FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-16-2012, 02:35 PM   #21
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Hector Avalos has an article at Bible and Interpretation:

The New Holocaust Denialists: The Need for a Metacriticism of Biblical Scholarship


Quote:
There is a new movement of holocaust denialists, and the prime architects of this movement are biblical scholars. I am speaking not of the Jewish Holocaust under the Nazi regime, but of the Canaanite holocaust reported in biblical texts.

These Canaanite holocaust denialists argue that the Canaanite holocaust did not really happen. And if it did happen, then it was justified and not analogous to the Nazi holocaust.

...
I do recall a few years ago reading some piece of drivel from Alvin Plantinga
Bit of tautology, there.

Quote:
about his attending some seminar on this Biblical genocide problem annd how Christians were to handle this unpleasant problem.
Those were the days when Catholic rulers didn't find it a problem. Not a bit. Now the problem is not offending the liberal elite. Confounded democracy. Confounded Protestants.

Quote:
the Mesha stele makes interesting reading. And this all makes for somer interesting googling. Recall also that God got mad at king Saul because he disobeyed God and did not kill the Amelkite king and Amelkite cattle as commanded.
That's the way believers put it, anyway. But this is progress. Somebody's actually done some reading.
sotto voce is offline  
Old 11-16-2012, 02:43 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bronx, NY
Posts: 945
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Hector Avalos has an article at Bible and Interpretation:

The New Holocaust Denialists: The Need for a Metacriticism of Biblical Scholarship


Quote:
There is a new movement of holocaust denialists, and the prime architects of this movement are biblical scholars. I am speaking not of the Jewish Holocaust under the Nazi regime, but of the Canaanite holocaust reported in biblical texts.

These Canaanite holocaust denialists argue that the Canaanite holocaust did not really happen. And if it did happen, then it was justified and not analogous to the Nazi holocaust.

...
Ulfilas, bishop of the Goths, left Kings out his Gothic language translation of the OT because his subjects were already too warlike.
Horatio Parker is offline  
Old 11-16-2012, 02:55 PM   #23
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Parker View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Hector Avalos has an article at Bible and Interpretation:

The New Holocaust Denialists: The Need for a Metacriticism of Biblical Scholarship


Quote:
There is a new movement of holocaust denialists, and the prime architects of this movement are biblical scholars. I am speaking not of the Jewish Holocaust under the Nazi regime, but of the Canaanite holocaust reported in biblical texts.

These Canaanite holocaust denialists argue that the Canaanite holocaust did not really happen. And if it did happen, then it was justified and not analogous to the Nazi holocaust.

...
Ulfilas, bishop of the Goths, left Kings out his Gothic language translation of the OT because his subjects were already too warlike.
If we insist that cesspits are pure fountains, we will celebrate such idiots.
sotto voce is offline  
Old 11-16-2012, 03:22 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Iceland
Posts: 761
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by manwithdream View Post
Exodus 23:27-32 says that G-d was driving them out of the land and not that the main goal was to kill them all off.

Kenneth Greifer
Even if we assume that the objective wasn't to exterminate every single part of that groups from the face of the earth or to kill all of those who were living there, but "merely" the ethnic cleansing of the "holy land", why does that matter? It's still genocide. :huh:

To continue with the Nazi-analogy: Let's imagine that the Nazis had won the war against the Soviet union and had conquered all the European part of the USSR (the line from Archangelsk to Astrakhan). The plans called for the almost total extermination of the native population there (and I don't think the Nazis would mind they just fled to Siberia to starve). Their main goal wasn't to kill every single ethnic Russian on the planet. Again: Why does that matter? It would still be genocide.

Kenneth, are you an apologist for genocide?
hjalti is offline  
Old 11-17-2012, 03:55 PM   #25
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: united states
Posts: 156
Default

Dr. Avalos' article is about the book of Joshua, and Joshua 2:9-11 says the people of Canaan heard about Israel and were scared of them. If it was ok like his article says that Assyria used to just take people captive, but not kill them, maybe it would have been better if the Canaanites had just left before Israel got to them. They had that option.

I think every piece of land on earth was conquered by some group of people who killed some other group. I also think most people in Canaan and every other place were also war-like people and not gentle peaceful people, but I could be wrong. Was that the one place on earth where nobody ever conquered anyone else or were the people also fighting each other?

Kenneth Greifer
manwithdream is offline  
Old 11-17-2012, 04:02 PM   #26
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: united states
Posts: 156
Default

Assuming the events of the Bible happened as it says, where should the Israelites have gone after being slaves in Egypt? Should they have scattered or gone as one to any place and what place would have allowed maybe a million or more people to just move in peacefully? Would that have happened? IF they had tried to enter Canaan peacefully and practiced their own different religion that rejected their gods, would the Canaanites have massacred them? You all assume that people in Canaan were all open to letting strangers move into their land and follow strange religious beliefs. I think they would have had to fight anyway.

Kenneth Greifer
manwithdream is offline  
Old 11-17-2012, 04:20 PM   #27
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 9,233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by manwithdream View Post
Dr. Avalos' article is about the book of Joshua, and Joshua 2:9-11 says the people of Canaan heard about Israel and were scared of them. If it was ok like his article says that Assyria used to just take people captive, but not kill them, maybe it would have been better if the Canaanites had just left before Israel got to them. They had that option.

I think every piece of land on earth was conquered by some group of people who killed some other group. I also think most people in Canaan and every other place were also war-like people and not gentle peaceful people, but I could be wrong. Was that the one place on earth where nobody ever conquered anyone else or were the people also fighting each other?

Kenneth Greifer
There have been cases of peaceful infiltration, but that's rare. What you described is far more typical.

The reason so many fingers are being pointed at the Israelites, here, is not because they were much more warlike than most but because their tradition says they were ordered to engage in killing, rapine and total destruction by their god.
Jaybees is offline  
Old 11-17-2012, 04:25 PM   #28
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 9,233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by manwithdream View Post
Assuming the events of the Bible happened as it says, where should the Israelites have gone after being slaves in Egypt? Should they have scattered or gone as one to any place and what place would have allowed maybe a million or more people to just move in peacefully? Would that have happened? IF they had tried to enter Canaan peacefully and practiced their own different religion that rejected their gods, would the Canaanites have massacred them? You all assume that people in Canaan were all open to letting strangers move into their land and follow strange religious beliefs. I think they would have had to fight anyway.

Kenneth Greifer
"Assuming the events of the Bible happened"??????

If you assume that to be the case, then all bets are off. If a million or more people can go wandering off in the desert for forty or so years living on heavenly sent manna, then anything is possible. The land could have been cleared for them ahead of time. No fighting would have been necessary.

Keep in mind that a fairy tale is not the same as the real world.
Jaybees is offline  
Old 11-17-2012, 09:31 PM   #29
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: united states
Posts: 156
Default

I am confused. If you think the whole story is false, then why are they discussing it as genocide? I understand they are saying that it is wrong to condone genocide even if it did not really happen, but I think that the story should be taken in context. The "genocide" of the Canaanites that they think is fictional, should be considered in context, based on the story. In the story, if you believe it or not, a million or more people try to enter an already occupied land and the result is war. In context, it makes sense. I don't think the story would make sense if everyone just said welcome to our land which is not what usually happens in a small piece of land.

Kenneth Greifer
manwithdream is offline  
Old 11-17-2012, 09:46 PM   #30
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 6,010
Default the intent

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
If you believe the wonky exaggerated stories presented by the writers of the Bible, you really must have shit fer brains.

They made up a lot of exaggerated shit and peddled it as political propaganda to scare off their enemies.

YHWH was an inflated team mascot that served as the tribal religions boogieman and scarecrow.

An earlier example of Ronald Regan's 'disinformation' tactics. -Keep people in the dark and feed them lots of bullshit.

ששבצר העברי
The bible is totally fictional with a few actual references to give it an unearned credibility, as in any work of fiction. Few, if any, of the events related in either the OT or NT actually happened, and none of the so-called miracles did. The point, however, is not the factuality of the stories but the intent of the stories to give a supernatural sanction for mass murder and call it justice and good in the eyes of the ultimate and unquestionable authority. Blood, blood and more blood encouraged and commanded by the tribal diety is the standard that Abrahamic religion espouses for the sake of its chosen tribe. A more primitive code can hardly be imagined, and herein one finds the justification of genocidal Nazism. What goes around comes around.
Steve Weiss is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:58 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.