Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sven · 05-16-2006, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Sure.

In Genesis 18 (one of the great scenes of the Hebrew Scripture), God parenthetically tells Abraham that he's had enough of Sodom and going to destroy the whole city, lock stock and barrel (we later learn in Ezekiel that the reason is the greed and selfishness of the Sodomites, not their sexual practices, but that's another story).

Abraham knows that's wrong. He argues with God explicitly aserting that God is making a moral mistake."

Wilt thou indeed destroy the righteous with the wicked? 24 Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; wilt thou then destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it? 25 Far be it from thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" 26

Does God strike him down? Nope, he listens, and agrees with him. There can be only one conclusion to this: God wanted Abraham to argue with him and point out the moral flaw of killing the good Sodomites with the bad.

Umm, no. You backinterpret the later image of god unto the one depicted in these verses. But when reading Genesis without this later image in mind, one sees that a quite different god is depicted there - one who is not necessarily omniscient and omnipotent, just much more powerful than humans. The scene rather looks like to me as if the god depicted there simply had not given his plans for destruction enough thought.
That's an explanation perfectly consistent with what scholars tell us about the evolution of the image of god in the bible.

Quote:

Genesis 18 is a set up for Genesis 22, perhaps the most important event in the Hebrew Scriptures, the binding of Isaac.

Says who?

Quote:

It has a similar structure as Gen 18. God informs Abraham of an immoral plan: the sacrifice of Isaac. Worse yet, he commands Abraham to do it. Unlike the Sodomites, this doesn't involve strangers, but his own son. So the right thing for Abraham to do is to do what he did in Gen 18. But he doesn't.

Apart from god doing something immoral (from our viewpoint today) and Abraham being involved, I fail to see anything like a "similar structure".
Remember what I told you? Don't interpret something into the text.

Quote:

Putting faith above love (or more precisely putting his hope of becoming great above his own son), Abraham doesn't say a word and complies. It's appalling. God give him every opportunity to speak up and protest. He points out that Abraham loves his son. He sends him a three-day trip to Moriah to make the sacrifice, so he can mull it over. He has Isaac make poignant comments about, "Hey, dad, where's the lamb you plan on sacrificing."

Again, you interpret something into the text (god specifically giving him opportunities) which one only finds if one looks for it - the text itself does not say anything like this. If your interpretation was right, why does the text not say so explicitely?

Quote:

So God, disappointed, stops him and makes one of the oddest speeches in the bible:

. "By myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, 18 and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice." 19

This speech makes no sense on its face since God has already promised to multiply Abraham's descendents in Genesis 17.

I see. The bible does not make sense, but because this simply can not be true, you simply invent an "explanation" out of thin air. As you can guess, I'm not impressed in the slightest.

[snip creative interpretation]

I really wonder why I still argue with apologists...

Sven · 05-16-2006, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

I sure hope they do. It means I'm on the right track.

Something else other Christians may say. *yawn*

Sven · 05-16-2006, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

This is a perplexing argument. Consciousness (self-awareness) is a basis for suffering to be experienced as suffering. Suffering without the awareness of suffering isn't suffering, in the operative sense of the word, just a biological reaction.

What a load of bullshit. I ask again: Have you ever heard an animal cry out in pain? Is this not suffering?

Gamera · 05-16-2006, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesABrown[QUOTE

]"...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
--Leviticus 19:18

Needless to say this doesn't command one to love one's enemy. Indeed, Jesus specifically contrasts loving one's neighbor (which is relatively easy) with loving one's enemy (which is hard). See Matthew 5.

Quote:

"A certain heathen came to Shammai and said to him, Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot. Thereupon he repulsed him with the rod which was in his hand. When he went to Hillel, he said to him, What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah; all the rest of it is commentary; go and learn."
--Talmud, Shabbat 31a

Ditto. Jesus taugh that we should love our enemies, not just our neighbors.

Quote:

"Aid an enemy before you aid a friend, to subdue hatred."
--Baba Metzia

Interesting. The Baba Metzia is about property rights. Cite the number and I'll look it up. I suspect it involves property right. Also, are you arguing that the Baba Metzia preceeds Jesus? I think that's a hard case to make, as it got redacted a couple centuries later, as I recall.

Gamera · 05-16-2006, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

What a load of bullshit. I ask again: Have you ever heard an animal cry out in pain? Is this not suffering?

Unless you're willing to say that the animal is aware of the suffering, by definition no. Crying out from injury and pain has obvious survival value and doesn't mean an animal is aware of its suffering any more than an animal is aware of the suffering of an animal it kills to eat, or that animals experience sex as pleasure. You assuming the conclusion, consciousness, which is the thing at issue.

Gamera · 05-16-2006, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

Umm, no. You backinterpret the later image of god unto the one depicted in these verses. But when reading Genesis without this later image in mind, one sees that a quite different god is depicted there - one who is not necessarily omniscient and omnipotent, just much more powerful than humans. The scene rather looks like to me as if the god depicted there simply had not given his plans for destruction enough thought.
That's an explanation perfectly consistent with what scholars tell us about the evolution of the image of god in the bible.

Says who?

Apart from god doing something immoral (from our viewpoint today) and Abraham being involved, I fail to see anything like a "similar structure".
Remember what I told you? Don't interpret something into the text.

Again, you interpret something into the text (god specifically giving him opportunities) which one only finds if one looks for it - the text itself does not say anything like this. If your interpretation was right, why does the text not say so explicitely?

I see. The bible does not make sense, but because this simply can not be true, you simply invent an "explanation" out of thin air. As you can guess, I'm not impressed in the slightest.

[snip creative interpretation]

I really wonder why I still argue with apologists...

Because you are a detractor.

But as to your exegetical method articulated in this post, I think it lacks a certain attention to details.

Gamera · 05-16-2006, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Oh, so every human in the bible is a murderer? Maybe you are being metaphorical.

spin

Such is the premise of the OT, but be my guest and do an historical analysis to show otherwise, for whatever that will get you.

Gen 6: The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7

And the NT:

1 John 3:15 - Any one who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Sven · 05-16-2006, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Unless you're willing to say that the animal is aware of the suffering, by definition no. Crying out from injury and pain has obvious survival value and doesn't mean an animal is aware of its suffering any more than an animal is aware of the suffering of an animal it kills to eat, or that animals experience sex as pleasure. You assuming the conclusion, consciousness, which is the thing at issue.

No, you are defining the problem away by saying that suffering is only suffering if one is aware of it. And I call bullshit. Using a strange definition isn't exactly an argument. I assume nothing about consciousness - since it has no bearing at all on the question if a live form can suffer or not. It has only a bearing if you invent definitions to fit your argument.

Sven · 05-16-2006, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Because you are a detractor.

But as to your exegetical method articulated in this post, I think it lacks a certain attention to details.

You mean the details you invented out of thin air to bolster your interpretation? Yes, I indeed lack attention for imaginary details. Sorry.

spin · 05-16-2006, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Gen 6: The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.

Wow, the flood myth.

I thought you weren't a fundamentalist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

1 John 3:15 - Any one who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Another redefinition of a term. I thought a murderer was someone who wilfully kills another person.

You've got to do better than that.

spin

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.