Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 04-28-2004, 02:22 AM

Quote:

gl: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.

Ed: 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.

jtb: 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.

You failed to answer my question. I will take that as an unable to refute.

MY answer would involve explaining secular morality to you: a time-consuming process which has already been covered by others in considerable detail elsewhere.

However, it is irrelevant. What matters is YOUR inability to see the difference between right and wrong on this issue, and your inconsistency: if you truly used the Bible as your guide in ALL cases, then you wouldn't be struggling with issues such as rape and human sacrifice, you'd just accept what the Bible appears to be saying. Apparently you DO have a moral sense (which, by the way, is readily explainable by evolution and social conditioning), but when confronted by a Biblical atrocity with no "way out", you suppress it and simply accept the Bible's evil as being OK.

Quote:

jtb: 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?

What contradiction and what atrocities?

Slaughtering women and children: OK.

Forcing captured virgins to be "wives" for the soldiers: OK

Rape: not OK (why not?)

Human sacrifice: not OK (why not?)

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.)

Ed: The Israelites never did those things, refer to my posts above.

jtb: 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.

Capital punishment is not murder. See Hebrews 10:26-27 and Romans 6:23.
See above where I explained the so-called rape passages.

It wasn't "capital punishment". INNOCENTS were slaughtered.

...And, no, you can't say they were killed for "original sin". The Bible clearly states that this was NOT the reason, and if people CAN be legitimately killed for "original sin" (which is never done ANYWHERE in the Bible, unless you're counting the death of Jesus), then you are justifying the Holocaust and every act of murder ever committed.

...And, no, you didn't "explain" the rape passages. You invented fiction. You even admitted that rape "wasn't serious" in the society of the ancient Hebrews.

Quote:

jtb: ...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.

Until you answer on what basis you can judge His actions, your statements are meaningless.

On what basis can YOU judge rape and human sacrifice to be wrong?

Quote:

jtb: ...And here you're admitting that there WAS a "human tithe"!

Yes, but they were always redeemed, see above.

You have already admitted that this was not true. The Bible makes this quite clear, and you were forced to admit that the people you called "heretical Hebrews" actually performed child sacrifices.

You have also failed to explain why the tradition of a "human tithe" exists at all. I will take this as an admission that you cannot.

Ed · 04-28-2004, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Originally Posted by Ed
(to Doctor X) The underlying basis for all your arguments is an anti-supernatural bias.

lp: So if you refuse to believe that some nighttime noises are the result of a ghost haunting your home, you have anti-supernatural bias?

No, because there is little or no evidence that ghosts exist, while there is a great deal of evidence that God exists, ie the universe and its characteristics.

Quote:

Ed: 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.

lp: And what are their arguments?

I don't have the time or knowledge to cover all of them, but the primary argument is the refutation that different names for God means multiple authorship.

Quote:

(Doctor X: the earliest religions are polytheistic...)
Ed: Read Wilhelm Schmidt's The Origin and Growth of Religion.

lp: 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.

Of course, that is the result of the natural tendency of man to reject the true God over time and engage in syncretism in order to justify their behavior. And by saying that God loses interest in humans allows them not having to be accountable for how they use their time.

lpetrich · 04-28-2004, 11:32 PM

(mysterious nighttime noises as caused by ghosts...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

No, because there is little or no evidence that ghosts exist,

Which totally begs the question. Ghosts don't exist therefore nothing can be evidence that ghosts exist.

Quote:

while there is a great deal of evidence that God exists, ie the universe and its characteristics.

I've handled this "argument" in other threads.

Quote:

... but the primary argument is the refutation that different names for God means multiple authorship.

That's NOT the only line of evidence for JEDP.

Quote:

Of course, that is the result of the natural tendency of man to reject the true God over time and engage in syncretism in order to justify their behavior. And by saying that God loses interest in humans allows them not having to be accountable for how they use their time.

Very ingenious. Especially when that alleged deity hides most of the time.

Ed · 04-29-2004, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

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.

Yes, but he also had to punish Pharoah and part of that punishment was to see the children of Egypt die. But of course the children were much better off in the long run. They went immediately to heaven instead of being raised in a idol worshipping and corrupt society and probably ending up in hell.

lpetrich · 04-29-2004, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

Yes, but he also had to punish Pharoah and part of that punishment was to see the children of Egypt die. But of course the children were much better off in the long run. They went immediately to heaven instead of being raised in a idol worshipping and corrupt society and probably ending up in hell.

But I thought that killed babies are supposed to go to Hell, because they are such TERRIBLE sinners.

In any case, this argument can easily justify infanticide -- and abortion. With the killers being willing to go to Hell so that others can go to Heaven.

Ed · 05-01-2004, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rymmie1981

OK, here we go again.

ed: 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.

rym: If you assert that Pharoah hardened his own heart(which you obviously have several times throughout this thread), then you contradict the verses I quoted, specifically Rom. 9:16-18. Are you contradicting them because you don't believe the NT is inspired? Or is it out of simple human error? Either way, one would ask that you give your reasons for the contradiction.

What contradiction? Romans 9:16-18 does not rule out initial self hardenings.

Quote:

ed: 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.

rym: The nature of light is not paradoxical. Allow me to give a simple explaination. (Forgive me if the chemistry terms are incorrect. Physics is more my field.) Light is released when electrons fall from a higher valence to a lower valence in their atom. When they move to a lower valence, they lose energy which is released as light. Only a certain amount of energy is released in the form of electromagnetic radiation. This certain amount of energy occupies a very small portion of space. We can think of it as a particle due to it's smallness. However, the "particle" is actually a standing wave of electromagnetic radiation. So, we can call this certain amount of electromagnetic radiation a particle for some purposes and a wave for others. This is not meant to be an exhaustive discourse on the properties of light. There are other complexities, but there is no paradox.

IOW it appears to act as a particle but is actually a wave. That is exactly what a paradox is. Look it up in a dictionary. A paradox is something that appears to be a contradiction but in actuality it is not. And that is what God's sovereignty and man's free will is. It appears that man does not have free will given God's total control but in fact he does.

Quote:

rym: All of that to say that comparing the nature of God(which we lowly mortals cannot understand) to the nature of light(which we lowly mortals understand more fully each day) is not a good analogy. It is enough to say that we do not know how God controls everything. A paradox is when two things cannot happen concurrently within a logical framework. If you are making the assertion that God's power and our free will are paradoxical, then you are saying that your entire arguement thus far is not logical. An explanation of this position would be nice.

No, a paradox does not violate logic, only a contradiction does. See above.

Quote:

ed: 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.

rym: See above. This seems to be a pattern.

Did you bother to try to understand above?

Quote:

ed: 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.

rym: The entire passage is very clear about the purpose of the vessels of destruction. They are to show God's glory and mercy on the vessels of mercy by being destroyed. Or did I miss something where the vessels of destruction were put up on nice shelf with doilies and a spray of baby's breath and daffodils? The purpose of the passage I quoted was to prove to its readers that Pharoah was made to die in the Red Sea by the very hand of God. And, conversely, they were made to live in Heaven with Jesus by the same hand. Actually, that's the whole chapter, not just what I quoted, but feel free to read the chapter for full context.

Nevertheless they did live for a time even though they did not deserve to. According to the scripture we deserve to die at birth because of our sin.

Quote:

ed: No, you do have a choice in the matter, see above about the paradox.

rym: I agree that I have a choice in the matter. But, I don't see a paradox since my world is based on logical rules that only change inside of a singularity..

No, see above how a paradox is not illogical.

dantonac · 05-01-2004, 10:18 PM

Quote:

ED: What contradiction? Romans 9:16-18 does not rule out initial self hardenings.

Forgive my late entry into this thread, but I have a question to ask you, Ed.

Why is it at all important whether Pharoah initially hardened his heart?

Earlier in the thread you said that eventually a person can lose their free will. I assume that by this you are referring to being turned over to a reprobate mind? Your position seems to be that God gave the pharaoh a legitimate opportunity or two to comply and after refusing a certain number of times then God took over and kept hardening his heart/turned him over to a reprobate mind?

That doesn't seem to work. Being turned over to a reprobate mind means withdrawing the conviction of sin, allowing the conscience, the knowledge of right and wrong, to become blurred or erased.

A reprobate mind is a state, hardening a heart is an action.

If I allow that Pharoah was stubborn initially without divine interference, his conscience deadened and his moral compass turned around all of his own accord then why doesn't the bible simply say that?

Why doesn't the bible simply say that Pharoah was so evil, so far gone that nothing God did would persuade the Pharoah to comply?

And if the Pharoah was that far gone, why does God harden his heart AFTER the Pharoah supposedly hardened it himself one time too many and the condition was now permanent?

What would be the need for God to harden an already self hardened heart?

Ed · 05-02-2004, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Ed:
Here God is just predicting that he will harden Pharoahs heart. Read verse 13 and you will see that Pharoah initiates the hardening himself.

jtb: Exodus 7:13: And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

No, a better translation is the NKJV: And Pharaoh's heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, as the Lord had said

Quote:

Ed: 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.

jtb: Of course, you have not "demonstrated" any such thing.

You have merely assumed that if one translation of a verse fails to mention WHO hardened Pharaoh's heart, then Pharaoh himself did it.

It is a rational assumption given what we know about human nature.

Quote:

jtb: God specifically hardens Pharaoh's heart in the following verses:
Ex.4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

No, this is a prediction that he WILL eventually harden his heart.

Quote:

Ex.7:3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.

Same as above.

Quote:

Ex.7:13 And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

No the NASB is a better translation: Yet Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the LORD had said.

Quote:

Ex.9:12 And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses.

Ex.10:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him:

Ex.10:20 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go.

Ex.10:27 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let them go.

Ex.11:10 And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land.

Yes, in all of these God did harden his heart.

Quote:

Ex.14:4 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the LORD.

This was a prediction.

Quote:

Ex.14:8 And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel

Ex.14:17 I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them: and I will get me honour.

Pharaoh doesn't get the chance to harden HIS OWN heart until Exodus 8:15.
8:15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

8:32 And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also, neither would he let the people go.

9:34 And when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he and his servants.

No, he hardened it before these verses see above.

Quote:

jtb: There are also several occasions where Pharaoh's heart just hardens, with no culprit specified:

7:22 And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, neither did he hearken unto them; as the LORD had said.

9:7 And Pharaoh sent, and, behold, there was not one of the cattle of the Israelites dead. And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go.

When it doesn't specifically say that God hardened his heart it is generally understood that Pharoah hardened it given that only God or yourself can harden your own heart.

Quote:

jtb: So, the heart-hardener is:

4:21 God
7:3 God
7:13 God
7:22 Unspecified
8:15 Pharaoh
8:32 Pharaoh
9:7 Unspecified
9:12 God
9:34 Pharaoh
10:1 God
10:20 God
10:27 God
11:10 God
14:4 God
14:8 God
14:17 God

No see corrections above.

Quote:

jtb: Exodus 7:13 is particularly relevant, as it's the first time that the heart-hardening actually happened (rather than God discussing his intention). Bible translations follow:
Quote:
KJV: And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

NLT: Pharaoh's heart, however, remained hard and stubborn. He still refused to listen, just as the Lord had predicted.

(...note that the prediction is "But I will cause Pharaoh to be stubborn so I can multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in the land of Egypt")

NASB: Yet Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the LORD had said.

(...note that the lord had said that HE would harden Pharaoh's heart)

NKJV: And Pharaoh's heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, as the Lord had said.

(...note that the lord had said that HE would harden Pharaoh's heart)

Webster's: And he hardened Pharaoh's heart that he hearkened not to them; as the LORD had said.

Young's: and the heart of Pharaoh is strong, and he hath not hearkened unto them, as Jehovah hath spoken.

(...this implies that Pharaoh might have been at fault, but this is contradicted AGAIN by Exodus 7:3, where the lord had said that HE would harden Pharaoh's heart)

No, God doesn't say WHEN He would harden Pharoahs heart.

Quote:

jtb: Darby's: And Pharaoh's heart was stubborn, and he hearkened not to them, as Jehovah had said.

(...again, Jehovah had said that HE would do it)

ASV: And Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as Jehovah had spoken.

(...again, Jehovah had said that HE would do it)

RSV: Still Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them; as the LORD had said.

(...again, what he SAID was that HE would harden Pharaoh's heart)

...So there you have it.

In EVERY TRANSLATION, God either SPECIFICALLY hardens Pharaoh's heart in Exodus 7:13, or Pharaoh's heart hardens in 7:13 AS GOD HAD SAID in Exodus 7:3, where GOD said that HE would harden Pharaoh's heart.

...Isn't it amazing what you learn if you actually READ the Bible?

You are only partially correct, see my comments above for more accurate assessment.

sashang · 05-03-2004, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

Yes, but he also had to punish Pharoah and part of that punishment was to see the children of Egypt die. But of course the children were much better off in the long run. They went immediately to heaven instead of being raised in a idol worshipping and corrupt society and probably ending up in hell.

Good one Ed. Take that to it's logical conclusion and apply it to the world as it is. (Hint: Kill all non-Christians and their children in the world today because that would be doing them a favour.) One thing I wonder about Christians is why do they bother to reproduce given the chance that their offspring might go to hell. That's pretty immoral and selfish.

Ed · 05-03-2004, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

jtb: The first verse refers to rape, the second verse refers to seduction. This is obvious. That's why the authors used different terms: he "seized" her in the first case, and "seduced" her in the second.

Ed: Not necessarily. When a man gets excited sometimes they get a little aggressive even when it is consensual and he may "seize" her.

jtb: You have failed to address my point that if BOTH verses applied to consensual sex, there would be NO verse that applied to the rape of a young, single woman.

If a young, single woman WAS raped, the Hebrews would have turned to their "holy book" to see what the punishment was. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 spells it out.

No, the Torah was not exhaustive, sometimes the laws were used to glean general principles to deal with specific cases not dealt with in the law.

Quote:

Ed: I never said that rape was a major crime in ancient times.

jtb: FINALLY we're making progress...

Nevertheless it was a crime, unlike many other societies at the time.

Quote:

Ed: Deut. 22:25-26 deals with rape and though it deals specifically with a betrothed woman the ancient judges most likely extrapolated it to other cases like rape of an unmarried woman.

jtb: Highly unlikely, for three reasons:

1. The death penalty applies to adultery, not rape.

Obviously not always because this verse deals with rape not adultery. Adultery is consensual, this was obviously NOT consensual because she cried for help.

Quote:

jtb: 2. If it happened in a town, the victim would be put to death if she didn't cry out: there is no need to punish her if she was single.

She didn't cry out because it was consensual. That can warrant the death penalty in some cases.

Quote:

3. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 already covers this situation.

No, that is fornication, which is not worthy of the death penalty.

Quote:

Ed: But even if I am wrong and verses 28-29 are talking about rape, you have to remember that in ancient times a husband was a woman's primary source of security. An unmarried non-virgin was pretty much in line for a death sentence from starvation or involuntary prostitution. So by forcing the man to marry the girl he raped and not allowing him to divorce her, it was like getting free ancient health insurance for life.

jtb: An unmarried woman is perfectly capable of herding goats. And if she WAS in further danger from other men: well, that says a lot about the morality of "God's chosen people". Maybe if God had made rape a serious crime, this wouldn't happen...

Who said it was God's chosen people? In most cases it would have been the surrounding pagan nations, some of them used to send raiding parties into Israel.

Quote:

jtb: ...But you already know all this, because we've discussed this before. You are seeking to apply a non-Biblical moral standard to the Bible, because you don't like what the Bible actually says.

Ed: Hardly. If you go up to the time of Christ, he and Paul teaches us to treat all women that are not our wife like our sisters. And although in this area God did not reveal his full teaching on the matter till the time of Christ and the Christian church, it is the same God in both the OT and the NT.

jtb: No new LAWS to protect women were introduced in the NT.

Thats because Christ and the apostles were not setting up a theocracy, but later Judeo-christian societies used Christ's and Paul's teachings to make laws that would give women greater rights and protections, and lift them up during the Age of Chivalry.

Quote:

jtb: It is still a mystery why you embrace some of the Bible's evils and reject others.

Ed: You have yet to demonstrate that evil exists.

jtb: God-ordained genocide, rape of captives, no serious punishment for non-adulterous rape in general, human sacrifice of captives, human sacrifice of firstborn children (later rescinded).

Most of these you have admitted..

No, I only admitted the second one and only theoretically, see above. But yet you still have not explained why these things rare evil. Maybe they were part of the evolutionary process for humans to reach the level they are today, so actually these things are good.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.