Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

marienbad wrote: »

This is the crux of the matter, in particular those that insist on taking it literally , And then defy logic by cherry picking what is literal and what is not, all to fit their own view.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I find it impossible to believe that Christians, particularly those who are able to put forward clear, concise, intelligent arguments, cannot see this for themselves.

This is just throwing out veiled insults tbh. No-one has been talking about anything not being literal, and I think you'll find most people would not be arguing that this is anything but literal.
If you have an issue with honest people looking honestly at things in the bible as a whole and working out if something is metaphor (like Jesus saying he is a door for example) or literal etc, then that is YOUR issue. It may be easier for you to carry out dishonest, lazy-minded attacks, born out of ignorance, bitterness, moral disagreement etc if you pretend to yourself that 'Them Christians are just squirming out of the reality'. The reality however, is that most of us are looking to find out what the authors were looking to communicate.

JimiTime wrote: »

Because its still wrong to murder, commit adultery etc. Principals are formed, and these principals can be carried through to any culture. If we happened to still be in a war culture where armies moved in to countries with swords and took them over so that they became part of the conquering nation etc, then the specifics of Deuteronomy may well still have an application. Modern warfare, and nations exerting their power is a bit more deceptive and nuanced these days.

So can you not you not believe that it is wrong to murder for any other reason than 'the bible says so'? If you didn't follow the bible would you not think it was wrong to murder? I think it is wrong to murder but I wouldn't give a fig for what the bible has to say on the subject.

Rape and pillage is not ok in warfare today. Just because it still happens in some places, does not make it ok. Remember god sanctioned the biblical rape and pillage that has been discussed.

What seems to be the argument is that God sanctioned rape and pillage because it was a societal norm at the time. However most Christians would not approve of those behaviours today. Another example would be that it was a societal norm to discriminate against gays in biblical times. Clearly a norm from several millennia ago like rape and pillage. Many Christians still think it ok to discriminate against gays because of this biblical norm, and use it as a reason to do so, even though you admit other norms from biblical times are now wrong. Is there something that I am missing here?

JimiTime wrote: »

The reality however, is that most of us are looking to find out what the authors were looking to communicate.

Yeah but you do that while assuming certain things about what they must have been looking to communicate.

For example, do you believe that the authors of the New Testament were looking to communicate the idea to their readers that the return of Jesus was coming soon, with in their lifetime. Do you believe that the authors of these passages would have been puzzled and mystified if you had told them that 2,000 years later we were still waiting.

I'm not asking what you believe is God's decision on the matter, I'm asking what you think the authors of these passages believed and were attempting to communicate in the things they wrote.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So can you not you not believe that it is wrong to murder for any other reason than 'the bible says so'? If you didn't follow the bible would you not think it was wrong to murder? I think it is wrong to murder but I wouldn't give a fig for what the bible has to say on the subject.

I suspect Jimi choose "murder" on purpose there. Murder is, by definition, immoral, it is the unwarranted/illegal/immoral killing of another.

Things get a lot more complicated if you ask is it wrong to kill, does the Old Testament support the idea that it is wrong to kill. But the Israelites were routinely ordered to kill by their priests and prophets (ie under the order of God)

Christians will argue that since Jesus God will no longer ask us to kill on Earth so therefore most if not all killing is murder, but they have a harder time justifying why he asked the Israelites to do it so often. More often than not the answer simply comes down to putting faith in the idea that God had a reason, what ever it was. Which I would hope you find as unsatisfactory as I do.

JimiTime wrote: »

This is just throwing out veiled insults tbh. No-one has been talking about anything not being literal, and I think you'll find most people would not be arguing that this is anything but literal.
If you have an issue with honest people looking honestly at things in the bible as a whole and working out if something is metaphor (like Jesus saying he is a door for example) or literal etc, then that is YOUR issue. It may be easier for you to carry out dishonest, lazy-minded attacks, born out of ignorance, bitterness, moral disagreement etc if you pretend to yourself that 'Them Christians are just squirming out of the reality'. The reality however, is that most of us are looking to find out what the authors were looking to communicate.

And this is just avoiding the argument.

JimiTime wrote: »

It may be easier for you to carry out dishonest, lazy-minded attacks, born out of ignorance, bitterness, moral disagreement etc if you pretend to yourself that 'Them Christians are just squirming out of the reality'. The reality

Interesting to that you complained about moderation earlier in this thread but think you should get away with describing others motives as such.

Zombrex wrote: »

I suspect Jimi choose "murder" on purpose there. Murder is, by definition, immoral, it is the unwarranted/illegal/immoral killing of another.

Things get a lot more complicated if you ask is it wrong to kill, does the Old Testament support the idea that it is wrong to kill. But the Israelites were routinely ordered to kill by their priests and prophets (ie under the order of God)

Christians will argue that since Jesus God will no longer ask us to kill on Earth so therefore most if not all killing is murder, but they have a harder time justifying why he asked the Israelites to do it so often. More often than not the answer simply comes down to putting faith in the idea that God had a reason, what ever it was. Which I would hope you find as unsatisfactory as I do.

This is not true. Some Christians do think that killing is justified, even when this means taking innocent lives.

The question for me is why you and the other atheists railing against the OT on this thread think that rape, theft, murder, torture and any number of acts are wrong? You have said that modern war is more moral (which is a laughable statement) but I'm not sure what this means. Moral by whose standard?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

This is not true. Some Christians do think that killing is justified, even when this means taking innocent lives.

I'm sure, if you want to get technical. Some Chritians are psychotics who believe it is there job to cleans the world of wicked sinners.

The point was that most Christians say that post-Jesus such actions described in the Old Testament are not longer relevant. For example PDN used to like saying (when pressed about his absolute belief in God) that if "God" told him to kill someone he wouldn't because he would know that what ever was telling him this couldn't actually be God, based on his interpretation of the New Testament.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The question for me is why you and the other atheists railing against the OT on this thread think that rape, theft, murder, torture and any number of acts are wrong? You have said that modern war is more moral (which is a laughable statement) but I'm not sure what this means. Moral by whose standard?

It means that most people, including myself, consider it unacceptable to kill captured men and women. What that means is that we cannot rationalize that other than to say that it would revenge or transfer of aggression (you harm me so I take it out on your mother), and generally revenge is considered a poor reason to execute someone.

I really hope you aren't going to ask why is my moral opinion "better" than the moral opinion of an Israelite 3000 years ago, given how much we have discussed the attempting to inject objective morality into a system that is not based on objective morality is a logical fallacy.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The question for me is why you and the other atheists railing against the OT on this thread think that rape, theft, murder, torture and any number of acts are wrong?

I am not sure what is meant by this question?

Zombrex wrote: »

Is it still wrong to fornicate.

Yes it is, but of course, the whole issue of morality is not something that can truly be discussed between an objectivist and subjectivist.

Is it still correct punishment to stone a woman to death on her wedding night if she isn't a virgin?

The moral, is the fact that she's deceived her would be husband, so yes, that is still wrong. The punishment is something that applied to the ancient nation of Israel, so no, that punishment would not apply to us here and now.

Is it still wrong (again as in Earthly wrong) to worship the wrong god?

There is no 'earthly wrong', there is just right and wrong as anchored by our sovereign source of life. So yes, it is still wrong.

As Kiwi in IE says the concepts of morality, justice and punishment are a million miles away from today.

In some matters. Principally, the concepts of morality haven't changed though, in the context of God. The world has indeed moved away from God, just like the nations of the biblical times were away rom God.

While it is hard to say modern war is moral, it is easy to say it is hugely more moral than what is described in Deuteronomy.

I would probably say that this is naive but I agree that the word moral and war are probably not best placed together.

For example the idea that after a modern army had taken over a city of country they killed all the men woman and children in the city or country would be considered a war crime. These of course still happen, but it has been a long time since anyone argued they were a good thing. In fact prosecuting people responsible is the type of thing we start wars to do.

Yet this type of action was routinely described in the Old Testament, and not as something bad that happened as a consequence of war but in fact a good outcome ordered by God.

TBH, it sounds brutal to me, but I don't recall it being described as good. Good for Israel in that enemies were delivered into Israels hands etc, but not in a broader sense. Necessary maybe, but good? Israel, when it fell away from Godly worship experienced the same fate, and were only preserved due to a promise by God to retain a remnant, so it seemed that it was the way of war back then. It may have been a stupid thing to keep alive people who refused peace and forced labour in order to fight for their sovereignty. They may have been insidious etc. I don't know the reasons myself, apart from guessing. Anything I could suggest would simply be a maybe this or that.

JimiTime wrote: »

Yes it is, but of course, the whole issue of morality is not something that can truly be discussed between an objectivist and subjectivist.

Is it wrong for any reason other than God says so? And if it is only good because God says so why does that make it good?

JimiTime wrote: »

The moral, is the fact that she's deceived her would be husband, so yes, that is still wrong. The punishment is something that applied to the ancient nation of Israel, so no, that punishment would not apply to us here and now.

But punishment falls into the realm of morality. Was it moral for the ancient nation of Israel to stone people to death. And if it was moral for them to do it, if it was a just punishment to the "crime" of deceiving your husband, why is it not moral now to stone to death people who deceive their husbands.

JimiTime wrote: »

There is no 'earthly wrong', there is just right and wrong as anchored by our sovereign source of life. So yes, it is still wrong.

By Earthly wrong I mean wrong based on the various standards that we judge things to be right or wrong, for example does it harm someone. Compared to wrong just because God says so.

JimiTime wrote: »

In some matters. Principally, the concepts of morality haven't changed though, in the context of God. The world has indeed moved away from God, just like the nations of the biblical times were away rom God.

It is odd that moving away from God has greatly reduced the amount of harm we do to each other, and greatly improved the lives of most people.

For the example the odds of you dying at the hands of another person are significantly less than the odds of an average Israelite.

All the stoning and capital punishment for minor transactions didn't seem to produce much harmony.

JimiTime wrote: »

I would probably say that this is naive but I agree that the word moral and war are probably not best placed together.

How often do you hear leaders, particularly in western countries, call on their soldiers to go back to a captured city or country and put everyone to death?

Again do you not find it odd that our standards for how to conduct a war (whether the individual soldiers adhere to them or not) involve a lot better treatment of those we inflict war on than in Israel where they were following the direct instructions of God?

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH, it sounds brutal to me, but I don't recall it being described as good. Good for Israel in that enemies were delivered into Israels hands etc, but not in a broader sense.

What do you mean "broader sense"? I thought there was just right and wrong. Are you saying that something immoral could be moral local to the Israelites?

Or are you saying that God orders people to do bad things some times? Doesn't that make a mockery of the notion that goodness comes from God, if God can be immoral.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

It is odd that moving away from God has greatly reduced the amount of harm we do to each other, and greatly improved the lives of most people.

For the example the odds of you dying at the hands of another person are significantly less than the odds of an average Israelite.

How often do you hear leaders, particularly in western countries, call on their soldiers to go back to a captured city or country and put everyone to death?

Really? I think the estimated 150 million people who were slaughtered by regimes that moved away from God since 1917 would disgree with you. There is no history of such state slaughter among nations that held on to their belief in God or at least did not actively try to suppress it.

Do you have data to compare say murder rates in ancient Israel with today?

Have you not heard of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki? Does Deuteronomy compare?

This whole concept of how much more moral we wage war today is bogus. "We" wage war based on how "we" choose to wage war. Who is "we" by the way, Western democracies? Where was the morality in declaring war on Iraq, a war that resulted in the deaths of between 100,000 and 500,000 of its citizens depending on whose numbers you believe, destroying their economy and plunging the country into civil war?

Yes, we have bodies like the United Nations and have standards of how war should be conducted, unfortunately they prove to be irrelevant when "we" choose to go to war.

Zombrex wrote: »

I'm sure, if you want to get technical. Some Chritians are psychotics who believe it is there job to cleans the world of wicked sinners.

This is actually not what I meant. But I was being vague. I was referencing to the deaths of innocent people to prevent a larger catastrophe. I'm sure that many Christians, atheist, Muslims, Jews and so on would have reluctantly consented to sending in crews to Chernobyl or shooting down flight 93. I wasn't talking about psychotics. Rather, I was talking about the moral complexities that your one size fits all generalisation doesn't address.

Zombrex wrote: »

I really hope you aren't going to ask why is my moral opinion "better" than the moral opinion of an Israelite 3000 years ago, given how much we have discussed the attempting to inject objective morality into a system that is not based on objective morality is a logical fallacy.

Funny that you have to put "better" in scare quotes. Anyway, happily you aren't under any obligation to answer my questions.

For anyone else out there, my question is why a moral subjectivist would think that a particular contemporary moral standard applies to the past? And would the same logic apply to the future? If, for example, in 150 years time humanity exists in a world not unlike that described in Children of Men, a scenario where abortion is considered an unthinkable evil, would that then make the contemporary support and practice for abortion morally wrong?

nagirrac wrote: »

Really? I think the estimated 150 million people who were slaughtered by regimes that moved away from God since 1917 would disgree with you. There is no history of such state slaughter among nations that held on to their belief in God or at least did not actively try to suppress it.

Do you have data to compare say murder rates in ancient Israel with today?

Have you not heard of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki? Does Deuteronomy compare?

This whole concept of how much more moral we wage war today is bogus. "We" wage war based on how "we" choose to wage war. Who is "we" by the way, Western democracies? Where was the morality in declaring war on Iraq, a war that resulted in the deaths of between 100,000 and 500,000 of its citizens depending on whose numbers you believe, destroying their economy and plunging the country into civil war?

Yes, we have bodies like the United Nations and have standards of how war should be conducted, unfortunately they prove to be irrelevant when "we" choose to go to war.

The Better Angels of Our Nature might be of interest.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The question for me is why you and the other atheists railing against the OT on this thread think that rape, theft, murder, torture and any number of acts are wrong?

That's easy.

I think that rape, theft, murder, torture and any number of acts are wrong because I wouldn't want them to happen to me.

Why do you think that they are wrong?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You have said that modern war is more moral (which is a laughable statement) but I'm not sure what this means. Moral by whose standard?

How is it possible to find a statement laughable if you are not sure what it means?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Funny that you have to put "better" in scare quotes.

More a recognition that what you consider "better" isn't what I consider "better".

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Anyway, happily you aren't under any obligation to answer my questions.

I'm more than happy to answer your questions.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

For anyone else out there, my question is why a moral subjectivist would think that a particular contemporary moral standard applies to the past?

Why would it not?

People are people. If I think it is immoral to stone someone to death I don't see why it would be less immoral 3,000 years ago. The person still suffers the act of the stoning do they not?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And would the same logic apply to the future? If, for example, in 150 years time humanity exists in a world not unlike that described in Children of Men, a scenario where abortion is considered an unthinkable evil, would that then make the contemporary support and practice for abortion morally wrong?

To the people in the future, certainly. And to anyone who agreed with them now, yup.

marienbad

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

This is actually not what I meant. But I was being vague. I was referencing to the deaths of innocent people to prevent a larger catastrophe. I'm sure that many Christians, atheist, Muslims, Jews and so on would have reluctantly consented to sending in crews to Chernobyl or shooting down flight 93. I wasn't talking about psychotics. Rather, I was talking about the moral complexities that your one size fits all generalisation doesn't address.

Funny that you have to put "better" in scare quotes. Anyway, happily you aren't under any obligation to answer my questions.

For anyone else out there, my question is why a moral subjectivist would think that a particular contemporary moral standard applies to the past? And would the same logic apply to the future? If, for example, in 150 years time humanity exists in a world not unlike that described in Children of Men, a scenario where abortion is considered an unthinkable evil, would that then make the contemporary support and practice for abortion morally wrong?

I can only speak for myself Fanny , but I don't think a moral subjectivist really cares about applying contemporary moral standards to the past. They only care when the reverse happens and when people - Christians say- insist on applying (selectively) the standards of the past to the present and so giving rise to the neverending series of arguments of why this and not that etc.

And yes to me the same logic will apply to the future and we may well look back in horror at our attitude to abortion and animal rights etc. In the same way that some critics/historians castigated the Abraham Lincoln movie saying that far from being such a liberal he was in fact a terrible racist. But of course he was a racist , just not as bad as those around him and by the mores of the time a bit too liberal for most.

Same way with Thomas More. we all love the Robert Bolt version but as well as standing up to the King he also burned a few witches. But he stood up more and burned less than most of his contemporaries and died for what he though was right.

That brilliant Issac Asimov essay ''The Relativity of Wrong' comes to mind- explains it all really.

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH, it sounds brutal to me, but I don't recall it being described as good. Good for Israel in that enemies were delivered into Israels hands etc, but not in a broader sense. Necessary maybe, but good? Israel, when it fell away from Godly worship experienced the same fate, and were only preserved due to a promise by God to retain a remnant, so it seemed that it was the way of war back then. It may have been a stupid thing to keep alive people who refused peace and forced labour in order to fight for their sovereignty. They may have been insidious etc. I don't know the reasons myself, apart from guessing. Anything I could suggest would simply be a maybe this or that.

Really? That is your view?

Let me point you in the right direction by telling you that the war doctrine of the Hebrew God of War represents a development in warfare.

If 'it was the way of war back then' then how do explain how men were able to take part in the exodus from Egypt? Evidently genocide wasn't the way of the Egyptians.

Perhaps you believe that the pyramids were built by women?

It is quite clear to anyone who has the slightest grasp of English that Deuteronomy 20:10-15 informs Moses' people that it is God's will that all nations are to be either enslaved by Israel as an alternative to war with them or in the event of the rejection of an offer of slavery, all males are to be put to death and the women and female children are to be 'enjoyed' as the spoils of war.

And Deuteronomy 20:16-18 prescribes total genocide for the indigenous population of the 'Promised Land'.

But then would you expect anything else from the Hebrew God of War?

Because of what God said to Moses and Samuel, the Jews were actually afraid to show mercy to 'God's enemies'.

And for the record, when did such behaviour stop being according to the will of the Hebrew God of War?

Benny_Cake

Mod note: In case it wasn't clear enough, any further discussion as to why a user closed their account will result in infractions being handed out, with bans for repeat offenders. There have been enough warnings at this stage.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

For anyone else out there, my question is why a moral subjectivist would think that a particular contemporary moral standard applies to the past?

Because if we didn't, moral objectivists would maintain the morality of the past.

It is because of moral subjectivism that women cannot be kidnapped, forced into marriage and raped for fifty shekels of silver in our modern society without committing a crime.

It was moral subjectivism that defined women as chattels and it was moral subjectivism that defined them as people.

And if you are going to say that rape is more wrong today than it was then, then you are a moral subjectivist too.

Even if you don't know that, you simply can't have 'objective moral relativism'.

In fact I would say moral objectivism is an oxymoron, they are mutually exclusive. In order to be objective one has to reject morality.

Consider the case of genocide.

If we say that genocide is objectively evil then the bible would indicate that God coerced, trained and then commanded the Jews to engage in a long campaign of objective evil.

And if we say that genocide is objectively good then why isn't everyone at it and why is the Geneva Convention against it?

It is not the act of genocide that has the moral implications, it is the decision to carry out an act of genocide that raises the moral issue.

Genocide is an objective state that is subjectively arrived at so the question is - why did God direct the Jews to commit genocide?

And if it is okay to commit genocide if it is God's will then why should only Jews be sanctioned by history?

The whole issue of morality is subjective and we must be objective about that.

Masteroid wrote: »

Really? That is your view?

Let me point you in the right direction by telling you that the war doctrine of The Living God represents a development in warfare.

If 'it was the way of war back then' then how do explain how men were able to take part in the exodus from Egypt? Evidently genocide wasn't the way of the Egyptians.

I was looking forward to be pointed in the right direction, but you didn't:( You instead made a very dubious assumption. Evidently, the hebrews weren't all put to death by Egypt, but it says nothing of other nations. Not only that, but maybe the hebrews would have been, but they accepted peace and servitude rather than death. As for the Exodus, well that was a something of divine intervention, which also tells us that but for Gods intervention at the Red Sea, we could well have seen the death of the Hebrews.

Perhaps you believe that the pyramids were built by women?

Perhaps you could think a bit more before allowing your anti-religious bias form your thinking, and jumping to conclusions?

It is quite clear to anyone who has the slightest grasp of English that Deuteronomy 20:10-15 informs Moses' people that it is God's will that all nations are to be either enslaved by Israel as an alternative to war with them or in the event of the rejection of an offer of slavery, all males are to be put to death and the women and female children are to be part of the spoils of war.

And Deuteronomy 20:16-18 prescribes total genocide for the indigenous population of the 'Promised Land'.

And? Have I argued something different?

Because of what The Living God said to Moses and Samuel, the Jews were actually afraid to show mercy to 'God's enemies'.

I think God is more farsighted than mere men tbh. Abraham was told of the inheritance of the promised land, but not yet, as 'the iniquities of the Ammorites was not yet complete'. So it didn't seem that God was merely brushing people aside, but rather judging them. He obviously knew where they were going in terms of wickedness, and did not give them into the hands of Israel until their wickedness had reached their summit. To then have Israelite soldiers have mercy, is a pretty faithless act. Its saying to God, 'we don't trust you'. I can't imagine myself questioning God on judgement day.

And for the record, when did such behaviour stop being according to the will of the God?

Well, the will of God will still pay out the wages of sin as promised from the start (death) on those who reject the gift of salvation through the messiah, his son Jesus, at Armageddon. So the will of God is still to keep his promises. If you are asking why Christians aren't conquering the world, well do you really need to ask?

JimiTime wrote: »

I was looking forward to be pointed in the right direction, but you didn't:( You instead made a very dubious assumption. Evidently, the hebrews weren't all put to death by Egypt, but it says nothing of other nations. Not only that, but maybe the hebrews would have been, but they accepted peace and servitude rather than death. As for the Exodus, well that was a something of divine intervention, which also tells us that but for Gods intervention at the Red Sea, we could well have seen the death of the Hebrews.

Perhaps you could think a bit more before allowing your anti-religious bias form your thinking, and jumping to conclusions?

And? Have I argued something different?

I think God is more farsighted than mere men tbh. Abraham was told of the inheritance of the promised land, but not yet, as 'the iniquities of the Ammorites was not yet complete'. So it didn't seem that God was merely brushing people aside, but rather judging them. He obviously knew where they were going in terms of wickedness, and did not give them into the hands of Israel until their wickedness had reached their summit. To then have Israelite soldiers have mercy, is a pretty faithless act. Its saying to God, 'we don't trust you'. I can't imagine myself questioning God on judgement day.

Well, the will of God will still pay out the wages of sin as promised from the start (death) on those who reject the gift of salvation through the messiah, his son Jesus, at Armageddon. So the will of God is still to keep his promises. If you are asking why Christians aren't conquering the world, well do you really need to ask?

The reason you cannot fathom the will of God is because you insist on reading what is not there.

The bible is a litttle sketchy on what happened in Egypt which is understandable since the history contained in the bible needs to stand up to scrutiny.

It goes something like: Everything is cool between the Jews and the Egyptians until suddenly, the Egyptians realise that the Jews are 'more and mightier' than they.

In the next paragraph, the Jews have somehow been enslaved. How did that happen?

Moses doesn't seem to have left much of a mark on Egyptian history at all. And their ways of war do not appear to include ethnic cleansing so in fact your entire viewpoint of the Jewish-Egyptian relationship is garnered from the bible and is unreported anywhere else.

Also, don't you find it troubling that right after he leads his people out of bondage, Moses implements a policy of leading other nations into bondage and where that fails, he implements a policy of genocide?

And this is God's will?

And this covenant still stands.

You mentioned the far-sightedness of God but let me ask you this - Why would an omniscient God need to actually go to Sodom in order to know if the accusations against the population of that city were true?

How come the omniscient God has Moses running back and forth to the Pharaoh if He knew what was in the future?

And this leads to - If God cannot know the future then how could He have been the one to interpret the dreams for Joseph?

If you consider that we are talking about the same God who asked Cain where Able was, the same God who didn't see the danger the three wise men posed to the children of Bethlehem, the same God who saw the danger posed by Herod's successor after Joseph had noticed it, God doesn't come across as much of a planner, does He?

And your religiously biassed knee-jerk reaction to these facts does nothing to rescue your position.

Furthermore, an honest examination of the text of Genesis from the story of Abraham to the death of Joseph reveals that God seems to routinely put His faith in men who are demonstrably evil.

Did you read about how Esau was cheated by his brother and his mother?

And for this, God was compelled to bless Jacob. No wages of sin there then.

And let's not get into how the progenitors of the Moabites and the Ammonites were conceived.

Joseph's brothers don't seem to regret their sin until they are faced with the threat of retribution which doesn't come.

And there is no need take confine ourselves to Genesis in order to observe this disturbing pattern.

When King David sins, it is a little boy who God makes suffer horribly before finally murdering him which, according to the story, cheers David up immensely.

We are talking of people who lived and walked with the most powerful of all Gods and they were still willing to sin.

Another theme through the OT is even where the children of God are resigned to being put to death on account of their sins, not one of them, even though God has apparently interacted with them directly, via angels or through dreams, exhibits any concerns about burning for eternity in a lake of fire.

Doesn't that give you pause for thought?

And how about this, Peregrinus has recently brought up a Levite who throws his concubine to the mob to be gang-raped.

Have a look at that story, Judges 19, and please tell me who killed the concubine, who seems not to be important enough to have a name, and what in the story causes you to think you have identified the murderer?

What evidence is there to provide a rebuttal to the argument that the near extermination of the House of Benjamin served the Levite's agenda and got him off a murder charge?

I'd be more than happy for you to produce evidence in the form of biblical quotes or in the form of other historical documents that are outside of the bible.

Remember, Moses set down a law that effectively gave his tribe supremacy over the other tribes and a free ride in the form of tithes.

Why would the Benjamites abuse a Levite? Also, as long as fifty shekels are paid to the victim's father, the rape of an unbetrothed virgin can be atoned for providing that someone marries her.

I'm not sure where the law stands on concubines that don't have the privilege of a name and who are gang-raped but I imagine that she would be valued less than a daughter.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The story ias about the citizens of Sodom. Lot is a plot device, included to counterpoint and underline the evil of Sodom. The evil was not, as you assume, homosexuality; it was inhospitality - a point which becomes very clear when you read the immediately preceding story where the angels visit Abraham, and are hospitably received. Genesis 19 is a very pointed contrast to Genesis 18. The Sodomites are the antithesis of Abraham (who is, of course, the father of the Jewish people, so we know at the outset who's going to be the goodie and who the baddie).

The crowd wanted to know the men 'carnally', do you know what that means?

If the angels had been gay then there would have been no problem would there?

The word 'carnally' is used and so doesn't need to be inferred as it is a million miles away from being subtle but you infer that wanting to know the men carnally is a metaphor for 'we don't like strangers around here'.

Amazing. And the same word is used in the Judges 19 story too.

Peregrinus, to know men carnally is not the same as making men feel unwelcome.

Why do you think that the word 'carnally' was used?

I'll get to the concubine later. There's a bit of a 'whodunnit' concerning that sorry episode.

Peregrinus

Masteroid wrote: »

The crowd wanted to know the men 'carnally', do you know what that means?

If the angels had been gay then there would have been no problem would there?

The word 'carnally' is used and so doesn't need to be inferred as it is a million miles away from being subtle but you infer that wanting to know the men carnally is a metaphor for 'we don't like strangers around here'.

Amazing. And the same word is used in the Judges 19 story too.

Peregrinus, to know men carnally is not the same as making men feel unwelcome.

Why do you think that the word 'carnally' was used?

Actually, the word “carnally” isn’t used in the Hebrew text. The Hebrew text just uses a word which means “to know”. And the early English translations, e.g. the King James, follow this.

It was, of course, a euphemism. The literal meaning of the Hebrew word was “to know”, but the euphemistic meaning was “to have sex with”.

You - and many others - assume that the euphemistic meaning of the word is the only relevant one here. I agree with you, as it happens, that in this context the euphemistic meaning is invoked; the citizens did indeed want to have sex with the angels. Nevertheless, this isn’t a story primarily or mainly about sexual morality. I suggest that the use of “know” here is very deliberate; it evokes both the direct meaning - the angels are strangers, and therefore unknown to the citizens - and the sexual meaning - because strangers are hated and feared, the citizens want to inflict humiliating violence on them, and what better way to do that than with spot of gang rape? (The “know carnally” translation tries to preserve both of these nuances, which would be lost if a more idiomatic translation like “have sex with” were used.)

We moderns are obsessed with sex, and we can’t conceive that a moral story which involves sex isn’t about sex. Indeed, when we hear the words “moral” or “immoral”, sexual connotations are the first things that come to mind. But that’s our problem. We have no reason to impute that attitude to the authors or editors of these texts, or to the original authors. And we have two powerful reasons for thinking that, in fact, they didn’t understand the text as making a point about homosexuality.

The first, as I’ve already pointed out, is that the story of Sodom in Gen 19 is very deliberately contrasted with the story of Abraham in Gen 18, and the contrast is between the hospitality to strangers shown by Abraham the poor nomadic grazer, versus the hostility shown to strangers by the rich and powerful city of Sodom. As it happens, the hostility took the form of a threat of sexual violence, but obsession with the fact that it was sexual is our obsession; we’re bringing that to the interpretation. The sexual aspect of the Gen 19 story doesn’t contrast with anything in Gen 18; the violence and hatred certainly does.

The second thing is that we know how the Israelites understood this story because this, too, is recorded in (later) scripture. Ezekiel, writing at a time when the story of Sodom is already an ancient and hallowed one, invokes it in his own writings, and says “this was the guilt of Sodom; she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and the needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things.” Now, you can read “abominable things” as referring to sexual violence, or homosexual violence, but it’s clearly at most a minor theme in the condemnation of Sodom; the focus is on Sodom’s wealth, and its disdain for others. And all the classic rabbinical commentaries take the same line; this is a story about the ethical imperative of hospitality (which, don’t forget, is a constant preoccupation of the OT moral codes). It wasn’t until a couple of thousand years had passed that modern Europeans began to read this as a story mainly about The Gay. Quite why our culture came to take a different view is a subject for another discussion, but obviously it’s tied in with our preoccupation with sex.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nevertheless, this isn’t a story primarily or mainly about sexual morality.

Well it is a story about immorality, as you say. There is no single sin that the people of Sodom were guilty of. The story is supposed to provide an example of people in the depths of sin. So they are selfish, angry, aggressive, prideful, hedonistic. And of course partake in homosexuality and other sexual immorality, which from the point of view of gay rights is the troubling association.

Associating homosexuality with general corruption and sin is a theme found in the ancient text right up to the modern era. Modern right-wing Christian commentators are constantly describing homosexuals as hedonistic and selfish and lacking virtue.

Homosexual acts are presented in the Judeo-Christian works as the physical expression of a corrupt, selfish, soul, and example of giving into sin. Fornication is also see as this. It is what people without self restrain, without virtue, indulged in.

These ancient people were far more obsessed with sex that we are, as without clear understanding of how reproduction works sex to them had consequences beyond mere enjoyment.

Masteroid wrote: »

The reason you cannot fathom the will of God is because you insist on reading what is not there.

Ehhhh, that was YOU who did that, NOT me. It is YOU who assumed to know what the Egyptians were like just by reading a biblical account based around giving the story of the Hebrews. I brought your attention to your assumption.

The bible is a litttle sketchy on what happened in Egypt

Exactly, as it wasn't trying to paint a history of Egypt. Yet YOU used this to assume what the Egyptians were like. I would call that very sketchy on your part.

Moses doesn't seem to have left much of a mark on Egyptian history at all. And their ways of war do not appear to include ethnic cleansing so in fact your entire viewpoint of the Jewish-Egyptian relationship is garnered from the bible and is unreported anywhere else.

Ok, so now you are trying to move somewhere else to evade from the original poor assumptions you made. So you want to move on from your original, unfounded assumptions onto the reliability of the biblical accounts of the Hebrew enslavement and exodus. Is that where you want to discuss now?

And your religiously biassed knee-jerk reaction to these facts does nothing to rescue your position.

On the contrary. You evading the issue of your initial assumptions by taking us off down different rabbit holes does nothing to detract from your initial ill-founded assumptions.

Furthermore, an honest examination of the text of Genesis from the story of Abraham to the death of Joseph reveals that God seems to routinely put His faith in men who are demonstrably evil.

Did you read about how Esau was cheated by his brother and his mother?

And for this, God was compelled to bless Jacob. No wages of sin there then.

And let's not get into how the progenitors of the Moabites and the Ammonites were conceived.

Joseph's brothers don't seem to regret their sin until they are faced with the threat of retribution which doesn't come.

And there is no need take confine ourselves to Genesis in order to observe this disturbing pattern.

When King David sins, it is a little boy who God makes suffer horribly before finally murdering him which, according to the story, cheers David up immensely.

We are talking of people who lived and walked with the most powerful of all Gods and they were still willing to sin.

Another theme through the OT is even where the children of God are resigned to being put to death on account of their sins, not one of them, even though God has apparently interacted with them directly, via angels or through dreams, exhibits any concerns about burning for eternity in a lake of fire.

Doesn't that give you pause for thought?

And how about this, Peregrinus has recently brought up a Levite who throws his concubine to the mob to be gang-raped.

Have a look at that story, Judges 19, and please tell me who killed the concubine, who seems not to be important enough to have a name, and what in the story causes you to think you have identified the murderer?

What evidence is there to provide a rebuttal to the argument that the near extermination of the House of Benjamin served the Levite's agenda and got him off a murder charge?

I'd be more than happy for you to produce evidence in the form of biblical quotes or in the form of other historical documents that are outside of the bible.

Remember, Moses set down a law that effectively gave his tribe supremacy over the other tribes and a free ride in the form of tithes.

Why would the Benjamites abuse a Levite? Also, as long as fifty shekels are paid to the victim's father, the rape of an unbetrothed virgin can be atoned for providing that someone marries her.

I'm not sure where the law stands on concubines that don't have the privilege of a name and who are gang-raped but I imagine that she would be valued less than a daughter.

It would take a lot of wasted time on my part to attempt to educate you, especially since you believe that you are already educated. Maybe someone else would, but not me. I could imagine it being like trying to hold onto an eel. Assumption - Assumption identified - Not acknowledged but move onto next chapter of the skeptics bible and another 200 questions with no desire to engage with the answers. Rinse and repeat.
Think I'd rather stick a needle in my eye.

marienbad wrote: »

I can only speak for myself Fanny , but I don't think a moral subjectivist really cares about applying contemporary moral standards to the past.

Thanks for the Asimov tip. I'll check it out.

The funny thing, marienbad, is that I had you in mind when I type that post. On a number of occasions I believe that you asked Philologs whether certain social/ moral prescriptions in the Bible would be considered moral today. If you aren't interested in applying contemporary moral standards to the past then why ask the question?

Furthermore, how can you admit to being a moral subjectivist (and I assume we both understand the term in the same way and that you accept the label) without pulling the rug out from any notion that you can level a valid moral criticism at people living in other times or other places? They did what they thought was morally correct. You do what you think is morally correct. People in the future will do what they think is morally correct. And all of them might have different notions about what is morally correct.

Zombrex wrote: »

People are people. If I think it is immoral to stone someone to death I don't see why it would be less immoral 3,000 years ago. The person still suffers the act of the stoning do they not?

===

To the people in the future, certainly. And to anyone who agreed with them now, yup.

OK, so you think it is immoral to stone someone to death. Great. I'm happy to hear it. However, in a similar vein to my text above, if someone 3,000 years ago considered stoning members of rival tribes, spies, adulterers or whoever else to be both moral and just then what do you say about that? Given their context wherein stoning was considered just how can you say that they were wrong? Indeed, if you existed back then you might well have felt passionately that stoning was an appropriate sentence for X,Y or Z. They lived in different times, under different circumstances and had different values. Similarly, if people in the future look back in horror at some of your moral choices then what?

It seems to me that all you have said is that people have or will do stuff that you don't like and vise versa. A particular deed is not wrong in any grand or external sense. It is wrong only for the subject given their situation, and it is therefore possible that somebody opposed to stoning would think that stoning is right given the correct circumstance.

marienbad wrote: »

and another 200 questions with no desire to engage with the answers. Rinse and repeat.

I believe this is called the scatter-gun tactic.

JimiTime wrote: »

Ehhhh, that was YOU who did that, NOT me. It is YOU who assumed to know what the Egyptians were like just by reading a biblical account based around giving the story of the Hebrews. I brought your attention to your assumption.

Exactly, as it wasn't trying to paint a history of Egypt. Yet YOU used this to assume what the Egyptians were like. I would call that very sketchy on your part.

Ok, so now you are trying to move somewhere else to evade from the original poor assumptions you made. So you want to move on from your original, unfounded assumptions onto the reliability of the biblical accounts of the Hebrew enslavement and exodus. Is that where you want to discuss now?

On the contrary. You evading the issue of your initial assumptions by taking us off down different rabbit holes does nothing to detract from your initial ill-founded assumptions.

It would take a lot of wasted time on my part to attempt to educate you, especially since you believe that you are already educated. Maybe someone else would, but not me. I could imagine it being like trying to hold onto an eel. Assumption - Assumption identified - Not acknowledged but move onto next chapter of the skeptics bible and another 200 questions with no desire to engage with the answers. Rinse and repeat.
Think I'd rather stick a needle in my eye.

And there you have the full extent of your argument?

Your God would be so pleased at how little you know of your own religion.