Btw, Religion is still working on the "Thou shalt not kill, rape and steal thing". Duh.
Is God mute?
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
Btw, Religion is still working on the "Thou shalt not kill, rape and steal thing". Duh.
probably more since by then they were organized by a very strong religion, than what the unorganized barbarians you claim would be roaming the earth two thousand years ago. Makes a very good case for anarchism.
a few pages back loyek you mentioned something about the point of the old testament.
I think the point of the old testament is that you can know who the real God is because he keeps his promises. We see that it is in man's nature to separate from God (sin) and the old testament points to the the antidote for that sin.
I think the point of the old testament is that you can know who the real God is because he keeps his promises. We see that it is in man's nature to separate from God (sin) and the old testament points to the the antidote for that sin.
That real God of the Old Testament commits genocide, requires nations be annihilated, countless people murdered, gives instruction to rape and requires human life be sacrificed , as God finds it pleasing.
I would have thought separation from that kind of psychotic megalomania manifested in the form of an imaginary concept like God, would be one of the least sinful and more healthy things mankind could do.
nitro is a Pantheist? and here i thought he was A rational (for most part):eek:
Last edited:
you bring up an interesting question. I was aware of many of them but I decided to do a little interent research... and just looked some of it up.
1. re: rape... at first take reading the Christian sites... you get responses like these..
the statements were either part of a prophecy in which the idea was if, the other side does not starting doing what is correct this will happen or...
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/numbers31.html
"Weren't the virgin women raped?
There are two parts to this objection: did God instruct or permit the soldiers to rape the women, and did the soldiers actually rape them?
It's clear that God didn't intend for the soldiers to rape the women, but rather to take them captive. The law God had given to the Israelites condemned rape, in some cases punishing it with death (Dt 22:25-27). Also, immediately following the command to spare the virgin women, the soldiers were instructed to purify themselves and their captives (31:19), and rape (or consensual intercourse) would have violated this command (Lev 15:16-18). 1
It's theoretically possible that some of the soldiers raped the women, but given the circumstances it seems very unlikely. The soldiers would have known that rape was a violation of both the law and the instruction to purify themselves, as shown above; they had also seen God punish such violations with death during their travels in the desert. In fact, they had recently experienced a plague and executions resulting from their relations with Midianite women (25:1-9), as Moses reminded them. At that time, all those who had sexual relations with the Midianites were killed. It's highly implausible that the soldiers would have wanted to have anything to do with the Midianite women given this context.
So what did happen to the women (and children)? God gave the Israelites permission to marry women they took captive, but they were to treat their wives with respect: the women were to have time to mourn their families first, and were not to be mistreated (Dt 21:10-14). Those who didn't marry would have become servants, but there were rules against mistreating them as well (Ex 21:26-27, Dt 23:15-16). See the article on slavery laws for more on the treatment of female slaves."
2. re: genocide...
apparently a tough question...
one site run by a priest (I sense he is an academic) was interesting...
I was particularly interested in the first comment to his article.
"(2) Setting aside for the moment the question of explaining the killing part of the Ban, and the historical accuracy of the scriptural accounts (until I go back and reread those parts of the Bible and my notes thereon), the “don’t keep for yourself those things that should be given over to God” part of the Ban is pretty self-explanatory and should be fairly non-objectionable. But as to the further question — has the Ban been affirmed and carried over into the NT and beyond, to the present day? If we look at the broader implications of the Ban, the broader significance of it, I would say — yes, “the Ban” is still in effect.
Many of the events of Salvation History stand for more than one thing. For example, the Flood does not merely mean some natural disaster thousands of years ago, it also signifies the death of sin by the waters of Baptism. (Even the dietary laws, while abrogated, still apply in the sense that the underlying teaching — that everything belongs to God and is subject to Him (which would include one’s daily food) — still applies. The dietary and purification laws themselves were merely preparatory to learning this underlying meaning, just as most of the written Law and Old Covenant is preparatory to the Holy Spirit writing God’s law in men’s hearts in the New Covenant.)
Thus, it would seem reasonable to conclude that, beyond the literal and historical nature of the Ban, there is what it signifies, what it prefigures. Given that the Ban was about destroying, not just anybody, but the (sinful) enemies of God and God’s people and banning the keeping for oneself those things that belonged to the enemy, but should be turned over to God, the broader concept would seem to be about destroying all sin and evil, thorougly and completely. And that God should command us to fight like soldiers to destroy sin and evil, leaving none of it standing, and not keep sinful remnants for ourselves, is something that we have discussed and approved of in recent prior discussions."
http://blog.adw.org/2010/01/did-god-command-genocide/
in short my take is that if I reviewed all these concerns in depth I would probably not be entirely satisfied and I suspect my take would be that it is the lesson that there are consequences to sin.
but... if these passages cause you to disbelieve.. I guess that is your right.
they are tough passages...
1. re: rape... at first take reading the Christian sites... you get responses like these..
the statements were either part of a prophecy in which the idea was if, the other side does not starting doing what is correct this will happen or...
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/numbers31.html
"Weren't the virgin women raped?
There are two parts to this objection: did God instruct or permit the soldiers to rape the women, and did the soldiers actually rape them?
It's clear that God didn't intend for the soldiers to rape the women, but rather to take them captive. The law God had given to the Israelites condemned rape, in some cases punishing it with death (Dt 22:25-27). Also, immediately following the command to spare the virgin women, the soldiers were instructed to purify themselves and their captives (31:19), and rape (or consensual intercourse) would have violated this command (Lev 15:16-18). 1
It's theoretically possible that some of the soldiers raped the women, but given the circumstances it seems very unlikely. The soldiers would have known that rape was a violation of both the law and the instruction to purify themselves, as shown above; they had also seen God punish such violations with death during their travels in the desert. In fact, they had recently experienced a plague and executions resulting from their relations with Midianite women (25:1-9), as Moses reminded them. At that time, all those who had sexual relations with the Midianites were killed. It's highly implausible that the soldiers would have wanted to have anything to do with the Midianite women given this context.
So what did happen to the women (and children)? God gave the Israelites permission to marry women they took captive, but they were to treat their wives with respect: the women were to have time to mourn their families first, and were not to be mistreated (Dt 21:10-14). Those who didn't marry would have become servants, but there were rules against mistreating them as well (Ex 21:26-27, Dt 23:15-16). See the article on slavery laws for more on the treatment of female slaves."
2. re: genocide...
apparently a tough question...
one site run by a priest (I sense he is an academic) was interesting...
I was particularly interested in the first comment to his article.
"(2) Setting aside for the moment the question of explaining the killing part of the Ban, and the historical accuracy of the scriptural accounts (until I go back and reread those parts of the Bible and my notes thereon), the “don’t keep for yourself those things that should be given over to God” part of the Ban is pretty self-explanatory and should be fairly non-objectionable. But as to the further question — has the Ban been affirmed and carried over into the NT and beyond, to the present day? If we look at the broader implications of the Ban, the broader significance of it, I would say — yes, “the Ban” is still in effect.
Many of the events of Salvation History stand for more than one thing. For example, the Flood does not merely mean some natural disaster thousands of years ago, it also signifies the death of sin by the waters of Baptism. (Even the dietary laws, while abrogated, still apply in the sense that the underlying teaching — that everything belongs to God and is subject to Him (which would include one’s daily food) — still applies. The dietary and purification laws themselves were merely preparatory to learning this underlying meaning, just as most of the written Law and Old Covenant is preparatory to the Holy Spirit writing God’s law in men’s hearts in the New Covenant.)
Thus, it would seem reasonable to conclude that, beyond the literal and historical nature of the Ban, there is what it signifies, what it prefigures. Given that the Ban was about destroying, not just anybody, but the (sinful) enemies of God and God’s people and banning the keeping for oneself those things that belonged to the enemy, but should be turned over to God, the broader concept would seem to be about destroying all sin and evil, thorougly and completely. And that God should command us to fight like soldiers to destroy sin and evil, leaving none of it standing, and not keep sinful remnants for ourselves, is something that we have discussed and approved of in recent prior discussions."
http://blog.adw.org/2010/01/did-god-command-genocide/
in short my take is that if I reviewed all these concerns in depth I would probably not be entirely satisfied and I suspect my take would be that it is the lesson that there are consequences to sin.
but... if these passages cause you to disbelieve.. I guess that is your right.
they are tough passages...
Study the cultures of the inhabitants that the Israelites drove out of the promised land... The were Baal worshipers, who were involved in child sacrifice (burning them alive) and were filled with Nephilim, giants.
Their societies were an abomination before the Lord, much like Sodom and Gomorrah. However they had the opportunity to repent i.e. Rahab. Joshua 2:9-11
The people of Jericho knew of the Israelites God and the miracles He had done bringing them out of Egypt. Like Rehab they could have repented.
The influence of their culture was to be purged from the land, to protect the Israelites from sinning... Their disobedience in allowing some to remain led to their downfall as they became just as bad engaging in Baal worship "doing evil in the eyes of the Lord". God allowed them to be defeated and placed back into captivity.
Make no mistake "all" sin will be judged.
Well, my worldview certainly has some things in common with Pantheism. But if you only put me in that straight-jacket with no room to wiggle, you would be incorrect in your label of me. Not that I care because my own views are very dynamic so any labeling is possibly wrong from one day to another anyway, but I do care about precision if the situation warrants it.
The only thing you can label me for eternity is that my knowledge and belief system must come from a scientific base. Although, I do believe in intuition. It is just that it can lead you down the wrong path so I tend to supress it. [Side note, as I get older my intuition is scary even to me. Supressing it at this point in my life may be counter-productive.] But science is only the main course for me. I leave room for dessert in my life.
It is exactly at the contradictions between the main course and dessert and it's ultimate resolution that I grow as a person. And I don't mean get fat
The only thing you can label me for eternity is that my knowledge and belief system must come from a scientific base. Although, I do believe in intuition. It is just that it can lead you down the wrong path so I tend to supress it. [Side note, as I get older my intuition is scary even to me. Supressing it at this point in my life may be counter-productive.] But science is only the main course for me. I leave room for dessert in my life.
It is exactly at the contradictions between the main course and dessert and it's ultimate resolution that I grow as a person. And I don't mean get fat
Last edited:
well for starters, most historians no longer believe that the Israelites ever lived in Egypt, so you can toss that whole parting of the Red Sea out.
seems to be a lot of confusion between actual old fashioned historical fact, and the rewriting and embellishing pro Israeli propaganda, and strange scientific facts, or at least mythical ways of explaining scientific facts and actual true history in what most call the Bible.