Would Jesus promote punishing the innocent instead of the gu

[Greatest I am]

[q

Yes, you showed the opposite. So the opposites are both there in the Old Testament text. How shall we interpret that?

The way scriptures tell us to.

Test all concepts and hold to the good.

Regards
DL[/quote]

1 Thessalonians 5:21. Good on ya! But does that mean that you're just going to excise verses like Exodus 20:5 from that Bible? How does that aid in understanding what the authors were getting at? Is it possible you don't care? You simply presume that your judgment is superior and that whatever is behind versus you don't consider good is merely an academic question? I'm trying to understand your POV on this point.
'[/quote]

I would not excise it. I recognize that scriptures can be made to say almost anything.

I would just put These quotes against yours and then ask that we test the competing quotes and decide which is the most just.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

I would also point out that for god to punish us at all for just following, as we must, the sin natures that he himself created in us and that would be quite unjust, --- because we cannot go against our natures.

Regards
DL

[MagsJ]

I never understood why it was the good that were constantly being chastised and hounded, but the guilty were forgiven for their sins.. what kind of reasoning is that, that would be used in the making of humans a more responsible species? Not a very helpful one, that’s for sure.

GIA said: Stupid is as stupid thinks.

Lol.

[felix dakat]

Deuteronomy 5:9 (ESV)
9 You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Interesting that the verse you cited Deuteronomy 24:16 appears in the same book as a verse parallel to Exodus 20:5 that I cited, that is Deuteronomy 5:9. What does that mean?

Does "visiting iniquity of the fathers on the children" exclude capital punishment? Apparently it is "the Lord your God" who visits iniquity on the children, whereas the Hebrew authorities are commanded not to put them to death.

[Greatest I am]

Deuteronomy 5:9 (ESV)
9 You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Interesting that the verse you cited Deuteronomy 24:16 appears in the same book as a verse parallel to Exodus 20:5 that I cited, that is Deuteronomy 5:9. What does that mean?

Does "visiting iniquity of the fathers on the children" exclude capital punishment? Apparently it is "the Lord your God" who visits iniquity on the children, whereas the Hebrew authorities are commanded not to put them to death.

You seek to speak of the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law.

Most would not want their just rewards, positive or negative, given to our children. Positives, perhaps, without spoiling them, but not negatives.

I do not think that wisdom has any exceptions.

Regards
DL

[felix dakat]

Deuteronomy 5:9 (ESV)
9 You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Interesting that the verse you cited Deuteronomy 24:16 appears in the same book as a verse parallel to Exodus 20:5 that I cited, that is Deuteronomy 5:9. What does that mean?

Does "visiting iniquity of the fathers on the children" exclude capital punishment? Apparently it is "the Lord your God" who visits iniquity on the children, whereas the Hebrew authorities are commanded not to put them to death.

You seek to speak of the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law.

Most would not want their just rewards, positive or negative, given to our children. Positives, perhaps, without spoiling them, but not negatives.

I do not think that wisdom has any exceptions.

Regards
DL

The letter of the law is on the first rung of Origen's three-tiered hermeneutic. That level is literal and historical.

I don't suppose that the literal-historical level is all there is to interpretation. But I don't ignore it either.

The Judeo-Christian scriptures are polysemic. They have not only one meaning but point in different directions and therefore may mean something that is unconscious or at least not conscious in all its aspects like myths and dreams.

Hermeneutics is an elusive science. The word is derived from Hermes a trickster god and in practice it often reflects his character. He was not only the messenger of Zeus, he was also the patron of liars and thieves.

[Greatest I am]

All the supernatural gods are represented by liars and thieves.

Man belongs above the vile gods we have invented.

Hermeneutics is tough because most of it is speculative nonsense.

Regards
DL

[felix dakat]

All the supernatural gods are represented by liars and thieves.

Man belongs above the vile gods we have invented.

Hermeneutics is tough because most of it is speculative nonsense.

Regards
DL

The duality of natural and supernatural is the result of Enlightenment philosophical reflection on Newtonian physics.

I don't think humans invented the gods. The gods are psychic realities of the collective unconscious manifest in dreams, and other spontaneous mental images.

Perhaps the scope of your knowledge is greater than mine. I've read some hermeneutics, but I can't say I know "most of" it. Please educate me.

[Greatest I am]

All the supernatural gods are represented by liars and thieves.

Man belongs above the vile gods we have invented.

Hermeneutics is tough because most of it is speculative nonsense.

Regards
DL

The duality of natural and supernatural is the result of Enlightenment philosophical reflection on Newtonian physics.

I don't think humans invented the gods. The gods are psychic realities of the collective unconscious manifest in dreams, and other spontaneous mental images.

Perhaps the scope of your knowledge is greater than mine. I've read some hermeneutics, but I can't say I know "most of" it. Please educate me.

Physics and the supernatural do not relate in any way. Physics is science while the supernatural is fiction.

Of course we invented all the gods. Who else but men have described the genocidal prick Yahweh, that most follow?

No real god would be as Yahweh is described. Such a god would have to be a fool if he thought most would adore a genocidal satanic god.

Regards
DL

[felix dakat]

All the supernatural gods are represented by liars and thieves.

Man belongs above the vile gods we have invented.

Hermeneutics is tough because most of it is speculative nonsense.

Regards
DL

The duality of natural and supernatural is the result of Enlightenment philosophical reflection on Newtonian physics.

I don't think humans invented the gods. The gods are psychic realities of the collective unconscious manifest in dreams, and other spontaneous mental images.

Perhaps the scope of your knowledge is greater than mine. I've read some hermeneutics, but I can't say I know "most of" it. Please educate me.

Physics and the supernatural do not relate in any way. Physics is science while the supernatural is fiction.

Of course we invented all the gods. Who else but men have described the genocidal prick Yahweh, that most follow?

No real god would be as Yahweh is described. Such a god would have to be a fool if he thought most would adore a genocidal satanic god.

Regards
DL

Do you invent your dreams?

[Greatest I am]

"Do you invent your dreams?"

If not me, then who?

Who else do you have in your mind?

Regards
DL

[felix dakat]

"Do you invent your dreams?"

If not me, then who?

Who else do you have in your mind?

Regards
DL

I would submit that dreams are a natural human phenomena. Humans didn't invent their dreams anymore than they invented their feet. Humans did not invent the archetypes which are imaged in dreams and upon which the mythology of the gods are based. This is the view analytical psychology the theory and the method I am entertaining.

[Greatest I am]

"Do you invent your dreams?"

If not me, then who?

Who else do you have in your mind?

Regards
DL

I would submit that dreams are a natural human phenomena. Humans didn't invent their dreams anymore than they invented their feet. Humans did not invent the archetypes which are imaged in dreams and upon which the mythology of the gods are based. This is the view analytical psychology the theory and the method I am entertaining.

I agree with your first.

Again. If not me then who?

Regards
DL

[felix dakat]

"Do you invent your dreams?"

If not me, then who?

Who else do you have in your mind?

Regards
DL

I would submit that dreams are a natural human phenomena. Humans didn't invent their dreams anymore than they invented their feet. Humans did not invent the archetypes which are imaged in dreams and upon which the mythology of the gods are based. This is the view analytical psychology the theory and the method I am entertaining.

I agree with your first.

Again. If not me then who?

Regards
DL

Nature.

[Greatest I am]

IOW, myself.

We agree.

Regards
DL

[felix dakat]

IOW, myself.

We agree.

Regards
DL

If you are mother nature, you didn't invent the gods, you gave birth to them.

[Greatest I am]

IOW, myself.

We agree.

Regards
DL

If you are mother nature, you didn't invent the gods, you gave birth to them.

I am not mother nature. I am a part of nature.

I do not see us having an argument here.

Regards
DL

[felix dakat]

IOW, myself.

We agree.

Regards
DL

If you are mother nature, you didn't invent the gods, you gave birth to them.

I am not mother nature. I am a part of nature.

I do not see us having an argument here.

Regards
DL

Right. I see the gods as representations of the archetypes of the collective unconscious. So they're still knocking around although we don't usually call them gods anymore. We're more apt to call them hallucinations than visions. Organized religions take these spontaneous imaginal experiences and make them the basis of a formal institution. But even that kind of social behavior is rooted in the instincts enso is not purely an invented contraption. Anyway this theory is opposed to the rationalist theory that people simply invented religion for this or that reason. Rather I see religion as primarily instinct based and rooted in the evolution of the human species.

[Greatest I am]

[

If you are mother nature, you didn't invent the gods, you gave birth to them.

I am not mother nature. I am a part of nature.

I do not see us having an argument here.

Regards
DL[/quote]

Right. I see the gods as representations of the archetypes of the collective unconscious. So they're still knocking around although we don't usually call them gods anymore. We're more apt to call them hallucinations than visions. Organized religions take these spontaneous imaginal experiences and make them the basis of a formal institution. But even that kind of social behavior is rooted in the instincts enso is not purely an invented contraption. Anyway this theory is opposed to the rationalist serious. People simply invented religion for this or that reason. Rather I see it as instinctual and rooted in the evolution of the human species.[/quote]

It is when you consider religions as tribal units.

Archetypes are indeed in our DNA and instinctual.

Regards
DL

[felix dakat]

I am not mother nature. I am a part of nature.

I do not see us having an argument here.


It is when you consider religions as tribal units.

Archetypes are indeed in our DNA and instinctual.

Regards
DL

Yes. It seems that the various religions are tribal in the exoteric aspect. In the esoteric aspect the various religions are more alike, and this may represent a unitary experiential core. That is the thesis of the perennial philosophy AKA perennial wisdom that I am entertaining.

[Greatest I am]

I am not mother nature. I am a part of nature.

I do not see us having an argument here.


It is when you consider religions as tribal units.

Archetypes are indeed in our DNA and instinctual.

Regards
DL

Yes. It seems that the various religions are tribal in the exoteric aspect. In the esoteric aspect the various religions are more alike, and this may represent a unitary experiential core. That is the thesis of the perennial philosophy AKA perennial wisdom that I am entertaining.

A good door.

It is within you. Yes?

Regards
DL

[felix dakat]

I am not mother nature. I am a part of nature.

I do not see us having an argument here.


It is when you consider religions as tribal units.

Archetypes are indeed in our DNA and instinctual.

Regards
DL

Yes. It seems that the various religions are tribal in the exoteric aspect. In the esoteric aspect the various religions are more alike, and this may represent a unitary experiential core. That is the thesis of the perennial philosophy AKA perennial wisdom that I am entertaining.

A good door.

It is within you. Yes?

Regards
DL

Yes as Jesus said "the kingdom of God is within you."

[Greatest I am]

We have no argument my friend.

Regards
DL