Doctor X

Jack_the_Bodiless:

Indeed. It is apology to avoid the issue.

The repetition of the basic Holy War:

Gathering of troops
Oracle from the god that demands the destruction of an entire people
War with the god at the head of the battle
Dedication of the conquered to the god with slaughter of all living and placement of valuables in the god's treasury

is the pattern in the herem episodes thoughout the OT. It is similar to ones in other cultures such as Assyria. The famous Moabite Stella describes King Moesha--remember him--performing the same action upon Israel--to his god Chemosh. YHWH's idols/vessels are carried away.

What is important is that the religion expected and glorified this behavior. A mythic past was created which glorified this slaughter because that is what great people with great gods do.

--J.D.

brighid

I want to apologize for not answering Ed's posts to me. I have been extremely busy and have not had the time I normally would to address lengthier posts. I have plenty to say (as anyone who has spent time here knows) but my schedule is just insane at this moment. I will attempt to reply soon, but I also think that Doctor X, Jack the Bodiless, et al have done a fine job in my absence. Thank you fellas.

Brighid

Ed

So you don't read the responses either? Oh thats right, I learned that long ago about Jack the Bootyless.

Quote:

brig: There is NO reason, sinful nature or not, to committ genocide. Any person with a moral conscience shouldn't even have to think twice about such things. If your faith has retarded your moral conscience to such a degree that you cannot see the immorality of slaughtering of innocence, raping women, ripping unborn children from the wombs of their mothers, capturing other tribes and enslaving their women and children, etc ... I am afraid you are lost and no amount of religion and prayer can save you from the moral void your interpretation of your faith has twisted your conscience into. Ed: Since they were destroyed for what they did, ie rebelling against the king of the universe, and preventing his representatives, ie israel, from acquiring their land. So it does not qualify as genocide. Unless you are going to say that capital punishment for all murderers is genocide of murderers. jtb: Yes, it IS genocide. It is the slaughter of an ENTIRE NATION for the "crimes" of some of their ancestors. It is directly equivalent to slaughtering 6 million Jews for the "crime" of having Jesus killed. Do YOU believe it is "moral" to kill all the relatives of a murderer, and everyone else in the town where he grew up? Because that's what you're saying.

No, that is not what I am saying, they were killed for their own sins.

Quote:

Ed: How do you know? Have you encountered a morally perfect being? jtb: I have encountered plenty of people who are more "morally perfect" than God.

Since you didnt answer my question, I will take that as an unable to refute.

Quote:

Ed: Yes, it was his doing but only indirectly, that is what these verses mean. He allowed the Assyrians to attack the Babylonians and do all these things. But he did not directly cause these things, as we know from Job, how he allows evil things to happen sometimes for greater good. And he does not endorse such behaviors. jtb: That last sentence is pure fiction. God does indeed endorse such behaviors, repeatedly, throughout the Old Testament.

That last sentence is pure fiction.

Quote:

jtb: So genocide is a "higher standard" of morality? What a great man Hitler was! He held the German nation to a higher standard than those degenerate democracies! Ed: No, the higher standard was not allowing unbelievers to be a part of the nation. jtb: Just as the "higher standard" of the Nazis was not allowing Jews to be a part of the nation.

No, unbelief is a moral issue, being a jew is not.

Quote:

jtb: Note, also, that both "higher standards" involve not just eviction, but slaughter. At least the Nazis had a BETTER reason for this: a child of the "Jewish race" can never become an Aryan and will have "half-breed" children at best, whereas an Amalekite child CAN be raised as a "true believer".

And many children from other enemy nations were.

Quote:

jtb: BTW, Jesus never advocated religious freedom. The Christians merely lacked the power to compel obedience. Ed: Of course they could have, ever hear of the jewish sicarii and their knives? The disciples could have quite easily just threatened to stab and kill someone if they didnt convert. But instead they just used arguments and evidence. And then left them alone if they didnt convert. jtb: They were a small sect of heretical Jews. Just how long do you think they would have survived if they wandered around Jerusalem stabbing everyone who didn't join them? Chritianity would have been exterminated in a few days.

Not necessarily, ever hear of Islam? That is how it started.

Quote:

Ed: You are partially right, technically there were two simultaneous reasons for destroying them, the reason I gave and the reason you gave. What different rules? jtb: The reason I gave is the Biblical one.

No, they both are.

Quote:

jtb: As for the different rules: why not try this? Read the Bible. Specifically, Deuteronomy 20. The different rules for the two groups of people are made perfectly clear. ...OK, I forgot that you don't read the Bible. So I'll quote the relevant section: Deuteronomy 20:12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: 20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: 20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. 20:15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: 20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee

Well yes that is because they were preventing them from getting the land God promised them.

Quote:

jtb: No, Deut. 21:13-14 does NOT say that, and you KNOW it does not say that, because we have discussed this before. The woman CANNOT choose divorce. Only the MAN can end the "relationship", if he "has no delight in her" he can get rid of her. Ed: Yes, the man has the primary option but she can control it by not delighting him. jtb: Try telling a rape victim that she is in control of the situation because she can choose "not to delight him".

What rape? According to the scripture he was not allowed to humiliate her.

Quote:

jtb: So the Bible is wrong. ...And so it goes. You are still pretending that the Bible is the blueprint for human morality, even though you keep disagreeing with it. Why is that, Ed? Ed: No, see above where I dealt with all of this. jtb: You "dealt with this" by rejecting the Bible and then denying that you have done so!

In your dreams.

Doctor X

Simple denial without an evidence, particularly when the denial is contradicted by texts, does not really work.

Maybe it does if one lives in denial. . . .

--J.D.

Jack the Bodiless

No, they were not, because many of them had committed no sin.

...Unless you invoke the doctrine of "original sin", which everyone is supposedly guilty of. This would allow you to kill all the relatives of the murderer, and everyone else in the town where he grew up, "for their own sins".

It is EXACTLY the same.
I have read the Bible, you evidently have not.
Unbelief is not a moral issue. Yes, THEY had a rule which said that it WAS a moral issue, but so did the Nazis: it was "immoral" to allow Jews to remain among the Master Race.
No, the massacred children were NOT preventing the Hebrews from getting the land God promised them.
Out of context. He was not supposed to "humble" her by selling her into slavery. But he HAD already "humbled her" (by raping her) anyhow.

What part of "because you have humbled her" do you not understand? How does "you have humbled her" become "don't humble her" in your warped understanding of the Bible?

DeLurking

ROLFMAO!!


This is the funniest thing I´ve heard in a long time.

And the most depressing.

brighid

So the woman bears some responsibility if she is raped by an invading armies soldier, and taken off to his home to become his 'wife' ... but first let her mourn for a month and shave off all her hair and cut her fingernails off ... and then if she doesn't please the man he can "divorce" her ...

So I guess she should make herself as ugly and unappealing as possible so she won't get "delight" the poor, helpless man who might think "Hmmmmmm .... I'd like to get me a piece of that and since my God told me I can take her for my bride, I think I will just take me a piece of her fine loving, whether she likes it or not."



I hope you aren't married or have daughters Ed ... poor ... poor things if you do ... "now honey, you wouldn't have gotten raped had you not delighted that boy ... you can't expect a man to control himself when you looks so pretty, or act so coy ... no, no ... better go put that burqua on!"

Brighid

Ed

No, all humans are in rebellion against God and since the wages of that rebellion is death, it was justified.

Quote:

dx: He also noted the symbol of using the heart as the seat of intellect. Symbols tend not to survive a literalist belief system.

What is wrong with symbols? Symbols are quite good in the proper context.

Quote:

dx: Of course, all of those children sacrificed did not really do anything either . . . save get born. --J.D.

No, see above about all humans from their day of birth.

Doctor X

How does an infant or unborn child "rebel?" Furthermore, this ipse dixit is not supported in the texts, hence it remains irrelevant.

See above, it remains an ipse dixit uncontained in the texts. Furthermore, to suppose that a deity could declare an infant can deserve this slaughter indicates that the apparent choice is Evil.

Will note the acceptance of the references to child sacrifice . . . there is progress.

--J.D.

Ed

So what? You have yet to prove that there was any significant time lapse between the verses. See also Exodus 13:13.

Quote:

dx: Note again the Ezekiel passage where YHWH admits to demanding child sacrifice. Furthermore, the Documentary Hypothesis is the standard. If you can overturn it, I can refer you to some peer-reviewed journals that would be happy to receive your paper.

If you look at Ezekiel earlier in the passage it is obvious He is not talking about His laws and statutes because in Ezekiel 20:16-21 he talks about His laws and how they are good and cause you to live. But then in verse 22 it says he withheld his hand and turned them over to the bad laws of Canaanite laws in verse 25 which did not give life. He just states from the perspective of his giving them bad laws because ultimately he is in total control of the situation. One major reason DH is flawed is because it assumes what you are trying to prove, ie it assumes up front that supernaturalism is impossible. And there are many other problems, such as the assumption that the divine names are just randomly used as signs of different authors, but there is contextual evidence that the names were purposely used in different circumstances and contexts.

Quote:

Ed: All these laws were given basically at the same time so your point is meaningless. dx: No, they are repeats from different authors. One preserves an earlier tradition. Note, again, the Ezekiel quote.

Evidence that they are repeats of different authors?
See above about Ezekiel.

Quote:

Ed: Hardly, He is just emphasizing the absurdity of child loving God like Yahweh being associated with child sacrifice. See Deuteronomy 18:10. dx: D is the latest of the texts and is a rewrite. However, Ezekiel and the Exodus quotes along with the requirement of the herem demonstrate that this is an improper apology.

Evidence for your assertions about Deut.? If herem was ritual human sacrifice there would be mention of it in the ceremonial law with humans as one of the clean animals used for sacrifice but they are not.

Quote:

Moi: Levenson gives the date for Jeremiah between late 7th and early 6th centuries BCE. Friedman argues strongly for the connection between the D material and Jeremiah and that the same author wrote-edited both. He further speculates it is Baruch son of Neriyah. Anyways he dates the first "part" of D to before Josiah died in 609 BCE and the second after the Babylonian destruction and exile in 587 BCE. The relevance of that is the lateness of the texts. Levenson comments: Ed: There is absolutely no evidence for these speculations. dx: Ipse dixit and, unfortunately, wrong. Levenson and Friedman are both noted and tenured professors in OT studies. They quote the proper references. You, however, have offered nothing but a declaration.

You have offered nothing but names. Also if what you say is true then human bones would have been found in association with hebrew sacrifical altars in the 14th thru 11th century BC. But they have never been found that way. And in Jeremiah prophecy is in poetic language and often phrases are repeated in poetic language so your assertion about that passage is pure unfounded long distance psychoanalysis.

Quote:

Ed: Again no evidence for these absurdities, see above. dx: Making declarations based on nothing does not argument make.

No, the burden of proof is on the positive assertion.

Quote:

Ed: No, it is obvious from the context that this is referring to God allowing Israel to adopt the evil laws of the Canaanites, so He is indirectly responsible for their spiral into evil. dx: No, it is obvious from the grammer that YHWH, and not "evil laws of the Canaanites" required this: Moreover I gave them statues that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know I am the Lord.

No, see verses 16-21 where God talks about His laws and how good they are.

Quote:

dx: However, I find it interesting that in the apology you concede YHWH's responsibility for Unjustified Suffering

Their suffering was not unjustified, all humans are sinners and deserve death.

Quote:

Ed: But by looking at how far off they were from God's Mosaic laws, they would eventually turn back to His laws. dx: As above, it was required under Exod 22:28-29

No, see above.

Quote:

Ed: Child sacrifice was not prohibited at a later time in Israel's history, it was condemned under Moses, read Deut. 18:10. dx: Evidence cited above indicates otherwise.

See above about contrary evidence.

Quote:

Ed: No, the enemies of Israel and God were not ritually sacrificed, they were killed on the spot for their opposition to the representatives of the King of the Universe and their own sins against Him. dx: Which explains why the god of Mesha can kill the Israelites? Again, ipse dixit and ignoring the texts does not make an argument. YHWH himself demands the herem and punishes those who fail to carry it out. You may declare all you want, but you cannot change the texts.

See above about humans not being among clean animals for sacrifice.

Quote:

Ed: BTW, why do YOU think human sacrifice is wrong? dx: Why do you ask? --J.D.

I want to know on what basis you think it is wrong.