Marat Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 I don't understand Needimprovement's reasoning when he defends God's vengeance on the unbelievers in Deuteronomy by saying that this degree of harshness was consistent with the standards of the time and place. If he is truly the universal, everlasting God who created the entire world, why does he feel himself bound to adhere to the conventions of his time? (such as he would if he had been made up by the people of that time) I would have expected instead that he would have imposed some rule on the unbelieves which would seem humane and wise to all eras and all cultures, otherwise he looks pitifully parochial rather than universal. You could counter this by saying that he had to appeal to the attitudes of the time and place where the message was first being delivered in order to gain plausibility for the whole doctrine, but this is supposed to be an eternal message valid for all times and places, not one temporarily bound. If parts of it are temporarily bound because of their need to appeal to the contemporaries and locals, then which parts of the message are eternal and which are not? Where is the key for distinguishing them provided? God (or his surrogate, Christ) has no trouble surprising contemporaries of his message with doctrines they don't expect or don't want to hear, such as when he says to those about to stone the adultress, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." So why in Deuteronomy is he so concerned with being conventional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now