BLM tearing down statues - judge based on today's standards?

[Wordupmybrotha]

I like Dennis Prager, he is a moral man based on reason and he uses the wisdom of the Bible to support his moral stances, and he states that he believes in God. You will find that he does not believe in Jesus Christ as our savior, so I would not take my religious directions from him.

So I take it you don't agree with his interpretation. For what it's worth, Prager is a Jew, who has studied the OT and although he doesn't see Christology in the OT, I find his explanation of the OT useful from time time time.

[Wordupmybrotha]

Romans 12:2 immediatelly came to my mind...

Not sure how that answers my question.

[RandyD]

So I take it you don't agree with his interpretation. For what it's worth, Prager is a Jew, who has studied the OT and although he doesn't see Christology in the OT, I find his explanation of the OT useful from time time time.

We are in agreement.

[RandyD]

Men must be judged for their actions with respect to the times they lived. Just as homosexuality was once listed in the DSM, beliefs from years past have changed.

Homosexuality is and will always remain a sin to God.

[Sailormilan2]

So I take it you don't agree with his interpretation. For what it's worth, Prager is a Jew, who has studied the OT and although he doesn't see Christology in the OT, I find his explanation of the OT useful from time time time.

The Old Testament was written by Jews(Hebrews), for Jews(Hebrews), about Jews(Hebrews). It would be helpful when reading it to try and understand it from the Jewish(Hebrewish) perspective.

[Barang]

a Godly person/people will always be righteous when compared to godless people because of their adherance to His word.

we (Christians) believe God when He says abortion, gay marriage, adultery, fornication and others are Sin.

fake christian/godless people don't believe and practice what God calls sin.

true christians understand this: christians are righteous compared to non-christian with human standard but not with God's standard. but by submitting to Jesus and making Him Lord, we are righteous in the sight of God due to Jesus' shed blood and resurrection.

[CVShooter]

I think we all agree that unauthorized destruction of property is wrong. My main question is about Gen 6:9 and Gen 7:1. What is the implication of "in his generation" and "in this generation"?

I don't agree that destruction of property is morally wrong. I think it's all about ethics and context.

Just as some quick examples, the tearing down of Lenin's statue -- Bravo! The Berlin Wall -- Cheers! Saddam Hussein's statue -- Yes! Boston Tea Party -- Hell yes! Arson committed by the Women's Suffrage movement (no loss of life) -- Well done!

Let's flip this situation. Imagine a bunch of atheistic hotheads erected a statue to Richard Dawkins across from your church. They do this with the explicit financial backing of your local government. Suddenly, one day, hypothetically, a mayor or governor orders you to stay home from church, not worship in your desired way, etc. Tell me you don't feel the strong desire to rip that thing down & shove it...

Politically, I'm a firm believer in self-governance -- the founding idea behind just about every constitution in the world. If the government has to protect a statue because the people don't want it, then it's the government that needs to alter its behavior, not the people.

[Wordupmybrotha]

I don't agree that destruction of property is morally wrong. I think it's all about ethics and context.

Just as some quick examples, the tearing down of Lenin's statue -- Bravo! The Berlin Wall -- Cheers! Saddam Hussein's statue -- Yes! Boston Tea Party -- Hell yes! Arson committed by the Women's Suffrage movement (no loss of life) -- Well done!

Let's flip this situation. Imagine a bunch of atheistic hotheads erected a statue to Richard Dawkins across from your church. They do this with the explicit financial backing of your local government. Suddenly, one day, hypothetically, a mayor or governor orders you to stay home from church, not worship in your desired way, etc. Tell me you don't feel the strong desire to rip that thing down & shove it...

Politically, I'm a firm believer in self-governance -- the founding idea behind just about every constitution in the world. If the government has to protect a statue because the people don't want it, then it's the government that needs to alter its behavior, not the people.

Nah, tearing down a statue of Dawkins without authorization would be wrong.

[CVShooter]

Nah, tearing down a statue of Dawkins without authorization would be wrong.

How about in this context?

"Destroy completely all the places where the nations you are dispossessing have served their gods—atop the high mountains, on the hills, and under every green tree. Tear down their altars, smash their sacred pillars, burn up their Asherah poles, cut down the idols of their gods, and wipe out their names from every place. "

[Wordupmybrotha]

How about in this context?

"Destroy completely all the places where the nations you are dispossessing have served their gods—atop the high mountains, on the hills, and under every green tree. Tear down their altars, smash their sacred pillars, burn up their Asherah poles, cut down the idols of their gods, and wipe out their names from every place. "

And if you continue down that passage, it says to offer burnt offerings, but we don't do that anymore. Not everything done back then is required to be done now.

"There you shall go, 6and there you shall bring your burnt offerings and your sacrifices" Deuteronomy 12:6

[CVShooter]

And if you continue down that passage, it says to offer burnt offerings, but we don't do that anymore. Not everything done back then is required to be done now.

"There you shall go, 6and there you shall bring your burnt offerings and your sacrifices" Deuteronomy 12:6

Agreed. But I wasn't trying to make the point that all of the Bible should be followed by its adherents. My point was that property destruction, in certain contexts, is perfectly Biblical. Morals are context neutral -- no matter what the situation, you face, you follow the same set of behaviors. Things like rape are a moral issue. There is just absolutely no justification for it -- ever (although there are some questionable passages in the Bible where it is allowed via forced marriage). Ethics are context dependent. Sometimes it's allowed and sometimes it isn't. Homicide fits into this category for me since self-defense & war are exceptions. Seems to me that property destruction isn't morally wrong but simply an ethical issue.

So how would you treat Jesus's mayhem at the temple? Property destruction? Disorderly conduct? Or righteous anger & a tempered response given the situation?

[socal m1 shooter]

My go-to commentary for Genesis says:

Genesis 6:9b describes the spirituality of Noah in two ways. First, Noah was a righteous man, he was a tzaddik, meaning righteous. This emphasizes justification; it is inward, and it shows salvation. Second, Noah was perfect in his generations. The Hebrew word for "perfect" here is tamim. It means "without blemish" as is used of the sacrifices (Leviticus 1:3, 1:10, 3:1, 3:6). It means "free from defect" and this emphasizes Noah outwardly. Therefore, he was inwardly and outwardly right before God. The next phrase is: in his generations, meaning unlike others of his generation, he was not contaminated by the intermarriage. According to rabbinic tradition, the term generations is used in the plural, because he was the most righteous of the ten generations. So he is described as being both tzaddik and tamim; both righteous and perfect. When the two words are used together, the emphasis is on being wholly righteous ("just and perfect" in Job 12:4 and "righteousness of the blameless" in Proverbs 11:5), a condition which is the result of having found grace in the Lord. Furthermore, it states: Noah walked with God, which means he obeyed God's commands. It is the same term that was used of Enoch (Genesis 5:22-24). Moreover, the same point is made of him in Hebrews 11:7. In the Hebrew text for Genesis 6:9, there are exactly ten words that begin and end with the name Noah, and Noah was the tenth generation. Here again, it shows how careful the writer was: ten words of the sentence that begins and ends with the name Noah, and Noah was the the tenth in his line.

The intermarriage referred to points back to Genesis 6:1-4; Fruchtenbaum's commentary on these verses is lengthy, and I have no desire to reproduce it here. Suffice it to say, his view is that the intermarriage referenced at the start of Genesis 6 is a marriage of demons (fallen angels) with human women. Very briefly, he argues that the plan of Satan was to prevent the promised messiah (Genesis 3:15) by corrupting the human line, making it unsuitable for contributing to a messiah. Satan knew from the prophecy given in Genesis 3 that a descendant of the woman would someday come and defeat him; by corrupting the human line, he thought he could thwart the plan of God to redeem humanity.

Fruchtenbaum explains that Genesis 6:11-12 means "corrupted by intermarriage," and "all flesh" shows how successful Satan's plan had been. But the wives of Noah and his sons were not tainted in this way. So in other words, the primary purpose of the flood was to prevent humanity from becoming completely tainted.

[Wordupmybrotha]

Morals are context neutral -- no matter what the situation, you face, you follow the same set of behaviors. Things like rape are a moral issue. There is just absolutely no justification for it -- ever (although there are some questionable passages in the Bible where it is allowed via forced marriage).

Ethics are context dependent. Sometimes it's allowed and sometimes it isn't. Homicide fits into this category for me since self-defense & war are exceptions. Seems to me that property destruction isn't morally wrong but simply an ethical issue.

So how would you treat Jesus's mayhem at the temple? Property destruction? Disorderly conduct? Or righteous anger & a tempered response given the situation?

Interesting distinction between morality and ethics.
I consider lying and stealing to be morally wrong, but I would also consider it permissible when they're done to save a life. So under your definition, it would be an ethical issue? In other words, if there are exceptions to the rule, then it's ethical issue?

So how would you treat Jesus's mayhem at the temple: Property destruction? Yes
Disorderly conduct? Yes, he would be charged that by today's laws
Or righteous anger & a tempered response given the situation? Yes

[Wordupmybrotha]

My go-to commentary for Genesis says:



The intermarriage referred to points back to Genesis 6:1-4; Fruchtenbaum's commentary on these verses is lengthy, and I have no desire to reproduce it here. Suffice it to say, his view is that the intermarriage referenced at the start of Genesis 6 is a marriage of demons (fallen angels) with human women. Very briefly, he argues that the plan of Satan was to prevent the promised messiah (Genesis 3:15) by corrupting the human line, making it unsuitable for contributing to a messiah. Satan knew from the prophecy given in Genesis 3 that a descendant of the woman would someday come and defeat him; by corrupting the human line, he thought he could thwart the plan of God to redeem humanity.

Fruchtenbaum explains that Genesis 6:11-12 means "corrupted by intermarriage," and "all flesh" shows how successful Satan's plan had been. But the wives of Noah and his sons were not tainted in this way. So in other words, the primary purpose of the flood was to prevent humanity from becoming completely tainted.

Thanks for that info