Freethought & Rationalism Archive

christ-on-a-stick · 03-09-2003, 10:50 AM

Hi Kevin,

Thank you for your reply. A couple things for now and I will have more time tomorrow as well:

Quote:

In looking at your list of sins that were "allowed" or "commanded" in the OT, some of them are easy to explain. For example, when God set up Kings over his people Israel he specifically told them not to multiply wives. When Solomon did that, he was sinning. The Bible doesn't hide the ugly part of our sinful nature. Solomon is not praised for this fact, as a matter of fact the Bible tells us that his many wives led to turning his heart away from God - and probably contributed to the division of God's chosen people into Israel and Judah.

You say that he was "not praised for this fact", but he was not CONDEMNED for it, was he? The OT God seems very keen on condemning people for sins (if not outright wiping them out) but Solomon was still allowed to rule over God's chosen people, was he not? Along the same vein, you haven't responded yet (but I will try to be patient

) to my question about Lot being considered "righteous" after giving his daughters to an angry mob to be raped. Sure, it doesn't say God "praised" him for this action but let's put 2 and 2 together... Lot does this awful thing = God calls him "righteous" (in fact the only "righteous man" in the whole city worthy of being spared).

Quote:

As far as the flood and the Israelite slaughters go, both of those fall under the category of the judgments of God. God could not let sin continue to go unchecked forever, so he sent the flood to cleanse his creation from evil.

2 points here.

A) In the flood, God wiped out not only all the purportedly "sinful" people, but every pregnant woman, baby and child - and all the animals that weren't on the ark! What exactly did these babies and children, not to mention animals, do to be "sinful"?

B) If God's plan with the flood was the "cleanse his creation from evil".... um, it didn't work very well, did it??? Evil still "came back". And he would have known that it was going to come back, so why go ahead with the Flood anyway, killing scores of innocent babies and children and animals??? For an "omnimax" God he doesn't seem to come up with very Good Plans.

Quote:

When the Israelites took possession of the Promised Land (I assume these are the Israelite slaughters you are referring to), they were moving into an area where many different gods (idols) were worshipped. Israel was God's tool of judgment on a people who worshipped fertility gods and goddesses, and other assorted gods and goddesses. Why would God tell Israel to wipe them out? God was going to use Israel to bring about his salvation. Because of that Israel had to remain pure if there was going to be any hope for the rest of us. So God didn't want his people polluted by and tempted to worship false gods. So, in a sense, this was a judgment on sin and a protection of God's holy people so that he could accomplish the salvation of the world through them.

A few more questions...

A) Why did he have them wipe out all the babies and children as well (not to mention the unborn "ripped from their mothers' wombs"). Obviously they were not "worshipping false gods". The Israelites could have adopted them, instead of viciously murdering them... unless of course God is showing some racist tendencies here?

B) In addition, the Israelites apparently murdered babies and children but *kept alive* female virgins for their "own use". Besides the obvious slave-taking and rape aspect of this, it kind of ruins the whole theory of keeping the Israelites "unpolluted", doesn't it? Babies & children could have been raised as Israelites but it seems that adult women would be more likely to "pollute" the Israelites with their ideas about false gods, etc.

Lastly but not leastly

- this one really struck me.

Quote:

I guess one of the points you are trying to make is that God "changes his mind" through time on morality, what is right and what is wrong. To be honest, I don't see that. Maybe I am deluded, but I don't think I am.

I'll put this as simply as I can:

Incest - OK in Genesis. Not a sin.
Incest - NOT OK now (or in later biblical times). A sin.

How is this not an example of changing morality? Setting aside arguments about how it could have not been harmful genetically in the beginning, etc., please point out how incest being NOT A SIN at one point in time and A SIN at another point in time is not a clear and unavoidable examply of God "changing his mind" on a matter of morality.

Thanks!!!

Lauri

Scribleriad · 03-10-2003, 08:18 AM

I find some of the punishments in the Bible a little unreasonable, especially for apparently innocent mistakes. However, take for example, what happened in Noah's tent...

Saved from a flood that has killed everyone in the world but himself and his family, what does Noah do?

He plants a vineyard, makes wine, get drunk and lies down in his tent with his balls hanging out. Unfortunately for Noah, his nakedness was seen by his son, Ham, who went to tell his brothers. Because of the law, Shem and Japheth had to walk backwards into the tent to cover their father up, but when Noah awoke he "got to know what his youngest son had done to him." As far as I am aware, this "youngest son" refers, not to Ham, but to Canaan, Noah's grandson, who had performed a perverted act upon the unconscious Noah while he was intoxicated through drink.

What was the perverted act that Canaan had performed upon the unconscious Noah? Was the subsequent curse placed upon Canaan's descendants justified?

Noah's curse brought Canaan's descendants into slavery and a history of sordid immorality and depravity (either predicting the natural inclinations of the Canaanites, or encouraging them), it seems it was much more serious than tying a ribbon around his grandfather's penis, especially as Noah didn't have any more children.

Genesis 9:18-27.

christ-on-a-stick · 03-11-2003, 01:50 PM

*bump* for spurly, keepin' it visible

spurly · 03-11-2003, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by christ-on-a-stick
Hi Kevin,

Thank you for your reply. A couple things for now and I will have more time tomorrow as well: You say that he was "not praised for this fact", but he was not CONDEMNED for it, was he? The OT God seems very keen on condemning people for sins (if not outright wiping them out) but Solomon was still allowed to rule over God's chosen people, was he not? Along the same vein, you haven't responded yet (but I will try to be patient ) to my question about Lot being considered "righteous" after giving his daughters to an angry mob to be raped. Sure, it doesn't say God "praised" him for this action but let's put 2 and 2 together... Lot does this awful thing = God calls him "righteous" (in fact the only "righteous man" in the whole city worthy of being spared). 2 points here.

Was Solomon condemend for it? I think he was. It occurs in a little statement, I don't remember where it was but I can find it for you if you like, that his foreign wives led him away from God. A life without God is the strongest condemnation of all. That is what Hell is all about - separation from God.

In addition, like I noted in my post above, Solomon's sin in multiplying wives led to the split up of the kingdom after his reign was over. He was not following God, so God ripped part of the kingdom from him and his ancestors.

As far as Lot goes, only God knows his heart. The Bible does not say he was perfect, it simply says he was righteous. There is a difference. God knows the heart. Lot was trying to protect his guests any way he could, one of the highest goods in middle eastern society of that time, from what I have been told. When you took someone into your house and let them eat at your table you were agreeing to protect them. Who knows? Maybe he knew the mob assembled outside his door wouldn't accept his daughters before he offered.

Quote:

A) In the flood, God wiped out not only all the purportedly "sinful" people, but every pregnant woman, baby and child - and all the animals that weren't on the ark! What exactly did these babies and children, not to mention animals, do to be "sinful"?

B) If God's plan with the flood was the "cleanse his creation from evil".... um, it didn't work very well, did it??? Evil still "came back". And he would have known that it was going to come back, so why go ahead with the Flood anyway, killing scores of innocent babies and children and animals??? For an "omnimax" God he doesn't seem to come up with very Good Plans. A few more questions...

Again, God's plan was to bring judgment on the world because every inclination and thought of the people on the earth was only evil all the time. If a righteous God sees fit to bring judgment, who am I to question him.

Yes, evil returned because people continued to make choices that flew in the face of God.

Quote:

A) Why did he have them wipe out all the babies and children as well (not to mention the unborn "ripped from their mothers' wombs"). Obviously they were not "worshipping false gods". The Israelites could have adopted them, instead of viciously murdering them... unless of course God is showing some racist tendencies here?

B) In addition, the Israelites apparently murdered babies and children but *kept alive* female virgins for their "own use". Besides the obvious slave-taking and rape aspect of this, it kind of ruins the whole theory of keeping the Israelites "unpolluted", doesn't it? Babies & children could have been raised as Israelites but it seems that adult women would be more likely to "pollute" the Israelites with their ideas about false gods, etc.

Were the Israelites instructed by God to keep the females alive? I seriously don't know. I don't remember a text that says that, if you know of one, please let me know.

As far as I remember, one of the reasons that the Israelites messed up is that they didn't completely annihilate the previous inhabitants of the land who worshipped false gods.

Quote:

Lastly but not leastly - this one really struck me. I'll put this as simply as I can:

Incest - OK in Genesis. Not a sin.
Incest - NOT OK now (or in later biblical times). A sin.

How is this not an example of changing morality? Setting aside arguments about how it could have not been harmful genetically in the beginning, etc., please point out how incest being NOT A SIN at one point in time and A SIN at another point in time is not a clear and unavoidable examply of God "changing his mind" on a matter of morality.

Thanks!!!

Lauri

Lauri,

Again, revelation is progressive. The only thing laid out in the beginning is to avoid evil - don't eat of the tree. As time progresses more of God's nature was revealed, and we were called to bring our lives in line with his character and nature.

I know that doesn't satisfactorily answer your question. I will think about it more and get back to you.

Kevin

christ-on-a-stick · 03-11-2003, 03:01 PM

Hi Kevin,

I have some responses to your most recent post but til I get a chance to respond more fully, one thing for your consideration:

Quote:

Were the Israelites instructed by God to keep the females alive? I seriously don't know. I don't remember a text that says that, if you know of one, please let me know.

Read Numbers 31:7-35. A lovely story of the slaughter of the Midianites. A quick summary, from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible:

Quote:

Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the Midianites. They kill all the adult males, but take the women and children captive. When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: "Have you saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed, killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000 virgins

That must have been one bloody scene..... murdering all the people and even the babies and little kids... but dragging the virgins off "for themselves" ...

spurly · 03-11-2003, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by christ-on-a-stick
Hi Kevin,

I have some responses to your most recent post but til I get a chance to respond more fully, one thing for your consideration:

Read Numbers 31:7-35. A lovely story of the slaughter of the Midianites. A quick summary, from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible:

That must have been one bloody scene..... murdering all the people and even the babies and little kids... but dragging the virgins off "for themselves" ...

Thanks for the scripture reference. Now that I think about it, I remember that part of the Midianite religion involved intercourse, literally orgies, with the temple prostitues.

Maybe, just maybe, God was saying that the women who did not participate in that were okay not to slaughter. As far as the little kids go, I will think about that some more.

Kevin

Beetle · 03-11-2003, 03:28 PM

Hi, folks! Quick note on Abram and Sarai. Both times that Abram/Abraham allows rulers "access" to his wife, he is *rewarded* for the practice.

In Genesis 12 the pharaoh "treated Abram well for her sake, and Abram acquired sheep and cattle, male and female donkeys, manservants and maidservants and camels." (Gen 12:16) Abram gets to keep the loot when his deception is revealed.

Then, in Genesis 20 Abimelech pays Abraham to go away after he learns of the deception. "Then Abimelech brought sheep and cattle and male and female slaves and gave them to Abraham and he returned Sarah his wife to him." (Gen 20:14) I guess Abimelech didn't have any camels.

(Hey! My first ever post ends up on the incest/pimping thread! Woo-Hoo!

)

christ-on-a-stick · 03-11-2003, 04:19 PM

....and welcome!!!

Your points are good. However...

[psychic powers mode]

I am going to guess that Kevin will say that Abraham wasn't rewarded by God, just by men, so that doesn't show that God was pleased with Abraham's actions.

[/psychic powers mode]

In which case, I would ask... how many times does someone have to not be condemned and continue to be blessed before we can reasonably assume that God wasn't too concerned about the wrongdoing, else he would have done some trademark smiting? It's not like he doesn't enjoy pouring out his wrath or anything.

Kevin,

Quote:

Thanks for the scripture reference. Now that I think about it, I remember that part of the Midianite religion involved intercourse, literally orgies, with the temple prostitues. Maybe, just maybe, God was saying that the women who did not participate in that were okay not to slaughter.

You are tying yourself in knots here my friend!!! One one hand you say that the reason *everybody* had to be knocked off was because the "impurity" of the foreign tribes had to be eradicated COMPLETELY. But then, you justify their keeping the virgins alive because they didn't directly participate in the alleged orgies? What about the children - certainly they didn't participate in the orgies either, and the smallest ones wouldn't even have been AWARE of them (yes I realize you were going to get back to me on the children issue, just more food for thought). Moreover, would you really presume that EVERY woman "who had lain with a man" was also a) involved in these alleged orgies or b) a prostitute? What about the grandmothers and grandfathers - the elderly people among them? The sick, infirm and crippled? Apparently they were savagely slaughtered as well.

All that being said, this *still* doesn't address the issue of the 32,000 virgins being TAKEN (kidnapped) for the Israelites' "own use" - sounds like slavery and rape to me. Please don't tell me that you think 32,000 girls and young women who just watched the Israelites murder their mothers, fathers, baby brothers and grandparents somehow just went along willingly and happily with their captors???

Just a few more thoughts for you. I will have more later on the whole "progression revelation" thing. I realize we are getting pretty far afield from the incest aspect and I still have nits to pick with ya on that one.

Queen of Swords · 03-11-2003, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by spurly
Maybe, just maybe, God was saying that the women who did not participate in that were okay not to slaughter.

Let's assume that a temple prostitute is eight months pregnant.

Would God consider it okay to slaughter her (and her unborn child, of course)?

christ-on-a-stick · 03-12-2003, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Let's assume that a temple prostitute is eight months pregnant. Would God consider it okay to slaughter her (and her unborn child, of course)?

I would add this to my list of questions, spurly.

03-10-2003, 08:18 AM	#22
Scribleriad Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: UK Posts: 7	Punishing immorality. I find some of the punishments in the Bible a little unreasonable, especially for apparently innocent mistakes. However, take for example, what happened in Noah's tent... Saved from a flood that has killed everyone in the world but himself and his family, what does Noah do? He plants a vineyard, makes wine, get drunk and lies down in his tent with his balls hanging out. Unfortunately for Noah, his nakedness was seen by his son, Ham, who went to tell his brothers. Because of the law, Shem and Japheth had to walk backwards into the tent to cover their father up, but when Noah awoke he "got to know what his youngest son had done to him." As far as I am aware, this "youngest son" refers, not to Ham, but to Canaan, Noah's grandson, who had performed a perverted act upon the unconscious Noah while he was intoxicated through drink. What was the perverted act that Canaan had performed upon the unconscious Noah? Was the subsequent curse placed upon Canaan's descendants justified? Noah's curse brought Canaan's descendants into slavery and a history of sordid immorality and depravity (either predicting the natural inclinations of the Canaanites, or encouraging them), it seems it was much more serious than tying a ribbon around his grandfather's penis, especially as Noah didn't have any more children. Genesis 9:18-27.

03-11-2003, 01:50 PM	#23
christ-on-a-stick Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Durango, Colorado Posts: 7,116	Just a.... bump for spurly, keepin' it visible

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

03-11-2003, 03:28 PM	#27
Beetle Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Massachusetts State Home for the Bewildered Posts: 961	Hi, folks! Quick note on Abram and Sarai. Both times that Abram/Abraham allows rulers "access" to his wife, he is rewarded for the practice. In Genesis 12 the pharaoh "treated Abram well for her sake, and Abram acquired sheep and cattle, male and female donkeys, manservants and maidservants and camels." (Gen 12:16) Abram gets to keep the loot when his deception is revealed. Then, in Genesis 20 Abimelech pays Abraham to go away after he learns of the deception. "Then Abimelech brought sheep and cattle and male and female slaves and gave them to Abraham and he returned Sarah his wife to him." (Gen 20:14) I guess Abimelech didn't have any camels. (Hey! My first ever post ends up on the incest/pimping thread! Woo-Hoo! )

03-11-2003, 08:34 PM	#29
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	Originally posted by spurly Maybe, just maybe, God was saying that the women who did not participate in that were okay not to slaughter. Let's assume that a temple prostitute is eight months pregnant. Would God consider it okay to slaughter her (and her unborn child, of course)?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.