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: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-19-2007, 07:18 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the netherlands
Posts: 46
Default Historical context

Whenever any one discusses the genocide in the bible the favorite defense will be that you must read the Bible verses in historical context. I know it is a flawed defense but I need some tips to help me to solidify my rebuttal.
Any volunteers ?
waked is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 07:42 AM   #2
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by waked View Post
Whenever any one discusses the genocide in the bible the favorite defense will be that you must read the Bible verses in historical context. I know it is a flawed defense but I need some tips to help me to solidify my rebuttal.
Any volunteers ?
I agree with the defense. The historical context was different from today. (It would be wrong today for example to bomb Afghanistan into the stone age or kill a couple of hundred thousand Iraqis.)

However, admitting that the historical context was different and you should ignore the genocide opens another problem up. What relevance does the rest of the bible have today and who decides which bits are relevant and which aren't? The whole argument of the bible not being arbitrary, but being a book for all times, is undermined. If you should ignore that bit, why shouldn't you ignore other bits you don't like for ethical or other reasons?


spin
spin is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 08:35 AM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by waked View Post
Whenever any one discusses the genocide in the bible the favorite defense will be that you must read the Bible verses in historical context. I know it is a flawed defense but I need some tips to help me to solidify my rebuttal.
Under no circumstances address the issue of where you get the moral value that you are using as a standard here. That is the actual fallacy in the whole argument -- a silent appeal to something in which you probably don't, in fact, believe.

All we're actually doing with this sort of argument is appealing to the contemporary cultural value that "genocide is wrong". (Unless, of course, we have some absolute moral standard handy).

As such we're open to the objection that the attack is not what it appears to be -- an allegation that the bible is immoral as judged by absolute moral standards applicable then and now -- but merely a complaint that the bible doesn't conform to current shibboleths.

These, of course change over time. There have been regimes in the last 100 years that didn't consider there was any such thing as absolute morality, and that considered that genocide was acceptable.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 08:39 AM   #4
Hex
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: www.rationalpagans.com
Posts: 445
Default

On a whimsical note, I -want- to say that by reading in context you get to see that -those- genocides were done under God's orders (Just like all those Nazis).


But I do like Spin's take. The modern universality of views of genocide, especially informed or intentional genocide, precludes that context really makes a difference.

Why, perchance didn't they just 'enslave' all these folks, rather than wiping them out and dashing their baby's heads against the stones? Economically, that would make more sense for a growing nation.

Basically, what we see in Biblical genocides is removal of biological/geneological competition. Though, I do wonder how that's any better in context ...
Hex is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 08:49 AM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
All we're actually doing with this sort of argument is appealing to the contemporary cultural value that "genocide is wrong". (Unless, of course, we have some absolute moral standard handy).
It is simply absurd to claim that an "absolute moral standard" is necessary to conclude that attempting to wipe out an entire group of people simply for being members of that group is wrong. You certainly don't have to believe in a magical, superpowered rule-giver to reach this conclusion.
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 10:12 AM   #6
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,931
Default

One part of the historical context that they usually want to refer to is their unsubstantiated assertion that the Hittites, Midianites, Perrizites, Amalekites, Jebusites, Moabites, and all the other --ites in the surrounding neighborhood were very, very evil and deserved to be exterminated down to their tiny babies because they practiced idol worship, homosexuality and child sacrifice. The thing is, they never have a single historical cite to back any of this up, and then they always want you to read this completely biased apologist named Glenn Miller, who is absolutely ponderous. I can't sludge through it. anyway, the obvious counter argument is, oh yeah, got a source for the evil practices of the Jebusites? Not to mention that infanticide as a way to prevent child sacrifice is just a tad illogical.
TomboyMom is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 10:23 AM   #7
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London UK
Posts: 16,024
Default

Quote:
It would be wrong today for example to bomb Afghanistan into the stone age or kill a couple of hundred thousand Iraqis.)
I cannot see how stating killing infants three thousand years ago is in some way not as wrong as it is today is in any way a logical argument.

Why is history or time relevant, and why is there this assumption of an absolute moral code about these matters?

Do we state maths is an absolute code because we state one plus one equals two?

Why should we not come to a similar conclusion about past events - we can't do anything about them, so isn't it only a logical - not a moral - conclusion?
Clivedurdle is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 10:36 AM   #8
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 363
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by waked View Post
Whenever any one discusses the genocide in the bible the favorite defense will be that you must read the Bible verses in historical context. I know it is a flawed defense but I need some tips to help me to solidify my rebuttal.
Any volunteers ?
The same people using that defense, also say that God is unchanging...God is perfect, and it's impossible to become more perfect...meaning their version of God will always think genocide is okay, no matter what time period we're in. Historical context is meanignless.


Peace
3DJay is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 10:42 AM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 1,037
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
Under no circumstances address the issue of where you get the moral value that you are using as a standard here. That is the actual fallacy in the whole argument -- a silent appeal to something in which you probably don't, in fact, believe.
Try this for a "moral value" to use as a "standard": "In everything do to others as you would have them do to you..." (Matthew 7:12).

To their credit, the editors of The New American Bible condemn the herem/ban practiced by the ancient Israelites, and affix this annotation regarding 1 Samuel 15:

Quote:
[3] Under the ban: in such wars of extermination, all things (men, cities, beasts, etc.) were to be blotted out; nothing could be reserved for private use. The interpretation of God's will here attributed to Samuel is in keeping with the abhorrent practices of blood revenge prevalent among pastoral, seminomadic peoples such as the Hebrews had recently been. The slaughter of the innocent has never been in conformity with the will of God.

TomboyMom: You may be interested in the series of articles beginning here, which "sludges through" Glenn Miller's article.
John Kesler is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 11:07 AM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 1,037
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hex View Post
Why, perchance didn't they just 'enslave' all these folks, rather than wiping them out and dashing their baby's heads against the stones? Economically, that would make more sense for a growing nation.
A typical defense is that economically, the Israelites were in no position to feed and clothe any captives from other nations--not even the women and children. However, this argument is undermined by Deuteronomy 20, which allows for the assimilation of captive people and their belongings, as long as they were not Canaanites. This directive betrays the fact that the real reason for "the ban" was not economics.

Quote:
10 When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. 11 If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you at forced labor. 12 If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; 13 and when Yahweh your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. 14 You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which Yahweh your God has given you. 15 Thus you shall treat all the towns that are very far from you, which are not towns of the nations here. 16 But as for the towns of these peoples that Yahweh your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. 17 You shall annihilate them--the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites--just as Yahweh your God has commanded, 18 so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against Yahweh your God.
John Kesler is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:30 AM.

Top

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