Free will, (Page 3)

zeffur:

Solvento: In response to your inquiry, A benevolent God did not make more Dali lama because there were Prophets of God, and they had meant to be accomplishing moral birthrights. They were inevitable assassinated by half-wits and philanderers (character assassins) and ultimately explained upon thier destruction how that had happened to them. And they said, they died because Death (itself) was infectious (physically). And we know from this that the Earths rule was Stolen and King Herod was not able to be questioned as paranoid.

Simply, there are not more Dali lamas because there are STDs.

zeffur: lol...what??

Adam Southworth: I think your question depends on a compatibilist view of free will, AchilleesSinatra.

Compatibilists believe free will is compatible with determinism: that a person is free if they're not compelled by external forces. Some compatibilists go further and define other forms of coercion like threats and intimidation as incompatible with freedom, but ignore more subtle forms of influence like brainwashing or indoctrination (perhaps Jack Torrance in The Shining is a good example). However, even a person who is free of all forms of coercion might still be determined by internal forces. A good person's nature might not allow them to do bad things. Their nature dictates that they couldn't really choose bad things, even if they felt they could and weren't coerced by external forces. In the words of Luther: "Here I stand. I can do no other." Is that true freedom? How else could you guarantee a person free from external influence - if true in this case - would only do good things?

A libertarian by contrast believes true freedom means a person must be able to choose more than one thing. If a person's nature means they couldn't make more than one choice, the libertarian would deny that they have true freedom. Some theologians like the Church Father St Justin defend libertarian freedom, whilst others like Calvin and Thomas Hobbes thought this gave humans too much power. In any event, I think libertarian freedom might not be compatible with your counterfactual, AchilleesSinatra.

zeffur: AchillesSinatra is long gone.

Free will just means you are free to decide what you will or won't do...
In the case of the God, there are only 2 possibilities: accept or reject--abstention is rejection.

Adam Southworth: @Zeffur Does a person with no concept of God have the same freedom to accept God as someone raised Christian? You might argue the world has deprived them of God - that ignorance of God has deprived them of freedom. Even a person with a concept of God might not have the will to believe it. Many atheists have a concept of God they don't believe exists. How do you know they could choose to believe it? I could profess belief in evolution, but I wouldn't feel confident to risk my life on it unless a deeper, perhaps unconscious part of me were convinced.

Could you choose to reject God, Zeffur? Wouldn't the belief in God's judgement or the loss of salvation influence - if not inexorably determine - your choice? Wouldn't the fear of God's judgement outlast the choice to doubt God's existence? Could you choose to not feel that fear? You could think or express doubts, but would thoughts or words truly have access to the source of that fear? Some people fear hell long after they claim to be atheists.

zeffur: @adamsouthworth:

There are people who exist who lack the mental capability to comprehend the existence of God. Atheists are not such people. Atheists willfully choose to reject God & assert that God does not exist when there exists sufficient info that God exists.

The origin of life is a question that leads a person to contemplate the existence of God. All languages that exist are a result of intelligence--DNA is a very complex code that has the greatest data density known to mankind--it must exist for life to exist. Mutually dependent is the existence of a living cell--it cannot function without dna & the micro-machines within its designed structure. Without cells, organs & organ systems cannot exist. Without all of those systems a complex organism such as a human cannot exist. All of that would require intelligent design. Nature has no intelligence to design & make such a complex living machine.

We therefore are forced to realize that some intelligent agent must have been responsible for creating (designing & making) all life. We also know that humans cannot create a new form of life in a sterile lab without the components of life--such as when cloning. That fact means whatever intelligent agent created life is more intelligent than humanity. We also know evolution is an unproven belief that has not & cannot be proven or confirmed/verified to be true by science. Evolutioners piddle about conflating real biological facts with their unprovable biased & bogus beliefs to promote their deception that an original microbe (that they cannot prove ever existed) has evolved into all life on earth (which they can't prove has ever actually occurred).

That leaves us with only one viable alternative explanation--which is God. Ancient people have recorded/documented their experiences with beings from outer space (heaven) that contain info that life on earth was created by such an ET/God. It specifies plants & creatures reproduce after their own kind--which is exactly what we see happening from reproduction--it does not specify 'evolution'--which we have never actually seen occur.

You are seeking an atheist escape by invoking "the world has deprived them of God - that ignorance of God has deprived them of freedom". That will not work as mankind all knows God exists--even those that pretend God doesn't exist so that they can make themselves or others as their gods in order to ignore/disobey God's laws & commandments. It's not a new/clever strategy--it's just a dishonest one. They have the free will & freedom to decide to do what they will--and they have made their decision. Pretending they are ignorant of God or that they don't have sufficient proof of God's existence isn't going to justify their decision in the end--except for maybe some of them who honestly do lack the mental faculties to understand sufficiently.

re: "Does a person with no concept of God have the same freedom to accept God as someone raised Christian?"

Except for mentally deficient people or under-developed humans, all human beings have a concept of God. You don't need a Christian understanding of God to understand God exists--even children have the capability. People will be judged on their understanding & decisions, words, & deeds.

re: "And even a person with a concept of God might not have the will to believe it."

Agreed--and that is because their will is to reject God & all that God represents.

re: "Many atheists have a concept of God they don't believe exists. How do you know they could choose to believe? What comes first - choice or belief?"

It's not possible to properly evaluate the facts of life & arrive at a sound conclusion that God does not exist. Anyone who arrives at such a conclusion is mentally deficient or a liar. Belief or disbelief is a choice/option that a person makes a decision about--atheists decide to disbelieve when they know that God exists--that's the nature of a corrupt person & part of the reason that they will be judged. The rest of their judgment will be a direct result of their words & deeds based on their willful disregard for the truth of God's existence.

re: "Could you choose to reject God, Zeffur?"

Any person can reject God. Would I reject God? Never. I'm not stupid.

re: "Wouldn't the belief in God's judgement or the loss of salvation influence - if not inexorably determine - your choice?

No. A person can (& some do) reject God. The individual's decisions, words, & deeds shall be the factors in whether or not s/he shall be saved or suffer the justice of God's judgment.

re: "Wouldn't the fear of God's judgement outlast the choice to doubt God's existence?"

There is no real doubt in God's existence for any honest & rational person. The fear is what would cause an intelligent & sensible person to accept the truth & respect God--rather than the decision & path that atheists have willfully decided to follow.

re: "Could you choose not to feel that fear?"

No. But some people will decide to ignore that fear & make the wrong decision--they are called atheists. All people have a conscience--some just decide to ignore it...

re: "You could think or express doubts. But would thoughts or words truly have access to the source of the fear? Some people fear hell long after they claim to be atheists."

What is the point in denying the truth?? Spite?? How foolish...

Greyfeather: @zeffur Is God a separate concept from life? If God is fair and the atheist and the believer can be fair, then they both can embody the idea of God in some way to make justice in life" as the best form of God through humanity"
Because a believer can be unfair and the atheist can be fair
or the atheist can be unfair and the believer can be fair..
Why disagree over the concept instead of unifying both the believer and the atheist over the essence of justice regardless of names?
Names are many, religions are many, but fair and benevolent people know each other without such names.

Greyfeather: The law of Change is still effective ..I think Heraclitus was right in the constancy of change..

The atheist turns into a believer, and the believer turns into an atheist..There is no absolute believer or absolute atheist, so the law of change adds some meaning to personal freedom..

zeffur: re: "Greyfeather: @zeffur Is God a separate concept from life?"

God is incorporeal & eternal--a type of living light (like human souls) but always existing/eternal--unlike human mortal life which is born, lives, dies, & can be given eternal life or be extinguished eternally. Therefore, life as it pertains to God is inseparable & life as it pertains to man is separate/temporary/mortal from God for a time--but it can attain eternal life if God provides for it eternally via the tree of life or via the river of life.

re: "Why disagree over the concept [fairness] instead of unifying both the believer and the atheist over the essence of justice regardless of names? Names are many, religions are many, but fair and benevolent people know each other without such names."

God's justice is above man's. God will decide who shall be saved (unified with Him) & who shall not.

re: "The atheist turns into a believer, and the believer turns into an atheist."

What the person decides to believe, determines how a person thinks, speaks, & acts--& that is the basis on which a person shall be judged by God.

There will never be a state in which a believer & an atheist may or may not invoke justice as God does & they are therefore unified with God or equal & worthy of salvation based on their best efforts or opinions--they are human--not God & such is the reality of their existence...

Adam Southworth: @ Zeffur

Do we know enough about DNA to be sure it was designed? We refer to it as a "code" or the "blueprint" of life, but an analogy alone doesn't prove this. Even if we concede that DNA were code, we would still not have deductive proof of design. Many examples of code might have been designed (by humans in the case of books and computer programs). However, other examples might not be. This bears on Laplace's Sunrise Problem or the Problem of Induction. Humans have always recorded that the Sun rises in the East. Does that fact alone make it certain or more probable the Sun will rise tomorrow? Likewise, does the fact that all known forms of code are the product of intelligence prove all code is the product of intelligence?

In the late 18th century, the consensus of scientists was that no mammal laid eggs. This conclusion was based on the best evidence of the time and might therefore have seemed well supported. However, this consensus was shattered by the discovery of Ornithorhyncus (also known as the Platypus) in the late 18th century. The sunrise itself might be a regularity of nature, but not an inexorable law. Modern scientists believe the Sun was born roughly 4.5 billion years ago. If we trust modern science and imagine humans had lived at that time, we could imagine humans with the experience of sunrise each day over the course of 4.5 billion years. The theory that this would always happen would have been confirmed each morning. These humans would only realize they were wrong some 5 billion years later. The history of science affords many other examples of a long held consensus shattered by new knowledge.

"That will not work as all mankind knows God exists."

We know almost nothing about the beliefs of prehistoric peoples. What about tribes with no contact with monotheistic cultures? What about polytheistic cultures like Sumeria and Egypt? People have tried to make the case for universal knowledge of God. G.K. Chesteron argued that many tribespeople have some basic knowledge of God. Justin Martyr claimed that we could find traces of Christ's Logos in polytheistic/henotheistic civilizations like Greece and Egypt. Calvin claimed that all humans have a Sensus Divinitatis - an innate sense of God or divinity. There are also similarities between religions which might point to something universal. But how would we know any of these arguments apply to all humans? I understand if you believe that, Zeffur. The Bible and the Koran both claim that humans have knowledge of God, that nature reveals his existence, etc, but many don't trust the Bible or the Koran. Wouldn't we need independent evidence the Bible or Koran were worthy of trust? Why should I believe your claim that mankind as a whole knows God exists?

"Any person can reject God. Would I reject God? Never. I'm not stupid."

I don't think you're stupid. I think history shows there have been intelligent theists. Still, I think history also shows there have been intelligent atheists like Arthur Schopenhauer and Paul Dirac. I find it hard to believe stubbornness, stupidity, wilfulness or rebellion against God are complete explanations of their atheism. I believe atheism is often the result of honest doubt. There are people whose doubts are an obstacle to belief in God.

"Except for mentally deficient people or under-developed humans, all human beings have a concept of God.

How could we know that? How would we know that a child or someone who can't communicate has a concept of God? And how do we know they or indeed anyone shares the same concept of God? They might use the same word but not share the same concept. We have different brains and might also have different minds.

"Agreed--and that is because their will is to reject God & all that God represents."

This might not be a choice they could change. A person who believes in a just God might experience what he deems conclusive proof of injustice irreconcilable with God. You might think he made a mistake. Human beings make mistakes which entail false conclusions. Still, I think Democritus was right - reason often compels us to accept hard truths. What choice does someone have if their reason leads them to doubt God's existence?

"Ancient people have recorded/documented their experiences with beings from outer space (heaven) that contain info that life on earth was created by such ETs/God."

You mean ancient scriptures like the Vedas and the Torah? Why should atheists believe they record actual encounters with God/extraterrestrials?

Greyfeather: @ adamsouthworth Inductive reasoning cannot be generalized to all things because anything anomaly will break the rule
Nevertheless, it helps to understand. The atheist and the believer both contributed to this life, and the merits of each of them cannot be denied, including the scientist, the doctor, the artist, the thinker, etc., is the believer a lawyer on behalf of God? Of course not, but if he is able to reconcile the idea of ​​God as something higher than the vanity of the human for the benefit of mankind, this is a good thing for man to learn instead of dogmatic thinking, we also see an atheist with dogmatic thinking that believes that denial is the truth" for some", so there is a deception in understanding God. If God has a relationship in the formation of the world then he is not completely separate, some call it the first principle, regardless of religion. Religion is a spiritual need, but when it became dogmatic, it moved away from its content, so it became repugnant due to the attempt to possess God in favor of certain groups.

Greyfeather: @zeffur Where did the idea of ​​God’s justice come to the human mind? For example Plato sees equality or justice in the mind are not the same as they are in the material world.

If God is the only fair entity then in life he doesn't exist only if human mind starts to be close to the idea of justice if human is the image of God so I think this is the best form of humanity to resemble God, and as long as the idea is in the human mind, he can approach it even if he cannot fully achieve it , justice is something possible in life, saying that God is Only the fair entity will make a person indifferent in life and he will become a tyrant, but if he learns from the attributes of God or the metaphysical aspect of the supreme idea of ​​justice, I think that this is possible for humanity, but if you are talking about a specific religion, you attribute ignorance to God because God created diversity and without Diversity there will be no interaction between people.

zeffur: re: "Do we know enough about DNA to be sure it was designed?"

Do you know enough about the following pic to know it wasn't made by nature?
It's a sculpture on a strand of hair. It is ~20k times larger than a nucleotide (base pair in DNA):

Picture

Nature does not have the intelligence to make a highly organized DNA molecule, cell with micro-machinery, & a host to support those things. You can't have a fertile chicken egg without a chicken & a rooster--nor can you have DNA without a cell & a reproductive host. So, yes, we can reasonably deduce/infer that DNA was created by intelligent life just as we can reasonably deduce/infer that a pocket watch found in an unexplored area of the Amazon forest was man-made & not spontaneously generated by nature & just as we can realize/deduce/infer that a sculpture 20k larger than DNA wasn't made by nature. We don't have to have 100% certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow to have enough confidence to go to bed & wait to see if it will or if we need to rethink the reliability of our understanding--likewise, we can be confident in an intelligent designer & creator of life. If we wake up tomorrow & realize any of our understanding can't be true, due to something newly discovered, then we can adjust accordingly to that new info. We certainly don't need the delusions of evolution.

re: "Many examples of code might have been designed (by humans in the case of books and computer programs). However, other examples might not be."

Can you cite any examples of any language or code that wasn't created by an intelligence??

re: "...does the fact that all known forms of code are the product of intelligence prove all code is the product of intelligence?"

Until we know otherwise, we should recognize the reality that we know to be true--which is that nature (nonlife + natural forces) has no intelligence to create language or life.

re: "The history of science affords many other examples of a long held consensus shattered by new knowledge."

True. And as I stated above: "Until we know otherwise, we should recognize the reality that we know to be true--which is that nature (nonlife + natural forces) has no intelligence to create language or life." That does not prevent anyone from continuing to look for anomolies or new things which 'may' change our understanding in the future.

re: "But how would we know any of these arguments apply to all humans?

We can use the knowledge of life that we have & reason that an intelligent agent had to have created life on earth as nature has no such ability on its own. We can couple that with the recorded/documented evidence of people who have claimed to have seen/encountered/experienced ET/God. We can also recognize that independent civilizations have all known & talked about the Gods & Spirits. All of that points to the same concept--ET/God created life on earth & humans have had interactions with such beings & document it.

re: "Wouldn't we need independent evidence the Bible or Koran were worthy of trust?"

We already have that evidence (see above). Even the S. & C. American people have their stories of encounters with the gods & Spirits.

re: "Why should I believe your claim that mankind as a whole knows God exists?"

Because it is obvious to any honest & intelligent person. If you don't trust organized religions--then don't follow them. No one will stop you from having an honest relationship with God & living the best life that you can live with God's blessings.
Things that don't make sense in The Bible or the Koran or any writing--just ignore them. Who will stop you?? Disregarding things that you don't like to be bad/evil obviously isn't the same thing as disregarding things that you think are bad/wrong (e.g. a translational problem)--and certainly don't give over any power to any religious organization that you do not agree with. I don't have any problem with that--your relationship with God is between you & God. Your relationship with others is just how to behave well towards & with each other--which is good.

I think atheists fall into one or more of the following categories:
1. They are God/religion haters.
2. They are confused/blind to the truth.
3. They know the truth, but they reject it due to pride/arrogance/willful disregard.

I think those who claim 'honest doubt' have not contemplated life sufficiently or they would have logically arrived at the conclusion that nature cannot & has not created life on earth.

re: ""zeffur: Except for mentally deficient people or under-developed humans, all human beings have a concept of God.

How could we know that? How would we know that a child or someone who can't communicate has a concept of God? And how do we know they or indeed anyone shares the same concept of God? They might use the same word but not share the same concept. We have different brains and might also have different minds."

We can't account for every human--especially for those who cannot communicate--but, we can look at the averages. Honest intelligence people can contemplate their existence, life on earth, & a sense of a higher power & their purpose, etc. It's not that hard to analyze all that has been sincerely expressed & arrive at some coherent common realizations. Most people know inherently that there is something greater--a higher power & they exist for some purpose/s. Some report actual experiences with God/Jesus, near death experiences confirming an after-life, etc. Some people respond to that info in amazement or disbelief or ridicule, etc--but, we see consistency in what has been reported from generation to generation--and it all points to something beyond our existence. Even the Pharaohs believed in an after-life (even their burial places were prepared for it). People today have similar beliefs. They aren't all just believing because some ancient ruler believed in an after-life---there's more to it than that, clearly.

re: ""zeffur: Agreed--and that is because their will is to reject God & all that God represents."

This might not be a choice they could change. A person who believes in a just God might experience what he deems conclusive proof of injustice irreconcilable with God."

That is arrogant. No person can fully fathom what God knows. Some people delude themselves into thinking that their assessment is somehow superior to that of God's--which is hilariously wrong. It's like a kid thinking s/he is the boss.. Such people need to get a grip on reality & understand that they don't have the powers that God has nor the wisdom to understand what God knows & the reasons why He has made/done things as He has. I get it that people can't understand when a child dies of cancer & they want to blame God for it because they had faith in God to save their child & their child died--but, what most of them don't get is that we are in a fallen/corrupt world that will have such events & God won't stop them because it is all moving towards a final conclusion in accordance with His plan. Many are hurt & they want someone to blame, so they blame God--but, that won't change anything--their child will still be deceased. Things will continue until God changes them according to his plan...

re: "You might think he made a mistake. Human beings make mistakes which entail false conclusions. Still, I think Democritus was right - reason often compels us to accept hard truths. What choice does someone have if their reason leads them to doubt God's existence?"

I see no reason to doubt God's existence. I find numerous reasons to doubt many 'scientific' theories..

re: "zeffur: Ancient people have recorded/documented their experiences with beings from outer space (heaven) that contain info that life on earth was created by such ETs/God."

You mean ancient scriptures like the Vedas and the Torah? Why should atheists believe they record actual encounters with God/extraterrestrials?"

I think they should take them into consideration, along with all of the other factors that any honest & intelligent person should consider when contemplating existence, life, God, & eternity...

zeffur: re: "Greyfeather: @zeffur Where did the idea of ​​God’s justice come to the human mind?"

I imagine Adam & Eve may have first realized it from the only law that was given to them. They may have contemplated to themselves "Why is death the consequence that God has established for us if we disobey?"

re: "If God is the only fair entity then in life he doesn't exist only if human mind starts to be close to the idea of justice if human is the image of God so I think this is the best form of humanity to resemble God, and as long as the idea is in the human mind, he can approach it even if he cannot fully achieve it , justice is something possible in life, saying that God is Only the fair entity will make a person indifferent in life and he will become a tyrant, but if he learns from the attributes of God or the metaphysical aspect of the supreme idea of ​​justice, I think that this is possible for humanity, but if you are talking about a specific religion, you attribute ignorance to God because God created diversity and without Diversity there will be no interaction between people."

God establishes the law--we don't. Any violation of that law has a conseqence. As it applies to all people equally, it is fair & just. The opinion of an individual does not matter. An individual rejecting God due to not liking/agreeing with the law/consequence of violating the law isn't going to change the law--the law isn't based on any subject's opinion of it. There is no democracy to change or eliminate the law. Being made in the image/likeness of God does not make mankind God. Being supreme/sovereign also doesn't make God a tyrant, because God's laws are not oppressive or unjust--as would be the case with a tyrant.

Greyfeather: @ zeffur I like this passage "Things that don't make sense in The Bible or the Koran or any writing--just ignore them. Who will stop you?? Disregarding things that you don't like to be bad/evil obviously isn't the same thing as disregarding things that you think are bad/wrong (e.g. a translational problem)--and certainly don't give over any power to any religious organization that you do not agree with. I don't have any problem with that--your relationship with God is between you & God. Your relationship with others is just how to behave well towards & with each other--which is good."

It confirms that the person directs the doctrine and not the doctrine guides him completely. Wisdom in the past may be superficial in the present because it is not in the right place and therefore the circumstances of the present must be taken into account, because the mind is a gift from God and therefore its use is not a sin. I think not using it is a sin when taking literally everything contained in religion.

You also mentioned the issue of death, which is something outside the will of man everyone has an appointment with death, it is necessary to acknowledge the power that is superior to the power of man.
Nevertheless, one should not ignore the ability that God has bestowed upon mankind in creating the best possible existence through understanding and dialogue with differences.

zeffur: re: "It confirms that the person directs the doctrine and not the doctrine guides him completely."

No. What I wrote meant that we shoulld follow the doctrine because it is for our benefit. What I wrote essentially means we have the ability to disregard (or interpret them as we honestly believe) things that are honestly bad translations or incoherent--we don't have the right/freedom to ignore/disregard things that we don't like or disagree with (e.g.: If a sociopath doesn't like the law "Thou shall not kill" then s/he doesn't get to arbitrarily ignore/disregard that law. On the otherhand, if there is some passage that is cryptic & not at all clear & interpreted by people various ways--that's an obviously bad translation & it should be researched & standardized or be ignored because the meaning of it has been lost in translation.

re: "Wisdom in the past may be superficial in the present because it is not in the right place and therefore the circumstances of the present must be taken into account, because the mind is a gift from God and therefore its use is not a sin."

We have to guard against people perverting the wisdom of the past to recreate or change it to their preferences... That is a slippery slope that can have profound implications. One example is Jesus stating "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Matt 23:9" Catholics have ignored that & require people to call their priests father & the pope holy father--which is the exact opposite of what Jesus said to NOT do. It is a power-grab that is designed to give authority to priests & the pope. There is no person between the individual & God--and you should never allow anything/anyone except God or The Word of God (i.e. The Bible) to guide/influence you--from a spirituality perspective.

Greyfeather: @zeffur Ignoring for the sake of lack of clarity, this is another thing, but there are clear texts that cannot be applied today due to the different circumstances and from this standpoint the explanation will be in favor of the present.
Literal interpretation cannot help but brings fanaticism, there is a real gap between the time of the text and our time, but there are things still can be applied and things that must be overlooked because they are not suitable for this time.
The problem of some interpreters is that they make a historical event a universal law, and thus bring problems to the present. The event has different circumstances, and therefore putting it in its incorrect place will bring distortion.
However, there are laws still effective, at least taking into consideration the essence of the goodness rather than literalism.

Greyfeather: Putting things in their rightful place is kind of interpretation.

zeffur: re: "there are clear texts that cannot be applied today due to the different circumstances and from this standpoint the explanation will be in favor of the present."

Examples?

re: "The event has different circumstances, and therefore putting it in its incorrect place will bring distortion. However, there are laws still effective, at least taking into consideration the essence of the goodness rather than literalism."

Examples?

Greyfeather: Interpretation either leads us to execution or prosperity.
The skilled interpreter knows how to put texts in their correct place, for example, a religious text that is not suitable for the present because it is in its incorrect place, ignoring it is a kind of interpretation because if something happened in the past, if it was correct, then its conditions were appropriate for it, rather than application of everything is mentioned in the scripture,if we take a correct wisdom and put it in its incorrect circumstance, there will be no wisdom in doing so, that's something distorts the present.

The problem of some interpreters is that they take the literal texts and thus bring them into their incorrect place
For example, a historical event like a group of people were assaulted by another group, so the religious text says that the aggressive people must be killed and so on. Is this an international law?
Today the aggressor is condemned by law, and there is no need to defend personally with swords and spears.
We must understand that there is a big gap between the text and us
Even the language itself became foreigner, we need to transmit a world to another and understand how it should be applied.

We must ask in every age what to take and what to leave behind?
Because our questions define our present and therefore the response will be through the text and us as contributors in the process of understanding. When we ignore what is inappropriate, we will take the appropriate, and therefore the interpretation movement will not be monopolized by a specific era"therefore its called movement of interpretation because it doesn't stop" but according to the circumstances and placing the texts in their correct place, taking into account the essence and keeping the original text for review.

zeffur: re: "Greyfeather: ...a religious text that is not suitable for the present because it is in its incorrect place, ignoring it is a kind of interpretation because if something happened in the past, if it was correct, then its conditions were appropriate for it, rather than application of everything is mentioned in the scripture,if we take a correct wisdom and put it in its incorrect circumstance, there will be no wisdom in doing so, that's something distorts the present."

Exactly which examples of that ^^ are you referring to??

I don't think it is that complicated. God chose a people--Abraham & his descendants--& made a covenant with them. God blessed them, protected them, & then dispursed them when they corrupted themselves & willingly & repeatedly broke their part of that covenant. God then restored them to their homeland & they have begun returning to their responsibilities in that covenant. Some of them are wise enough to accept Jesus & live a life under grace rather than under the letter of the law with atonements for wrong doing & others have chosen to remain under the law (i.e. commandments, laws, & ordinances, etc that God established for them). They are a unique people to God--most of humanity are not Jews & do not have that covenant with God. Christians adhere to the New Covenent based on the New Testament--that is their governing agreement with God through Jesus.

As for how modern people conform to God's covenants with them--that depends on the individual--but, they should all follow what has been defined in The Bible. Those that do not are usually corrupt in some way or other.

As for international law--Jews & many others do not accept it nor it's juristiction/authority to affect their sovereignty or citizenry in any way.

Perverting the Words of The Bible to 'modernize it' (i.e. to make it tolerant to modern values) is exactly what should not be done.

MJ59: