badger3k

Hi Lee

That's a lot of "Ifs".

But in many cases, we can make predictions and such about the future, often with surprising accuracy. People who were abused as children often grow up into abusers themselves (actually, the studies generally work backwards, with many abusers having been abused themselves, but I think for our purposes it will work as an example). It is far from perfect, but we are only human.
Thanks, but that's life. Edit to add, I'm not minimizing it or saying it didn't (or stil doesn't) hurt, but I accept it as part of life.

I had to go back and read into what the argument was. The things you mention are not relevant to the issue at hand, which are the actions during the massacre. Soldiers killing people do not stop in the middle of what they do and sharpen their blades. They do not take the time to make sure that each death is painless. We have no evidence that they did not do what soldiers throughout time immemorial do - kill as quickly and with as little effort as possible. Usually that means throat or gut (impaling someone or disemboweling them is effective, if very painful and slow). That's not editing, it's applying what we know to the situation when there is no reason to doubt that it didn't happen.

Only if the editing is not warranted and there is no evidence for such a thing. You keep wanting to add things that have no basis in reality. If you were to say that Joshua had special "death squads" who did the killing after others rounded them up, as has been done at other times (esp in Asia IIRC), we would still need some evidence that said this was a common practice. If such HAD been a common practice, then it would be safe to assume that is how it happened, unless we had evidence saying otherwise. Do you get what I am saying?

Sproing! Another meter blown.

"We are free"..."if we are obeying him!"? How is that free? What do you consider "free" as being? What does "free will" mean to you? You lost me here.

A writer centuries later weeping over a Jewish city is not the same as Israelites weeping over the Amorites, Amalekites, etc. It's just more ethnocentrism (or maybe just nationalism) which shows no concern for the rest of the people around them.

We have to agree to disagree on that.

You consider it possible that people who were immortal do not have to become evil, but when talking about what would happen if people today became immortal (your infinite life bit) they would do all sorts of evil. Where is the difference?

Fertility rites? Like Maypoles, or the temple "harlots"/sacred prostitutes of many cultures? That's worth killing an entire civilization? Surely there's more to it than "mom and dad like ritual sex"? I assume the Molech reference is towards human sacrifice. If that is so (and I've picked up a little information on the Amurru off some journals, but hadn't a chance to read it yet), then how is sacrificing a child (presumably) to one god different from sacrificing a whole people to another?

Actually, Lee, read the Bible. In the account I refer to, the Joshua one, where does it say that the Lord burned them with his holy flame (another really painful death - ask any burn victim, EMT, or Emergency Room physician, or anyone who works a burn ward). From what you write, you cannot supply details as well as the rest, at least not relevant ones. See what I wrote above.

You still have this relevancy issue. An "event" written hundreds of years later is not relevant. Where in the text in Joshua does it state that God bore the pain? Even then, how do we know that "God" felt pain when they only crucified part of him (which is also him, in some bizarre way). Some believe this Jesus fellow was all spirit and thus felt no pain, also. In any case, where in Joshua, or before, does it indicate that God routinely took the pain away from people his followers were killing?

You mean if we take the propaganda to heart. Still, although I believe most people would be more afraid of something they cannot fight as opposed to people that they can (witness panic over disease which is out of proportion to the panic caused by people throughout time), this issue can get to big a diversion, so I'll just say that some might feel the way I do, some might feel the way you do.

The rest was not directed to me, so I'll stop here. Except for this:
Except your statments are not relevant and amount to wishful thinking. I suppose if the ancient Israelite army did not use swords (or spears, or daggers), you might have a point. As it is, you don't. We might say that the Israelites dressed up as Bozo the Clown while they were fighting, but without any support for that, the worth of such a "detail" is precisely Zero (0). You do seem to have this problem continuously, so please try to understand it so you won't appear as ignorant as you often do. There is no shame in not knowing something, unless you refuse to admit it.

Here is a site on weaponry of this time, from the Chair of Religious Studies at SW Missouri State U (James Moyer, PhD) - I have no idea who he is, but he is accurate. Where is the reference to magical fire used by the Israelites? http://www.wcg.org/lit/bible/hist/weapons.htm

Here's another quote, from Epic of Conquest, G. Ernest Wright, The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol 3 number 3 (Sep 1940), pp 25-40 (okay, so it's not APA style, sheesh!) - this is from page 27:
Even if we reduce the number of swords that Joshua's army had, is it better to be beaten to death with a staff, or stoned to death, or even pierced by arrows?

andrewcriddle

Basically Yes, although I would prefer to say that X is presumed wrong, unless strong grounds are given for it being acceptable in a particular situation.

If you're thinking that this attitude sometimes makes it more difficult to be sure what is acceptable in a given situation than is the case either for strong objective morality or full-blown subjective morality, then I think I would agree.

However, I don't think that this is an argument against my position. I think that moral knowledge is sometimes genuinely difficult. (On the other hand I also think that we often face situations where the right thing to do is clear to us but where we don't do it because of its cost. But that is a separate issue.)
If 'you' means me personally, then my answer would be from a/ the moral values and insights of my culture and society critically considered and b/ the Bible also critically considered.

If 'you' is taken generally, then the objective values can I think be based on any sensible source, however, I think they have to be analysed in search of underlying principles and not just simply accepted.

I'll add that one of the most straightforward ways of showing that an action supported by a culture is nevertheless wrong, is to show that it was based on false empirical beliefs.

Witchhunting in Europe in the early-modern period would be a good example.

Andrew Criddle

John A. Broussard

I'm in agreement with most of this post of yours. However, I do have difficulties with several points, this last one more than the others.

Witchhunting may have been based on "false" empirical beliefs, but they nevertheless appealed to empirical evidence, not least the procedures laid out in the Malleus Malificarum.

The problem then becomes sorting out the true from the false empirical beliefs. E.g., our prisoners in Guantanamo are imprisoned because they are terrorists, based on various directives promulgated by our current administration.

Isn't it difficult to determine whether or not that empirical evidence is true or false?

I guess what I'm saying is that our current "interrogators" are firmly convinced of the truth of their evidence. Were the Inquisitioners any less convinced of the truth of the evidence they had?

Thanks for considering these maunderings.

badger3k

Ok, thanks for your views. I think we agree on most things (just leaving that out to be accurate). I don't think I have anything to add (John covered one point), especially since your morality is not strictly literature-based. I'm glad you have the critical evaluation factored into your considerations. Appreciate the discussion.

andrewcriddle

Thinking about it there may be some similarities (as well as obvious major differences) between witchhunting and modern concerns about terrorism.

In both cases the authorities had evidence, that (within their world view) they could reasonably and in good faith regard as involving a very real prospect of the suspect's guilt.

And in both cases IMO this evidence was given more weight than would have been justified considered objectively at the time, because the perceived urgency of the fight against evil sometimes led to ignoring the risk of harming the innocent.

Andrew Criddle

lee_merrill

Hi Badger,

That would be most probable, unless God was involving people in his direct actions, then we have to ask what actions are usual ways for God.

I mean that God's will is not only and always one choice, there is room to choose within his will:

1 Corinthians 7:38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.

So the "better" choice is not the only choice, but sinning brings bondage, not freedom.

I meant that God wept for them, though, for the Amorites, as Jesus did for Jerusalem.

Because the nature of the person is changed in one group, and not in the other.

1 John 3:2 ... but we know that when he appears we will be like him, because we shall see him as he is.

Yes, there was...

Genesis 26:10 Abimelech said, "What is this you have done to us? One of the people might easily have lain with your wife, and you would have brought guilt upon us."

That was hundreds of years before the Israelites arrived, and according to all I have heard, it got to a virtual free-for-all, incest of every kind, including rape, which seems to be included in what Abimelech said might have happened (re Gen. 34:2; Dt. 12:31).

The first instance could well have been in order to get power, an act of witchcraft, power is released (say some witchcraft practitioners) as the life leaves the body, and may be useful for certain purposes, as in 1 Kings 3:26-27.

I had gotten the impression that this was not actual burning, for the sons of Aaron were said to be still "in their tunics" (Lev. 10:5), and also gives me the impression of being instantaneous.

I must say by "bearing pain" I don't mean people felt no pain, rather I mean that God took that pain on himself, too, as illustrated by the cross, which tells us what God is like, in reference to dealing with sin, it is a general statement.

Well, there was the request Joshua made for God to stop the sun, which indicates that he would have thought it possible to ask other supernatural judgments from him. And here we have an actual instance of this specific request, years later:

2 Kings 1:10 Elijah answered the captain, "If I am a man of God, may fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty men!" Then fire fell from heaven and consumed the captain and his men.

Regards,
Lee

badger3k

Except unless we have writtten proof that God was directing people according to His usual ways, we have to assume that they were acting in the ways they normally do. Given the evidence we have on late bronze/early iron age military actions, we have no reason to assume they acted otherwise. Why would your book not say if their actions were unusual or special - surely some action by God would be worth writing about for future generations?

But does God set up and manage events to fit His will? That's what you said before. Can I, a simple human, thwart the will of God and do something that will result in something He does not want? Can I do evil and the end result of that evil will not be good or part of God's plan?

Where does it say that? The quote is about Jesus and the Jews, not about Amorites. You have no basis to say otherwise. Come on, Lee - let's see something relevant.

How (or maybe why is better) would the nature of the person be changed? Simply being immortal would not change the person's nature except through the passage of time. Gradually, over millenia, a society radically different than ours would probably develop, and children born in that society would have different world-views than our limited lifespan ones.

Why would Adam or Eve be different if they ate of the tree of life and became immortal and then ate the tree of morality?
First - quoting propaganda is not the best way to prove your case, although it does show the prejudice of the writers. Let's look at the Genesis quote:
It goes on. Shechem, who apparently loves Dinah, "defiled" her by sleeping with her because he was not of the right people. The xenophobia of the Israelites is pretty well exhibited throughout the whole of the bible. Racial purity laws were pretty much the norm (thus all the incidents of kiling those who slept with foreign men or women). Now, if this incident is supposed to show that he raped her, it is strange considering the law supposedly written later that has the rapist marry his victim. I can see if God judges an entire nation on the actions of one man - should we judge America on Jeffrey Dahmer?

The Deuteronomy quote is better:
I don't hear anything about abominations in that, merely that they worshipped other gods than the Hebrew one. Maybe that is worth death for you, but to me that's no big deal. But then I am not an omnipotent and all-powerful (and jealous) deity.

So far, I have found indications that human sacrifice was practiced throughout the middle-east, including by the early Israelites (indeed, the Isaac-sacrifice issue seems to play a role as the Agammemnon one does in the Illiad - reflect a change from human to animal sacrifice).

Or it could have been baseless superstition, or a method of population control and have an actual social/ecological purpose. Read "The Atrahasis Epic and Its Significance for our Understanding of Genesis 1-9" by Tivka Frymer-Kensky, The Biblical Archaeologist, vol 40, no 4 (Dec 77) 147-155. It deals with this issue and the Isrealite attitude towards population control (and others). I'm sure there are other works. We can use superstition as a reason that they would see it as good, but that doesn't work today, because not everybody believes in such hogwartswash. If you want to kill someone and claim they are a witch (didn't a priest just do that?), you'll need a better reason to save you from being killed as a murderer and delusional.

To me, the Leviticus says that the bearers put the bodies in their cloaks (coats) - not that the clothes of the people were not destroyed. How else do you carry a body that has been burned without it falling apart? Even if the bodies would stay together, do you think you want to pick up a body of someone burned to death? You seem to have a real problem with pain and death, Lee, and I'd say you don't like thinking of them in any realistic way.

Hmm, an omnipotent being without a body somehow "feeling" the pain of one brief crucifixion, compared to the suffering of millions and billions of people throughout time. In any case, we still have human beings dying in agony.

I meant what I said - where is the references, preferably extra-biblical, where the Israelites were known to use magical fire? Not more legends, Lee, but reality. Back up your mythology with factual sources. I can claim that the Greeks often fought with the Thunderbolts of Zeus, and the Olympian Gods walked among them, but that will get little regard unless I have evidence that might confirm that. So, once again, please give me some real historical sources, preferably from the time period in question. How about the invasion of Judah by Necho?

John A. Broussard

We still have leftover business from this, lee.

You stated that god did stop the sun at Joshua's request.

Now how could he stop the sun if the sun wasn't moving (which it isn't by the way--and I'll be happy to provide evidence for that if you wish)?

Thanks,

J

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Would this be written proof?

Joshua 3:15-16 Now the Jordan is at flood stage all during harvest. Yet as soon as the priests who carried the ark reached the Jordan and their feet touched the water's edge, the water from upstream stopped flowing.

Would this be an unusual action, in a battle?

Joshua 10:12 Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel: "O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."

No, I don't believe we can.

No, I don't believe that, either.

Romans 8:36-37 As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.

It's present tense, even, "super-conquering"...

Unless we read elsewhere, "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Heb. 13:8).

Because obeying God changes us! Well, it does, "God changed my life, I was there when he did it!" (Andrew of Holland).

That was not required, though.

But the pagan sacrifice was sorcery, the release of power in the release of the life, and that is not in Scripture.

But the pertinent question would be what they thought it meant.

The cross is said to be a demonstration of God's love, though, not the sum of all of it.

Certainly extra-biblical references are to be preferred in a skeptic's forum, but other accounts, written without the implication I am making in the writer's mind, is this not support for the view I am presenting?

I'm not sure why I would need to confirm this, though!

Actually, I meant that the apparent motion of the sun in the sky stopped for a time...

Regards,
Lee

John A. Broussard

So what the bible said about the sun standing still was an outright lie. What it should have said was:

JOSHUA10:13 [redacted] And the sun appeared to stand still, and the moon appeared to stay, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this falsely written in the book of Jasher? So the sun apparently stood still in the midst of heaven, and seemed not to go down about a whole day.

Now that we have that settled, how can you be sure that the bible isn't full ofmore lies like these?