Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Crisor · 05-28-2004, 12:25 AM

I am by no means a biblical scholar (probably the fartherst thing from it one could get) but I have skimmed the debate so far (more of a maze than a debate) and have a few questions that I don't think have been asked before. If they have, please excuse me and the questions if they seem to simple. However,

ed
(1)I will give you the possibility they pharoh hardened his heart the first time or two, though the text reads differently from where I stand, that of course being neither here nor there. My question is, if pharoh hardened his heart only two times and then god took over from there, why did it take so few times? I could understand if pharoh had hardened his own heart after repeated attempts from moses and arron to "Let his people go," and then god said "so be it." But that does not seem to be the case. Instead, pharoh says "no" twice and god takes the drivers seat. This does not sound like the workings of a patient, all knowing, all loving god.

(2)I am no Egyptologist either, but given the fact that ancient Egypt believed in a host of gods and their workings, it has never sat well with me that after seeing even one plague pharoh would not oblige the request of any god, even one he himself did not know. This would surely stop him from hardening his heart twice.

(3)You stated at one time that you only have so many time to give into god before it is too late (not quoted, but the idea is still there I believe). I am unfamiliar with that. Could you please give me chapter and verse as to where I might find that and how it may be used in this situation.

Crisor

sashang · 05-28-2004, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

No because for one thing it could send you to hell. And also we don't know for certain that they all go to heaven, just that that is what appears to be the case from the biblical evidence. But there is no explicit verse stating that they do.

Hmmm...not necessarily - a true Christian wouldn't be sent to hell for murder. He'll go to jail though. Given that you are willing to gamble with someone's life, as evidenced by your next response, why not gamble with the lives of others? Like you say, the bible provides evidence that it is the case that they will go to heaven so it's a good bet to take. Right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

For one thing God commands it, and the other is that even just giving someone the chance to have the greatest gift in the world, ie life with God, is worth the risk. So it is not immoral or selfish at all.

Here you indicate willingness to gamble with the life of your offspring. By giving them the chance to have the greatest gift (life with God) you also give them the chance to have the greatest punishment (life with Satan). I think that's at the very least irresponsible. But I guess if God commands people to 'go forth and multiply' I guess that's what one's gotta do.

Ed · 05-30-2004, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Originally Posted by Ed
Except there are no other religious writings that teach that the physical universe had a definite beginning except the bible.

lp: Other than the numerous other creation stories that have been told.

Please provide an example of another creation story that describes the entire physical universe had a definite beginning.

Quote:

(Me on "overblown, spectacular, childishly exaggerated events" in the Bible)

Ed: All of those except the last are just miracles. You need to compare how the miracles are described. Look at how they described in some of the non-canonical writings and mythololgies. There is a major difference.

lp: A "difference" which I do not notice.

Read some of the non-canonical gospels. There is one where Jesus turns a clay dove into a real bird. This is a miracle that serves no purpose and is childish and overblown. There are many other examples of this in other myths also.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed
Psychological depth is at a maximum especially in the NT and in myths it is at a minimum.

Originally Posted by lpetrich
How does one figure that out?

Originally Posted by Ed
It is called character development.

lp: And how is that supposed to be the case?

Read some myths, Jesus' character is much more consistent and has much greater depth than generally most mythologies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich
However, there is no fundamental difference between:

Jesus Christ being the son of a god and a virgin
Romulus being the son of a god and a virgin

Originally Posted by Ed
Romulus was the result of sexual intercourse. Jesus Christ was not. That is big difference.

lp: A "difference" that makes no real difference - a divine impregnation is a divine impregnation. Ed's position is:

I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Mary -- The Christian God

No, the process is also extremely important. One done by normal "humanlike" sexual intercourse is much more likely to be something invented by sexual human beings than an asexual nonhuman divine impregnation.

lpetrich · 05-31-2004, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

Please provide an example of another creation story that describes the entire physical universe had a definite beginning.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, Ed

("childish, overblown events...")

Quote:

Read some of the non-canonical gospels. There is one where Jesus turns a clay dove into a real bird. This is a miracle that serves no purpose and is childish and overblown. There are many other examples of this in other myths also.

On the contrary, an apologist would say that Jesus Christ had demonstrated the Power of God even when he was a little boy. And would draw the same "moral" from JC zapping kids who bumped into him that they do from the fig-tree story -- that one ought not to displease the Almighty.

Quote:

Read some myths, Jesus' character is much more consistent and has much greater depth than generally most mythologies.

Like which ones?

(on the process of divine impregnation...)

Quote:

No, the process is also extremely important. One done by normal "humanlike" sexual intercourse is much more likely to be something invented by sexual human beings than an asexual nonhuman divine impregnation.

Actually, asexual impregnation would likely be invented by someone who was very prissy about sex.

And Ed, I hope that you've enjoyed translating that Hebrew sentence I had posted earlier. It's very enlightening.

Ed · 05-31-2004, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Ed: All the evidence points to there not being any human sacrifice among the jews at the time of Jephthah, so it would be QUITE exceptional.

jtb: All of WHAT evidence?

Ed: The historical record.

jtb: Which ancient historian from Jephtah's time has declared that human sacrifice was NOT taking place?

It is plainly implied in the biblical writings.

Quote:

jtb: There is NO HINT that Jephtah's actions were considered "illegal" either by God or by the priesthood. He made a rash promise and suffered the consequences, but the SACRIFICE is presented as a "just" outcome of his promise.

Ed: Where is it presented as just? If it was presented as just then his daughter would not have cried. She would have just gladly submitted to his father's will with a smile.

jtb: Where is it presented as illegal?

Did she cry because her father was breaking the law? No, she cried because she was going to DIE.

That is right, if it was a regular practice that God deemed good then the writer would have doctored the story so that she did it with a smile. But he didn't he just reported the facts and the jewish readers would have recognized the cruelty and stupidity of the action and oath.

Quote:

Ed: Although there is no explicit command to not sacrifice non-hebrews, it plainly can be deduced thru several different threads of moral principles as I have demonstrated in this thread.

jtb: You have not "demonstrated" any such thing.

Just because you choose to willfully ignore it because of your hatred of ancient jews and Christian theists does not make it so.

Quote:

lp: Except that if one adopts similar old-Universe interpretations of other mythologies, one finds similar rates of miraculous events.

Ed: Except there are no other religious writings that teach that the physical universe had a definite beginning except the bible.

jtb: The Bible does not teach this. The verb used in Genesis 1:1 is more properly translated as "separated": God separated the Heavens from the Earth, he isn't credited with "creating" them.

No, most biblical scholars down thru history would disagree with you. And you are not even a biblical scholar.

Quote:

jtb: He created in John, but the "Logos" concept was stolen from the Greeks.

Evidence?

Quote:

jtb: Therefore there MUST HAVE BEEN an original tradition of offering the child. Otherwise these traditions of "substitution" or "redemption" would not exist: there would only be a tradition of offering the coin, without it being regarded as a SUBSTITUTE for child-sacrifice.

Ed: It has several threads of meaning and origin. The tithe (10%) is representative of 100%. It means that ultimately everthing you have belongs to God including your children. Also the first born human tithe pointed to the past, ie Abraham and Isaac. Which of course ties back to the first meaning. Thirdly it pointed to the future, the redemption of us by the substitute of God's Son.

jtb: You are confirming my point. The custom is a substitute for human sacrifice.

No, it is a subsitute for death brought about by sin. It ties back to all sin deserves death including the death of your first born which represents all your children. IOW it is a substitute for capital punishment not sacrifice.

Jack the Bodiless · 06-01-2004, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Ed: All the evidence points to there not being any human sacrifice among the jews at the time of Jephthah, so it would be QUITE exceptional.

jtb: All of WHAT evidence?

Ed: The historical record.

jtb: Which ancient historian from Jephtah's time has declared that human sacrifice was NOT taking place?

It is plainly implied in the biblical writings.

...Except that it isn't, of course.

And it isn't in the historical record either. You KNOW this. You KNOW you've lost.

On Jephtah's sacrifice:

Quote:

jtb: Where is it presented as illegal?

Did she cry because her father was breaking the law? No, she cried because she was going to DIE.

That is right, if it was a regular practice that God deemed good then the writer would have doctored the story so that she did it with a smile. But he didn't he just reported the facts and the jewish readers would have recognized the cruelty and stupidity of the action and oath.

The whole point of the story is that Jephtah's oath WAS stupid, as there was no need to sacrifice his much-loved adult daughter IN ADDITION to the baby he had already sacrificed (if the custom of sacrificing the firstborn was indeed still happening at that time). But did anyone try to stop him? Did SHE try to stop him?

NO.

Human sacrifice was obviously acceptable.

Quote:

Ed: Although there is no explicit command to not sacrifice non-hebrews, it plainly can be deduced thru several different threads of moral principles as I have demonstrated in this thread.

jtb: You have not "demonstrated" any such thing.

Just because you choose to willfully ignore it because of your hatred of ancient jews and Christian theists does not make it so.

There is nothing to ignore. Your desperate refusal to believe what the Bible plainly states has led to many pages of attempted evasion and misdirection, and nothing more.

I think your main problem is that you spend too much time reading the fictions of Christian apologists and choosing to believe them because you WANT to, rather than studying the Bible itself or the research of genuine, non-fundie Biblical scholars.

We're still waiting for that Hebrew translation, BTW.

Quote:

Ed: Except there are no other religious writings that teach that the physical universe had a definite beginning except the bible.

jtb: The Bible does not teach this. The verb used in Genesis 1:1 is more properly translated as "separated": God separated the Heavens from the Earth, he isn't credited with "creating" them.

No, most biblical scholars down thru history would disagree with you. And you are not even a biblical scholar.

It is true that most Christian sources translate "bara" as "create". Many of them go on to insist that it specifically means "creation ex nihilo" - creation out of nothing, not from pre-existing matter.

A clear indication of the Christian willingness to "Lie for the Lord", as the Bible also plainly uses "bara" to refer to shaping things from existing matter in several places.

From here:

Quote:

Outline of Biblical Usage

1) to create, shape, form

a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)

1) of heaven and earth

2) of individual man

3) of new conditions and circumstances

4) of transformations

b) (Niphal) to be created

1) of heaven and earth

2) of birth

3) of something new

4) of miracles

c) (Piel)

1) to cut down

2) to cut out

2) to be fat

a) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat

Note the references to the creation of man (from pre-existing matter, according to the Bible) and the references to "cutting down or out" (separating by cutting: cutting apart). I suspect we have two stages of apologetics altering the meaning of the word: from "cut" or "separate" to "create" (representing a shift in Hebrew beliefs about the role of God in creation), and thence to the clearly bogus "creation ex nihilo".

Quote:

jtb: He created in John, but the "Logos" concept was stolen from the Greeks.

Evidence?

It is somewhat surprising that your "experts" haven't informed you of this very basic fact. Have you even bothered to check the Library on this very site?

From James Still's The Gospel of John and the Hellenization of Jesus:

Quote:

We see in John a desire to use Greek pagan concepts and philosophies as a tool for communicating Jesus as the Logos to a Christianized Gentile audience. John's Logos would not be understood by Jews and his book would only be familiar to someone practiced in the pagan mystery cults that flourished in the Hellenistic world. Heraclitus of Ephesus used the word Logos around 500 BCE to describe his concept of the regularity with which the universe seemed to operate. The universe was a divine machine and Heraclitus credited the Logos (literally the reason) as the ultimate rationale which secretly operated the universe and the heavens above.

On the substitution of a coin for child-sacrifice:

Quote:

jtb: Therefore there MUST HAVE BEEN an original tradition of offering the child. Otherwise these traditions of "substitution" or "redemption" would not exist: there would only be a tradition of offering the coin, without it being regarded as a SUBSTITUTE for child-sacrifice.

Ed: It has several threads of meaning and origin. The tithe (10%) is representative of 100%. It means that ultimately everthing you have belongs to God including your children. Also the first born human tithe pointed to the past, ie Abraham and Isaac. Which of course ties back to the first meaning. Thirdly it pointed to the future, the redemption of us by the substitute of God's Son.

jtb: You are confirming my point. The custom is a substitute for human sacrifice.

No, it is a subsitute for death brought about by sin. It ties back to all sin deserves death including the death of your first born which represents all your children. IOW it is a substitute for capital punishment not sacrifice.

You're really struggling, aren't you?

How can the death of my firstborn possibly be a suitable punishment for MY sin, rather than his?

Why wouldn't my second-born deserve a separate punishment, and require a separate redemption, for HIS sin?

You've already admitted that it's a symbolic substitute for human sacrifice. Again, you KNOW you've lost. There is no point in continuing.

Ed · 06-01-2004, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

ED: Due to the horrible treatment of women in Canaanite societies, these women could plainly see that hebrew society was far superior. It would be like killing the Nazi father of girl that had married a jew. She would be very sad but would eventually understand why it happened.

jtb: Wrong analogy, as we're discussing a Holocaust allegedly perpetrated by Jews.

Ed: Umm do you even know what analogies are? It is not the details that are that important, it is the principle.

jtb: Your analogy just doesn't make any sense, Ed.

It would be WRONG to kill the Nazi father just for "being a Nazi", and the daughter would NEVER be likely to forgive those who did it!

Remember that you're talking about the near-total genocide of an entire people. Guilty and innocent, soldier and civilian, good and bad. There is only one hope of survival: to be female, virgin, and desired by the conquering soldiers.

I didn't mean that he was just a nazi in name, I meant in actions also. She may not forgive it, but if her father had killed hundreds of jews, I think she would at least undestand why he was killed. And that is my point. There are no pure innocents from the perspective of God.

Quote:

jtb: This is evil, and it doesn't become any less evil by changing the name of the conquered people from "Midianite" to "German".

Since you have yet to explain how you determine what evil is, your comment is meaningless.

Quote:

jtb: There is no evidence that women in Caananite societies were treated "horribly". As YHWH was himself a Caananite deity, the treatment of women in most other Caananite societies was probably fairly similar.

Ed: No, women were allowed to inherit property in some situations, also they were considered to be spiritually equal to men since both men and women are created in the image of God. Also, the hebrews did not force some women into prostitution like the Canaanites did.

jtb: I assume you missed out a "not" there.

We have been here before. You failed to provide any evidence that "temple prostitutes" were forced into it.

Of course, even if they WERE, this would be a much lesser evil than genocide anyhow.

Given what we know about the nature of women, ie most of them do not want to be prostitutes, I would say that most were forced into it. See above about evil.

Ed · 06-02-2004, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Ed has made various claims to the effect that the original Hebrew of most of the OT means this or that. I think that we ought to challenge him to show how good his Hebrew knowledge is by having some of us compose some Hebrew for him to translate. It's Heathen Dawn's native language, so he could do the honors.

I never claimed to be a hebrew scholar, but I DO know how to use Strong's Concordance!

lpetrich · 06-02-2004, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

I never claimed to be a hebrew scholar, but I DO know how to use Strong's Concordance!

Ed, is that the limit of your knowledge of Hebrew? Since you seemed like such an expert on the Old Testament's original language, I thought that you had at least some ability to translate Hebrew text.

lpetrich · 06-03-2004, 10:55 PM

Apikorus has a message for you, Ed:

Ani choshev she'ata lo yodea likro ivrit. Nachon?

05-28-2004, 12:25 AM	#261
Crisor Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: In the darkest depths of the lowest hell one could possibly imagine Posts: 58	Question??? I am by no means a biblical scholar (probably the fartherst thing from it one could get) but I have skimmed the debate so far (more of a maze than a debate) and have a few questions that I don't think have been asked before. If they have, please excuse me and the questions if they seem to simple. However, ed (1)I will give you the possibility they pharoh hardened his heart the first time or two, though the text reads differently from where I stand, that of course being neither here nor there. My question is, if pharoh hardened his heart only two times and then god took over from there, why did it take so few times? I could understand if pharoh had hardened his own heart after repeated attempts from moses and arron to "Let his people go," and then god said "so be it." But that does not seem to be the case. Instead, pharoh says "no" twice and god takes the drivers seat. This does not sound like the workings of a patient, all knowing, all loving god. (2)I am no Egyptologist either, but given the fact that ancient Egypt believed in a host of gods and their workings, it has never sat well with me that after seeing even one plague pharoh would not oblige the request of any god, even one he himself did not know. This would surely stop him from hardening his heart twice. (3)You stated at one time that you only have so many time to give into god before it is too late (not quoted, but the idea is still there I believe). I am unfamiliar with that. Could you please give me chapter and verse as to where I might find that and how it may be used in this situation. Crisor

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

06-03-2004, 10:55 PM	#270
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Apikorus has a message for you, Ed: Ani choshev she'ata lo yodea likro ivrit. Nachon?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.