Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doctor X · 01-10-2004, 09:09 AM

Indeed. It apparently bothered the Chronicler enough to insert a "Satan" to try to remove the problem.

I do not have the verse on the top of my head--somewhere in Isaiah methinks--but an apology for child sacrifice is given by YHWH--he claims he gave people "bad laws" to make them engage in the practice so he could punish them for it because then they would know he is, you know, mighty 'n stuff.

It is probably unfair to retroject modern sensibilities back to the time where people could conceive of gods who were "all too human" in their vices.

--J.D.

Sensei Meela · 01-10-2004, 09:21 AM

Ezekiel 20:
'...25 I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by; 26 I let them become defiled through their gifts-the sacrifice of every firstborn-that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the LORD .'

Quote:

Originaly posted by Doctor X:
It is probably unfair to retroject modern sensibilities back to the time where people could conceive of gods who were "all too human" in their vices.

Agreed.

mike_decock · 01-10-2004, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amaleq13
Forgive the tangent but this has always puzzled me. What is it about this census that pisses God off so much? Why would God have forbidden it? Actually, the real question I have is: why would the ancient Hebrews have considered this census to be forbidden by God?

I just started reading The Origin Of Satan by Elaine Pagels and she addresses the passage in question:

Quote:

Around the time Job was written (c. 550 B.C.E.), however, other biblical writers invoked the satan to account for division within Israel. One court historian slips the satan into an account concerning the origin of census taking, which King David introduced into Israel c. 1000 B.C.E. for the purpose of instituting taxation. David's introduction of taxation aroused vehement and immediate opposition -- opposition that began among the very army commanders ordered to carry it out. Joab, David's chief officer, objected, and warned the king that what he was proposing to do was evil. The other army commanders at first refused to obey, nearly precipitating a revolt; but finding the king adamant, the officers finally obeyed and "numbered the people."

Why had David committed what one chronicler who recalls the story regards as an evil, agressive act "against Israel"? Unable to deny that the offending order came from the king himself, but intent on condemning David's action without condemning the king directly, the author of 1 Chronicles suggests that a supernatural adversary with the divine court had managed to infiltrate the royal house and lead the king himself in to sin: "The satan stood up against Istral, and incited David to number the people" (1 Chron. 21:11).

-Mike...

Amlodhi · 01-10-2004, 04:11 PM

Hi Mike,

Quote:

Originally posted by mike_decock

I just started reading The Origin Of Satan by Elaine Pagels and she addresses the passage in question:

Thanks for bringing this up. I have also read Ms. Pagels "Origin of Satan" and have always wondered if this could indeed be a tax census. However, I have seen no real substantiation for this and it makes little more sense than a military conscription census. Solomon most certainly taxed the subjects of his kingdom to excess and YHWH didn't seem to mind then.

To All: Please note the introduction in my post, i.e.: "The general apologetic is . . .". This disclaimer was placed purposely in the hopes that, I, the messenger, might avoid death by gunshot wound.

The biggest problem I have seen with a military census being, somehow, considered "evil", is that it completely ignores the necessary logistics of moving and feeding an army regardless of any considerations of faith.

Namaste' - [that place in me, bows to that place in you, where we are the same] (Contrary to Doctor X's traditions I usually refrain from bringing anyone's mother into any discussion, regardless of how she dresses.)

Amlodhi

Sensei Meela · 01-10-2004, 05:26 PM

heh heh...I can see how my language may have made it appear that I had you in my sights, but no. (I guess you also meant to pre-empt anyone mistaking you for promoting the apologetic...)

Amlodhi · 01-10-2004, 06:02 PM

Hi Sensei Meela,

No, I didn't feel targeted by you; the structure of your post was both concise and accurate. You are correct, however, in suspecting that my further disclaimer was intended to pre-empt any future misconceptions.

Incidentally, clever play on words in your user name.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

01-10-2004, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
.

First, what the hell is "Satan." It comes from stn or an "obstacle/stumbling block" a thing you trip over. .

--J.D.

See here, what did I tell you? Man stumbled over a dam and became Adam.

01-10-2004, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amlodhi
(Contrary to Doctor X's traditions I usually refrain from bringing anyone's mother into any discussion, regardless of how she dresses.)

Amlodhi

Good point, better to try your argument on her first and if she begins to cry you are sure to have a winner.

MrDarwin · 01-10-2004, 06:38 PM

Well, let's see:

1. According to standard Christian theology, God created Satan.
2. God (being omniscient after all) knew exactly what (and when, and why) Satan would do. In fact, God knew all this even before creating Satan.

Any questions?

Doctor X · 01-11-2004, 12:04 AM

Amlodhi:

It seems like a reasonable interpretation--army commanders who may have been more like mercenaries would not like to be taxed. My concern about it is that I am unconvinced a David existed beyond a "start" for a mythic character. In other words, how much of the history is history? Given that we can flush the whole Exodus-Conquest down the toilet, I am suspicious.

Thus, perhaps it represents a contemporary--to the DH--concern?

Oh yeah . . . Amaleq's question reminded me of the OLD joke where the Lone Ranger finally looks up "kemosabe" and finds out it means [CENSORED--Ed.].

--J.D.

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

01-10-2004, 09:09 AM	#11
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Indeed. It apparently bothered the Chronicler enough to insert a "Satan" to try to remove the problem. I do not have the verse on the top of my head--somewhere in Isaiah methinks--but an apology for child sacrifice is given by YHWH--he claims he gave people "bad laws" to make them engage in the practice so he could punish them for it because then they would know he is, you know, mighty 'n stuff. It is probably unfair to retroject modern sensibilities back to the time where people could conceive of gods who were "all too human" in their vices. --J.D.

01-10-2004, 05:26 PM	#15
Sensei Meela Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: AZ, u.s.a. Posts: 1,202	heh heh...I can see how my language may have made it appear that I had you in my sights, but no. (I guess you also meant to pre-empt anyone mistaking you for promoting the apologetic...)

01-10-2004, 06:02 PM	#16
Amlodhi Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: central USA Posts: 434	Hi Sensei Meela, No, I didn't feel targeted by you; the structure of your post was both concise and accurate. You are correct, however, in suspecting that my further disclaimer was intended to pre-empt any future misconceptions. Incidentally, clever play on words in your user name. Namaste' Amlodhi

01-10-2004, 06:38 PM	#19
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	Well, let's see: 1. According to standard Christian theology, God created Satan. 2. God (being omniscient after all) knew exactly what (and when, and why) Satan would do. In fact, God knew all this even before creating Satan. Any questions?

01-11-2004, 12:04 AM	#20
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Amlodhi: It seems like a reasonable interpretation--army commanders who may have been more like mercenaries would not like to be taxed. My concern about it is that I am unconvinced a David existed beyond a "start" for a mythic character. In other words, how much of the history is history? Given that we can flush the whole Exodus-Conquest down the toilet, I am suspicious. Thus, perhaps it represents a contemporary--to the DH--concern? Oh yeah . . . Amaleq's question reminded me of the OLD joke where the Lone Ranger finally looks up "kemosabe" and finds out it means [CENSORED--Ed.]. --J.D.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.