Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 07-19-2004, 01:14 AM

Quote:

That assumes that there exists a morality to reinforce. If atheistic evolution is true then there is no explanation for the existence of morality.

Evolution and social conditioning. You reading skills have not improved, Ed.

Still no admission that you were wrong about God hardening Pharaoh's heart.

Ed · 07-19-2004, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

In other words: you invented the claim about Hebrew women being better off than women in other ancient Caananite societies, and now you're trying to change the subject by talking about Christian women in Greek and Roman societies.

If I had invented it, then I would not have taken the risk of asking you to talk to your local history professor to confirm it!

Jack the Bodiless · 07-20-2004, 01:18 AM

You have taken plenty of similar "risks": such as inventing bogus Biblical claims that can be refuted simply by reading the Bible.

Such as the entirely imaginary prohibition on human sacrifice, or the imaginary death penalty for rape, or the bogus reason given for the massacre of the Amalekites, or the false claim that "bara" means "creation ex nihilo"...

...or the bogus claim that Pharaoh initially hardened his own heart.

Ed · 07-20-2004, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Originally Posted by Ed
I don't remember the reference. But I do have evidence that Christianity lifted the status of women in Greek and Roman societies.

lp: In what way? By allowing many of them to become Christian priestesses?

No, by allowing them to choose to refuse marriage proposals and also initiate divorces.

Quote:

Ed: The foundational flaw is that it assumes that just because the writer of the Pentateuch uses different names for God in different sections that therefore these were each written by different authors.

lp: Ed, Ed, Ed, that's only a small part of the case for JEDP.

Evidence? The very name of the theory points to the truth of my statement.

Quote:

Ed: But other scholars have demonstrated in other ancient documents that different names are often used in different contexts by one author.

lp: Like...

I gave you some earlier in this thread.

secular spoon · 07-21-2004, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

Ed: The foundational flaw is that it assumes that just because the writer of the Pentateuch uses different names for God in different sections that therefore these were each written by different authors.

lp: Ed, Ed, Ed, that's only a small part of the case for JEDP.

Ed: Evidence? The very name of the theory points to the truth of my statement.

Ed I know I've already said I dont know anything about the DH, but humour me here. I did some "research". Go to google, type in "documentary hypothesis" which should take you here.

From there I got this

Quote:

J
Jahwist
stress on Judah
stresses leaders
anthropomorphic speech about God
God walks and talks with us
God is YHWH
uses "Sinai"

They even have 1 for each letter! (I'd add it here but the formatting doesn't copy over) So there we go. Evidence that the name isn't the only part of the DH. And all I had to do was type 2 words and click! I know its from a less than reputable source, but I'd say its a bit more reputable than "its in the NAME! I must be right!"

Oh and for the rest of you who might know something about the DH, I know its short but is that site accurate?? The whole theory seems pretty interesting.

-ss

Dean Anderson · 07-21-2004, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by secular spoon

Oh and for the rest of you who might know something about the DH, I know its short but is that site accurate?? The whole theory seems pretty interesting.

That site barely scratches the surface of the DH (and doesn't mention the evidence for it). What it does have seems to be fairly accurate to me.

I would highly recommend Friedman's book Who Wrote The Bible? if you want a good layman's guide to the DH.

Ed · 07-21-2004, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Originally Posted by Ed
Yes, if you go back and read lp's post that I am responding to he claims that the ordinary people initiated major building programs and produced major works of art, but the fact is they did not. Of course, they were used by the ruling elite to help THEM produce such things but they did not do such things themselves.

jtb: Not true (as usual).

This arose from your bizarre attempt to justify rape: "Though I do admit that rape was not considered as serious in ancient times because everyone was just trying to survive ie everyone was on the edge of death".

If everyone was on the verge of death, they couldn't have built those monuments, regardless of who commissioned them. They would have died.

The invention of agriculture gave people time to do other things when it wasn't harvest time: they were no longer "on the edge of death". Try asking your local history professor about such matters, Ed.

I may have exaggerated a little about being on the edge of death, but they were not far from it and were much more concerned about the necessities of life than the luxuries such as artwork and superstructures other than when they were in the employ of the ruling elite. There were more important things that they could be doing with their extra time with the invention of agriculture.

Ed · 07-22-2004, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Where did I claim that they had *initiated* such projects?

They could not have possibly done any work of such projects if they had been as half-starved as you claim, Ed.

You may not have used the exact word, but you seemed to imply it. I think you just said that they built large works of art and etc. You didn't state whether they were just working for the ruling elite or not. See above about the half starved crack.

lpetrich · 07-22-2004, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

I don't remember the reference. But I do have evidence that Christianity lifted the status of women in Greek and Roman societies.

In what way? By allowing many of them to become Christian priestesses?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

No, by allowing them to choose to refuse marriage proposals and also initiate divorces.

News to me. And where in either the Old Testament or the New Testament are women granted either right? Nowhere that I'm aware of.

Quote:

The very name of the theory points to the truth of my statement.

Except that only two of the strands are named after names of God (YHWH, Elohim), and that these are used mainly as labels.

Ed · 07-24-2004, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

(do christ-on-a-stick and QueenofSwords really tell "lies about reality"?)
(how they supposedly try to convince people that God does not exist...)

Originally Posted by Ed
By arguing against His existence.

lp: Ed, where do they do that? Please be explicit. Like saying that CoaS or QoS argued against the existence of the Christian God in such-a-such a thread. Preferably with its URL.

In their little testimonials that you linked to.

Quote:

(what is the right reason for doing something right...)
Ed: The right reason is doing it for God and his glory.

lp: And never any other? Like caring for someone else?

The above reason is the primary reason, there can of course be secondary reasons.

Quote:

Ed: Once you understand the magnitude of God's extreme moral purity, ie Holiness, you realize how eternal damnation is the natural consequence of rebelling against Him, ie doing wrong, including doing good for the wrong reason.

lp: Seems like an awfully thin-skinned and unforgiving entity.

I said it is the natural consequence of God's extreme moral purity, it is not something God designed. IOW it is inherent in the nature of ultimate reality, ie God did not create Himself. But God did provide a way to be forgiven, thru His Son.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-20-2004, 01:18 AM	#363
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	You have taken plenty of similar "risks": such as inventing bogus Biblical claims that can be refuted simply by reading the Bible. Such as the entirely imaginary prohibition on human sacrifice, or the imaginary death penalty for rape, or the bogus reason given for the massacre of the Amalekites, or the false claim that "bara" means "creation ex nihilo"... ...or the bogus claim that Pharaoh initially hardened his own heart.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.