Originally posted by lucifershammerto oppose that "extremely debatable " one only has to read the bible :
For one thing, it is extremely debatable whether the Israelites actually (forget routinely) did exterminate entire populations. Take Jericho, for instance:
1. It is very likely that Jericho was actually an uninhabited city at the time of Joshua.
http://www.netours.com/2003/jericho-joshua.htm
2. The practice of the "ban" (Hebr. herem) w ...[text shortened]... .
Hence, the real or legendary antics of the Israelites were not out of place for its time.
http://www.rhymezone.com/r/gwic.cgi?Word=_&Path=holy/oldtestament/joshua/6//
http://www.rhymezone.com/r/gwic.cgi?Word=_&Path=holy/oldtestament/joshua/10//
If your position is "Since Joshua said God told him to it was righteous" then all I got to say to you is:
May God take pity on you and show you the light.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by buckkyI am afraid you got that one wrong. God doesn't need the blood. You and I need it.
What is it about blood that the God in the Christian religion needs to forgive ? It sure seems a little bit wacky to me. Maybe in Voodoo blood might be a part of the action, but in a so called "sane religion" I can't understand the need for the blood. Without Jesus being nailed on the cross in the form of a blood sacrifice all would go straight to Hell. Go ...[text shortened]... lood to forgive mankind for the outrage in the Garden of Eden. What a primitive concept that is.
Originally posted by frogstompYou're mistaking me for someone else - I don't hold that every event in the Bible necessarily happened literally.
to oppose that "extremely debatable " one only has to read the bible :
http://www.rhymezone.com/r/gwic.cgi?Word=_&Path=holy/oldtestament/joshua/6//
http://www.rhymezone.com/r/gwic.cgi?Word=_&Path=holy/oldtestament/joshua/10//
If your position is "Since Joshua said God told him to it was righteous" then all I got to say to you is:
May God take pity on you and show you the light.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIf good is obedience to God, and God says to sacrifice you son, then to do good, one should obey. But notice the situation. God says "if you love me, give your son as a blood sacrifice." Sound familiar?
[b]This is correct. For the purposes of logic and language - one must assume that any word are term must mean something, and (just as important) not mean something. If any term can mean anything, it means nothing.
So if I we ...[text shortened]... rality from peoples' sense of right and wrong is a good idea?[/b][/i]
It may seem counterintuitive - indeed I think it is counterintuitive - but intuition is no sure guide to truth. (Ever notice that people never blame intuition when they make a mistake? But they are quick to say it was "intuition" when they make a lucky guess and do something right.)
For the purpose of the following statement I define the word 'moral' to mean 'gray with black stripes'.
My cat is moral.
Are you telling me that you think I am saying that my cat obeys the commands of God?
No, I'd say your cat has gray and black stripes - because you defined you term first - I'm assuming you are using your definition univocally in your reasoning. (Law of Non-Contradiction again)
But what is a 'judgement' to you?
A moral judgment is reasoning to a correct answer to a moral question based on a standard of good and evil. My standard is the Bible. Foremost, love God with all my self, and love my neighbor as myself. Also the 10 commandments and other text where God/Christ declares what is good and evil.
Do you feel I am arbitrary and do you think I judge when I base morality on suffering and pleasure?
I'm not say you personally are arbitrary - but the standard of suffering and pleasure is arbitrary. Different people have different ideas of pleasure and suffering - some in direct conflict with others. One mans pleasure is another mans pain. That is arbitrary.
And sometimes some suffering is a good thing - even a best thing - and pleasure can be the worst thing.
So does that mean that you feel divorcing morality from peoples' sense of right and wrong is a good idea?
Yes, insofar as it can cause wrong moral choices. The sense of right and wrong is a good thing, a "common grace" God gives all people. But people are flawed and make grievous errors when "natural law" is all they have to go on. No one can say for sure what is truly right or wrong based on innate sense of good and evil. But a right understanding of scripture will not lead to sin.
Originally posted by lucifershammerAgain, you've dismally failed to refute my premise. In one thread, you tout the OT as a "history of the Jewish people"; in this one, you're ready to say certain parts are fairy tales because they portray the OT monster God in a bad light. Make up your mind.
For one thing, it is extremely debatable whether the Israelites actually (forget routinely) did exterminate entire populations. Take Jericho, for instance:
1. It is very likely that Jericho was actually an uninhabited city at the time of Joshua.
http://www.netours.com/2003/jericho-joshua.htm
2. The practice of the "ban" (Hebr. herem) w ...[text shortened]... .
Hence, the real or legendary antics of the Israelites were not out of place for its time.
Also, you again seem to miss the point of the thread; my posts are a direct response to Coletti's claim that the OT monster God is allowed to set what is "good" without any refererence to any standards of human decency. I pointed out that the OT laws of war practiced by the Israelites by Moses, Joshua, etc. etc. but not by the conquerors of Israel were the savage and more savage than normal practices of other peoples. I allowed for isolated incidents by other peoples; you've failed to come up with convincing evidence of ANY (remember there are numerous incidents of mass child murder). In any event, I'll concede that at times entire populations of cities were put to the sword by conquerors, but my original premise still holds. If that is the case, than morality based on the what the OT monster God thinks is allowable or desirable is dropping Mankind to the Lowest Common Denominator of human decency. Do you assert otherwise?
If you want to say the whole OT is BS, go ahead. I tend to think that the Israelites grossly exaggerrated their military exploits. But the claims are in your Holy Book and they are clearly not meant to be allegorical but to give an actual history of events. If there are untruths in the claimed history of the israelites in the OT, how reliable is any of it?
Originally posted by no1marauder
Again, you've dismally failed to refute my premise.
What is your premise? I've assumed it was "The behaviour of the Israelites was more savage than any other people of the time". If that is the case, then the other instances I've provided should be more than sufficient to indicate that it is not true. If your premise was something else, then what was it?
In one thread, you tout the OT as a "history of the Jewish people"; in this one, you're ready to say certain parts are fairy tales because they portray the OT monster God in a bad light. Make up your mind.
Actually, I said that the books from Exodus to 2 Kings were intended to be a history of the Jewish people. However, this is not factual history as we speak of history today, but rather a spiritual history of the entire nation - which means that the literal facts need not be correct. If you remember the context in which I made the comment, I said that AFAIK, no other document from the era attempts to chart the history (either factual or spiritual) of another culture/civilisation.
Also, you again seem to miss the point of the thread; my posts are a direct response to Coletti's claim that the OT monster God is allowed to set what is "good" without any refererence to any standards of human decency.
What you're referring to is Euthyphro's dilemma. I have a slightly different view from Coletti on this issue and I've elaborated elsewhere.
If there are untruths in the claimed history of the israelites in the OT, how reliable is any of it?
It depends on what you're relying on it for. I'm obviously not using it as a history textbook on the Israelites from 3000 BC - 100 AD, so I don't require all assertions in it to be factually true.
Originally posted by lucifershammerMy premise from the first post you responded to (try reading it next time)
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b] Again, you've dismally failed to refute my premise.
What is your premise? I've assumed it was "The behaviour of the Israelites was more savage than any other people of ...[text shortened]... AD, so I don't require all assertions in it to be factually true.[/b]
To define "good" by what the OT monster God finds acceptable is to drop to the Lowest Common Denominator of human morality. The atrocities ordered and/or sanctioned by this God according to the OT are among the most savage in the ancient world; wholesale slaughter of defeated enemies was decidely NOT the norm in ancient times. In fact the Israelites themselves were twice conquered, by the Babylonians and the Assyrians (one of the most warlike peoples in the ancient Middle East), but they were NOT treated like the Midianites or others were treated by our Biblical heroes: either put to the sword entirely or only virgin girls being saved for later "use".
xt time):
So you assumed something in direct contradiction to what I wrote, no wonder you have such a hard time following a thread!
Originally posted by lucifershammerLH: It depends on what you're relying on it for. I'm obviously not using it as a history textbook on the Israelites from 3000 BC - 100 AD, so I don't require all assertions in it to be factually true
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b] Again, you've dismally failed to refute my premise.
What is your premise? I've assumed it was "The behaviour of the Israelites was more savage than any other people of the time". If that is the case, then the other instances I've provided should be more than sufficient to indicate tha ...[text shortened]... Israelites from 3000 BC - 100 AD, so I don't require all assertions in it to be factually true.[/b]
I would posit that if you are going to accept that some parts of the history are false, then they were deliberately falsified. And if they were deliberately falsified, why believe that there was an OT monster God at all? I have argued that the Israelites merely created a God that reflected them as other ancient cultures did. If you reject Zeus as a real entity, why accept OT monster God on the basis of a document that you believe to have been deliberately falsified?
Originally posted by no1marauderActually, no - that some parts of the history are false does not imply they were deliberately falsified. All historians (modern or ancient) compile their history based on what they believe to be reliable sources. The author of Joshua might simply have been using unreliable sources (e.g. oral tradition). Even modern historians change their views based on new evidence.
LH: It depends on what you're relying on it for. I'm obviously not using it as a history textbook on the Israelites from 3000 BC - 100 AD, so I don't require all assertions in it to be factually true
I would posit that if you are going to accept that some parts of the history are false, then they were deliberately falsified. And if they w ...[text shortened]... OT monster God on the basis of a document that you believe to have been deliberately falsified?
In any case, OT authors were not trying to write factual histories at all. The intention behind their writings was not to recount factual events, but to get the message across that Israel was a Chosen Nation. The emphasis would be on getting the theology right - not the history.
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou mean we need it to keep the physical body alive ? I agreee, but what about the Blood was needed for God to forgive mankind for the sin thing ?The Atonement is a really strange concept. It paints a very bazzarre picture to the nature of God. He must have a blood sacrifice before He could forgive mankind for their sins. That seems more than odd to me.
I am afraid you got that one wrong. God doesn't need the blood. You and I need it.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI don't regard it mignt not be deliberately falsified as much of an answer; that concedes the possibility that it might have been. Your second paragraph pretty much contradicts your first: if all they cared about was the theology and if slaughtering "evil" peoples down to the last baby would make a better theological point in their minds then they'd have an incentive to deliberately falsify, wouldn't they? Your post also reinforces my central point: that the writers of the OT had their own agenda when they wrote what they wrote and God might not have had anything to do with what they wrote. Thus, they may have been projecting their version of morality onto OT monster God. Thanks.
Actually, no - that some parts of the history are false does not imply they were deliberately falsified. All historians (modern or ancient) compile their history based on what they believe to be reliable sources. The author of ...[text shortened]... asis would be on getting the theology right - not the history.
Originally posted by telerionYes,He could but, we can't order Him to change it.Besides isn't that like judging God?
Yes, I've asked that a couple times within threads here myself. Two things that puzzle me:
First, if he is The Creator, then he can have all the damn blood that he wants.
Second, if there is a rule that something innocent must die to make up for the mistakes of others, then this god is the one who came up with the rule. Can't he just choose a different rule?
Originally posted by MonelI'm not ordering anyone. I'm just pointing out another case where the whole thing sounds silly. There are so many things like this that it seems obvious to me that it's all made up.
Yes,He could but, we can't order Him to change it.Besides isn't that like judging God?
Originally posted by no1marauderDon't you see the irony? You are judging God. But you have no accounting or basis on which to make your judgment. You say it is wrong for God to order the destruction of a people, but you do not question your own assertion that what God ordered was evil. If one is going to make a judgment on God, one should have a clear basis from which to make that judgment. I think the only conclusion you can reach is there is no God to judge - and there are no fixed moral laws to judge anything.
I don't regard it mignt not be deliberately falsified as much of an answer; that concedes the possibility that it might have been. Your second paragraph pretty much contradicts your first: if all they cared about was the theo ...[text shortened]... projecting their version of morality onto OT monster God. Thanks.
Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't regard it mignt not be deliberately falsified as much of an answer; that concedes the possibility that it might have been.
I'm saying it does not necessarily follow from the factual inaccuracy of a document that it was deliberately falsified.
Do I believe that parts of the OT were deliberately falsified? That depends on how you define "deliberately falsified". If you mean writing down something that the author knows, or knows is probably, false - then it would include things like metaphorical/allegorical accounts. In which case, I have no opposition - I treat Genesis, for instance, as a largely metaphorical account.
However, if you mean describing and intending to be treated as factual something the author knows, or knows is probably, false (such as the account of the massacre of Jericho possibly, or the Resurrection) - then I disagree.
Your second paragraph pretty much contradicts your first: if all they cared about was the theology and if slaughtering "evil" peoples down to the last baby would make a better theological point in their minds then they'd have an incentive to deliberately falsify, wouldn't they?
See above.
Your post also reinforces my central point: that the writers of the OT had their own agenda when they wrote what they wrote and God might not have had anything to do with what they wrote. Thus, they may have been projecting their version of morality onto OT monster God.
That they had their own agenda when they wrote what they wrote does not mean that God had nothing to do with it. Inspiration of Scripture (as Catholics understand it) is not a matter of the Holy Spirit dictating in the mind of the author what he should write. Instead, it has to do with the key message (as a contemporary audience would and a modern audience should understand it) being conveyed. The actual wording of the message may involve symbolism, metaphor, hyperbole, poetry etc. etc.