts to a handful of men who (1) made them look bad, and (2) were in the way anyway.
Get a clue, FD... God is NOT as 'bad' as you wish to make Him out ot be... nor is earthling man as 'good'.
Maybe some day your god will do the same.
Actually, He made the FIRST move:
He loved the world (and NOT just Israel) SO much, that He gave His Son...
Are you serious?
Absolutely.
You think that killing a baby is better than having him go through life, occasionally being called a bastard?
Excuse my... er, honesty here, but (and I COULD say what is considered to be 'right', as opposed to what is TRUE, but I think we're both adults, so...), I would have to say 'perhaps'. Do YOU think you know what affect such a thing can have on another? Sure, you and I would say, "Oh, come on, get over it, sticks and stones, etc., etc., etc." However, given the suicide rate among young people... particularly in THIS country (U.S.), where although we are among the most affluent people in the world, the need to be accepted and FIT IT, is of primary importance... I would have to say... "perhaps". Truly, it depends, doesn't it? Perhaps your skin is thick. But the skin of others, however, may not be so.
Please tell me I'm reading that wrong.
Sorry, but I can't. I have to speak truth to you. So, you read it right, although you may not think it right. But then, I don't think like most people... nor do I see or hear like them, either. I see and hear the reality, dear FD... not the illusion of it. From a distance this all looks great. But I have had the 'privilege' of glimpsing a great many things... up close. And while it ain't ALL ugly, it ain't all pretty, either.
Regarding parents having thinking twice regarding doing bad if they thought their children would pay, you said:
You're right. It probably would work on a lot of people. If I was a parent and you threatened my children, I'd do anything you asked - if I was somehow incapable of tearing you limb from limb - but it would still be unjust.
I am not sure I meant a 'threat'. I mean, if someone threatened my children, I would feel as you do and most probably react the same way. However, if I knew that my actions could possibly be paid for by my children, I would be VERY careful. I am not saying it's the best idea, and I did acknowledge that it was MY opinion, but I also told you that I... am not 'good'. I am, however, truthful. Very.
The ends do not justify the means.
Well, not always, anyway.
The way I see it: something is wrong if and only if it violates someone's rights.
Okay, so why did David have a 'right' to father a child with Bathsheba, when he already had a number of sons, but Uriah did NOT have such a right to even ONE son... with his own wife... because of David's actions? Derek, both David and the child paid for the error. Why the child? As I said, you will have to as God. But read the account. I am sure that after what occurred in his household from that point onward, David would have rather have been dead.
The way (I think) you see it: Something is wrong if and only if your god says it is wrong
Perhaps. But I can do 'wrong' by my Father... and be forgiven. I don't think I can say the same about earthling man, who LOVES not only to 'keep account of the injury', but to judge... and condemn... as well, while constantly demanding that he not BE judged... or condemned. I may not be 'good', FD, and I may have a different 'view' on things. But... I'm not a hypocrit. I do not wish to BE judged; therefore, I do NOT judge. Anyone... particularly God.
Again, my peace remains.
YOUR servant, and a slave of Christ,
SJ
