FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Elsewhere > ~Elsewhere~
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-31-2004, 05:35 AM   #171
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 5,815
Default

Quote:
Also read Deut. 21:14 in the NASB:

"It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her. "
New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation

God says that he should not mistreat her, this plainly includes rape. The humbling refers to the killing of her family. There is no rape, try again.
Let's sift through the various translations to settle this:
Quote:
KJV: thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

NIV: You may not sell her or treat her as a slave, for you have humiliated her.

NKJV: you shall not treat her brutally, because you have humbled her.

NASB: you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her.

Webster's: thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

Young's: thou dost not tyrannize over her, because that thou hast humbled her.

Darby's: thou shalt not treat her as a slave, because thou hast humbled her.

ASV: thou shalt not deal with her as a slave, because thou hast humbled her.

RSV: you shall not treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.
So, most translations agree that this "mistreatment" is selling into slavery, and none refer to rape as "mistreatment".

But what's this "humbling"? The word has two meanings in the Bible: you can "humble" yourself before God, or you can "humble" a woman by raping her.
Quote:
Deu 22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, [being] in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

Eze 22:10 In thee have they discovered their fathers' nakedness: in thee have they humbled her that was set apart for pollution.

Eze 22:11 And one hath committed abomination with his neighbour's wife; and another hath lewdly defiled his daughter in law; and another in thee hath humbled his sister, his father's daughter.
Nowhere in the Bible is anyone "humbled" by having their relatives killed.

So you're making stuff up, as usual. Did you really expect that you wouldn't be caught doing this?
Jack the Bodiless is offline  
Old 03-31-2004, 08:59 PM   #172
Ed
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SC
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greyline
What worries me about the horrendous stories in the bible that relate God as a murderous tyrant is that someone very close to me, who is Christian but by no means a "bible-basher" or biblical scholar, came to the exact same conclusions as Ed seems to have come to: since God is the supreme moral authority, anything God does must by definition be moral, even when what he does is clearly immoral.
How do you know they are "clearly immoral"? What objectively rational standard do you use to make such a judgement? If you don't have one then your comment is basically meaningless, ie like saying I don't like chocolate.

Quote:
gl: My friend, a loving wife and mother and upstanding member of the community, has therefore convinced herself that it's acceptable for the invading Israelites to murder women and children, rape virgins etc. (To be honest, I doubt she thinks about it that much, but I asked her to.)
The Israelites never did those things, refer to my posts above.

Quote:
gl: She's suffering from a psychological discord that she can only resolve by ignoring common sense and human decency.

No wonder so many churches and Christians discount the embarrassing OT as imaginative stories "written by the victor", or ignore it all together.
How do you know when you are ignoring human decency?
Ed is offline  
Old 03-31-2004, 09:59 PM   #173
Ed
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SC
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor X
Quote:
Ed: They seem to ignore anything that doesn't fit their pet theories to demonize the ancient jews (sic).

Moi: is a lie.

Ed: How can stating the way somethng appears be a lie?

dx: When an individual willfully misrepresents scholarship he lies.
Where did I do so?

Quote:
Ed: I was just stating how your arguments appears, it appears for some unknown reason that you want to demonize the ancient hebrews (sic).

dx: Fortunately those without such a biased perspective recognize this as a lie as well.
Huh? The underlying basis for all your arguments is an anti-supernatural bias.

Quote:
Ed: Since I do not know your actual reason, I cannot be lying about it.

dx: Yet the individual feels he is honest when he accuses others whose motives he admits he does not know of "demonizing" ancient Hebrews or being "anti-semitic."
I am being honest about how you APPEAR.

Quote:
ED: Only you know why you are taking the verses out of context to make the erroneous point that the jews ritually sacrificed humans.

dx: The individual has failed to rebut the evidence given above. Thus does he appear to lie to himself as well.
I think I have refuted all of your so-called evidence.

Quote:
Moi: The individual had his clock cleaned by those who actually bothered to read the texts. The point of the opening post had to do with the morality of a god that would punish someone for doing something he forced him to do.

Ed: Where was my clock cleaned?

dx: The individual is refered to the posts above.
Fraid not, see above.

Quote:
Ed: All you have done is taken verses out of context using the discredited Documentary Hypothesis as a basis for doing so.

dx: Now the individual willfully misrepresents scholarship and the posts above. The Documentary Hypothesis has not been "discredited," though I am sure scholarship will welcome his paper on how it has, just as astronomers "welcome" papers proving the world is flat.

However, what he hates most is that the CONTEXT of the passages rebutted him. He may try to pretend they do not say what they say; however, the Noble Readership is not inflicted with his inability to read honestly.
Read The Documentary Hypothesis by Umberto Cassuto. Also E. W. Hengstenberg professor at University of Berlin has shown the actual use of the divine names. And the biblical scholar John H. Raven has shown serious flaws in the theory in his Old Testament Introduction.

Quote:
Ed:The herem is significantly different from ritual human sacrifice.

dx: No.

Ed: It generally occured in situ, not at any special sacred place or altar, it was not performed using the standard hebrew (sic) methodology for sacrifice, ie fire, and its purpose was not to remove sin from the hebrews (sic) engaging in it like all other ritual sacrifices among the hebrews (sic).

dx: the purpose of the sacrifice of the first born was not to remove sin either.
Well technically you are right for the human tithe, but all the others do and therefore my points stand unrefuted.

Quote:
Ed: Actually contrary to the standard evolutionary scenario there is evidence that humans were originally monotheistic and only later became polytheisitic.

dx: Irrelevant to the discussion as well as incorrect. The earliest recorded religions were polytheistic.
Read Wilhelm Schmidt's The Origin and Growth of Religion.

Quote:
dx: Now this is pathetic:

Ed: Only a god could know the true motivation of another God. So are you claiming to be a god?
Nevertheless a valid question. Or possibly you are claiming that you have human omniscience?

Quote:
Moi: What has the individual had to offer in response?

1. Ignoring the texts.
2. Misquoting the texts.
3. Purposely mischaracterizing the posts and motivations of others.
4. Branding Jewish scholars "anti-semitic" because they refute his unsubstantiated claims.
5. Temper-tantrums and behavior not worthy of the unspeakable denizens that infest the nethers of lesser species.

Ed: Evidence I did ANY of these things?

dx: The individual ignored the texts concerning the Pharaoh and YHWH hardening his heart.
No, I stated that pharoah initiated it then God continued it and quoted the relevant texts demonstrating these facts.

Quote:
dx: He misquoted the Ezekiel passage.
No, I put it in context, unlike you. I referred to the verses preceding the ones you quoted and demonstrated the absurdity of your interpretation.

Quote:
dx: He mischaracterized the posts of others and the motivations of others in the post above. He accused OT scholars such as Richard Elliott Friedman of being an anti-semite.
Maybe I should have been a little more accurate to say "anti-ancient semite". See my post above where I explain what I mean.

Quote:
dx: His temper-tantrums remain his only consistent response.

Quod erat demonstrandum. "If by his works ye may know him."

The individual then wallows in his various unsubstantiated claims contradicted by the texts as noted above.

--J.D..
What temper tantrums????
Ed is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 12:33 AM   #174
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 5,815
Default

Ed:
Quote:
What worries me about the horrendous stories in the bible that relate God as a murderous tyrant is that someone very close to me, who is Christian but by no means a "bible-basher" or biblical scholar, came to the exact same conclusions as Ed seems to have come to: since God is the supreme moral authority, anything God does must by definition be moral, even when what he does is clearly immoral.

How do you know they are "clearly immoral"? What objectively rational standard do you use to make such a judgement? If you don't have one then your comment is basically meaningless, ie like saying I don't like chocolate.
This is your "moral blankness" cutting in again. You are demonstrating greyline's point: you are unable to comprehend how these atrocities can possibly be wrong.

And yet...
Quote:
gl: My friend, a loving wife and mother and upstanding member of the community, has therefore convinced herself that it's acceptable for the invading Israelites to murder women and children, rape virgins etc. (To be honest, I doubt she thinks about it that much, but I asked her to.)

The Israelites never did those things, refer to my posts above.
Yes, they did. Even YOU cannot deny that the invading Israelites murdered women and children, and the notion that they didn't rape virgins is entirely non-Biblical.

Here, your sense of "right and wrong" suddenly recovers, and you have problems imagining that the Biblical God would endorse such behavior.

Why the contradiction, Ed? What is the origin of your belief that SOME of the Bible's atrocities are wrong?
Quote:
gl: She's suffering from a psychological discord that she can only resolve by ignoring common sense and human decency.

No wonder so many churches and Christians discount the embarrassing OT as imaginative stories "written by the victor", or ignore it all together.


How do you know when you are ignoring human decency?
...And now you've "switched off" again. Suddenly you're pretending that it's impossible to judge the actions of the Biblical God: therefore anything God does is OK, and you're left with no grounds for assuming that Biblical rape or human sacrifice could possibly be wrong.
Quote:
dx: the purpose of the sacrifice of the first born was not to remove sin either.

Well technically you are right for the human tithe, but all the others do and therefore my points stand unrefuted.
...And here you're admitting that there WAS a "human tithe"!

Ed, I think it's becoming increasingly obvious that you KNOW that your worldview cannot survive. The cracks are widening, and it's time to be honest with yourself.
Jack the Bodiless is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 12:42 AM   #175
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 16,829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed
(to Doctor X) The underlying basis for all your arguments is an anti-supernatural bias.
So if you refuse to believe that some nighttime noises are the result of a ghost haunting your home, you have anti-supernatural bias?

Quote:
Read The Documentary Hypothesis by Umberto Cassuto. Also E. W. Hengstenberg professor at University of Berlin has shown the actual use of the divine names. And the biblical scholar John H. Raven has shown serious flaws in the theory in his Old Testament Introduction.
And what are their arguments?

(Doctor X: the earliest religions are polytheistic...)
Quote:
Read Wilhelm Schmidt's The Origin and Growth of Religion.
Except that his work is NOT the final word on this subject. Ed is more than willing to conclude that the supreme deities of other religions are the God of Eddianity in disguise.

Although many "primitive" religions feature some creator god, that entity is often pictured as losing interest in humanity after he completes creating. And that being is not understood as excluding the existence of other deities.
lpetrich is offline  
Old 04-01-2004, 09:58 PM   #176
Ed
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SC
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor X
Most unfortunate:

Ed: I think my interpretation is the plain reading of the text. It plainly says that initially Pharoah hardened his own heart then later God continued to do so as punishment for that choice.

Dx: for the texts "plainly" indicates otherwise:

Exod 7:1-4 And YHWH said to Moses, "See, I've made you a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron, your brother, will be your prophet. You shall speak everything that I'll commad you; and Aaron, your brother, shall speak to Pharaoh, that he let the children of Israel go from his land. And I, I'll harden Pharaoh's heart, and I'll multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. And Pharaoh won't listen to you, . . .
Here God is just predicting that he will harden Pharoahs heart. Read verse 13 and you will see that Pharoah initiates the hardening himself.

Quote:
Exod 9:12 And YHWH strengthened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not listen to them--as YHWH had spoken to Moses.
Actually this verse implies that Pharoah's heart was already strong against the hebrews.

Quote:
Exod 10:1-2 And YHWH said to Moses, "Come to Pharaoh, because I have made his heart and his servants' heart heavy for the purpose of setting these signs of mine among them and for the purpose that you will tell in the ears of your sons and your son's son about how I abused Egypt and about my signs that I set among them, and you will know that I am YHWH."
I have never denied that later God did harden his heart as punishment for his initial hardening against Israel.

Quote:
dx: I can only renew my recommendation that the individual actually read the texts lest he continue to make such unfortunate eroneous declarations.

--J.D..
I did, see above.
Ed is offline  
Old 04-02-2004, 01:22 AM   #177
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 5,815
Default

On the subject of rape:

The Bible's rules covering the rape of a betrothed handmaiden are particularly interesting.
Quote:
Leviticus 19:20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.

19:21 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering.

19:22 And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.
This doesn't use the usual language for rape (seized, humbled etc), but as the handmaid is betrothed and the usual punishment for adultery is death, then it's assumed she did not consent, and the reason she is allowed to live is spelled out clearly: "because she was not free".

She could not have refused: consent is irrelevant, there is no difference between rape and consensual sex. She is scourged anyhow, as a precaution: just in case she enjoyed it.

For the man, having sex with another man's fiancee is a minor misdemeanour, regardless of whether he raped her or seduced her, if that woman is a handmaid: being used as a sex object is a part of the duties of a handmaid (the Bible has examples), and this wouldn't even be an issue if she was single. It costs him one ram.
Jack the Bodiless is offline  
Old 04-03-2004, 11:23 AM   #178
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,562
Default

Quote:
Mr Ed
I have never denied that later God did harden his heart as punishment for his initial hardening against Israel.
You talk nonsense.

If Yahweh had the power to harden Pharaoh's heart he also has the power to soften it.

Had he done this the Israelites could have left without the need to kill thousands of innocent children.

But Yahweh prefers to harden the pharoeh's heart so that later he could to kill off innocent children.

Yahweh is an immoral myth not God.
NOGO is offline  
Old 04-03-2004, 09:32 PM   #179
Ed
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SC
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greyline
Ed, I think you're missing a much more obvious reason why people may not trust God. This God says one thing and does another. It's as simple as that.
In all of my experience of Him, He has never done that. So maybe they are experiencing the wrong god.

Quote:
gl: Some people - perhaps because of a "spiritual" born-again experience or a lifetime of indoctrination - start with the premise that God is good by definition, and therefore any apparent evil related in the bible is in fact, somehow, good. Others start with the notion of investigating God's character - and may come to the conclusion that the evidence shows him to be immoral.
That is usually the result of not realizing exactly how extreme His goodness is. He is so extremely morally pure that no sinful being can come in His presence without being destroyed unless they have been purified of their sin. And any being that goes against his chosen representatives will ultimately be destroyed.

Quote:
gl: I really can't think of one good reason to love or praise God, given how his character is revealed in the bible.
Well you are entitled to have your opinion but I have a hunch that you do not realize the magnitude of His moral purity as explained above.

Quote:
gl:I also find it ridiculous that God had a "chosen people" in the first place.
So you don't think He should rescue some people from hell?
Ed is offline  
Old 04-04-2004, 09:34 PM   #180
Ed
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SC
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rymmie1981
Quote:
Ed: I have not denied that God is indirectly responsible. But he did not create Pharoah that way, he became that way thru how he was raised and his own choices. Free will does not mean you can do anything, I would like to jump off a cliff and flap my arms and soar thru the sky but that does not mean I have the ability to do so. Just as you don't have the abilty to win the Pulitzer. But we were created to make spiritual decisions such as choosing to believe in God.


rym: And, now, a NT look at this discussion that addresses this whole thread and tells you what Jews understood the text to mean at the time that Romans was written.

Rom. 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

Rom. 9:16 So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Rom. 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Rom. 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.

Rom. 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Rom. 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus?

Rom. 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Rom. 9:22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Rom. 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,


Where is Pharoah's free will? Where is God not hardening Pharoah's heart by direct means?
Actually I meant to say that God is directly responsible for the later hardenings of Pharaohs heart but the initial hardenings were by Pharoah himself as I demonstrated above. But these verses are from the perspective of God. God is totally in control of what occurs on the earth and it was part of God's plan from the beginning that Pharoah would not let them go. But since we do not have exhaustive knowledge of how God controls the universe you cannot say that his control takes away our free will. It may appear to be a contradiction but in fact it is a paradox, just like the nature of light. Light has characteristics of both a particle and a wave, this was once thought to be a contradiction but once we learned more about light we determined that this assessment of its nature is correct. The same thing applies to how God's total control fits with man's free will. Its just that we don't know the nature of God's control.


Quote:
rym: Does "vessel of wrath fitted to destruction" mean that Pharoah could have not been utterly destroyed by God had he made the right choices? Can the veesels of mercy turn themselves into vessels of wrath, or does the potter have direct power over the exact kind of vessel each person is?
This just means that it was part of God's plan that Pharaoh would refuse to let the hebrews go and that he would be eventually destroyed. And yet he had free will see above about how this is a paradox. No, you cannot change God's ordained plan for you but yet you do have free will, again see above.

Quote:
rym: Is making something just so you can prove that you can destroy it moral, especially if that thing is sentient?
That is not what verse 22 is saying that God did. The vessels of destruction still had an important purpose for their lives and that is show the Glory and mercy of God on the undeserved vessels of mercy.

Quote:
rym: These are some of the questions that lead to my deconversion. Maybe I'm a vessel of wrath fitted to destruction. If I am, then I have no choice in the matter, and God is one psychotic being.
No, you do have a choice in the matter, see above about the paradox.
Ed is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:37 PM.

Top

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