Religion II

[boxcar]

Conquest and Failure

The wars of conquest under Moses and Joshua were supposed to cleanse the land of competing divine bloodline and install Yahweh's own children, his inheritance, into the place he had allotted for them. Yahweh's rule on earth was to be reconstituted in Canaan.

Frankly, it didn't seem much like Eden.

In contrast to the idyllic beginnings in Eden, the installation of Israel in the land had been violent. Those means were necessary to revive Yahweh's original vision in a fallen world, a world full of divine and human conflict, of free imagers seeking their own will, not the will of the creator. Yahweh could have spoken Israel into existence in the land. He could have acted unilaterally as high sovereign to resuscitate his rule on earth. But Yahweh's decisions in the original Eden meant that he would not overturn human (or divine) freedom in his imagers. Yahweh had chosen to accomplish his ends through imagers loyal to him against imagers who weren't. This commitment to humanity, his original imagers on earth, is one often-missed reason why, when humanity (Israel) failed to restore God's rule, God took matters into his own hands by becoming human in Jesus Christ.

Consequently, in a world governed by other gods who had become hostile rivals in the wake of Yahweh's judgment at Babel, Yahweh's presence was unwelcome. There would be war. There would be death. The land would have to be repossessed and made holy. Canaan would be Yahweh's beachhead of cosmic geography from which Israel could fulfill its mission. Israel would be a kingdom of priests, a conduit through which the disinherited nations of the earth would see Israel's prosperity. The surrounding peoples would hear of Israel's God, see his unmatched power and seek his covenantal love. The nations would be reclaimed, not by force, but by free imagers choosing to turn toward the true God -- the creator and Lord of all.

At least that was the plan.

We know that Israel ultimately failed. The seeds of that failure were sown in the events of the conquest. For whatever reasons -- lack of faith, lack of effor or both -- Israel failed to drive out their enemies. They allowed vestiges of target bloodlines to remain in the land in the Philistine cities. They chose to coexist (Jud 1:27-36). The visible Yahweh, the Angel asks the rhetorical question, "Why would you do such a thing?" and then announce the consequence: "Now I say, I will not drive them out from before you; they will become as thorns for you, and their gods will be a trap for you" (Jud 2:2-3). The name of the place where he uttered these words was thereafter appropriately remembered as Bochim, a Hebrew world that means "weeping" (Jud 2:5).

Not surprisingly, the rest of Israel's history is a sordid roller-coaster ride. Loyalty to Yahweh -- refusing to worship any other god -- was of course at the heart of salvation in the Old Testament. Possession of the land is linked to this loyalty as far back as the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen 17:1-2, 8-10; 22:15-18). The covenant at Sinai reinforced that connection (Leviticus 26; Deut 4:25-27, 39-40; 11:18-24). It would be due to failure in this loyalty that Israel was sent into exile -- expelled from the land of promise.

But Yahweh wouldn't give up entirely on Israel. The Book of Judges makes it clear that he would respond to both repentance and apostasy with equal consistency. The visible Yahweh did show up from time to time , as in the cases of Gideon (Judges 6) and Samson (Judges 13). But it was with only Israel's last judge, the faithful Samuel , that Yahweh's appearances became less rare.

Israel's monarchy would suffer through Saul and eventually flourish under David, and his son Solomon. But the monarchy thereafter crumbled, dragging God's intended kingdom into centuries of apostasy and civil war before ending in divine judgment.

The terrible end would produce theological lessons: Eden cannot come and survive without Yahweh's constant presence -- as had been the case in the original Eden. The kingdom of God cannot be built with human hands. As Israel reached the final stages of failure, God announced through the prophets that plans had changed. Restoring Eden would require God's enduring presence in the hearts of his children, and an ideal king who would remain loyal to Yahweh. God himself would supply the Second Adam, the son of David, the perfect ruling servant.

Old Testament history after the conquest is the story of what might have been. But the Old Testament, after the Book of Joshua, shouldn't be read as a protracted obituary. The spiritual war doesn't end. The biblical writers have messages to communicate against the backdrop of their supernatural worldview. The stories of prophets and kings aren't just a biblical soap opera. There's an unseen reality going on at the same time. What's playing on that channel will occupy us the rest of the way through the Old Testament.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I'm thinking of nominating it for cannon status.

Cannon?

What caliber?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I thought I knew the answer to that until I met you.

What was your answer before that?

Do you want me to enlighten you?

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Question:

Must a believer agree with Boxcar in order to be "saved"?

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/f4/5f/be/f...-jet-plane.jpg

" Anyone caught in the lasso found it impossible to lie. And because Wonder Woman used it to extract confessions and compel obedience, the golden lasso was of course nothing less than a lie detector [...] Like the lie detector upon which it was modelled, Wonder Woman's Golden Lasso produced truth—and by implication justice and freedom too—through coercion.[8]"

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Quit babbling and prove your contention that God's omniscience and his test for our first parents for moral righteousness are mutually exclusive. Apply the Law of Noncontradiction against your premise. See how that works out for you.

And by the way, God wasn't the only witness in the Garden. His divine council witnessed everything!

Let's see. You contend the following, god is:

Omniscient
Omnipotent
All-loving (Omnibenevolent)
All can exist simultaneously

And you ask me to first prove, "it's omniscience and it's test for our first parents for moral righteousness are mutually exclusive"

Duh!!

"Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do".

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Let's see. You contend the following, god is:

Omniscient
Omnipotent
All-loving (Omnibenevolent)
All can exist simultaneously

And you ask me to first prove, "it's omniscience and it's test for our first parents for moral righteousness are mutually exclusive"

Duh!!

"Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do".

I have no explaining to do. Apply the law of noncontradiction to your premise and show us how it constitutes a contradiction. Again, the law reads:

A thing cannot exist and not exist (be and not be) at the same time and in the same sense.

So show us, Humpty, how God's omniscience cannot exist along side his moral test for our first parents at the same time and in the same sense.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

What was your answer before that?

You have so unsettled my world, I have forgotten.

Do you want me to enlighten you?

God forbid!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Cannon?

Once in a blue moon, you are awake. Congratulations.

What caliber?

Big enough to accommodate a MOAB.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Very-bollixed-up-car

I have no explaining to do. Apply the law of noncontradiction to your premise and show us how it constitutes a contradiction. Again, the law reads:

You know it loses something when you have to explain a joke. In your case it loses even more when I have to explain the obvious.
Start by explaining any one of these.

god is......

Omniscient
Omnipotent
All-loving (Omnibenevolent)

Then somehow explain how this follows

All can exist simultaneously?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You have so unsettled my world, I have forgotten.

How have I unsettled your world?

Originally Posted by boxcar

God forbid!

So your "free will" is to remain ignorant?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You know it loses something when you have to explain a joke. In your case it loses even more when I have to explain the obvious.
Start by explaining any one of these.

god is......

Omniscient
Omnipotent
All-loving (Omnibenevolent)

Then somehow explain how this follows

All can exist simultaneously?

Why not?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

How have I unsettled your world?

By getting me to question if all humans are rational beings.

So your "free will" is to remain ignorant?

No! My "free will" is to steer clear of your ignorance which you masquerade as enlightenment.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Why not?

Proving god exists is impossible. Ascribing these godly attributes are also impossible

Omniscient
Omnipotent
All-loving (Omnibenevolent)

Of course if you confuse definitions with proofs, any delusion you can dream up is doable. Big deal. Shove your misuse of "the law of non contradiction" right where your non proofs reside.

Where the sun don't shine.

You seem content to store your extremely
burdensome "burden of proof", in the exact same place

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Proving god exists is impossible. Ascribing these godly attributes are also impossible

Omniscient
Omnipotent
All-loving (Omnibenevolent)

Of course if you confuse definitions with proofs, any delusion you can dream up is doable. Big deal. Shove your misuse of "the law of non contradiction" right where your non proofs reside.

Where the sun don't shine.

You seem content to store your extremely
burdensome "burden of proof", in the exact same place

You truly are joined at the hip with Actor in terms of blazing rabbit trails. I thought this discussion was about how God's attributes were inconsistent with his moral test for Adam and Eve, as that test is presented in scripture? But now, you're blazing a new trail about the impossibility of proving God or his attributes? You're hopelessly shot!

God's attributes are not inconsistent with his moral test for our first parents, nor did that test run contrary to his holy, righteous character. You're the one who keeps blaming God for the Fall and subsequently for all the ills of the entire world that followed in its wake. So...you have been arguing on the presumption that God exists, have you not?

And earlier you made statements to the effect that God's omniscience and omnipotent and the moral test were inherently contradictory, again...arguing on the assumption that God does indeed possess those attributes.

So...once more....apply the Law of Noncontradiction and demonstrate to us how, based on your earlier assumptions that God exists and possesses these attributes, the test and his attributes are contradictory. After all, if they're truly contradictory, the LNC would demonstrate that by you applying the law to this scenario. This is what the LNC does: It reveals contradictions! This law of logic can actually prove what is contradictory and what isn't.

So...go for it, Humpty, and quit stalling already. And no more rabbit trails either. Prove your premise with the LNC.

[hcap]

You are dumb as a sack full of hammers. You wanted me to frame my objection to your god being just by proving or disproving it using your hyped-up law of non-contra, blah, blah.

My objection is logically sound. It stands on it's own without having to prove anything. Your so-called "just" god stacked the deck knowing outcomes for all eternity. Disregarding his own responsibility causing horrific suffering and genocide.

BUT, if now you want me to "prove" things nevertheless. You are the one with the impossible burden of proof.

Attempting "proof" of any kind for your delusional imaginings of what GOD IS