Originally posted by FMFI suppose I should take that as a compliment. But this was not tabloid tittle tattle.
This last post of jaywill's reminds me of celebrity tittle tattle in a tabloid magazine. Not up to his usual scholarly self-set standards.
I think it is insightful. And I did NOT compare Dawkins to a Christian but to a fellow ATHEIST.
Hitchens says he'd leave at least one theist on the earth alone, (assuming he had the power to convert all others)
Dawkins was astounded. He would not leave even ONE.
Who is the "control freak" who HAS to control what all the people of the world must think ?
It may not be scholarly. It is interesting. Since Dawkins is the one complaining that the Old Testament only shows a control freak God.
Seems God left quite a few bloaks in the world who didn't see eye to eye with Him, in the Old Testament.
Originally posted by jaywillThanks for the recap of the post that I already read.
I suppose I should take that as a compliment. But this was not tabloid tittle tattle.
I think it is insightful. And I did NOT compare Dawkins to a Christian but to a fellow ATHEIST.
Hitchens says he'd leave at least one theist on the earth alone, (assuming he had the power to convert all others)
Dawkins was astounded. He would not leave even ONE. ...[text shortened]... ft quite a few bloaks in the world who didn't see eye to eye with Him, in the Old Testament.
Originally posted by jaywillNo. A spat between professional intellectuals like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins could hardly be less relevant to me. You are entitled to be engaged with it, of course, but it seems to me that it just gave rise to your weakest post in weeks. Tittle tattle.
Did you watch the YouTube ?
Originally posted by FMFJust for your information, the video is not a conversation between Hitchens and Dawkins. He is talking to a Christian apologist with whom he was touring around doing debates.
No. A spat between professional intellectuals like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins could hardly be less relevant to me. You are entitled to be engaged with it, of course, but it seems to me that it just gave rise to your weakest post in weeks. Tittle tattle.
I get the impression that the two men struck up a reasonable level of cordiality between them.
Its a real short video. And Hitchens tells of the conversation between him and Dawkins.
Well, anyway, out of curiousity - If this was my weakest post of the week - which was my strongest ?
=====================================
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
— Richard Dawkins
===========================================
Dawkins says "arguably the most unpleasant character". I suppose he means that it is up for debate.
Well then, who would like to argue for Dawkins. I don't agree. And I am ready to examine EACH charge in the Old Testament and put a question mark on Dawkins' assessment.
1.) Jealous and proud of it
This to me is like condemning a parent for warning her child that she can do a much better job then a perfect stranger or a deceiver, at caring for her own.
If a mother boasts to her infant after he is led into trouble by a would be "friend" - "Hey junior, I am jealous of this guy who got you into your troubles. You know, I bore you from the womb. I have always loved you. I can do a much better job to look out for your happiness."
Is that jealous ? Yes. But it may be a valid envy against others who do NOT have the offspring's best interest in view.
Where was Baal when the Hebrews needed to be delivered from Egyptian slavery ?
God had the record of helping them and delivering them throughout the Old Testament. God had the ground to be a little jealous and remind them that He could do a much better job at caring for them.
Anyone disagree ?
I think Dawkins' view is off. Shall we go on to
2.) "petty" ?
Next Dawkins charges Yahweh of the Old Testament with pettiness.
2.) petty
I think there is a difference between being definite and being petty. There were some instances in the OT where God was precise and definite.
Lot and family were told to escape from Sodom and not look behind them. Lot's wife turn around and looked and she was turned into a pillar of salt (Genesis 19).
This was not petty. But it was precise and for good reason. God is showing that it was not enough for them to only leave physically the condemned world. They should leave it in their hearts as well.
The backward look exposed that Lot's wife still had hear dreams and heart in Sodom. She became a kind of monument of shame. She became a pillar of salt. She was saved from the judgment of Sodom but she became a kind of shameful monument - a warning that we should follow God out of the condemned world and not look longingly back upon it.
Now, it was not petty for this reason. It was set forth as an example. God certainly did not repeat the act over and over and over again. Had He done so in each similar experience we might say that God was "petty" or fidgity.
He was precise. He was particular. He did so as a lesson for generations of God seekers to learn. He did not ALWAYS in a petty manner turn people who were dragging their feet to leave evil, in the same way.
Nor did God rain fire down on every town that offended Him as Sodom had. Sodom was made an example. Had God hundreds of times done the same with the umpteen societies which offended Him, then we might say that was fidgity or petty or "fussy".
God did do some things in a exact and precise way as examples to all for all generations. But I don't think this shows pettiness.
I don't think a sloppy, inexact, and ultra liberal or ultra permissive Yahweh shows no "pettiness" in God.
I had to choose an example which I thought might be a representative sample. If anyone thinks its a strawman example, I'd like to hear their example of divine pettiness in the OT.
====================================
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
— Richard Dawkins
===============================
In a medium like this the charge of God being "unjust" is probably too big a subject.
But let's put unjust and "unforgiving" as a pair.
3.) unjust, unforgiving control freak
Thirty Nine books in the Old Testament and Richard Dawkins can find nothing to display God's just acts or His forgivness. That is really strange.
What shall I use as a single specimen for examination ? Let's look at David's murder and adultery with Bethsheba.
David the king, with already more than one wife, sees from his roof a beautiful woman bathing. Without mercy in perfect candidness, the Bible tells how this king of Israel plotted to have the woman's husband killed in military battle, while he confiscates her for himself.
David, a man after God's own heart, plans murder and adultery. The woman Bethsheba gets pregnant (no it was not a virgin birth). And David tries to cover up the affair and when he has trouble doing so, plots to have her husband killed by his enemies in battle.
To make a long story short (if it is not too late), David is rebuked by the prophet Nathan. Though David pleads and pleads for the child's life God sees fit to let the child die of sickness.
God tells David that he forgives him BUT he has given the enemies of Jehovah a great occasion to blaspheme. He will be forgiven of his act. However, he will not be able to escape the consquences for all that he did.
God was both forgiving and just. We may be forgiven by God. We may not ALWAYS be able to escape the consequences of our sin in the world.
That is why when God gave David a choice of three punishments to have for a latter infraction David answered wisely. He said "Let me fall into the hands of God because God is MERCIFUL. But PLEASE don't let me fall into the hands of man."
Yes, I may rob and kill my victom. In prison after I cannot take it anymore I may repent to God and become a believer in the Savior Jesus Christ. I have peace with God. He has forgiven me. However, I may not be released from prison because of that. I may not always escape the consequences of my sin in the world.
God is forgiving far far beyond mankind. But He is also just. The dept to society may have to be paid. This is a oft repeated story from those in prison.
Moses was not allowed to enter into the Promise Land. Moses, of all people ! Why? In a nutshell because as God's deputy authority on the earth, at one time he misrepresented God's attitude. He communicated to the people that God was angry when God was not.
God backed him up. But afterwards He took Moses aside and told Him that he had misrepresented His attitude before the people. And for that violation of his position of representative authority he would be disciplined. God would not allow Moses to enter into Canaan. He would allow him to see it before he died.
God was forgiving. But God was just. Moses' position of deputy authority demanded a certain amount of responsibility to accurately represent God's attitude. For the sake of the Israelites, God must show that even Moses was not played favorites to. God was forgiving but just.
There are 150 Psalms in the Old Testament. Read through and see HOW many times the Pslamist is thankful or cognizant of God's forgiveness.
With the strict laws of the Levitical offerings there were also the trespass offerings, the peace offerings, the sin offerings. All these offerings were remedial offerings to secure forgiveness of one sort of another in case infraction should be committed.
There were the cities of refuge also where a manslayer might run and escape. If he shed blood inadvertantly to invoke revenge, he could flee to a city of refuge to be safe from vengence of a relative.
And Dawkins says God was not forgiving. Baloney Mr Dawkins. Sheer baloney.
Then we also have the 50 year Jubilee commanded by God. If you were in dept, if you lost property, if you were a slave, if you were a prisoner, if you made it to the 50 year mark of Jubilee you could be released. Depts forgiven and terms of servitude ended. Prisoners set free and slaves released. This was the year of Jubilee - the Sabbath of the 50 year mark.
And Dawkins dupes millions with his sophomoric theology that God in the Old Testament was not forgiving.
I think he should stick to his biology lab.
Originally posted by jaywillyes, david did murder someone. and what was his punishment? his child had to die in his place? really? under god's just law i can die at any moment if my father, grandfather decides a life of crime would be fun?
[b]====================================
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasoch ...[text shortened]... stament was not forgiving.
I think he should stick to his biology lab.
kind of like the people of jericho.
also you do a poor job at disproving dawkings quote. he doesn't mention he is all those things all the time. so you giving one example of him being the opposite means nothing. you should try and explain the instances where he was all that. like you justified the genocide at jericho.
speaking of jericho, i have been relaxed in the conditions of our debate just to show you genocide is not excusable under any circumstances. not even when god commands it (which he won't and didn't). but have you thought about the claim "all jericho was evil"?
do you honestly think that is true? that somehow, absolutely everyone in the city engaged in murdering, raping,etc? that there weren't some nice families? that all the evil dudes gathered there? i mean you don't actually think amsterdam is a city entirely made up of prostitutes and potheads, right?
Originally posted by ZahlanziActually Daivids punishment should have been death, the only reason that God did not put him to death, was that he had promised that his Kingship would remain and because he was truly repentant. He did not shield him from the course of his action, indeed a 'sword', did not depart from his house. He witnessed the rape of one of his daughters, by a son, and he witnessed the death of his oldest son who had tried to usurp the throne. Your assertion of course is absurd Zhalanzi, for it ignores community responsibility, in that yes indeed, a whole household may perish, because of the stupidity of one individual. It happens all the time, in car accidents for example. Your attempt to reduce Gods morality to yours is incredibly arrogant.
yes, david did murder someone. and what was his punishment? his child had to die in his place? really? under god's just law i can die at any moment if my father, grandfather decides a life of crime would be fun?
kind of like the people of jericho.
also you do a poor job at disproving dawkings quote. he doesn't mention he is all those things all ...[text shortened]... actually think amsterdam is a city entirely made up of prostitutes and potheads, right?
Originally posted by Zahlanziyes i have some thoughts on all the conquest of the Canaanite lands of which Jericho was the first, west of the Jordan, they were executed by God, judicially, because of the degradation of their practices, including, child sacrifice,
yes, david did murder someone. and what was his punishment? his child had to die in his place? really? under god's just law i can die at any moment if my father, grandfather decides a life of crime would be fun?
kind of like the people of jericho.
also you do a poor job at disproving dawkings quote. he doesn't mention he is all those things all ...[text shortened]... actually think amsterdam is a city entirely made up of prostitutes and potheads, right?
According to Merrill F. Unger: “Excavations in Palestine have uncovered piles of ashes and remains of infant skeletons in cemeteries around heathen altars, pointing to the widespread practice of this cruel abomination.” (Archaeology and the Old Testament, 1964, p. 279) Halley’s Bible Handbook (1964, p. 161) says: “Canaanites worshipped, by immoral indulgence, as a religious rite, in the presence of their gods; and then, by murdering their first-born children, as a sacrifice to these same gods. It seems that, in large measure, the land of Canaan had become a sort of Sodom and Gomorrah on a national scale. . . . Did a civilization of such abominable filth and brutality have any right longer to exist? . . . Archaeologists who dig in the ruins of Canaanite cities wonder that God did not destroy them sooner than he did.
The Canannites in the instance of Jericho could have chosen to sue for peace or to flee, but they did not. Scripture tells us why, “let their hearts become stubborn so as to declare war against Israel,', Jos 11:19, 20. War is war Zhalanzi, you declare it, you take the responsibility for your actions upon yourself and for those of your household.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyour attempt to punish innocents is immoral
Actually Daivids punishment should have been death, the only reason that God did not put him to death, was that he had promised that his Kingship would remain and because he was truly repentant. He did not shield him from the course of his action, indeed a 'sword', did not depart from his house. He witnessed the rape of one of his daughters, by a s ...[text shortened]... accidents for example. Your attempt to reduce Gods morality to yours is incredibly arrogant.
yes, households perish in accidents because of the stupidity of individuals. but we do not call it justice. also accidents are random unforseen events. what happened to david was a deliberate and conscious act of "justice". what was the sin of the daughter? how about the newly born son (or whoever died immediately after the batsheba incident).
i do not question god. god is just and kind. and we would prefer him this way. and all we have to do is renounce the idiotic idea that the bible is 100% accurate. either god is benevolent and men lie (including the men who wrote the bible) or god sometimes does horrible things for no reasons or for injust reasons. you cannot have a 100% true bible and a just and merciful god. and a god cannot be merciful if once you forgave someone of something but othertimes you killed others and their whole families.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewar is not genocide
yes i have some thoughts on all the conquest of the Canaanite lands of which Jericho was the first, west of the Jordan, they were executed by God, judicially, because of the degradation of their practices, including, child sacrifice,
According to Merrill F. Unger: “Excavations in Palestine have uncovered piles of ashes and remains of infant skele ...[text shortened]... it, you take the responsibility for your actions upon yourself and for those of your household.
war is conquest . or defence against conquerors. but nowhere does it say you need to kill the conquered nation.
your logic is laughable. the canaanites practice human sacrifice, namely their children, so they were deemed wicked so the israelites killed them all including their children.
dude, can you possibly post this shaite with a straight face? don't you giggle at all when you press "post" ? "hihi, i said all the canaanites and their children all deserved to die because they murdered some of their children, let's see if they buy this"
Originally posted by ZahlanziMy attempt? why have i attempted to punish anyone? great learning is driving you mad Zhalanzi! secondly you are ignoring that God exercised mercy towards both David and Bathsheba, was that immoral, should he not simply have executed them? what does that tell us about God? Its hardly consistent with your attempted portrayal of a cruel and vindictive God, is it Zhalanzi, perhaps you can explain it?
your attempt to punish innocents is immoral
yes, households perish in accidents because of the stupidity of individuals. but we do not call it justice. also accidents are random unforseen events. what happened to david was a deliberate and conscious act of "justice". what was the sin of the daughter? how about the newly born son (or whoever died immedi ...[text shortened]... ce you forgave someone of something but othertimes you killed others and their whole families.