Freethought & Rationalism Archive

steve_bnk · 08-11-2009, 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

So are you saying that you can't refute my points? You're conceding defeat?

Absolutely. You win.

Aaahhh!! Turning the proverbial other cheek?

J-D · 08-11-2009, 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 45spacer

And, what might a Judeo/Christian response be to this reasoning?

Thanks.

If you want to find Jewish commentary on this passage, you should use 'Vayera' as the search term in your search engine.

J-D · 08-11-2009, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

I see, god hadn't passed the word down the chain of command yet.

From here comes the law, a law is not a law unless it is written down as a mandated law. Thus the tort: 'ON WHAT CHARGES?'

That's not a tort.

J-D · 08-11-2009, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

I think the point is that the actions of the biblical Jews were far from moral and exemplary, and are more inlinme with the warlike and agressive wandering tribes they started out as.

Humanity itself is warlike. But the Jews never stole anyone's lands in all their 4000 year history.

Yes they did, under the reign of

John Hyrcanus.

J-D · 08-11-2009, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by premjan

Ur is in Iraq - are they of Persian ethnicity? They speak Arabic.

Correct. But Iraq is a recent new state invented by the Brits. Ur, under Mesopotamia, incorporated many countries and most of the levant, even upto parts of India, and was ruled by Persia. There were no Arabs in Abraham's time.

Ur was a single city. The kings of the 'Third Dynasty of Ur' ruled over a large kingdom/empire which covered much or all of Mesopotamia as well as other territories, but the historical evidence of its extent is too sketchy to describe it in detail. This was at a time before any historical record of the Persians, when Iran was inhabited by other peoples. Much later the Persian Empire incorporated all of Mesopotamia as well as other territories stretching as far Egypt, parts of Thrace, and parts of India, but under Persian rule Ur was uninhabited.

Ur was originally inhabited not by Arabs and not by Persians but by Sumerians. It was never inhabited by Persians.

Iraq is less than a hundred years old as an independent state, which might be considered 'new'. But by that definition of 'new', the majority of all existing independent states are 'new'. As an independent state, Iraq is older than the majority of existing states. It was one of only 51 original members of the UN in 1945 out of 192 members today.

steve_bnk · 08-11-2009, 05:30 AM

The Jews were always in conflict, if not with the outside world, among themselves.

They claimed the lands of Israel thoud sands of years ago based on being awarded the land by an omnipotent god..

semiopen · 08-11-2009, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

The serpent certainly thought Eve was attractive, and had sex with her:

'beguiled'. It fits better in the context of 'the most cunning of all creatures', and being tricked: Eve inadvertantly erred when she said the fruit cannot be touched, as opposed eaten - the serpent got her here. This was Adam's error. Suggest you get a bona fide copy of this book.

It was prudent to Persianise the name in dictartorial regimes.

Quote:

There's little doubt that Purim is pagan, the only question is whether it's origin is Assyrian, Babylonian, or Persian.

The Hebrews were monotheist before the Babylon invasion, even in Egypt and canaan.

The snake sex is an accepted interpretation in Judaism. Jewish halkha also says that a simple dismissal, as you are attempting, is not permissible. If we face a contradictory interpretation we are told to find a third interpretation to reconcile them. Your attempt to avoid the discussion can be seen as hypocritical and heretical.

In your view it is apparently fine to justify killing people but a little legitmate controversy bothers you.

Santa Claus is not Christian, nor is the celebration of Halloween. Your view of Judaism is idealized and wrong. Purim is a pagan holiday that got incorporated into Judaism. If little things like this are difficult for you to deal with, why take part in a forum like this?

steve_bnk · 08-11-2009, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

'beguiled'. It fits better in the context of 'the most cunning of all creatures', and being tricked: Eve inadvertantly erred when she said the fruit cannot be touched, as opposed eaten - the serpent got her here. This was Adam's error. Suggest you get a bona fide copy of this book.

It was prudent to Persianise the name in dictartorial regimes.

The Hebrews were monotheist before the Babylon invasion, even in Egypt and canaan.

The snake sex is an accepted interpretation in Judaism. Jewish halkha also says that a simple dismissal, as you are attempting, is not permissible. If we face a contradictory interpretation we are told to find a third interpretation to reconcile them. Your attempt to avoid the discussion can be seen as hypocritical and heretical.

In your view it is apparently fine to justify killing people but a little legitmate controversy bothers you.

Santa Claus is not Christian, nor is the celebration of Halloween. Your view of Judaism is idealized and wrong. Purim is a pagan holiday that got incorporated into Judaism. If little things like this are difficult for you to deal with, why take part in a forum like this?

I believe it is more correct to say the orgin of Santa Claus is with the Christian St Nicolas and that the Christian Christmas holiday was placed to coincide with non-Christian winter festivals.

steve_bnk · 08-11-2009, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

'beguiled'. It fits better in the context of 'the most cunning of all creatures', and being tricked: Eve inadvertantly erred when she said the fruit cannot be touched, as opposed eaten - the serpent got her here. This was Adam's error. Suggest you get a bona fide copy of this book.

It was prudent to Persianise the name in dictartorial regimes.

The Hebrews were monotheist before the Babylon invasion, even in Egypt and canaan.

The snake sex is an accepted interpretation in Judaism. Jewish halkha also says that a simple dismissal, as you are attempting, is not permissible. If we face a contradictory interpretation we are told to find a third interpretation to reconcile them. Your attempt to avoid the discussion can be seen as hypocritical and heretical.

In your view it is apparently fine to justify killing people but a little legitmate controversy bothers you.

Santa Claus is not Christian, nor is the celebration of Halloween. Your view of Judaism is idealized and wrong. Purim is a pagan holiday that got incorporated into Judaism. If little things like this are difficult for you to deal with, why take part in a forum like this?

Accoring to an Israeli Jew I talked with a few years ago there is no central Jewish religious authority. Two men can consult a third as with a rabai, but are not required to do so, however both are bound to act as they see it.

hylidae · 08-11-2009, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 45spacer

Hi there,

I'm new to the forum and I'd like to throw this topic out for others to comment on. This point comes from a good friend of mine who is a former Catholic, now atheist/agnostic.

I don't have the exact verse of Genesis but its the famous part where God decides he is going to smite Soddom and Gomorrah. To paraphrase the exchange: God goes to Abraham and tells him he is going to destroy the cities. Abraham questions God and asks "what if there are innocent people that would be killed?" Eventually Abraham bargains God down to "what if there is only 1 person worth saving?" God agrees and decides to spare this person, Lot. From here I think we all know where the story goes from here.

Here's the interesting part. Abraham has just proven that human morality is not dependent on God. Abraham is in the higher moral position by convincing God to spare the innocent.

I'd be really interested to here other people's thoughts on this. Also, are there any books, papers, etc. that discuss this that someone could direct me to? And, what might a Judeo/Christian response be to this reasoning?

Thanks.

My thoughts: morality is clearly a human concept and capability. I don't know much about Judeo/Christians' response to this other than to dance around the question and continue to simply assert that morality does indeed come from God.

The best (to use the word 'best' loosely...) argument I've heard from theists on this question is that human morality is possible without God, but it's an unreliable, sort of low-grade morality and God is needed for solidification and clarity of morals. However, it is obvious that mainstream religious believers do not in any way, in any place, in any denomination demonstrate better morals than anyone else.

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

08-11-2009, 05:30 AM	#56
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	The Jews were always in conflict, if not with the outside world, among themselves. They claimed the lands of Israel thoud sands of years ago based on being awarded the land by an omnipotent god..

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.