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

[Ben Kenobi]

Pslams 137:9

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

Boshko: the passage 137:8-9

O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us
he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.

The OT did not prohibit cursing your enemies. There are many cases of this in the Psalms, of the Psalmist calling for the destruction of his enemies.

Since when is the mass slaughter of infants not murder?

Are you referring to this passage? Yeah, the Psalmist is calling for the death of the children of his enemy. So? He's quite angry with them.

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.

Well, I'm not sure how this passage fits in with this statement. God is not ordering the mass slaughter of infants.

I find this confession of yours very interesting. It is a difficult question to deal with, the reality of the OT, but the solution is not to shy away, or to reject what appears to us as brutal, but rather to get a handle on the OT.

To do that you need to read the entirety, rather than just the bits that stick out as particularly riveting and disturbing. Taken as a whole, you get a much better balance, than you do in this distorted thread.

I'm a pacifist, but I don't look to the OT to seek justification, but rather, I seek to understand the Old in the light of the new. Things have changed quite dramactically from the time of the Israelites, particularly in the ways in which God deals with man.

I can't give you the happy, shiny, cuddly God that you prefer, Boshko, because that is not the truth. Just as truth can be comforting, and loving, so can it be harsh and brutal. The two aspects cannot be seperated. Yes, God is a loving God, but he is also righteous. If he were righteous, how could he possibly tolerate sin?

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

None of you folks would care if I did not believe in God, to even reply to this thread. It is only because I believe in him, and try to defend him, that you are even bothered at all by this issue.

So the Holocaust wasn't genocide???

Hitler called for the complete destruction of the Jewish people.

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

The Gospels have all of these characteristics of a historical source.

[Ben Kenobi]

UR:

Then you will need to provide a source citing these books, in that they do say kill, rather than murder.

I'm pretty sure that if murder was wrong, the NIV folks would change this because it is a pretty big thing to be wrong for.

17 "You shall not murder.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?pas...sh&version=NIV

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

Is war murder, UR?

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

If you seek passage, and find passage refused, you have war, not genocide.

[Ben Kenobi]

And, as was pointed out, belief in this is solely based on faith, not any empiric evidence or historical corroboration.

I see you completely dismissed my earlier post. I make the claim that the Gospels were compiled independently, and with different eyewitnesses, who saw the events as they occurred. By holding the Gospels to the same standards, we find the evidence for them to be staggeringly in their favour compared with all the other historical sources, of which the nearest copy we have is hundreds, if not a thousand years distant from the events recorded.

So again, tell me how the Gospels fall short, not through rhetoric, but argumentation.

[Bosh]

The OT did not prohibit cursing your enemies. There are many cases of this in the Psalms, of the Psalmist calling for the destruction of his enemies.

Yeah, but isn't the calling for babies heads to be dashed against rocks just a bit over the top?

Yeah, the Psalmist is calling for the death of the children of his enemy. So?

So?
Was actually referring to the God saying "kill everyone but the virgin females" bit.

It is a difficult question to deal with, the reality of the OT, but the solution is not to shy away, or to reject what appears to us as brutal, but rather to get a handle on the OT.

I tried. I gave it a good hard honest try, but I just couldn't get a handle on it and when that slipped everything unravelled pretty quickly.

To do that you need to read the entirety, rather than just the bits that stick out as particularly riveting and disturbing.

I have (not all off it but quite a bit more than just the isolated passages).

I can't give you the happy, shiny, cuddly God that you prefer, Boshko, because that is not the truth.

That's not necessarily what I prefer now, its what I thought was the obvious truth (the cuddly bit) five years ago. I've learned a lot since then and come at Christianity from a much different perspective than before.

It is only because I believe in him, and try to defend him, that you are even bothered at all by this issue.

Of course. The belief is what makes all of this relevant. Although it would be fun to have a debate over the morality over the Greek gods, it isn't exactly an issue anyone cares about anymore.

The Gospels have all of these characteristics of a historical source.

They're a historical source. But you've got to treat them like any other historical source written well after the fact and with an obvious axe to grind. I don't agree with the Jesus-mythers but that doesn't mean I take the Gospels at anything near face value.

Hitler called for the complete destruction of the Jewish people.

And BG has some quotes above where the Israelites whipe out entire peoples. Don't see why it matters though, as long as innocent male babies etc. are getting slaughtered isn't that bad enough?

I make the claim that the Gospels were compiled independently,

Its pretty blatantly obvious that the synoptic gospels were not compiled independently.

So again, tell me how the Gospels fall short, not through rhetoric, but argumentation.

There were plenty of other chroniclers at the time and none of them make much of a mention of Jesus (except for the highly-suspect passages in Josephus). Also there's factual errors in the gospels, for example the only census of the area that would match with the Gospel account took place after Herod's death.

[lightblue]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

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

Ah yes, Lebensraum. I have heard that one before somewhere... This is just a case of the victors write the history and the perception of the events.

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?

Isn't that how sociopaths write about their own deeds, however horrible they are. I just can't believe that you can defend genocide of any kind, whatever the origin, especially with your views on abortion and euthanasia.

Basically religious fanatics freak me out whatever creed they are.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then you will need to provide a source citing these books, in that they do say kill, rather than murder.

Do you really need a link for the KJV?

The Ten Commandments (KJV)
Exodus 20:1-17

1 And God spake all these words, saying,

[snipped]

13 Thou shalt not kill.

[snipped]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Is war murder, UR?

Is genocide war, Ben?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I make the claim that the Gospels were compiled independently, and with different eyewitnesses, who saw the events as they occurred.

You make the same assertions before, but there's no evidence of such.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I see you completely dismissed my earlier post. I make the claim that the Gospels were compiled independently, and with different eyewitnesses, who saw the events as they occurred. By holding the Gospels to the same standards, we find the evidence for them to be staggeringly in their favour compared with all the other historical sources, of which the nearest copy we have is hundreds, if not a thousand years distant from the events recorded.

And, as I pointed out, this is complete malarky.

First, the Gospels are not historical texts, they are religious dogma. If you accept the metaphysical claims fo the Gospels as being historically accurate based on what you're saying, you have absolutely no reason to reject the metaphysical claims of other religious texts, be they the Koran, Hindu texts, Buddhist texts, Egyptian and Syriac texts, or the Homeric epics.

We've seen much of the Iliad proven correct by archaeology. So did Athena, Zeus, Ares and Hera really exist and were playing their purported roles in the story?

The claim that the Gospels were compiled by eyewitnesses is nonsense, and you know we've discussed this a hundred times before. Theologians are fairly unanimous in the belief that not one of the gospels we have was written by any contemporary of Jesus. They are not eyewitness accounts, and just repeating they were doesn't make it true.

Despite your rather arrogant claim to be an expert historian on the level that MtG is an expert of the energy industry (try getting some actual experience in the field first), you're going to have a real tough time with credibility if this is how you approach history.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
How about none?

You'd defy the command of God?!

The only reason I could think you'd do this is if you felt God was wrong! How could such a thing be? If he told you to do something, surely it must be the right thing to do, since he determines all that is right?

[Docfeelgood]

Thou shalt not wait while the master is abate!


or is it?

Don't jerk off, it will make you go blind?

[Spiffor]

Am I the only one who loves the irony of this thread, where Ben advocates the genocide of babies? I thought he opposed abortion because we were genociding embryos and zygotes

[Urban Ranger]

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

The quote is attributed to a Stephen Roberts.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Am I the only one who loves the irony of this thread, where Ben advocates the genocide of babies? I thought he opposed abortion because we were genociding embryos and zygotes

Nope, he's advocating genocide when it's commanded by God.

Of course, that means when somebody asserts that he only follows the orders of some voice in his head, BK will have to defend the behaviour of said person.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Nope, he's advocating genocide when it's commanded by God.

Well, it does confirm my argument Ban advocates the genocide of babies. No matter if it's commanded by God or not, it is completely at odds with his pro-life agenda. There was a time when he was at least a sensible pro-lifer, being against war and death penalty. He has now turned into the worst kind of zealots, defending any horror justified by the priests of the past.

[Pax]

Over the Christmas holidays there were a lot of specials on TV about the bible, christianity, Judaism, Islam, JC, Mohammed and various other prophets.

Proof was given that it was possible that a lot of things in the bible could have happened and explained how.
I personally believe that there is a god.
I also believe that the the things depicted in the bible probably be happened.
what I do not believe is that yu can take the bible at face value. Especially when people claim to have spoke to god or that the things depicted in the bible was god's will. I believe it far more likely that someone, the writer, speechwriter, or a propagandist to justify there actions.
There is no way you can prove that if God spoke to these people, he was qouted correctly.
I think that the foundation of religous beliefs that follow the words of men and claim that it is the word of god is corrupt at its base. That's why we have the religous wars we have today.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
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.

How about looking at the original, not these pansy translations?

It's "Thou shalt not murder"

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Of course, that means when somebody asserts that he only follows the orders of some voice in his head, BK will have to defend the behaviour of said person.

I wonder if he'll be that agreeable when the "somone" in question decides to gut him.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Edan
How about looking at the original, not these pansy translations?

It's "Thou shalt not murder"

You know Hebrew Edan? Esp the ancient scripts used to write the OT?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
Proof was given that it was possible that a lot of things in the bible could have happened and explained how.

Yeah, I read explanations of some of these events, no supernatural forces are necessary.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You know Hebrew Edan? Esp the ancient scripts used to write the OT?

Well, I've always heard the literal translation as being not to murder, or wrongfully kill.

Here is a page translating the Hebrew:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0220.htm

The verb that appears in the Torah's prohibition is " ratsah" which, it would seem, should be rendered "murder." This root refers only to criminal acts of killing.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
Over the Christmas holidays there were a lot of specials on TV about the bible, christianity, Judaism, Islam, JC, Mohammed and various other prophets.

Proof was given that it was possible that a lot of things in the bible could have happened and explained how.

TV specials aren't exactly a good basis for an accurate analysis of such events. I've seen some preposterous shows on the History Channel that seem more interested in catering to sensationalism than good science and rigorous historical criticism. Fox has also broadcast some ludicrously irresponsible specials that seem to be designed to appeal to the fundamentalists rather than balanced interpretations.

Of course, without specific instances, it's hard to judge this statement.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


You know Hebrew Edan? Esp the ancient scripts used to write the OT?

Yes, and yes, if rusty on both. (For the most part ancient hebrew isn't really that different from modern hebrew.)

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Well, I've always heard the literal translation as being not to murder, or wrongfully kill.

Here is a page translating the Hebrew:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0220.htm

The verb that appears in the Torah's prohibition is " ratsah" which, it would seem, should be rendered "murder." This root refers only to criminal acts of killing.

According to Dan Barker*, in the nontract "Murder, He Wrote" (available from the Freedom from Religion Foundation) the word "ratsach" appears a total of 47 times, behind muth (825 times), nakah (502 times), haraq (172 times), and zabach (140 times). All of these words can mean "die, slay, kill, put to death, smite, murder" etc, like modern day authors switch freely between synonyms.

He concluded that "Thou shalt not kill is a better translation."

* Former minister of 17 years with formal training. Yes, he knows Hebrew.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
He concluded that "Thou shalt not kill is a better translation."

* Former minister of 17 years with formal training. Yes, he knows Hebrew.

I'm not sure where his conclusion comes from, but I'd say it's a bit dubious. It's clear that the reason there are so many different words is that they all carry different nuances and meaning, so its certainly possible the nuance of "ratsach" is "unlawful killing."

Considering Rabbis have pointed out that the Torah does condone killing--frequently--in terms of avenging wrongs and as criminal punishment, the prohibition in Exodus obviously is only pointing towards killing without legal sanction to do so.

Insisting the original means no killing whatsoever is a dead-end issue and will get a debate nowhere, because you're arguing over the usage of words based on modern grammatical concepts without taking the obvious context into account.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Am I the only one who loves the irony of this thread, where Ben advocates the genocide of babies? I thought he opposed abortion because we were genociding embryos and zygotes

It's not confusing at all. It's only wrong to kill children before birth. He's the complete opposite of a radical pro-choice advocate

[Vanguard]

Okay, let's assume that YHWH wanted to "make a place" for Israel in Palestine after the Exodos.

Why does he have to order the Israelites to wipe out all these nations? He is God. Couldn't he just wipe them all out with a plague? Or fire and brimstone?

Why the whole "kill them all with the edge of your sword, except for the little babies----- dash them against rocks" thing?

There is no reason for this. There is in fact no sense in it at all. The only thing that make sense is that Moses wanted to "make room for Israel" in Palestine. And he did this through the ancient and ignoble practice of genocide. And to justify this proceeding, he invoked the equally ancient and equally ignoble practice of claiming that "Dieu li volt" ("God wills it).

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I'm not sure where his conclusion comes from, but I'd say it's a bit dubious. It's clear that the reason there are so many different words is that they all carry different nuances and meaning, so its certainly possible the nuance of "ratsach" is "unlawful killing."

Well, I couldn't find it on their website for copy-and-paste, and sure I wasn't to type the whole thing in He went on quite a bit, but I just skipped those paragraphs.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Insisting the original means no killing whatsoever is a dead-end issue and will get a debate nowhere, because you're arguing over the usage of words based on modern grammatical concepts without taking the obvious context into account.

That's exactly what people insist it means "murder" have been doing. They just ignore the context.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Vanguard
Why does he have to order the Israelites to wipe out all these nations? He is God. Couldn't he just wipe them all out with a plague? Or fire and brimstone?

Or, he could just move the whole tribes elsewhere?

I also found it funny that YHWH couldn't overcome iron chariots. That's a riot.

[Vanguard]

One of my favorite episodes in the Bible is when YHWH "tries" to kill Moses------ and fails!

I guess Moses was just a little bit too quick for the Big Guy. I picture him doing a shoulder roll to dodge out of the way of YHWH's heat vision.