biblical atrocities, and tigers, and bears, oh my!

[Spiffor]

Arrian speaks the truth

[GePap]

Such as it is, God promises to delay judgement until the time of the second coming, and as such, he will not order mass killings, but instead allow each one of us to choose our own fate. But this is a gift, it has not always been this way.

So basically, what you are sayng is that God has promised to wait a while, so any massacres before the huge genocide at the end of all those who happen to be on his bad side can't be his, but not becuase he would never order such things, only that he is contractually bound not to do so until a certain date..

Interesting...

[Az]

Actually, there was. The jealous, intolerant Yahweh was rather an anomaly in religious terms. While every other people committed mass slaughter while invading, it was not oftend they so completely destroyed other peoples as did the Hebrews described in the Old Testament

The Hebrews didn't destroy all of the people of the land, as well. You're right in saying that the religious reasoning is rather exceptional.

[Ben Kenobi]

For the women...

In my highlight, the women were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD. No distinction is made for the old women.

From Constable, on his Numbers notes:

The situation took a turn for the worse when Zimri brought Cozbi into the camp. Until now, the sinning had taken place in the Moabite and Midianite camps. Evidently Zimri had contempt for the covenant, the tabernacle, Moses, the priests, and God's judgment on the leaders of Israel including his father (v. 14).He took Cozbi into the tabernacle and had intercourse with her there before Moses. They did this according to the custom of Baal worship. We should view Phinehas' act, therefore, as divine judgment on this attitude and action, not as murder. He slew them in the act of
intercourse by driving his spear through both their bodies (lit. bellies).

Thus Phinehas (an Egyptian name meaning "the dark-skinned one"), the son of the high priest, atoned for this sin (v. 13).

"The point was that in joining the sexual frenzies of the
sacrificial feasts of Baal, the man and his priestess-partner now act to transform the worship of the Lord into the type of sexual rites that were the mode of Canaan. Had this outrage not been stopped, there could never have been true worship in the Holy Place again. They were making the place of entrance into a bordello, the entrance of the meeting of God and man into a trysting spot."

For Numbers 3):

"The Midianites were a larger confederation of tribes,
associated with various smaller groups such as the
Ishmaelites (Gn. 37:28; Jdg. 8:22, 24), the Moabites (Nu.
22:4, 7), the Amalekites (Jdg. 6:3, 33), and Ephah (Gn.
25:4; Is. 60:6). They roamed through the arid lands of
Sinai, the Negeb and Transjordan. Here it is those
Midianites associated with Moab that are picked out for
vengeance (8, 16; cf. chapters 22 and 25), not the whole group."256


Now, Constable doesn't bring up the boys, so I can't answer your question.

Congrats, Boris.

[Ben Kenobi]

So basically, what you are sayng is that God has promised to wait a while, so any massacres before the huge genocide at the end of all those who happen to be on his bad side can't be his, but not becuase he would never order such things, only that he is contractually bound not to do so until a certain date..

Pretty much.

However, the huge genocide at the end, will come, not from God, but from ourselves. There are prophecies that fortell wars, and grave happenings before the end times, when everything will fade away.

God promises not to destroy even those who reject him, but rather, that they will wish he had.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


No he didn't. He said that if there was a god, he might speak through prophets. That's a pretty large leap of logic you're taking here, BK.

See the Poly Dictionary, under kenobi.

Well you shouldn't literally be under him, but you know what I mean.

[lightblue]

So what exactly is the difference between your view and say, oh Al-Qaeda? Killing in the name of an imaginary god is still murder. Just because people are so deluded as to believe some nutjob with a severe case of schizophrenia as hearing the voice of a supreme being, doesn't make it so.

What sounds more logical? That the prophets were megalomaniac schizos, who heard voices and played on the inherent insecurities of the people or that they were talked to by a supposedly benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being who orders them to gang bang all the virgins of a tribe?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Pretty much.

This still leads to a morality by God's fiat (since he declared covenants- not like the Israelites signed anything), which leads to the invariable question of why YOUR god's fiat is better than any other god's fiat.

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris, again from Constable.

"Apart from the Lord's intention to provide a home and land for God's people, there are two criteria for the destruction of inhabitants of the land:

(1) those who oppose God's purpose and promise to Israel—that is, Sihon and Og; and

(2) those who seem to pose in a special way the problem of religious contamination and syncretism—that is, the Canaanites and Amorites."34

It is presumed, that had Sihon permitted the Israelites to cross and settle, that they would not have been destroyed. Again, we come to the earlier part of my post, in the desire of God to carve out a home for his people of Israel.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Actually, there was. The jealous, intolerant Yahweh was rather an anomaly in religious terms. While every other people committed mass slaughter while invading, it was not oftend they so completely destroyed other peoples as did the Hebrews described in the Old Testament. Most conquerers merely subjugated, taxed and interbred with the people they subdued.

But the Hebrews certainly weren't alone, no.

The Assyrians were fairly aggresive too. And the Romans of course. They both commited genocide.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lightblue
So what exactly is the difference between your view and say, oh Al-Qaeda?

None, both are religious fanatics. Fanaticism is a dangerous thing, no matter what religion it defends.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by GePap


This still leads to a morality by God's fiat (since he declared covenants- not like the Israelites signed anything), which leads to the invariable question of why YOUR god's fiat is better than any other god's fiat.

It’s well known the Fiat of Yahweh was superior to other deities because the gods of the Hittites, Midianites and Egyptians drove Ladas and 2 C.V.s .

Except for Ahriman, who drove a Pekan.

[Ben Kenobi]

So what exactly is the difference between your view and say, oh Al-Qaeda?

I don't know. I'm not talking about killing people just because God told them to, but rather, that he had very explicit instructions as to where, and when, and limitations placed upon the war, preservation of women and children.

I haven't heard anything from Al Qaeda other than the fact that they consider the US to be the great Satan. I see nothing here, in that killing people, you will go to heaven. No mention of that sort of justification, as you will be told with Al Qaeda.

Killing in the name of an imaginary god is still murder. Just because people are so deluded as to believe some nutjob with a severe case of schizophrenia as hearing the voice of a supreme being, doesn't make it so.

Well, how are you going to set aside a land for your people?

What sounds more logical? That the prophets were megalomaniac schizos, who heard voices and played on the inherent insecurities of the people or that they were talked to by a supposedly benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being who orders them to gang bang all the virgins of a tribe?

If you read the actual passages, the prophecies are very restrained, very precise, and well-thought out.

But again, that would disturb your rant, would it not?

[Ben Kenobi]

This still leads to a morality by God's fiat (since he declared covenants- not like the Israelites signed anything), which leads to the invariable question of why YOUR god's fiat is better than any other god's fiat.

As a Christian, I would say that Christ's death and resurrection, as I have earlier in the thread, attests to the truth, and authority of both him, and God the father, or YHWH.

[Vanguard]

Well then, what about when YHWH 'proscribed' whole nations, sentencing them to total destruction, with no exceptions, yea, even unto the end of time?

Not that excepting only girls under the age of 3 (which some scholars contend is what is meant by "women who have not slept with a man" actually meant) is acceptable behavior. Or even believable behavior from someone who is supposed to be the Diety.

[Bosh]

My favorite was always Pslams 137:9

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Rather than desiring the complete destruction of the Midianites, God spares the blameless from his wrath, not only preserving them, but drawing them into his fold, into the nation of Israel.

So the male babies that were killed weren't blameless? How?? And what a wonderful example of mercy mass rape is

Do not murder is different from do not kill.

Since when is the mass slaughter of infants not murder?

That's the whole point, Ben. Once you start looking at the Bible with a little bit of skepticism, analyzing it as you would any other book, the whole damn thing falls apart.

That's what happened to me. After reading all the god-ordered cruelty in the OT for the first time (it always got skipped over in Church) I just couldn't take any of the rest of it as seriously as before and it wasn't long before the whole thing fell apart in my eyes.

Otherwise, it is pointless to condemn a non-existent God for genocide

How so? As a literary character he's not a terribly nice guy and because so many people take him seriously which character is important.

Genocide seeks the complete destruction of a peoples.

So the Holocaust wasn't genocide???

Given the facts, the events surrounding the resurrection, the situation, all corroborated by independent sources, and eyewitness testimony, the resurrection is the most reasonable explanation for these events.

How so? All you've got are the Gospels.

While every other people committed mass slaughter while invading, it was not oftend they so completely destroyed other peoples as did the Hebrews described in the Old Testament.

Well you can't take the OT accounts at face value, a lot of it is just empty bragging. It grossly exaggerates the rapidity and the thoroughness of the conquest by the Israelites. It probably wasn't anything exceptional and at the time there wasn't any major difference between Judaism and other Hebrew religions (probably wasn't even monotheistic, just monolaitric).

I haven't heard anything from Al Qaeda other than the fact that they consider the US to be the great Satan.

You should keep in mind that Satan is different in Islamic than in Christian tradition. There his only real sin is refusing to bow to anyone but God, not direct rebellion against God. In many ways, America does match up pretty well to the Satan of Islamic tradition.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Do not murder is different from do not kill. You will find the former in the commandments, and the latter in your own mind.

1. The commandment in fact said "Thou shalt not kill." You will find the same thing in KJV, NRSV, and other versions. The NIV translation is wrong.

2. Genocide is not murder? Or it is not murder when YHWH commanded you?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
For the women...

In my highlight, the women were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD. No distinction is made for the old women.

So the Israelites failure to live by the rules of the Lord warranted the Lord ordering them to kill entire peoples to eliminate such temptations? What about taking responsibility for your own actions? If God didn't like the Israelites straying, punish them, not little babies of other peoples.

I've still not see one jot of explanation as to why it was necessary or just ot slaughter the little children and old people of these tribes. Big grown Israelite men were taking little babies and smashing them against rocks, or slicing them apart with swords, or whatever horrible way they had to kill them. It's amazing to me that you take such a strident view about abortion but can blithley tolerate the mass slaughter of women, children and the elderly because someone wrote down in the Bible that their god told them to do it, so that makes everything o.k.

Why does Yahweh have not just transgressors killed, but also their families and friends who haven't done anything? Why, if we're all individuals responsible for our own actions, is it okay to be killed for association?

The only rationale is that these were people justifying their actions through claiming divine authority. It's a running trend in human history--people have always claimed to have the word of the gods to justify the things they do, whether they be Sumerian Priest-Kings, Pharoahs, Roman Emperors, Popes or Televangelists. Frankly, if a god did exist, I could only believe that these people's claims as to its will are so far from the truth that said being would have stern dealings with them in the hereafter.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
The Assyrians were fairly aggresive too. And the Romans of course. They both commited genocide.

Neither out of religious reasons, however, and neither with the intent of exterminating whole peoples. The Assyrians wanted to instill terror in their foes to weaken resistance, but they weren't out to drive people extinct. Likewise, the Romans were harsh conquerors because they wanted to instill Roman law and order into the provinces, and the belief was that any resistance should be met with harsh reprisal to discourage future resistance.

The Hebrews of the Bible, however, explicitley engage in genocide solely to wipe people out of the land and make room for themselves to live. It's a rather startling admission! Certainly other groups engaged in this, but the Hebrews have the most detailed documentation of it.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
If you accept as possible that one God, Yahweh, can speak to his people, then you also have to accept as possible that all gods might speak to their people, including Marduk, Tammuz, Osiris, Zeus, Mithra, Zoroaster, Wotan, Vishnu, etc.

In that light, why does that lead you any closer to any sort of truth? After all, yoru belief in a particular god and rejection of others is nothing more than an opinion.

"I contend that we are both atheists; I simply believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you don't believe in all of the other gods, you'll understand why I don't believe in yours."

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
As a Christian, I would say that Christ's death and resurrection, as I have earlier in the thread, attests to the truth, and authority of both him, and God the father, or YHWH.

And, as was pointed out, belief in this is solely based on faith, not any empiric evidence or historical corroboration. There is just as much evidence for the resurrection, or any event in the life of Jesus, as their is for the heroic feats of Hercules, the actions of the gods in the Iliad, the ascension of Mohammed into heaven and the miraculous claims of any number of religions.

So it's all still in the same boat.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by skywalker
"I contend that we are both atheists; I simply believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you don't believe in all of the other gods, you'll understand why I don't believe in yours."

Excellent quote.

[Neutrino]

Nice quote indeed... who's that from?

[joncha]

Originally posted by skywalker




"I contend that we are both atheists; I simply believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you don't believe in all of the other gods, you'll understand why I don't believe in yours."

Young skywalker is strong in the force.

[joncha]

.... but Obi wan is scaring me.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by joncha
.... but Obi wan is scaring me.

I do have to wonder how many babies he'd dash against rocks if God commanded him to do so.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Neutrino

Nice quote indeed... who's that from?

I have no idea... it used to be in someone's sig, and I remembered it.

[Urban Ranger]

Mine

I will have to dig out the quote file when I get back home

[Ben Kenobi]

what about when YHWH 'proscribed' whole nations, sentencing them to total destruction

It would help if you could specify to what you allude to given the overall thread, and the different passages involved.

I would argue that the nations played a hand in their own destruction, that God did not destroy them without cause.

[Ben Kenobi]

I do have to wonder how many babies he'd dash against rocks if God commanded him to do so.

How about none?