God and the Law

[BSM1]

surely God wasn't advocating for satan?

Seemed to be treating Satan as an equal?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

this is not considered to be the God most high. this is the god that created. you and i can create too. like a parent that procreates. would a parent make a rule and then break it?

Umm... this sort of thing happens all the time. Why do you think there's the hypocrisy-revealing saying "Do as I say, not as I do?" If I had to put money on it, my bet would be on a smart KID having coined that one.

Just consider swearing. I tell my kids which words are the bad ones, tell them not to say them lest they upset someone, and then when I am alone with my friends I use them myself without a second thought.

Would a parent make a rule and then break it? Dude... did you even HAVE parents?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

However, I find the God of the Bible never puts Himself above the Law. I can't find an actively broken rule.

What about actively killing the first-born among the Egyptians? Doesn't that go against "THOU SHALT NOT KILL" even a little bit? Maybe He just considered that really late-term abortion or something?

 

[Fool]

Umm... this sort of thing happens all the time. Why do you think there's the hypocrisy-revealing saying "Do as I say, not as I do?" If I had to put money on it, my bet would be on a smart KID having coined that one.

Just consider swearing. I tell my kids which words are the bad ones, tell them not to say them lest they upset someone, and then when I am alone with my friends I use them myself without a second thought.

Would a parent make a rule and then break it? Dude... did you even HAVE parents?

yes, that is what a hypocrite do, say one thing and do another. it a cover up and they are players on a stage. they know they've got a persona to project. dancing monkey to the organ grinding audience.

yes i had earthly parents. they were very poor parents. they reveled in their ignorance and disparity. they mostly treated their children like objects and swore their love was the greatest love of all.

fyi, if people are not friendly with others, they are neglecting/indifferent or abusing them.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

yes i had earthly parents. they were very poor parents. they reveled in their ignorance and disparity. they mostly treated their children like objects and swore their love was the greatest love of all

Sounds like they soured you on the idea of "earthly" parents. But see, that only proves my point - you know the reality, and yet you STILL tried spout off the idyllic "Would a parent... ?" as if it were obvious. This sort of behavior makes no sense to me. I suppose it is no wonder some supplant their own parents with a make believe one.

fyi, if people are not friendly with others, they are neglecting/indifferent or abusing them.

This is, most certainly, your opinion, and nothing more. I feel strongly that you need to understand that. If people are not friendly with me I feel as though they have done me a favor. I now know, to a greater degree, who I needn't pay any mind to. I certainly don't feel "neglected" (as if EVERYONE else should feel obliged to maintain responsibility for me or my feelings - ludicrous!), certainly people can be indifferent to others, but is this necessarily/inherently "wrong?" And equating indifference between people with "abuse" by one or both of the parties to one another? Seriously? So if I pass someone on the street and neither of us say a greeting of any kind to one another, I should be interpreting this as intent to ABUSE? And so should they? Can't say that I agree with this... at all. Hence the reason I called it out as what it is... opinion. You say things in order to "sound good" - I get that. I even do that myself from time to time. I'm never quite so flamboyant in my meanderings as some however.

 

[Fool]

Sounds like they soured you on the idea of "earthly" parents. But see, that only proves my point - you know the reality, and yet you STILL tried spout off the idyllic "Would a parent... ?" as if it were obvious. This sort of behavior makes no sense to me. I suppose it is no wonder some supplant their own parents with a make believe one.

i'm not my parents body. I'm a consciousness. seeing people for what they are doesn't necessarily make you a sour person. sour people are neglectful and abusive. they tend to feed on the weak and objectify others. people in service to self have trouble empathizing with things they consider to be objects. you can't profit from what you can't control.

This is, most certainly, your opinion, and nothing more. I feel strongly that you need to understand that. If people are not friendly with me I feel as though they have done me a favor. I now know, to a greater degree, who I needn't pay any mind to. I certainly don't feel "neglected" (as if EVERYONE else should feel obliged to maintain responsibility for me or my feelings - ludicrous!), certainly people can be indifferent to others, but is this necessarily/inherently "wrong?" And equating indifference between people with "abuse" by one or both of the parties to one another? Seriously? So if I pass someone on the street and neither of us say a greeting of any kind to one another, I should be interpreting this as intent to ABUSE? And so should they? Can't say that I agree with this... at all. Hence the reason I called it out as what it is... opinion. You say things in order to "sound good" - I get that. I even do that myself from time to time. I'm never quite so flamboyant in my meanderings as some however.

parents aren't special people to me. they're just people. they can do good things and they can do bad things. i spend very little time with toxic people. i can learn from them but the lessons they impart are often very simple and very memorable. i think love is a better teacher.

being a parent doesn't definitely make you a loving person.

there are all kinds of parents, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, et al in prison and psychiatric wards because of their confusion.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

i'm not my parents body... parents aren't special people to me. they're just people. they can do good things and they can do bad things

So, given the above statements and understanding, can you please frame up for me why you asked the (rhetorical) question:

would a parent make a rule and then break it?

 

[Fool]

So, given the above statements and understanding, can you please frame up for me why you asked the (rhetorical) question:

because an ABSOLUTE, or all encompassing thing couldn't make a rule for someone else and then break it; if they are the ABSOLUTE. All rules made would be for self. do unto others, or the golden rule, would not apply because there is no other apart from it, the ABSOLUTE.

one as many and many as one. it's form may change but the action is constant

 

[URAVIP2ME]

What about actively killing the first-born among the Egyptians? Doesn't that go against "THOU SHALT NOT KILL" even a little bit? ...................................

I find there is a BIG difference between 'killing', 'murder' and an 'execution' for the sake of justice for the righteous.
As Exodus 12:12 brings to our attention the plagues were against or humiliated the Egyptian ' gods '(Numbers 33:4)
It wasn't just Pharaoh, but according to 1 Samuel 6:6, the Egyptians also hardened their hearts.
There were some Egyptians that sided with the Israelites and they were spared.
There were nine previous plagues, and instead of stopping they would Not let the Israelites go.
So, the final plague, Not only took the life of their first born, but humiliated their idol ' god ' Amon-Ra.
That meant the death of their first born also meant the death of a god, bringing a severe blow to their false religion.
That final plague was Not a wanton killing, but an execution for the sake of the righteous.
The executional words from Jesus' mouth according to Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-16 will also Not be a killing but an 'execution' for the 'sake of justice' for the righteous ones, destroying only the wicked as Psalms 92:7 mentions.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I find there is a BIG difference between 'killing', 'murder' and an 'execution' for the sake of justice for the righteous.
As Exodus 12:12 brings to our attention the plagues were against or humiliated the Egyptian ' gods '(Numbers 33:4)
It wasn't just Pharaoh, but according to 1 Samuel 6:6, the Egyptians also hardened their hearts.
There were some Egyptians that sided with the Israelites and they were spared.
There were nine previous plagues, and instead of stopping they would Not let the Israelites go.
So, the final plague, Not only took the life of their first born, but humiliated their idol ' god ' Amon-Ra.
That meant the death of their first born also meant the death of a god, bringing a severe blow to their false religion.
That final plague was Not a wanton killing, but an execution for the sake of the righteous.
The executional words from Jesus' mouth according to Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-16 will also Not be a killing but an 'execution' for the 'sake of justice' for the righteous ones, destroying only the wicked as Psalms 92:7 mentions.

All excuses from my perspective. You want to explain it away as something other than "killing", and I can understand that, because it is hard to accept or stomach the idea that something you follow (indeed,something you worship) would be capable of breaking Its own rules in such an egregious manner.

Unfortunately, the word "kill" simply means "to deprive of life in any manner." That's why you can say "I killed a raccoon on the way home." when you hit one with your car - even though it was an accident. Killing doesn't mean murder - which is the word that comes with the onus of intent. God did not say "Thou shalt not murder." No. He clearly said "Thou shalt not kill." And that broad statement even applies to executions.

The meaning of the word is clear, all you have "on your side" is shaky interpretation.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Seemed to be treating Satan as an equal?

or, was Satan treating God as an equal - just a thought.
Satan I find did Not challenge God's power or strength, so he must have realized God's mightiness.
Rather, Satan challenged God's right to govern, God's right to rule over creation.
Only the passing of time would allow for that challenge to be answered.
The passing of time has allowed for us to be born and then think who we would like as Sovereign over us.
Both faithful Job and Jesus, even under adverse conditions, met Satan's challenge and proved Satan wrong.
Their faithfulness was a reply to Satan and thus God could also reply to Satan's taunts - Proverbs 27:11.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

All excuses from my perspective. You want to explain it away as something other than "killing", and I can understand that, because it is hard to accept or stomach the idea that something you follow (indeed,something you worship) would be capable of breaking Its own rules in such an egregious manner.
Unfortunately, the word "kill" simply means "to deprive of life in any manner." That's why you can say "I killed a raccoon on the way home." when you hit one with your car - even though it was an accident. Killing doesn't mean murder - which is the word that comes with the onus of intent. God did not say "Thou shalt not murder." No. He clearly said "Thou shalt not kill." And that broad statement even applies to executions.
The meaning of the word is clear, all you have "on your side" is shaky interpretation.

The King James version translated words into English and the commandment does read "Thou shalt not murder".
When a criminal is executed it is Not murder, but an execution for the sake of justice.
Wicked people are criminal in God's eyes and that is why God will bring to ruin those who would bring ruin according to Revelation 11:18 B.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The King James version translated words into English and the commandment does read "Thou shalt not murder".
When a criminal is executed it is Not murder, but an execution for the sake of justice.
Wicked people are criminal in God's eyes and that is why God will bring to ruin those who would bring ruin according to Revelation 11:18 B.

Interesting. It should read as "murder" everywhere, so as to avoid this type of confusion.

At any rate, as I am sure someone else has, doubtless, pointed out, in the case of the final plague on Egypt God "executed" the wrong people. According to the story, wasn't it the parents of those poor first-born boys (some of them just babies!) who were to fault for the obstinate nature of the Egyptian reply to Moses' entreaties? Shouldn't God have targeted the guilty party? How much of the guilt do you believe the first-born boys of the Egyptians held in the situation? 10%? 50%? 80%? 100%? Or was it closer to... hmm... let's try and recall how many children sat on the council or were part of the magic-show that tried to upstage Moses. How many was it? Was it zero? As in, exactly zero? None? Nada? No kiddos there? Well, maybe Moses talked to the kids, and they were just a bunch of evil little monsters. That's gotta be it. I mean... would God execute innocent children whose greatest "sin" was merely being born to the "wrong" sort of people in God's estimation? Would He do that? Sadly enough... that sounds exactly like something the God I've heard tell of would do.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Is the Abrahamic god above the Law?

well no... for one thing the law is a reflection of the nature of God

 

[metis]

Just a reminder that when one sees the word "Law" in the Jewish and Christian scriptures, it's almost always in reference to the 613 Laws as found in Torah that Moses said came from God: Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Interesting. It should read as "murder" everywhere, so as to avoid this type of confusion.
At any rate, as I am sure someone else has, doubtless, pointed out, in the case of the final plague on Egypt God "executed" the wrong people. According to the story, wasn't it the parents of those poor first-born boys (some of them just babies!) who were to fault for the obstinate nature of the Egyptian reply to Moses' entreaties? Shouldn't God have targeted the guilty party? How much of the guilt do you believe the first-born boys of the Egyptians held in the situation? 10%? 50%? 80%? 100%? Or was it closer to... hmm... let's try and recall how many children sat on the council or were part of the magic-show that tried to upstage Moses. How many was it? Was it zero? As in, exactly zero? None? Nada? No kiddos there? Well, maybe Moses talked to the kids, and they were just a bunch of evil little monsters. That's gotta be it. I mean... would God execute innocent children whose greatest "sin" was merely being born to the "wrong" sort of people in God's estimation? Would He do that? Sadly enough... that sounds exactly like something the God I've heard tell of would do.

I don't read as murder, but the ancient manuscripts do.

God's standard is that parents are responsible for minor children according to 1 Corinthians 7:14.

What you said about the babies also applies to Noah's day, thus a pattern for the coming time of Matthew 25:31-33,37. Plus, the first born in Egypt could have been someone 30+ years old, Not just minors.
They had nine earlier plagues in which to side with Moses - 1 Samuel 6:6.
We can Not read hearts, but God can. He knows when it reaches the point of no more hope that the minors of such people will grow up any different that the parent. As the twig is bent so the tree does grow.
The words from Jesus' mouth will only execute the wicked which will include minors 'IF' both parents are wicked.
- Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-16; Psalms 92:7

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Just a reminder that when one sees the word "Law" in the Jewish and Christian scriptures, it's almost always in reference to the 613 Laws as found in Torah that Moses said came from God: Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

I find all of God's laws are summed up in the 'kingly law', or the 'royal law', as mentioned at James 2:8.
Christ fulfilled the temporary Constitution of the Mosaic Law for the ancient nation of ancient Israel - Romans 10:4.
That temporary Law code for Israel was a shadow of what was to come according to Hebrews 10:1
Galatians 6:2 mentions how to fulfill the 'Law of Christ', which is in harmony with Jesus' NEW commandment of John 13:34-35 to have self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus has.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

We can Not read hearts, but God can. He knows when it reaches the point of no more hope that the minors of such people will grow up any different that the parent. As the twig is bent so the tree does grow.

I don't know... God's all-powerful, right? Seems He could have wiped out the guilty party (which, for the sake of argument, we'll assume is ALL of the parents), and then put all of the kids up for adoption into nice, freshly-freed Israelite families.

Or He could have let the kids live out their lives and assigned a guardian angel to each of them - having the angels personally interact with them and raise them up the "right" way.

Seems to me He had other options, assuming He has the power to do just about anything. But He chose killing the kids. Oh, and the 30 year old first-borns living in their parents' basements. That's what He chose.

 

[rosends]

Unfortunately, the word "kill" simply means "to deprive of life in any manner." That's why you can say "I killed a raccoon on the way home." when you hit one with your car - even though it was an accident. Killing doesn't mean murder - which is the word that comes with the onus of intent. God did not say "Thou shalt not murder." No. He clearly said "Thou shalt not kill." And that broad statement even applies to executions.

The meaning of the word is clear, all you have "on your side" is shaky interpretation.

Actually the word in question is neither "kill" nor "murder" but "tirtzach". Hebrew has a number of words which refer to death (roots like the aforementioned r-tz-ch, h-r-g, m-t) plus words that refer to methods of killing (y-r-h, s-k-l etc).

In MOST cases (but not 100%) the r-tz-ch root is used to refer to inappropriate extra judicial killing (there is one case I know of where the root is used for extra judicial killing which is not exactly inappropriate...it is complicated) and what is being forbidden is killing without sanction of the courts or God.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I don't know... God's all-powerful, right? Seems He could have wiped out the guilty party (which, for the sake of argument, we'll assume is ALL of the parents), and then put all of the kids up for adoption into nice, freshly-freed Israelite families.
Or He could have let the kids live out their lives and assigned a guardian angel to each of them - having the angels personally interact with them and raise them up the "right" way.
Seems to me He had other options, assuming He has the power to do just about anything. But He chose killing the kids. Oh, and the 30 year old first-borns living in their parents' basements. That's what He chose.

Didn't know the Egyptians had 30+ year olds living in their basements.

Could have, would have, should have, etc. but God's unchangeable purpose is that we all be descendants from father Adam and mother Eve according to Genesis 1:28. Parents Not angels are responsible for minor children.

Adam threw us ' under the bus ' Not God.
Wiping out the guilty party would Not have settled the issue of who governs best.
Wiping out would have just made God a Bully, and after all he gave mankind free-will choices to obey or not.
We know by the news there is the absence of God's kingly law (James 2:6) and that absence causes the bad news.
For who ever heard of anyone being arrested or put in jail for loving neighbor as one's self.
So, to me, it is the absence of failing to listen to God's Golden Rule that has resulted in violent behavior.