Bill Maher, Osama bin Laden, church and state, part 3

Continuing from last time, the rest of the dialogue up to this point.


Angela:

Did Jesus rejoice when peter cut off the ear of Jesus' enemy in John 18? Arent Christians supposed to be modeling themselves after his behavior?

The reason I mentioned Iran was to again point out to you as a side note that not all Muslims are Arab. When you refer to the "Arab Muslim world" It doesn't include Iran, they are Persian, not Arab. I wasn't arguing about what they are or are not ruled by. Your summary of Islam's take on democracy is also a stereotype and inaccurate and I am certain that the people fighting for democracy right now in any number of Muslim countries would debate that with you. But you don't really seem like the kind of fellow who is up for debate.

I have talked about these issues with many people, I've gone to listen to Muslim Scholars speak on the subject. How does visiting a Muslim country and speaking with them not include myself in listening to a diverse group of opinions from Muslims? I would argue that you are the one that isn't acknowledging the diversity of the Muslim community. Again in 1.5 BILLION Muslims in the world you will most certainly find diversity. I haven't argued that all Muslims are peace loving people, my point was that your generalization of most or even many (whatever that word means) is inaccurate. I am glad you are finally conceding that because the people you are talking about are actually part of a small minority of very loud people, OBL was the leader of them.

Oh wow thanks for exposing me to your "diverse" opinion that the majority of ignorant Americans hold. I've nevvvver heard these arguments before. Actually in truth I've heard them so many times that I am practically yawning while I type. The more accurate description is that I am again being exposed to someone so stubborn and determined to be "right" that he has hardened his heart and is clouding his vision with so much hate that he can't see the truth.

The fact that you are walking into a Mosque thinking that people are lying to you speaks volumes about your delusional paranoia about Muslims. The truth is that the verse you are speaking about tells Muslims they may lie if their life is threatened, and that really only refers to telling someone if they are Muslim or not.

There are many many violent verses in the Bible. Verses that we choose to ignore. The Qur'an states what is allowable if Muslims are under threat. At the time the Qur'an was written they were under attack very often. It needs to be taken into context. This is the problem with dogma is that some interpret it in the same context that it was written in back in those times. It really isnt meant to be applied that way today. You can apply the same ideas to the Bible. It doesn't sound like your bias would allow anything close to a "fair reading".

I dont buy your "chronological order" bit. A lot of Muslims aren't even clear on the chronological order or the Qur'an and they have been studying it for years.

I also don't buy that you know Islam better than scholars who have devoted their life to studying it. Quite frankly, you don't know what you are talking about, but you would love to think you do. It sounds like you are even ignorant to the teachings of your own religion let alone the teachings of one you don't even follow and have a considerable bias against.

Also I am not an scholar of Islam so I won't be getting into the "doctrine of abrogation" or any other doctrines, nor the chronological order of the Qur'an. Seeing as their are scholars of the religion who aren't even completely clear on this matter. Your arrogance has clearly clouded your vision to make you believe you are more educated on these matters than you really are. That doesn't surprise me though, usually ignorance and arrogance go hand in hand.

I am not claiming to know all about the intricacies of Islam, these issues are still out for debate even among Muslim scholars... but just to expose your ignorant broad generalizations of the people of an entire religion and culture that you aren't even that familiar with.

And actually you are claiming to know their religion better than they do if you are claiming that the Taliban's interpretation of Islam is more accurate than that of a peace loving Muslim. That is some of the most arrogant condescending comments I've ever seen. You should be proud of yourself.

I've already heard the guilt by association game people like to accuse CAIR of a million times. It is so tired. A federal judge has already taken them off whatever list they were put on by GWB and found them guilty of nothing. People love to hate CAIR because they defend the rights of Muslims and that's about it. The judge acknowledged that the accusations of them being linked to Hamas was McCarthyism and guilt by association.

There is ZERO risk. Our constitution is written in such a way that entirely prevents any legislation based on religion to ever get through. Your paranoid fantasies just simply aren't true, if they were we would be at risk of being under canon law and jewish law and any other number of religious laws. You just sound paranoid and silly. It will never happen, especially when it is just a tiny minority of nutjobs trying to make it happen. We are more in danger of the Christian taliban located in the tea party of taking away our rights than we are of Muslims trying to.

Willful ignorance in action? Take a look in the mirror my friend. I am not the one hunting for information on biased conspiracy websites and claiming it is truth. Offer me something scholarly and I might take you seriously. Otherwise you just sound like a nutcase honestly. Just the fact that you are still trying to get me to read information off of xenophobic websites speaks volumes.

John Walker Lindh is not an organized effort to overthrow America. Get real. A few crazies does not an "organized network" make.

Yes but you are accusing "most" every Muslim of wanting America destroyed, which would make every Muslim not American. Glad you are the authority on that. Sickening.

"And the Bible ***also*** mentions rejoicing to some extent in the death of enemies of the faith. It's BOTH. "
I don't seem to recall Jesus doing both.

A naked assertian of some white girl that claims to have a muslim boyfriend????? seriously? you are pathetic. You want me to show evidence???? soooooo pathetic. Well here you go (then links me to who I guess is her boyfriend's Facebook page).
I bet you feel pretty proud of yourself

Btw you are so stubborn it's obvious that no matter what I said or what Jesus even said to you, you wouldn't believe it. So it's therefore a waste of my time and I won't be engaging you anymore. Good luck in life with the hardened heart you have, must make it life tough. Maybe someday me and my "Muslim boyfriend" can take an Islam class with you.



Rhology:

hi Angela,

Hope you had a good weekend. Thanks for your patience as I couldn't get to this before now.

--"Did Jesus rejoice when peter cut off the ear of Jesus' enemy in John 18? Arent Christians supposed to be modeling themselves after his behavior? "

No, Jesus didn't rejoice.
Peter is, however, not the government. That matters.

--"not all Muslims are Arab"

Yes, I'm well aware of that.

--". Your summary of Islam's take on democracy is also a stereotype and inaccurate"

How?

--" But you don't really seem like the kind of fellow who is up for debate. "

That's funny, I thought we were debating right here.

--" I would argue that you are the one that isn't acknowledging the diversity of the Muslim community. "

Or maybe I've been discussing Islam as a religion, as a system of belief, rather than only discussing what this and that person believes.
The official position of a given system is not always the same as what most of its professing adherents believe.

--"I haven't argued that all Muslims are peace loving people"

Good.
And neither have I argued that all Muslims are bloodthirsty jihadis.

--"I am glad you are finally conceding that because the people you are talking about are actually part of a small minority of very loud people, OBL was the leader of them"

Yes, a "small minority" of 1.5 billion people!
And who are willing to live consistently with the teaching of the Qur'an. That's sufficiently concerning for me to bring up from time to time.

--"The fact that you are walking into a Mosque thinking that people are lying to you speaks volumes about your delusional paranoia about Muslims."

Qur’an 2:225 Allah will not hold you responsible for your mere utterance in an oath, but he will hold you responsible for that which your hearts gained (what your heart meant). And Allah is forgiving and forbearing.
According to one of Mohammad’s daughters, Umm Kalthoum, he told her that it is okay to lie in three cases: 1) A man with his wife that she will be pleased with him. 2) or at a time of war because war is deception. 3) or to make peace between people.

Wow, that's so funny! Actual exegesis of Islamic teaching!
As opposed to what you've been giving here - your opinion based on interactions with some modern Muslims. Congratulations and all that, but like I said, the teaching of the actual religion is pretty important.

--"There are many many violent verses in the Bible."

Your ignorance of the Bible is very, very striking.
The Qur'an PREscribes violence, whereas the Bible RECORDS, DEscribes it. It's very different.

--" Verses that we choose to ignore. "

Well, verses whose context you've apparently ignored. I don't ignore them, not at all. It's just that I know what they mean.

--"I dont buy your "chronological order" bit. A lot of Muslims aren't even clear on the chronological order or the Qur'an and they have been studying it for years. "

Then the doctrine of abrogation is completely incoherent. You need to rethink.
The translator of the Qur'an I read certainly thought he knew. W/o a good reason to think otherwise, I figure he knows better than you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Qur%27an_(Hilali-Khan)

Also, since you later said "Also I am not an scholar of Islam so I won't be getting into the 'doctrine of abrogation' or any other doctrines", how seriously should any reasonable person take this? Clearly you don't know what you're talking about, so your opinion is eminently dismissable.

--"I also don't buy that you know Islam better than scholars who have devoted their life to studying it. "

You mean like Muhsin Khan?
What you need to realise, and thus escape your naivete, is that "scholars" disagree on virtually everything. Playing scholar-pong gets no one anywhere a great deal of the time. There's at least a plausible reason why some of these scholars are unwilling to accept the violent Qur'anic teachings, just like numerous Biblical "scholars" neglect the passages in the Bible that make them uncomfy. It's b/c there's an agenda, and missing it for the sake of politically correct willful naivete (that would be you) is hardly commendable.

--" It sounds like you are even ignorant to the teachings of your own religion"

That's rich, from someone who didn't even know how to classify the violent passages of the Bible.
But OK, educate me - what am I ignorant about in biblical Christianity?

--"There is ZERO risk."

Except for the evidence I gave you. Your unwillingness to look at facts when they're right in front of you is astonishing.
Some risk, even if small, =/= zero.

--"John Walker Lindh is not an organized effort to overthrow America."

now you're moving the goalposts. That wasn't the original contention. Do try to pay attention.

--"Yes but you are accusing "most" every Muslim of wanting America destroyed"

Quote me.

--"And the Bible ***also*** mentions rejoicing to some extent in the death of enemies of the faith. It's BOTH. "
"I don't seem to recall Jesus doing both."

OK. And?

--" You want me to show evidence???? soooooo pathetic. Well here you go. "

And? How does this lend credibility to your claims?

--"Btw you are so stubborn it's obvious that no matter what I said or what Jesus even said to you,"

Believe me, the feeling is mutual, but the difference is that I can actually make sound arguments and you're having a great deal of difficulty in that area. You're good at emoting, though.

--"Good luck in life with the hardened heart you have"

How do you identify a hardened heart? What is the surrounding spiritual context of that?

Bill Maher, Osama bin Laden, church and state, part 2

Continued from last time, another commenter decided to address me.

Angela:
Ahem.. ok while you two are debating about scripture... I need to call out Rhology about something he said in his first comment.

"Bin Laden's entire mission in life was to destroy America, and he equated America with Christianity, b/c like most Muslims he never took the time to understand America.
The church did not kill OBL; America did. "

Bin Laden's mission wasn't against christianity, it was against America's foreign policy. And saying "like most Muslims he never took the time to understand America." is a generalization that many muslims I know would take offense to. (in fact, i kind of think its the other way around, America never takes the time to understand Muslims) I know Muslims born and raised in this country, does their religion make them less American than you and I? I also know muslims that immigrated here from other countries, and many of them understand and appreciate America more than we do. I just wanted to point out the problems with your broad generalizations.

Also, America may have killed OBL, but the church didnt just breathe a sigh of relief, they definitely celebrated it.



Rhology:
  Hi Angela! Nice talking to you.

--"Bin Laden's mission wasn't against christianity, it was against America's foreign policy."

Yes, but notice how he often referred to "the Crusaders". It is extremely common among Arab Muslims to equate America with "Christian Crusaders", leading to the conflation I mentioned.

--"generalization that many muslims I know would take offense to"

Well, I'm very glad to hear it.
But I've met far more that make that confusion than don't. And I've talked to quite a few.

--"I know Muslims born and raised in this country, does their religion make them less American than you and I?"

Depends totally on whether they want to destroy America and/or bring it under Sharia law. If so, then yes, it does make them less American. Just b/c you don't know any of them doesn't mean that some don't exist.

--"the church didnt just breathe a sigh of relief, they definitely celebrated it."

May I ask you to consider that you accused me of overgeneralisation but then overgeneralised for your own part?
I spoke out of my experience - most Muslims. Most Muslims I've talked to on this issue do make the confusion.
But "the church" in America did so? Some did, some didn't.

Bill Maher, Osama bin Laden, church and state

A Facebook acquaintance challenges Christians to "try and refute this logic. Come on, I dare you", and then, irony of ironies, links to a Bill Maher video in which Maher tries to let us know that no true Christian would celebrate the death of Osama bin Laden.
Bill Maher never met a logical argument he couldn't avoid, but it has led to a discussion worthy of recapitulating.


Rhology: 
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/05/black-white-and-gray.html

Maher is a joke. I am always disappointed to see people quoting him like he has ever had a good idea.
The Bible has numerous examples of celebrating the death of evil men who persecute the people of God, and Jesus inspired the Bible. Bin Laden's entire mission in life was to destroy America, and he equated America with Christianity, b/c like most Muslims he never took the time to understand America.
The church did not kill OBL; America did.

Maher's logic has some soundness to it; too bad he never took the time to properly define the objects of his talk. He's shadowboxing.


C:
Rhology, as usual, I disagree. Perhaps the Bible contains examples of the people of God celebrating the death of the wicked, but God explicitly condemns this, even in the Old Testament. God is consistent throughout in his contempt for this sort of behavior. As usual, lots of people in the Bible do things that are contrary to the will of God, like celebrating the death of their enemies. But if they did, they were wrong. “As surely as I live, declares the Lord God, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live" (Ezekiel 18:23). There are lot of other verses. But I think you get the point. Maher is spot on, like him or not.



Rhology:  He condemns SOME of them, and in others He is in fact the voice of celebration and festivity.
So what shall we conclude? The rightness of such celebration is dependent on something other than the brute fact of celebrating/not celebrating.

He is consistent, but not in the way you're thinking. Rather, He's consistent with respect to the types of people who died and the motivations for celebrating.
Maybe engage some of the texts I'm discussing.


C:
Maybe you could provide some texts for me to engage.



Rhology:
Sure.

Psalm 137:8-9 (RSV):

[8] O daughter of Babylon, you devastator!
Happy shall he be who requites you
with what you have done to us!
[9] Happy shall he be who takes your little ones
and dashes them against the rock!

Psalm 2:
1Why are the nations in an uproar And the peoples devising a vain thing?
2The kings of the earth take their stand And the rulers take counsel together
Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,
3“Let us tear their fetters apart And cast away their cords from us!”
4He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them.
5Then He will speak to them in His anger  And terrify them in His fury

Ps 7:9 O let the evil of the wicked come to an end, but establish the righteous; For the righteous God tries the hearts and minds.

Ps 9:4-6

4For You have maintained my just cause;
         You have sat on the throne judging righteously.
5You have rebuked the nations, You have destroyed the wicked;
         You have blotted out their name forever and ever.
6The enemy has come to an end in perpetual ruins,
         And You have uprooted the cities;
         The very memory of them has perished.


Psalm 10:15Break the arm of the wicked and the evildoer, seek out his wickedness until You find none.

Ps 58:99Before your pots can feel the fire of thorns
         He will sweep them away with a whirlwind, the green and the burning alike.

10The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance;
         He will wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.

11And men will say, “Surely there is a reward for the righteous;
         Surely there is a God who judges on earth!”

Prov 11: 10When it goes well with the righteous, the city rejoices, And when the wicked perish, there is joyful shouting.  11By the blessing of the upright a city is exalted, But by the mouth of the wicked it is torn down.


C:
Good, I knew you would have no trouble finding them. Google is a wonderful thing. How did we ever use bible verses to prove opposite points before Google? It must have been a lot harder before. Well, two things. First, Jesus is unequivocal in the NT. He always condemned this sort of thing. And, since he was supposed to be God, or the son of God or something like that, I guess his opinion should take precedent. Right? Oh, and secondly: You just succeeded in illuminating one of many glaring contradictions found in the OT. Kill your enemies, or care for them? Who knows? Or maybe kill some of them and care for others. But if that were the case, why not just say so? Could it be that the OT supports both points of view because it was written by lots of different people with lots of different points of view? That would explain why God seems to condemn something in one verse and then condone it later. No fancy theological acrobatics needed.


Rhology:
‎--"How did we ever use bible verses to prove opposite points before Google? It must have been a lot harder before."

Haha, to be sure. I guess we actually had to use our brains and memory back then. :-D
The book of Hebrews is all about this - the author says several times "It says somewhere" and then quotes the Old Testament. But it stands to reason - he knew it said it but didn't have any verses or chapters to identify the reference. One of those funny things.

--"First, Jesus is unequivocal in the NT. He always condemned this sort of thing"

Where?

--" I guess his opinion should take precedent. Right?"

Properly understood, quite so. He is the final authority.

--"Kill your enemies, or care for them? Who knows?"

I know, and I know that it depends on the context.
Life is complex. Unlike the biased skeptic, I recognise that the Bible can refer to numerous different aspects of numerous different topics in 2000 pages of 6-point font.

(Continued...)

Bart Ehrman has a Ph.D in New Testament

It is important, I think, to realize that the Bible has a wide range of answers to the problem of suffering b/c this realization reveals the problem of thinking that the Bible has one simple answer to every issue. Many people in our world take a smorgasbord approach to the Bible, picking and choosing what suits them and their views without acknowledging that the Bible is an extremely complex and intricate concatenation of views, perspectives, and ideas. There are millions of people in our world, for example, who suffer social estrangement b/c of their sexual orientation. Some of this social alienation originates among simpleminded Bible believers who insist that gay relationships are condemned in Scripture. As it turns out, that is a debated issue, one on which serious scholars disagree.
But apart from that, this condemnation of gay relations "because the Bible condemns it" is a case of people choosing to accept the parts of the Bible they want to accept and ignoring everything else. The same books that condemn same-sex relations, for example, also require people to stone their children to death if they are disobedient, to execute anyone who does any work on Saturday or who eats pork chops, and to condemn anyone who wears a shirt made of two kinds of fabric. No special emphasis is placed on one of these laws over the others - they are all part of the biblical law. Yet, in parts of society, gay relations are condemned, while eating a ham sandwich during a lunch break on a Saturday workday is perfectly acceptable.

(Source: Bart Ehrman, "God's Problem", 2008, p. 17)
(Which is the book I'm reading right now.)

Different authorities

This is one of the reasons I like structuring many posts in the back-and-forth format. Dr Funkenstein has helped bring out some really helpful clarifications to the abortion question here.


babies that are incapable of feeding themselves or walking hadn't committed any capital crimes

Not such that a human being would be justified in executing them, no.
But for God to do so is a completely different matter. He has authority to do that; we don't.

then how can anyone be a murderer when they kill someone when you then go on to say its acceptable that

B/c humans only have permission to kill other humans under certain conditions. Wartime, self-defense, and punishment for a capital crime are 3 examples.


if everyone is a capital criminal then you should have no objection to anyone killing anyone else.

Your problem lies in equivocation between the executing authorities. Yes, I am a capital criminal before God, but not before any human authority. God can justifiably put me to death whenever He wants, but no human would be justified to do so.


I have to ask why God uses such obviously human means to achieve his goals

He wanted to.


why not just snap his fingers and click them out of existence, as opposed to requiring some sort of bloody slaughter?

B/c it pleases Him to involve His people in the means of carrying out His plan on earth.


defending the biblical acts of God as matters pertaining only to dis/obedience, the gruesomeness of slaughter seems to be no concern whatsoever when you agree with it. So is it merely following commands that is the important thing here?

No, it's doing what is right that is the important thing here.
You who have never defended any moral basis other than "I like it or don't like it/a group of people who are kinda like me in general like it or don't like it" are hardly in a position to criticise. Show me a wider basis for moral judgments in your worldview and we can talk.


how does/did God choose between one group of sinners and another - after all presumably the Israelite children were as guilty therefore as the Hitiite children?

Side note - the Hittites weren't part of the Canaanite conflicts. But anyway...
Some of the OT prophets declare that the Israelites actually were worse sinners than the Canaanites, even worse than Sodom and Gomorrah. But God states in Deuteronomy that He chose them simply b/c it pleased Him to do so.
I admit it sounds a little strange to me too, but that doesn't mean He didn't have any other reasons. I know some reasons why it ISN'T that He chose them (they were purer, holier, greater, more numerous, etc) and I can guess at a few why He did (by choosing an insignificant people like them to bring the Messiah into the world, He causes more glory since it was all Him and not the greatness of the people).


Or is it simply a subjective decision on his part?

Yes.


It seems very relativistic rather than objective.


Well, you should probably be careful about your terminology here. Relative to what?
I grant that it's subjective to God. But since He's God, it's quite different from saying that it's subjective to Joe.

Rape commanded?

JeffPerado has asserted that God commands rape.

On that note...

1) I was corrected by a friend - I should have said "God did not COMMAND rape..." as opposed to "ordain" in that last post. Sloppy terminology from me.
2) JeffP has over and over again shown his inability to even discuss WHY sthg is wrong or right, fundamentally.
3) To Phinehas' link (arigatou) I'd add the following:
Link 1
Link 2
4) A woman who is raped but her cries are not heard is to be stoned to death - Deut 22:23-24
Um, no. You've completely confused two different sets of verses. If this is the best you've got...

If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.

5) Jacob's daughter Dinah is raped. God forgives the rape if circumcision is performed

Show me in the passage where God says anything about it or recommends circumcision. No, He doesn't say anythg. This is history - the author is recording what happened and adds no commentary on its rightness or wrongness.
Did you even read the passage or just strip all this out of the Skeptic's Annotated Baybuhl or something?

Might I add that Levi and Simeon are God-chosen.

Ah, which means that they're sinless! In JeffPerado's world, that's apparently the deal.

6) Judges 21 tells of the sexual needs and advances of the Benjaminites. Killing the men and taking the women to be thier wives despite their resistence.

Where do the women resist? That's not in the text; JeffPerado just assumes it.
These women needed protection; were they to remain single their whole lives? Not at that time, in that place, in that culture.
These were for MARRIAGE, not rape. The Mosaic Law specifically explains how marriage and betrothal are to take place, to protect both the man and the woman.

God condones forced marriage

That's just anachronistic. Not only can JeffPerado not explain why any act is wrong or right, he is guilty of imposing his moral timeframe on other cultures. Everyone can play that game.

Breakin' the Law, breakin' the Law

Let's say someone has cited several psgs from Leviticus and suggested I pick and choose which to follow.
Not I, however, but the New Testament itself picks and chooses, and explains why.

Some parts of the Old Testament Law deal with
1) ceremonial/ritual purity,
2) punishments for breaking purity laws,
3) morality,
4) punishments for breaking moral laws,
5) civil laws, and
6) punishments for breaking civil laws.

Remember OT Israel was a theocracy, where God ruled the people directly and appointed human proxies; judges, high priests, and (reluctantly) kings later on.
1 & 2 - OT Israel had a state religion - the worship of the LORD. There are OT Laws that deal with the permissibility of approaching the sacrifices for priests, of cleanliness for priests and laypeople, of entering the temple, etc. One could become unclean by handling unclean food, going near a dead body, contracting a disease, etc. Ceremonial purity was necessary for several reasons:
-To set apart the LORD as absolutely holy in the minds of the worshipers.
-To set a standard of rigor for approaching Him; one must not do so flippantly.
-To set the Israelites apart from the surrounding pagan societies' religious practices.
-To foreshadow the coming of the Messiah.

Such laws are fulfilled in the coming of the Messiah, as the Epistle to the Hebrews goes to great pains to explain. My cleanliness and purity to approach God is based on Christ's perfect righteousness, granted to me by His grace on the basis of faith only, rather than rituals that I must perform. When I come to God now, God sees Christ's righteousness and perfection, not my impurity and uncleanness.

If we want to get technical, God would also see a true believer in OT Israel as clothed in Christ's righteousness. The difference is in the command for the actions of the community, and in the community itself. OT Israel was a community where everyone, believer and unbeliever alike, had the same obligations, whereas the New Testament church has different kinds of obligations b/c it has a different kind of membership. Salvation is the same (faith in Christ as Savior, not by anything we can do) but the context in which I live has been defined differently by God.


3 - Expands on the moral law that was already in place. This is an important point - the Mosaic Law was not the 1st occurrence of the moral law.
The moral code was partly innate and stated in forms here and there before the Mosaic Law. How did Adam and Eve know they weren't supposed to eat from the tree? God told them. How did Cain know he wasn't supposed to murder Abel? Perhaps God told him, perhaps it was an innate knowledge – in either case, he knew. How did Noah know the rest of humanity was "wicked" before the Mosaic Law? How did Abraham know that he should honor his guests w/ food and hospitality? How did Lot know that homosexual assault on his guests was wicked? That law comes from God and has been made known (mysteriously) by God to humanity.
Thus, just as the moral law did not originate with the Mosaic Law, neither does it come to an end when the Mosaic Law is fulfilled in Christ. One could think of moral laws as those which reflect the pre-Mosaic Law-law. They are thus still in force.

4 - That is not to say that the punishments for breaking the moral law remain the same.
A few examples:
-Murder
Genesis 9:6 - Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.
Here capital punishment for murder is laid down in the earliest days of human existence. The Mosaic Law continues that punishment. Romans 13 refers to "the sword" to punish evildoers that the state is justified in wielding.
On the other hand...

-Homosexual sex
No explicit condemnation exists until the Mosaic Law (though it was obviously known to be wicked before), and the punishment is execution.
But the New Testament gives no provision for the execution of homosexual offenders. Rather Romans 1 describes the penalty for such as spiritual death (and, interestingly, mentions homosexual activity as a penalty itself, a judgment for sin, not just a cause of judgment).



5 & 6 - These laws relate to how the civil society was to work. Property laws, safety, restitution, cities of refuge, etc. Obviously such things do not apply when one does not live in OT Israel.
The books of Romans (specifically Rom 13) and 1 Peter teach the student of the Bible how to live in a non-ancient-Hebrew-theocratic society.

All the examples that people usually cite (to trip up the Christian) relate to punishments prescribed for the Hebrew theocratic society, even though some of the moral violations remain moral violations today (ie, adultery).

Strictly speaking, civil laws ARE moral laws, as I've pointed out before. Any law is a moral statement.
It's wrong to go faster than 25 mph in a school zone.
It's wrong to burn down someone's property.
It's wrong to hold up a bank.
It's perfectly fine to stick a scalpel into a nearly-born baby's brain and then dismember her and 'birth' her that way.
It's perfectly fine for the gov't to force me to give them lots of the money that I earned.
It's wrong to kidnap a woman in order to protect her baby from the scalpel at the abortuary to which she is en route.

Etc.

But of course, not all moral laws are civil laws, and not all civil laws are moral. It's not objectively wrong to drive 30 mph on a certain road; it is proscribed when a school is constructed on said road and concern for children's safety provokes the passing of a 25 mph speed limit law. Conversely, it is objectively wrong to murder a baby, yet that is perfectly legal in many cases in the US.

This does not mean the punishments remain or should remain the same; it means they remain violations of the moral code. Executing convicted adulterers, say, was a command for the ancient Hebrews only to follow; while adultery itself remains a moral violation, resulting in a physical/temporal/earthbound penalty (or lack thereof) to be prescribed by the society in which it is performed, it results "merely" in spiritual death and further condemnation for the one who does not have saving faith in Jesus Christ.

The civil gov'ts in countries in which Christians live make laws which Christians are obligated to follow, except when they command us to do sthg contrary to God's commandment (ie, the moral law).

So, quick review:
-Moral, civil, and ceremonial laws exist in the Mosaic Law.
-Ceremonial/purity laws are fulfilled in Christ.
-Civil laws were applicable to OT Israel, which society no longer exists.
-Moral law violations remain violations, but their penalties are in many (or even most) cases different now.

I imagine I'll be referring people back to this post quite alot, but only time will tell.

The irony hardly gets richer

This post will consist of 2 parts, each on irony.

Irony #1 - See if you can pick out the irony in the following statements from the Jolly Nihilist:

-I argue that, because our species is ignorant of moral truth—or, at the least, no moral code has been proved correct—it is incoherent for any individual’s moral opinions to be inflicted upon other individuals.

-As such, in the comment box, I rail against moral authoritarianism, taking both Islamofascists and Christofascists to task for their attempts to inflict their arbitrary views on others.

-(Comparing perception of morality with perception of colors) In the face of factual ignorance, everybody should be entitled to create an opinion vis-à-vis best color.

-...for both Christofascists and Islamofascists, there is an assumption that they have a right to inflict their arbitrary moral opinions on those around them.

Irony #2 (this one might be a little tougher) -

-Rhology took exception to the comparison, and wrote the following:
“Yeah, the biggest difference might be found in the fact that Christians don't strap bombs to their bodies to blow other people and themselves up. But that's probably just a piddling, minor issue.”...Of course, Rhology, you must recognize that my comparison was not of methods but of mindset.

-If you, Rhology, as a Christian, find sex toys to be immoral, you have every right never to buy or use them. However, if other people find them morally acceptable—and, dare I say, pleasurable—they would be allowed their (in your mind) “deviance.”

LEGEND:

#1 - The JN would inflict his moral views on the rest of us, just as he says we should not do. In making the very statement that one should not inflict one's moral views on another, he does the same. As James White says, "Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument".

#2 - He challenges my comparison between "Christian" violence and jihadist suicide bombers with an illustration of a law in Alabama that prohibits the sale of sex toys.
I love it - the West, for all its faults, faces an enemy that wants to impose sharia law on all people. It wants women to walk 10 steps behind men, never to show their faces in public, to be prohibited from shaking hands with men, to be worth 1/2 of a man with respect to lawful testimony in court. It wants to charge a heavy tax on/kill those who will not convert to Islam. It wants to behead those who insult Islam or Mohammed. Virtually all of its earliest expansion, both under Mohammed and after him, came through military activity and forced conversions, to the point that all of the Iberian Peninsula, much of France, all of the Balkans, up to Vienna, was taken and held by Muslim forces. The number of men AND WOMEN who strap bombs to themselves every year to blow up civilians and children is almost too numerous to consider. And the JN is concerned about the imposition of a few laws banning the sale of sex toys?

Further, I specified even further a big difference between jihadist violence and Christian violence in response to a commenter's mentioning abortion-related violence.
The JN, in his post, goes on and on about "the church" committing the Inquisition and Witch Trials and such. It's hard to imagine how he could be so uninformed as to think there could be any connection beyond a simple name (ie, they were part of the "Christian church" and I am part of the the Christian church) between my position and that of medieval Roman Catholics. Apparently he missed the multiple posts I've written against the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox positions and the fact that I'm a contributor at Beggars All Reformation Apologetics, which would be hard to confuse with medieval Roman Catholicism.
Anyone can claim to "clutch the Bible" as JN puts it. "Who follows its teachings?" is a far better question for two reasons:
1) You're making a claim that the Bible teaches such.
2) You're talking to a guy who claims to follow the Bible in everythg it teaches.

Given all this, perhaps the JN could enlighten us as to how he comes to these conclusions:

-If torture and murder cannot be laid at the Bible’s figurative feet, that tome certainly can be said to have inspired some of this.

-“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” is just begging for trouble, especially when there are nonconformists, heretics and ugly crones about.

Ie. What is the context of this command? To whom was it given? When? What connection does that have to the New Testament church, of which I am a part?

The JN is always an interesting guy; I'm very interested to see the depths of his understanding here.

Why did God delay?

An email correspondent asked this:
Would I be correct in assuming your answer is in essence that you haven't a clue, guess, thought, speculation, or hypothesis concerning why God postponed telling man anything significant about the Trinity, Heaven and Hell until two-thirds of the generations of man were dead?

I had earlier answered a less-developed question, but he has pressed, desiring a fuller explanation. I thought my answer would be worth sharing here (but I could have been wrong to think that):

No, it's not that I don't have a clue, it's just that God almost certainly hasn't revealed all His reasons.
So I'll take another stab at it.
1st, He may have waited until 2/3 of generations of man were dead, but certainly not until 2/3 of all humans that will ever live have died. Also, we have no idea how many generations of man WILL pass by before the end comes. This earth could well go on so long that God's delay in fuller self-revelation would leave an inconsequential segment of humanity unrevealed-to in the past, if you will, compared to how many will have lived since.
2nd, getting to what He has explicitly said, like I said, He waited until the time was full. The only "why" I can give is that God ordains all that comes to pass, so He planned that Christ would come when He did. It's all according to His plan.
3rd, God desired to glorify Himself and provide evidence to humanity of His existence, goodness, and provision by giving prophecies thru His prophets and Scripture beforehand and then carry out and fulfill said prophecies.
4th, related to #3, God apparently enjoys foreshadowing the future and preparing types of the still-to-come antitypes/fulfillments. An example is Adam (type/foreshadowing) and Jesus Christ (2nd Adam, as fulfillment, antitype) (see Romans 4-5).
5th, God is glorified thru His people exercising faith in His goodness and provision based on what He has done before and His promises. The books of Hebrews (chapter 11) and 1 Peter discuss how the holy men and women who came before us were recipients of promises, but in most cases, they did not receive the promised-for things b/c they were for the benefit of future generations. They were mostly to be fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

And I reiterate that the OT has a doctrine of afterlife, Hell and Heaven both are foreshadowed in significant ways.
The Triune nature of God is foreshadowed in, among other ways, multiple OT references to the Holy Spirit and angelophanies of the "angel of the LORD", who is clearly divine and whose identity is, in fact, very probably the preincarnate Christ, and the oft-stated axiom that "to see God is to die". Yet people saw God. How, if not by a Triune God?