Can you tell us these unique situations that we no longer experience today?

1. We now have globally accepted boundaries of nations everywhere as opposed to a situation where majority of the available land space was contestible and we only had small groups of people typically living in autonomous cities with the exception of the then known world powers.

2. We no longer have legalized cannibalism or sacrifice of human beings to deities in any country.

3. We now have embassies of foreign nations in most nations of the earth as opposed to a state of almost total anarchy.

4. We now have worldwide communication and a basic understanding of all the major cultures of the world if not all the cultures of the world.

5. International trade is not controlled by military might but by balance of trade and what each person can bring to the table.

In general, We have a much more sane world

logic1:

1. We now have globally accepted boundaries of nations everywhere as opposed to a situation where majority of the available land space was contestible and we only had small groups of people typically living in autonomous cities with the exception of the then known world powers.

2. We no longer have legalized cannibalism or sacrifice of human beings to deities in any country.

3. We now have embassies of foreign nations in most nations of the earth as opposed to a state of almost total anarchy.

4. We now have worldwide communication and a basic understanding of all the major cultures of the world if not all the cultures of the world.

5. International trade is not controlled by military might but by balance of trade and what each person can bring to the table.

In general, We have a much more sane world

I'm sorry but are you saying, this is enough reason to go and wipe out entire cities with the sword, steal land, forcefully enslave people, murder civillians including innocent women and children? Just because they are "insane"?

You accept we now live in a "sane" world. Would it be too much for a God who is supposed to be a champion of morality to lead the charge in sanitizing the world rather then quenching "insanity" with "more insanity"?

Even if we had cannibals in our society, what is the difference between a cannibalistic tribe and a genocidal tribe?

If when America invaded iraq or Afghanistan they went ahead and murdered all the males including non-civillians, enslaved the women and children or murdered the entire country with a nuclear bomb you mean your God will tell them America you have committed an immoral act because you have borders, you dont have cannibals, you have embassy, you control international trade and you have telephones?

I'm sorry but are you saying, this is enough reason to go and wipe out entire cities with the sword, steal land, forcefully enslave people, murder civillians including innocent women and children? Just because they are "insane"?

If you had an unrepentant group of people who are bent on exterminating you and the only way out of the quagmire was to kill them or be killed yourself then you have a justification for killing the males (which would be mostly soliders)

If when America invaded iraq or Afghanistan they went ahead and murdered all the males including non-civillians, enslaved the women and children or murdered the entire country with a nuclear bomb you mean your God will tell them America you have committed an immoral act because you have borders, you dont have cannibals, you have embassy, you control international trade and you have telephones?

No it would have been immoral because they didn't have to do it.
The war against terrorism is another matter altogether where you have to kill every member of al-Qaeda until they stop terrorizing Americans.

If members of al-Qaeda were killing Americans and wouldn't stop until they wiped out every American or were wiped out by Americans then it is just to wipe them out.

It would have become a matter of survival

logic1:

If you had an unrepentant group of people who are bent on exterminating you and the only way out of the quagmire was to kill them or be killed yourself then you have a justification for killing the males (which would be mostly soliders)

what is the justification for wiping out entire cities, killing both male, female, child and unborn like we happen in Deuteronomy, Exodus and leviticus?. What is the justification for forcefully enslaving the women and children?

logic1:

No it would have been immoral because they didn't have to do it.

Says who? We all know the Taliban which controlled afghanistan wants to exterminate Americans and american interests, not so? And we know most Muslim Afghanistanis dont care much for the welfare of America either. If the US droped a nuke bomb and wiped out the entire population, will that be moral or immoral?

The war against terrorism is another matter altogether where you have to kill every member of al-Qaeda until they stop terrorizing Americans.

If members of al-Qaeda were killing Americans and wouldn't stop until they wiped out every American or were wiped out by Americans then it is just to wipe them out.

It would have become a matter of survival

really? The christian thing to do is not only to wipe out Al-qaeda members but kill all their male offspring and male relations in addition to forcefully enslaving their wives and children,not so? Is this not the moral thing according to the bible?

Says who? We all know the Taliban which controlled afghanistan wants to exterminate Americans and american interests, not so? And we know most Muslim Afghanistanis dont care much for the welfare of America either. If the US droped a nuke bomb and wiped out the entire population, will that be moral or immoral?

It would be immoral because Muslim afganistanis are not a threat to Americans. The Taliban is. At any rate the Nuke will affect more than just Afganistan.

really? The christian thing to do is not only to wipe out Al-qaeda members but kill all their male offspring and male relations in addition to forcefully enslaving their wives and children,not so? Is this not the moral thing according to the bible?

No it's not the Christian thing to do according to the bible.
Even with Al-Qaeda, we still do not have a replica of the situation that the jews faced in those times even though it is closer than normal warfare.

These days there are many ways to avoid warfare unlike in ancient times when dialogue was not an option most times.

I believe the scripture you quoted earlier said they should take the women as their wives not enslave them.
At any rate God did not encourage the jews to maltreat their slaves.
By marrying the women from the cities they conquered they inadvertently incorporated the women into their culture and system.

logic1:

It would be immoral because Muslim afganistanis are not a threat to Americans. The Taliban is. At any rate the Nuke will affect more than just Afganistan.

Who says Muslim Afghanistanis are not a threat to America? So, the sons and brothers of the Taliban should be spared not so?
You stated before (in another thread i think) the jews where right to kill all the males and male children so as to "vanquish the threat completely", not so?.
Why can't the US do the same to al-qaeda members, their male relations and male children? Why is that immoral?

Why did the jews have to Kill all the males ? Where they ALL soldiers?

logic1:

No it's not the Christian thing to do according to the bible.
Even with Al-Qaeda, we still do not have a replica of the situation that the jews faced in those times even though it is closer than normal warfare.

These days there are many ways to avoid warfare unlike in ancient times when dialogue was not an option most times.

this is a weak excuse. So you telling me the jews had no choice but to kill all and sundry? No room for dialogue? Why do you have to lie?

Even right there in those same ancient times the romans, assyrians and babylonians invaded some cities vanquished armies and spared the people. So claiming there was no choice is dishonest. There is always a choice!

I believe the scripture you quoted earlier said they should take the women as their wives not enslave them.

Wrong look at it again, I think you talking about another scripture. It says here clearly to Forcefully enslave them if the accept peace or Kill all males if they dont.
Here is chapter 10-11 (deut 20)

10.When you march up to attack a city, "make its people an offer of peace".
11.If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you

Did you see where it said "make an offer of peace"? I thought you claimed there was no room for dialogue in ancient times? They had no choice?

By the way, what is Your God's idea of peace and dialogue; If they accept peace, forcefully enslave them anyway. That is indeed moral.

At any rate God did not encourage the jews to maltreat their slaves.
By marrying the women from the cities they conquered they inadvertently incorporated the women into their culture and system.

how is it even better? Forceful marriages are they moral?

Either way you look at it, your bible isnt exactly a beacon of morality.

Did you see where it said "make an offer of peace"? I thought you claimed there was no room for dialogue in ancient times? They had no choice?

peace there is synonymous for asking them to surrender.
It's not the same as dialogue today.

logic1:

peace there is synonymous for asking them to surrender.
It's not the same as dialogue today.

This is untrue and you know it.
Dialouge wasnt invented today , even in ancient times they had dialouge even by sending emissaries which is akin to foreign ministers today.

Even If one surrenders is that not an indication to avoid war and embrace peace?

I wanted to contribute but I can see that BaboonYansh has done justice to the vacuous and illogical arguments of logic1(I still wonder why he uses that name). . . .

how is it even better? Forceful marriages are they moral?

Forceful marriage when all is fair and square (no war and no crime committed) may not be moral.

logic1:

Forceful marriage when all is fair and square (no war and no crime committed) may not be moral.

In other words, Forceful marriage in war and when a crime is committed is very moral and christian in the eyes of God?

Wow, the American Army really are missing free brides in Afghanistan.

Forceful marriage = forceful s.ex = rap.e, hope you know? Does your God know what is Human rights?

I indeed learn new things everyday.lol

BaboonYansh:

In other words, Forceful marriage in war and when a crime is committed is very moral and christian in the eyes of God?

Wow, the American Army really are missing free brides in Afghanistan.

Forceful marriage = forceful s.ex = rap.e, hope you know? Does your God know what is Human rights?

I indeed learn new things everyday.lol

I said MAY because there may be some situations that warrant it and War and Crime may be necessary but not sufficient conditions.

The condition in the time of the jews was war coupled with the need for racial integration (in the absence of males in the foreign race)

And Forceful marriage is not always equal to forceful s.ex
A woman or man can be forced into marriage after which they can accept the marriage as a present fact and acquiesce to s.ex within the marriage. S.ex in such cases is not equal to rap.e

logic1:

I said MAY because there may be some situations that warrant it and War and Crime may be necessary but not sufficient conditions.

Then why did the jews do it? What is their excuse?

The condition in the time of the jews was war coupled with the need for racial integration (in the absence of males in the foreign race)

Why where the males absent in the foreign races? Oh, I remember now, The JEWS MURDERED THEM ALL!

And Forceful marriage is not always equal to forceful s.ex
A woman or man can be forced into marriage after which they can accept the marriage as a present fact and acquiesce to s.ex within the marriage. S.ex in such cases is not equal to rap.e

Indeed. You kill my father, kill my mother, kill my sisters, kill my friends and my whole city then force me to marry you. This happened to THOUSANDS of young girls. And you tell me ALL of them took the marriage as accepted fact and acquiesce to s.ex within the marriage. Lol. This is plain DISHONESTY and you know it!

Do you want me to paste the Nigerian criminal code so you can know what constitutes ra.p.e?
Here it is, section 357 of the Nigerian criminal code;

"Any person who has unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman or girl, [b]without her consent, or with her consent, if the consent is obtained by force or by means of threats or intimidation of any kind, or by fear of harm, [/b]or by means of false and fraudulent representation as to the nature of the act, or in the case of a married woman, by personating her husband, is guilty of an offence which is called rape."

In a majority of those cases R.apes would have accured! The women might come to accept the situation as their fate later but that doesn't ameliorate the fact they where captured/kidnapped, forced into marriage and s.exual relations with men against their will!

Your bible contains acts against humanity that are despicable and that in no way mirrors your God as a good entity.

mazaje:

I wanted to contribute but I can see that BaboonYansh has done justice to the vacuous and illogical arguments of logic1(I still wonder why he uses that name). . . .

I knew within reading the first couple of post from the man that sooner or later his name would be called into question. I wonder what prompts people like this to use names like Logic, or Noetic . . . .

Indeed. You kill my father, kill my mother, kill my sisters, kill my friends and my whole city then force me to marry you. This happened to THOUSANDS of young girls. And you tell me ALL of them took the marriage as accepted fact and acquiesce to s.ex within the marriage. Lol. This is plain DISHONESTY and you know it!

The girls in the nations conquered would not have liked the entire situation. No body likes it when another country invades their country regardless of who was at fault.

Not liking a situation is what is responsible for them acquiescing to marriage rather than doing it joyfully. And quite unlike women nowadays, it was extremely rare (if it ever happened at all) for women that lived thousands of years ago to stand up to their husbands.

Even today we have arranged marriages (of women to complete strangers) in many cultures of the world so it's not as unthinkable as you think it is.

"Any person who has unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman or girl, without her consent, or with her consent, if the consent is obtained by force or by means of threats or intimidation of any kind, or by fear of harm, or by means of false and fraudulent representation as to the nature of the act, or in the case of a married woman, by personating her husband, is guilty of an offence which is called despoil."

The important word here is UNLAWFUL.
It was not unlawful for the men to marry women from the cities they conquered.

If it was not Unlawful then it is not rap.e

I believe the discussion is centered on whether the Justice code of the Jews was flawed or not.

One thing I have been reiterating is this.

Justice codes morph to accommodate the peculiar circumstances that are prevalent.

You cannot fully comprehend the circumstances faced by humanity thousands of years ago therefore you cannot use a justice code developed for modern life to judge an action carried out thousands of years ago.

Note that we are talking about THOUSANDS of years ago.

In a previous post, I listed some of the differences.

It should be noted that before 9/11 many of the laws that permit law enforcement agents to "harass" citizens of a country would have been unthinkable and considered unjust.

One other thing to note is that we had various cultures in the world at that time.
Do you have any documented justice code in any culture that existed at that time that was more humane (in your eyes) than the ones the jews were following.

If there are none then except all humans were monsters then you must be missing something.

It is usually considered hypocritical to judge a situation you have no experience about and about which you have very little information.

Another thing to note is that if God had given them a "perfect" justice code to live by, it would have been incompatible with their present living conditions.

Jesus (refering to one of the laws of moses) said that that part of their code was given to them because of the hardness of their hearts. In other words, they just couldn't meet up to God's real expectations.

If God were to call everyone to question using a perfect code no one living today would probably escape judgement.

One other thing which most people do not realise when reading the bible is that the laws of moses were not perfect, they were given as a stop gap before the coming of Jesus.

Note that Jesus had to die for humans to regain the ability to live according to God's will.

The funny thing is that the same way we can condemn practices done thousands of years ago is the same way that people who lived thousands of years would condemn us for many of the things that our modern justice codes permit.

Pastor AIO:

I knew within reading the first couple of post from the man that sooner or later his name would be called into question. I wonder what prompts people like this to use names like Logic, or Noetic . . . .

I always want to be logical in my arguments but I'm not perfect. If you notice any illogicality please point it out to me.

BaboonYansh:

This is untrue and you know it.
Dialouge wasnt invented today , even in ancient times they had dialouge even by sending emissaries which is akin to foreign ministers today.

Yes dialogue was not invented today.
What I think you may have overlooked is that there can only be dialogue if both parties recognize each other.

When you have a situation where one of the parties views the other as (just a group of slaves) then where do you start from?
When the situation is such that only one person can own a set of resources and there is no higher arbitrating power like what we have in the World court today, on what basis do you have dialogue?

Dialogue in ancient times was very different from what we refer to as dialogue these days.

All I am trying to say is that the justice code the jews followed during the time of moses was the most appropriate for their peculiar situation even though it may not have been perfect. The reason it would not be perfect in every sense is that because of the fallen state of mankind they would not be able to keep the laws.

A perfect law is only practical for "perfect" people and a in a perfect world!

logic1:


The funny thing is that the same way we can condemn practices done thousands of years ago is the same way that people who lived thousands of years would condemn us for many of the things that our modern justice codes permit.

And what does that tell you?. . . Doesn't this tell you that morality is not set in stone but keeps evolving?. . . . .People set and enforce their own moral values all the time, and its always changing. . . .Moral values and set by humans not by imaginary Gods. . . .

You accept we now live in a "sane" world. Would it be too much for a God who is supposed to be a champion of morality to lead the charge in sanitizing the world rather then quenching "insanity" with "more insanity"?

Yes God is leading the charge in sanitizing the world. He sent Jesus to die in our place so that we may be able to live right.

What most people do not realise is that making people live right is not simply a case of establishing the right laws.

Humans have to be (born-again) to be able to live perfectly.
I am currently explaining in the process of explaining why Christianity is the right way on another thread (which will include a proof of the above statement) and so I won't want to repeat myself.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-552049.99999.html

mazaje:

And what does that tell you?. . . Doesn't this tell you that morality is not set in stone but keeps evolving?. . . . .People set and enforce their own moral values all the time, and its always changing. . . .Moral values and set by humans not by imaginary Gods. . . .

NO! morality is not evolving.

It is Human Justice codes that are evolving.

logic1:

NO! morality is not evolving.

It is Human Justice codes that are evolving.

What is this? . . . .Here is a simple definition of morality from Wikipedia " Morality is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong)"

Pls tell me how human morality (or moral codes) is not always evolving?. . . . .

mazaje:

What is this? . . . .Here is a simple definition of morality from Wikipedia " Morality is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong)"

Pls tell me how human morality (or moral codes) is not always evolving?. . . . .

Morality is a SENSE of behavioural conduct not the current zietgeist or an enshrined code of justice used in the court of law.

I think we are talking about different things.
What I am refering to when I say morality is an intrinsic human quality that enables us to differentiate right from wrong or to even know that there is right and there is wrong.

logic1:

The girls in the nations conquered would not have liked the entire situation. No body likes it when another country invades their country regardless of who was at fault.

Not liking a situation is what is responsible for them acquiescing to marriage rather than doing it joyfully. And quite unlike women nowadays, it was extremely rare (if it ever happened at all) for women that lived thousands of years ago to stand up to their husbands.

Even today we have arranged marriages (of women to complete strangers) in many cultures of the world so it's not as unthinkable as you think it is.

What does this mean? "Not liking a situation is what is responsible for them acquiescing to marriage rather than doing it joyfully"? Do you even listen to what you're saying? Hell! They didnt like it, why would they?

They where captured for petes sake and forrced into marriages and sexual intercourse against their will. That is despoil.

logic1:

The important word here is UNLAWFUL.
It was not unlawful for the men to marry women from the cities they conquered.

If it was not Unlawful then it is not rap.e


I believe the discussion is centered on whether the Justice code of the Jews was flawed or not.

LOL. Oh my, so in my country if it is lawful for me to Murder children on a whim i.e it's not unlawful. Then I have done no wrong and what I have committed is not murder?

yes. We are discussing if the justice code of the jews where flawed or not and from what we see, It was GREATLY FLAWED. The singular fact that it failed to recognise forceful marriage and s.ex as r.ap.e shows how flawed it was.

logic1:

Yes God is leading the charge in sanitizing the world. He sent Jesus to die in our place so that we may be able to live right.

What most people do not realise is that making people live right is not simply a case of establishing the right laws.

Humans have to be (born-again) to be able to live perfectly.
I am currently explaining in the process of explaining why Christianity is the right way on another thread (which will include a proof of the above statement) and so I won't want to repeat myself.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-552049.99999.html

I!m sorry but a God who championed "insanity" and was quite happy to order people to do "insane" acts has no moral ground to insigate an era of "sanity".

logic1:

Yes dialogue was not invented today.
What I think you may have overlooked is that there can only be dialogue if both parties recognize each other.

1.When you have a situation where one of the parties views the other as (just a group of slaves) then where do you start from?
2.When the situation is such that only one person can own a set of resources and there is no higher arbitrating power like what we have in the World court today, on what basis do you have dialogue?

Dialogue in ancient times was very different from what we refer to as dialogue these days.

1. Situation 1 reminds me of colonialists in Nigeria and some other states. Nigerians didnt go around comitting genocide because the whites consider us inferior slaves did they?

2. Even before the advent of the world court, Nations still had dialogue and resolved squabbles peacefully! It wasn't unheard of.

There is NO EXCUSE. Even right there thousands of years ago, notions had dialogues by sending emissaries with gifts, tributes etc !!

All I am trying to say is that the justice code the jews followed during the time of moses was the most appropriate for their peculiar situation even though it may not have been perfect. The reason it would not be perfect in every sense is that because of the fallen state of mankind they would not be able to keep the laws.

A perfect law is only practical for "perfect" people and a in a perfect world!

What you have just said here agrees with our position that moral and justice codes evolve.

If you apply it to the idea therez a supreme law giver then This is untrue and inconsistent. Ultimate Laws of God cant be enacted based on what is conveinient.

What is right is right and what is just is just in the eyes of GOD; not so?. Ae you saying God changes his mind as to what is right and what is wrong?

A perfect law should not care if people are perfect or not. It stands irrespective of anything. It bends for no one. A perfect being like God shouldn't be able to lower his standards. If it can, then its inconsistent.

A perfect law should not care if people are perfect or not. It stands irrespective of anything. It bends for no one. A perfect being like God shouldn't be able to lower his standards. If it can, then its inconsistent.

God is not only Perfect. God Loves us.

If God didn't love us He'd exterminate us in a whim because we deserve to be exterminated if you consider how evil mankind has become.

God loves us so even though He is perfect He created ways for the jews to atone for their imperfect actions temporarily before Jesus came to atone for all of mankind once and for all.

logic1:

Morality is a SENSE of behavioural conduct not the current zietgeist or an enshrined code of justice used in the court of law.

I think we are talking about different things.
What I am refering to when I say morality is an intrinsic human quality that enables us to differentiate right from wrong or to even know that there is right and there is wrong.

You just seem to be shooting your self in the foot and going around in a meaningless circle. . . .You aforementioned that morality does not evolve, which is a very FALSE statement. . . . .Right and wrong differs from culture to culture and from society to society. . . .Right and wrong also evolves. . . .What might be right today might be wrong tomorrow and what might be wrong today might be right tomorrow. . . .Morality is NOT intrinsic it has to be learned through experimentation and by experience. . . .Let me give u and example, long ago some tribes in Nigeria used to kill their twin babies and they saw nothing wrong with that, they never saw anything wrong with that action, they had to be thought to stop it. . . . If morality were intrinsic  as you erroneously claim then why do parents spend a lot of time, effort and resources teaching their children the difference between right and wrong? I would expect all children to know  the difference between right and wrong automatically if morality were intrinsic. . . .

logic1:

God is not only Perfect. God Loves us.

You just keep regurgitating this blind statement without demonstrating how. . . . .You claim your God is perfect, How is he perfect and how does he love humans?. . . .

If God didn't love us He'd exterminate us in a whim because we deserve to be exterminated if you consider how evil mankind has become.

In the bible we have good leading his chosen men to go and do evil acts, no?. . . . .

God loves us so even though He is perfect He created ways for the jews to atone for their imperfect actions temporarily before Jesus came to atone for all of mankind once and for all.

Again you keep repeating very blind statements. . . . . .I really don't have time for any theological brouhaha, but why should any body accept the Christian hypothesis?. . . .

logic1:

God is not only Perfect. God Loves us.

If God didn't love us He'd exterminate us in a whim because we deserve to be exterminated if you consider how evil mankind has become.

God loves us so even though He is perfect He created ways for the jews to atone for their imperfect actions temporarily before Jesus came to atone for all of mankind once and for all.

The issue of love only comes in  in atonement and forgiveness NOT bending the perfect laws so it can be convenient for you to obey. Its inconsistent. It should be you disobey the perfect laws and the law giver is merciful and loving enough to forgive. The perfect law should still stay.

But in a situation where the laws are Imperfect and wrong, it isn't consistent with a Perfect God,