The Naked Emperor Forum - A Bravenet.com Forum

bud

Dec 11, 05 - 9:49 AM

understanding

my name's bud and i am an atheist. hoping to get something going here.

to start i'd like to respectfully suggest:

there seems to be some basic tenents for the relegious and the atheist. and i think we might communicate better if we understood these tenents in each other. for brevity i’ll try only one thing first.
we atheists are basically normal people who are agenst relegion cause we see it as superstion and due to the many diverse versions of it, the basis for hate and bigitory and we sincerly believe our world will be a better place without it.
now amoung xtians there seems to be the perception that we atheists are at best, misguided , at worst some sort of santanic tools to test the faithful . so just wondering what you guys, think about it?? if anyone comes back here

Wayne

Dec 11th, 2005 - 6:45 PM

Re: understanding

Hello Bud,

I agree. Unfortunately, atheists are too often labeled anti-God. I am no more anti-God than I am anti-Bigfoot or anti-leprechaun. I simply believe that God doesn't exist. The idea of God existing is not really harmful in and of itself, but people who believe that they (or their particular book) speak for God with absolute authority are. Organized religion would only be harmful to its members except for the fact that to survive its members must convert others.

bud

Dec 12th, 2005 - 8:23 AM

Re: Re: understanding

hi wayne. thanks for your response. i came here in hopes of maybe getting some of the people back here. i perused the previous posts and was impressed. i do feel very strongly about the distructive nature of these superstitions & have been trying to find ways of counteracting them. but to do that you gotta have some interaction. maybe this will "prime the pump"???

Jimbojsr

Dec 15th, 2005 - 8:24 AM

Understanding

Hey ho,

First off, kudos to bud! It's cool to see someone actually trying to honestly understand and appreciate the "opponent's" viewpoint. There are a lot of atheists (and more than a few christians, sadly) who end up attacking straw men, either through ignorance, laziness or just vitriol. I totally agree with bud in that education and civil conversation are the best ways of countering this.

As a christian, I've never really looked at atheists as evil - well, they're sinners, but then so am I. I would never look upon someone as being worth less as a person because of their atheistic belief.

One gripe I DO have though is the objection that religions are inherently dangerous. Even if Christianity was destructive and morally repugnant, the REAL issue is the truthfulness of its claims - i.e., that there is a God who created the universe, who is perfection defined, and who is so interested in us that he has interacted with the world in astonishing ways through the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

Now, if these claims are true, then the way that these facts are manipulated and abused by a few should make no difference to our belief in their truthfulness! Likewise, regardless of how "nice" Christians may tend to be, if Jesus didn't rise from the dead then I have no intention of being a Christian - the idea of living my life around a lie doesn't appeal to me. Obviously, one can debate the truthfulness or otherwise of Christianity's claims, and that's fine - it's healthy, and anything that really gets folk THINKING about these issues is good in my book. Let's bear in mind, though, that THIS should be our focus, rather than the "evil" acts of some people who, lets face it, are perfectly capable of screwing up with or without theistic belief or organised religion (theistic or otherwise!)

bud

Dec 15th, 2005 - 10:31 AM

Re: Understanding

hi jim. sounds like you might be british?? also more open minded than most theists i've encountered and that's appreciated.

jim; you said
"One gripe I DO have though is the objection that religions are inherently dangerous."

ok jim. you've hit what is to me the most important issue. my view is of course the polar opposit. i'll respond with just three questions . have you read the old testament of your bible??
can you open it to any page without some graphic discreption of one or another bloody attrocity, many specificly demanded by your god?? ( we are talking christanity??)
are we not in a relegious war right now?? please note the question marks jim. i really do want your answers. and i really do want your questions and will answer them.

Jimbojsr

Dec 15th, 2005 - 1:59 PM

Re: Re: Understanding

"sounds like you might be british?? "

Scottish, actually. It's not as nice as in the movies. It rains a lot.

"have you read the old testament of your bible??"

Not all of it, but bits and pieces. I'll admit that I tend to bypass Numbers unless I really have a specific topic to study... bit long and dull for me, to be honest...

"are we not in a religious war right now?"

I'd say so, but 1) it seems to be with branches of Islam, not Christianity and 2) most folks out there who know more about Islam than I do say that the folk who go around blowing stuff up in the name of Allah are misunderstanding and abusing the message of the Koran. Theism or no, people will still find excuses (however contrived) to kill other people, which seems to me to show that the problem is with humans, rather than with religions in general.

"can you open it to any page without some graphic description of one or another bloody atrocity, many specificly demanded by your god??"

I put this last because this was really the hub of your objection; "Would a loving God command people to be slaughtered like this?" It's a very good question - and the simple answer is "yes, if they deserved it"! Bear in mind that God is love, but he's also just and fair. He ISN'T sentimental or weak willed - and we wouldn't want him to be. The Greek word for "love" used in the NT (agape) describes "tough love" - or "firm but fair", rather than someone who chickens out of doing what's morally right. If you look at the examples of people being killed at God's command, a number of themes begin to crop up:

> We know from many other sources that God is slow to judge and swift to bless (Romans 5:8, Exodus 3:7-10, Exodus 33:11) - but when judgement is called for, he will do it. (2 Chronicles 8:11-22).
> Those that God DOES bring judgement on are deserving of it - such as the Canaanites, who had habits of orgiastic rites, incest, bestiality, and child sacrifices.
> When he does this, there are many instances of mercy (the Canaanites, for example, were not exterminated even though they were the scourge of the earth by international concensus! They were evicted as they knew they would be, after having had decades of warnings).
> Perhaps most importantly, God doesn't have double standards - when the Israelites started to do the things the Canaanites did, God judged them in exactly the same way, and expelled them from the land (2 Kings 24:18 - 25:21)

These are some general principles, and exploring this in any more depth really needs us to look at specific instances, and the circumstances surrounding each. Glenn Miller at the Christian Thinktank, one of the 2 premiere apologetics sites on the web (the other being www.tektonics.org) has written detailed articles (which draw on solid scholarship) adressing the Canaanites at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html , and the Amalekites at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html . My stuff above basically summarises these 2 articles. The Tekton site also has an article which says most of what I've put up there at http://www.tektonics.org/lp/outrage.html (it too draws on Miller's articles), and discusses more broadly the problems with the "argument from outrage".

In summary, after dealing with these events in their context, God's actions are both loving and just - exactly as we would expect him to be from what the rest of the Bible says about him.

bud

Dec 16th, 2005 - 7:19 AM

Re: Re: Re: Understanding

well jim, that's a great obviously well thought out post and i wrote out a long response yesterday and my dang computer ate it. i'm slow and spending more time than i should on these things so i'll just touch on what seems your main point for now.

" put this last because this was really the hub of your objection; "Would a loving God command people to be slaughtered like this?" It's a very good question - and the simple answer is "yes, if they deserved it."

well jim i just gotta ask what your creterian for "deserving it" is?? in all the basicly cover to cover slaughters in your bible, do you doubt that as in any war there are as many if not more innocent women & children slaughtered, raped, tortured??? is it guilt by association?? what?? and how come theists hardly ever ask me questions???

Jimbojsr

Dec 16th, 2005 - 10:24 AM

Re: Re: Re: Re: Understanding

"i wrote out a long response yesterday and my dang computer ate it."

LOL... been there, done that, just about thrown my PC out the window!

"in all the basicly cover to cover slaughters in your bible, do you doubt that as in any war there are as many if not more innocent women & children slaughtered, raped, tortured???"

"Cover to cover slaughters"? I think that's being a bit over the top. (as a side note, whilst many violent / potentially offensive things happen in the Bible, not all of them are presented as a good thing to do! People do bad things, period - and any history of humans is going to incorporate this kind of thing). I agree with you that war isn't a good thing, both from the "collateral damage" point of view and also from the fact that, well, killing folk is generally something we want to avoid! (as God is seen to do as much as is possible without promoting injustice). I think the point you're trying to make is that "the Bible says it's ok to slaughter people TODAY". Simply, I completely disagree with that... but that's an issue in itself which I sould spend quite some time on!

"and how come theists hardly ever ask me questions???"

Eh, not sure really. I suppose I should spend a bit of time thinking of a good one.

bud

Dec 17th, 2005 - 9:17 AM

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Understanding

hay jim. trying to take these things a bit at a time so whether we agree or not we will at least have a thorough understanding of each other's views.

"Cover to cover slaughters"?

that is a question jim (if only retorical) and appreciated. i really like questions. and the answer is an unequivacal ablolute
YES. COVER TO COVER SLAUGHTER.
you say you haven't read much of the bible jim and i can understand that cause it's hard to understand the language for one thing, very repetitave & very boring,and yes, cover to cover slaughter. but i do read it jim on a daily basis. ( not bragging here jim. i'm just very motavited to do so) i'm up to jeramia 23 in the ot right now.
the point here is i'm incouraging you to read it cause i believe it to be one of if not the best reason for atheism. i believe that the vast majority of christians as well as all theists get most of there knowledge & theististic ideas from preachers, parents, priests, mulas etc. etc. without ever actually reading any but a very select & limited number of scriptures & stories in the relegious texts.
i've an atheist "friend" on another board who has given his children the bible and the coran and incouraged them to read them and make their own decisions. my children are grown and trapped (as are you)in the christian relegion but if i could go back in time i'd do the same for them. well i guess i've pritty well asked and answered my own questions here. only one left i guess is what do YOU think about MY opinions???

Jimbojsr

Dec 17th, 2005 - 9:53 AM

Reading the Bible

"you say you haven't read much of the bible jim and i can understand that cause it's hard to understand the language for one thing, very repetitave & very boring,and yes, cover to cover slaughter"

Hmm. There's an awful lot more to the Bible than slaughter. The Gospels, for example, but you haven't got to them yet, so i'll let you off the hook

Even then, when confronted with the fact that bad things happen in the Bible, my response has to be - "So what?" The Bible is a record of people's interactions with God, for good or bad - and people screw up an awful lot! It would be more appropriate to complain if the Bible painted a falsely sweet view of the world!

"i believe that the vast majority of christians as well as all theists get most of there knowledge & theististic ideas from preachers, parents, priests, mulas etc. etc. without ever actually reading any but a very select & limited number of scriptures & stories in the relegious texts."

Sadly true, and the same goes for many atheists, who criticise the Bible without having much of a clue as to the meaning and context of what's in it. I tend to think I have a decent knowledge of scripture, though, and I make a point of checking up on the scriptural reliability of something a preacher says. Still, we've always got something to learn!

"what do YOU think about MY opinions???"

With the greatest respect, I think you're going about things rather the wrong way. I admit I don't know a lot about your background, or why you believe what you do (hey... maybe that's a question you could answer in another thread!) but it seems to me like, by going from Genesis through to the end, you're reading the Bible a bit like it was a newspaper written for you yesterday. Atheists and christians alike do this - and it's the WORST thing you can do! Likewise, trying to free "trapped" people from the "harmful superstition" of Christianity shouldn't be your goal - first off, you have to sit down and evaluate the reliability (or otherwise) of the Bible, perhaps starting with the Gospels (which are of course pivotal to Christianity!). I don't think you're any less of a person for being an atheist (in fact, you're one of the most civil I've come across on the net - although your spelling could do with some work

) and it's cool to see someone actually trying to understand where the other side comes from.

I suppose the next place to go is to ask you - what's your story? Why are you / did you become an atheist, and on what grounds do you differ from your kids?

bud

Dec 18th, 2005 - 11:07 AM

Re: Reading the Bible

oh geez jim. we got a long way to go here. first the what do YOU think etc. in my last post was a joke ie. 'but enough about me. what do YOU think about me?.

well one thing at a time i guess.

"Genesis through to the end, you're reading the Bible a bit like it was a newspaper written for you yesterday. Atheists and christians alike do this - and it's the WORST thing you can do!"

why or how is this the worst thing i can do jim??

your goal - first off, you have to sit down and evaluate the reliability (or otherwise) of the Bible, perhaps starting with the Gospels (which are of course pivotal to Christianity!).

evulate the reliability etc??
you think i ain't done that jim?? will you deny your's is a "faith based belief system"??? dictionary difinition of faith= "unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence" that diffinition in and of it'self is really the only thing any unpreconditioned, unbrainwashed, rational person (with respect, as you are jim) would need to discount your own and all superstitions past & present. and they are traps jim. they ARE "harmful superstitions",to put it mildly. the evidence is in your face obvious, here now through out history. i mean jim what in this life, other than your relegion would you accept on "faith" as described above???
never did answer what the fact that christianity & islem are different religions ( with the same origions incedently) has to do with the fact that without the relegions there would be no war in iraq today???

Jimbojsr

Dec 19th, 2005 - 10:20 AM

Re: Re: Reading the Bible

"why or how is this the worst thing i can do jim??"

Because the Bible is a complex document, covering many genres, written in a time and culture very different from our own. Understanding of that context is therefore vitally important if we are to understand where the authors were coming from., regardless of whether we consider the Bible divinely inspired or not.

"i mean jim what in this life, other than your relegion would you accept on "faith" as described above???"

Nothing – but I don’t see my religious belief that way either. My belief is based on evidence – of course, you can dispute that evidence, but I’ve evaluated a good deal of it and come to the conclusion that the position of orthodox Christianity is backed up by it. In addition the biblical definition of what faith should be is considerably different from that used for the word today – see . http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html for more (basically, it SHOULD be based on evidence!)

"without the relegions there would be no war in iraq today"

er….. without delving into politics, may I humbly suggest that you substitute the word “religions” for “oil”, and you may be closer to the answer

. In any case, many differences of opinion can cause war.

bud

Dec 20th, 2005 - 10:08 AM

Re: Re: Re: Reading the Bible

jim, you wrote;
"Because the Bible is a complex document, covering many genres, written in a time and culture very different from our own. Understanding of that context is therefore vitally important if we are to understand where the authors were coming from., regardless of whether we consider the Bible divinely inspired or not."

ok jim but what if i'm reading and interpreting based on human nature and assuming it's the same today as it was then, regareless of the culture?? and forming my opponions base on the fact that you theists DO consider the bible "divinely inspired" by this supposed divine, perfect, being??. so isn't perfection something that never changes or what??? point being what's happening with all these mood changes throughout the bible (no matter how you read it) with this supposed "perfect" being??? please read it more jim. with as much of an open mind as you can manage.

Wayne

Dec 15th, 2005 - 2:58 PM

Re: understanding

Jimbo,

The one gripe you have is the objection that religions are inherently dangerous. So how do you rectify that? By making your argument for why genocide is justifiable if God tells you to do it. THAT is precisely the reason why the religious are viewed as dangerous, because their beliefs in this myth cause them to lose all objectivity and toss reason right out the window. "Those men, women and children must have had it coming! God wouldn't tell us to kill everyone including livestock unless they were all deserving of death." I'm sure it sounded just as justifiable when Hitler explained the concept to his followers.

Jimbojsr

Dec 16th, 2005 - 10:39 AM

Re: Re: understanding

Hi Wayne,

"The one gripe you have is the objection that religions are inherently dangerous. So how do you rectify that? By making your argument for why genocide is justifiable if God tells you to do it."

Not quite. I countered the claim that religions are inherently dangerous by pointing out that men (such as the completely atheistic Hitler) are quite capable of commiting atrocities with or without organised religion, and that you can't tar all religions with the same brush (seeing as how they vary so greatly in their teachings). The referral to God justifying genocide was made in response to the accusation that the sort of acts described in the OT are incompatible with a loving God (although the more I look at bud's post, the less I'm sure that was actually the point he was trying to convey... I'll let him correct me on that as necessary). There is also the begged question of whether God does exist and actually IS telling someone to do it!

"Those men, women and children must have had it coming! God wouldn't tell us to kill everyone including livestock unless they were all deserving of death."

Have a read at Glenn Miller's articles - that's exactly the sort of thing you DON'T find in the OT. Most folk aren't killed; those that are have the track record to prove that they deserve it; and the sword swings both ways, with the Israelites being punished when they start sinning in the same way.

"the religious are viewed as dangerous, because their beliefs in this myth cause them to lose all objectivity and toss reason right out the window."

Again, you're assuming that ALL theistic religions are myths - which is a completely different issue, and a much more important one in my opinion. It's not really any different to the Darwinists who pursue racism and genocide as a result of the belief that they are more highly evolved than other humans, and that survival of the fittest is the only real rule in the world (like, um... Hitler!) - you can't use their actions to determine whether or not the underlying philosophy is actually true or not.

bud

Dec 18th, 2005 - 11:19 AM

Re: Re: Re: understanding

oh hay jim. who told you hitler was an atheist?? don't know what he believed privatly but he sure as heck would never have gained or retained power without the jewish & christian relegions.

Jimbojsr

Dec 19th, 2005 - 10:21 AM

Hitler

Publicly Hitler appealed to the support of Christians - but then, would you trust Hitler? He sure knew the importance of propaganda, and you can hardly say he deserved any support from Jewish communities!!! A number of his private conversations (published in Hitler's Table Talk in the UK, but I think it may have another name in the US) showed that he wanted religion in general, but Christanity in particular, to die out. Even the Internet Infidels back me up on this – see http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-hitler.html

bud

Dec 20th, 2005 - 9:41 AM

Re: Hitler

jim you said.
"Publicly Hitler appealed to the support of Christians - but then, would you trust Hitler? He sure knew the importance of propaganda, and you can hardly say he deserved any support from Jewish communities!!! A number of his private conversations (published in Hitler's Table Talk in the UK, but I think it may have another name in the US) showed that he wanted religion in general, but Christanity in particular, to die out. Even the Internet Infidels back me up on this – see http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-hitler.html"

my obvious point, which you have have pridctably avoided with lots of irrelevent details, my sadly deluded faitheful friend is. NO RELEGION= NO HITLER=NO WAR. think man. can you deny, rationalize that INCREDABLLY SIMPLE statement?? please. i'd really like a response.

Jimbojsr

Dec 20th, 2005 - 10:22 AM

Re: Re: Hitler

"NO RELEGION= NO HITLER=NO WAR... can you deny, rationalize that INCREDABLLY SIMPLE statement??"

Bud, you have failed to provide any evidence that Hitler did what he did as a result of his being part of a theistic religion (much less Christianity!). On the contrary, I've just provided evidence that he was extremely hostile to Christianity when he found he couldn't manipulate it to his (extremely un-Christian) will - evidence from the biggest atheistic site on the net! There's some more evidence from other Table Talk quotes of Hitler at http://answers.org/history/hitquote.html, and from documents prepared for the Nuremberg trials at http://www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/NInst3.htm

It seems pretty clear to me that Hitler simply appealed to Christianity to try and justify his extermination of the Jews. Blame the Christian message? No - blame human nature, which history has shown us causes people (christian, atheistic, whatever) to screw up time and again, as we chase after our own greed and material ambitions.

Wayne

Dec 16th, 2005 - 12:22 PM

Re: understanding

>>Have a read at Glenn Miller's articles - that's exactly the sort of thing you DON'T find in the OT. Most folk aren't killed; those that are have the track record to prove that they deserve it; and the sword swings both ways, with the Israelites being punished when they start sinning in the same way.

Wayne

Dec 16th, 2005 - 12:40 PM

Re: understanding

Take a look at Deuteronomy 20-

“16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: 17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:”

Regardless of what Miller says, this is EXACTLY what is found in the OT. Utterly destroy them, save alive nothing that breathes. That is genocide. And how can you say the sword swings both ways? Were the Isrealites ever utterly destroyed? No, theirs is a history of endless second chances in the Bible.

I agree that the real question is whether the myths are even true or not. But the point stands that people who believe them, whether true or not, are more dangerous.

A few years ago in Texas, a Christian woman dragged her three sons from their beds in the middle of the night and bashed in their heads with a rock in the front yard. She believed the story of God telling Abraham to kill Isaac. Whether that story is true or not is irrelevant. Her belief in it assured her that she was doing the right thing. You could claim that she was obviously crazy, but what does that make Abraham?

If you believe that God really did tell Abraham to kill Isaac it creates a dilemma. If God did tell people in the past to commit genocide to gain land or even kill their own child, how can you know if it is God, Satan, or just mental illness that compels a person to do those things today?

Jimbojsr

Dec 17th, 2005 - 11:22 AM

Re: Re: understanding

"Regardless of what Miller says, [annihilation] is EXACTLY what is found in the OT. Utterly destroy them, save alive nothing that breathes. That is genocide. "

Unfortunately, the situation isn’t quite as clear cut as this! (Again to summarise what Miller lays out in good detail:) There are in fact many passages in Exodus and Deuteronomy which refer to the future conflict between Israel and the other nations, of which the above is only one – some order “annihilation” and “utter destruction”, whilst others, despite referring to the same events and peoples, instead talk about “dispossessing” or “sending away” the people – here, God seems to be talking about moving people away (a relatively meagre punishment, considering the ease with which tribes could migrate in those dys) rather than killing them all. This fairly blatant conflict is reconciled (as ever) by an understanding of the whole context:

“The answer comes in recognizing the intent of the 'punishment'. God was destroying a culture and its carriers--not necessarily all the individuals in it. Roughly, it was the 'nations' that were destroyed, and it was the 'individuals' who were driven out. With the national and cultic centers destroyed (along with the staunchest, die-hard defenders of that culture inside those cities), the culture would simply dissipate and evaporate in the Land. As OTHER cultures absorbed individual Canaanite families and groups, the Canaanite cultural depravity would not have had the critical mass to perpetuate itself. [Remember, Canaanite was a 'bad word' in the ANE.] The culture would have simply "died from starvation".”

Thus, rather than killing all the people (innocent or otherwise), they migrated and dispersed – and this broke up the evil, sinful culture that was the problem in the first place. Those that were killed were the ones that stayed behind to fight – the elite upper classes in the walled cities, who had no intention of changing their ways, and were anything but innocent. (cf. Num 21:31-35, and Deut 7:24 which refers to the destruction of a dynasty rather than an innocent populous).

I’d remind you that, if you’re going to challenge the above, you’re gonna have to look at the original article and tackle the textual evidence, rather than just say “it wasn’t like that!!!”

"Were the Isrealites ever utterly destroyed? No, theirs is a history of endless second chances in the Bible."

True – just as the other nations were evicted after being given numerous chances to change their ways. (cf. Jonah 3 – God will forgive repentant people, Hebrew or no!)

If you believe that God really did tell Abraham to kill Isaac it creates a dilemma. If God did tell people in the past to commit genocide to gain land or even kill their own child, how can you know if it is God, Satan, or just mental illness that compels a person to do those things today?

Now we’ve moved on to a separate issue (though forgive me if this is what you and bud were getting at the whole time…). Did this woman kill because she thought God was telling her to, or because she took Abraham’s example as a precedent? If it’s the former, then I’d suggest that she’s mistaken on the basis that it is completely inconsistent with God’s character for him to actually want her to kill her kids (remember that God stopped Abraham from actually doing it!) – though this isn’t an area I’ve thought about in great depth, so I’ll spend some more time on a proper response to it if you want. If it’s the latter, then it seems pretty obvious that God’s command to Abraham was an individual, specific test which takes a ludicrous amount of eisegesis to turn into a generic instruction for us in 2005. Sadly, being an idiot who doesn’t bother to THINK about what the Bible is about is no excuse for sinning! In the case of commands to “genocide”, we must be even more extreme – the return of Israel to her home was something prophesied for many years, and the commands to drive out sinful nations are isolated and specific – hardly “cover to cover slaughter”, as bud thinks. In any case, the status of the Jews as God’s chosen people no longer exists now that we are under the New Covenant of Jesus – but I’m sure you know all about that already.

Wayne

Dec 17th, 2005 - 11:47 AM

Re: understanding

“13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: 14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. 15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. 16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: 17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:”

Jimbo,

Look at the context here. There is a clear distinction between those cities they were to drive the inhabitants from, only killing the males, and those cities in which they were to “save alive nothing that breatheth”. It is obvious you have spent much more time reading Miller than reading the Bible. I can see how, if you read only Miller’s explanations you would think the way you do. But I can’t see how you could read the above passage from Dueteronomy and think it refers to only relocating people.

For further clarification I include below the same text from “The Bible in Basic English”. In any translation it reads the same.

“13 And when the Lord your God has given it into your hands, let every male in it be put to death without mercy. 14 But the women and the children and the cattle and everything in the town and all its wealth, you may take for yourselves: the wealth of your haters, which the Lord your God has given you, will be your food. 15 So you are to do to all the towns far away, which are not the towns of these nations. 16 But in the towns of these peoples whose land the Lord your God is giving you for your heritage, let no living thing be kept from death: 17 Give them up to the curse; the Hittite, the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has given you orders:”

Jimbojsr

Dec 18th, 2005 - 5:55 AM

Re: Re: understanding

"But I can’t see how you could read the above passage from Deuteronomy and think it refers to only relocating people."

Firstly, because you're doing exactly what Bud says we shouldn't do, and ignoring all the other pre-war instructions which talk of "disposession" - indeed, these instructions outnumber the "destruction" ones by 3 to 1! (plenty of examples in the qamorite.html document to look at). Right from the off, this indicates that the

general purpose[/i] of the movement was eviction (and thus destruction of a culture) rather than automatic, individual death.

Secondly, there are even places where the 2 (seemingly conflicting) instructions are side by side, referring to the same movement! (eg. Deut 9:3)

Thirdly, many people would simply have already left - it's not like they had no warning that justice was going to be done. By Joshua 2, even a prostitute knew enough of the miracles of the Exodus to realise what was happening, and moving away to another place wasn't really difficult.

With these 3 points in mind, as well as all the other biblical and extra-biblical data, we can conclude that those who were in the cities that had to be destroyed were the 'real sinners',as it were - the unrepentant catalysts of the culture that was offensive and sinful to God, and to all the surrounding nations! We have parallels of this ( Num 21:31, Deut 7:24) - this wasn't intended to be a "kill-all" session, but an action against the concept of a nation or dynasty.

Were people killed in the cities mentioned in Deut 20:16? Of course! But there is overwhelming data in surrounding passages, and from outside the bible, that innocents individuals were not targetted. Whilst Deut 20:16 seems very simplistic in isolation, a study of its context and the other instructions given to the Hebrews for dealing with the Canaanites (as Miller does - he's quoted from an awful lot more scripture than you have, I'm afraid) show that the mechanisms of the advance were quite different from what you suggest.

Wayne

Dec 18th, 2005 - 6:50 AM

Re: understanding

"there are even places where the 2 (seemingly conflicting) instructions are side by side, referring to the same movement!"

Well Jimbo, that's my rub with the entire Bible right there. It is "seemingly conflicting" throughout. Do you know what we call a person whose fantastic stories often contradict themselves? We call them a liar. (or a politician)

You seem to have a knack for ignoring contradictions that I just don't have.

Also, your logic is flawed when you say that because the orders to relocate outnumber the orders to kill everything that breathes, that the order to kill everything that breathes was never given. A look at what the Bible later says they did shows that they utterly destroyed them, not relocated them.

Nu 21:3 - And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and he called the name of the place Hormah.

Jimbojsr

Dec 18th, 2005 - 8:40 AM

Re: Re: understanding

"Well Jimbo, that's my rub with the entire Bible right there. It is "seemingly conflicting" throughout."

Indeed. And yet, if anyone today appeared to contradict themself in the same sentence, would we not give them a chance to explain themselves, lest we have misunderstood the whole drift of what they were saying? It's hardly inappropriate to give ancient people the benefit of the doubt at least until we have investigated everything in its proper context - rather than just assuming that all ancient folk were just so blockheaded that they could go 4000 years without noticing a contradiction if it slapped them in the face. Heck, quantum physics and relativity seemed to contradict for decades, but we didnt go out and call physicists idiots (or liars!)

"Also, your logic is flawed when you say that because the orders to relocate outnumber the orders to kill everything that breathes, that the order to kill everything that breathes was never given."

Not really what I'm saying, I'm afraid - I'm saying that understanding the command in its context makes it seem a heck of a lot more reasonable that you would think from your opening post. You seem to have a knack for misrepresenting my position that I just don't have...

Wayne

Dec 18th, 2005 - 10:00 AM

Re: understanding

“You seem to have a knack for misrepresenting my position that I just don't have...”

Well I’m having a hard time identifying your position here! You seem to be flip-flopping around.

First you said God’s command to slaughter people was justified-
"Would a loving God command people to be slaughtered like this?" It's a very good question - and the simple answer is "yes, if they deserved it"

Then you deny that those types of commands are in the OT-

“that's exactly the sort of thing you DON'T find in the OT. Most folk aren't killed; those that are have the track record to prove that they deserve it; and the sword swings both ways, with the Israelites being punished when they start sinning in the same way.”

Then you suggest that these things may be recorded in the Bible, but not commanded or approved by God-

“whilst many violent / potentially offensive things happen in the Bible, not all of them are presented as a good thing to do!”
"So what?" The Bible is a record of people's interactions with God, for good or bad - and people screw up an awful lot!”

Then you concede that the commands to “save nothing alive” and “utterly destroy them” are there, but they don’t mean what they say-

“some order “annihilation” and “utter destruction”, whilst others, despite referring to the same events and peoples, instead talk about “dispossessing” or “sending away” the people – here, God seems to be talking about moving people away (a relatively meagre punishment, considering the ease with which tribes could migrate in those dys) rather than killing them all.”
“Thus, rather than killing all the people (innocent or otherwise), they migrated and dispersed”

You conclude with-

“I'm saying that understanding the command in its context makes it seem a heck of a lot more reasonable that you would think from your opening post.”

Here is what I opened with-

“THAT is precisely the reason why the religious are viewed as dangerous, because their beliefs in this myth cause them to lose all objectivity and toss reason right out the window. "Those men, women and children must have had it coming! God wouldn't tell us to kill everyone including livestock unless they were all deserving of death."

You have confirmed that with your posts here. You have tossed objectivity and reason out the window and concluded that genocide is reasonable if god commands it and that was my original assertion.

You repeatedly refer to Miller in your posts here. But you admitted that you haven’t even read the entire Bible, just “bits and pieces”. I would suggest that you crack the cover on your Bible and do a little objective study on your own rather than buying what the snake oil salesman is spoon feeding you. You don’t seem totally irrational to me. You just seem thoroughly indoctrinated on these you admittedly haven’t investigated for yourself.

Jimbojsr

Dec 19th, 2005 - 11:40 AM

Re: Re: understanding

Hmm. I suppose I should take a deep breath and try harder to stay on topic:

“Then you deny that those types of commands are in the OT”
Actually I meant that you don’t see the Israelites blindly slaughtering everyone. Only a small fraction are actually killed, as has already been established.

“Then you suggest that these things may be recorded in the Bible, but not commanded or approved by God”

Yup. David knocking off a guy to nick his wife, for example. A general observation to counter the “argument by outrage” tactic; I wasn’t suggesting that God didn’t tell the Israelites to take back the land that everyone knew had been promised to them.

“Then you concede that the commands to “save nothing alive” and “utterly destroy them” are there, but they don’t mean what they say”

Now now, Wayne, we’ve been over THIS one before. You say the sun rises in the morning – would an astrophysicist pull you up for not meaning what you say? By not taking these commands in their context, you

Incidentally - I checked, and “your opening post” was actually bud’s (when he first talked about war & slaughter in the OT). Sorry for the confusion.

“concluded that genocide is reasonable if god commands it and that was my original assertion.”

Not genocide; we’ve already established that that is a gross oversimplification, as most people weren’t killed and the action wasn’t against a race or innocent individuals, but against a culture that everyone agreed was evil and destructive. What was done was, in fact, more merciful than most other nations may have liked – break up the culture that was causing everyone problems (e.g. invading and warring against all the other peoples) whilst killing no more people than was absolutely necessary (i.e. those that wanted the culture to survive the most, and thus those who were the biggest problem!). I still agree with you, though, that religions (indeed, any belief system, theistic or not) can be twisted and abused. This doesn’t have any bearing on the truthfulness (or even inherent dangerousness) of the system in question.

Whilst I acknowledge the point that God has commanded things which seem pretty extreme (even immoral?), a close examination of the events, commands and their contexts shows that what the Israelites were told to do was justified (in EVERYONE’S eyes), and more than a little merciful.

"But you admitted that you haven’t even read the entire Bible, just “bits and pieces”."

So what? I’m fairly young, some of it doesn’t directly concern me (although I may very well learn valuable lessons from it in the future, in which case there are plenty of resources out there for me) and I’d much rather study bits of it in depth than rush through just to say that I had covered all of it. For the record, I worked out today that I've read all the NT and roughly half of the OT. As for not investigating “for myself”, I see your point – but then, I’d much rather be one who took the advice of qualified scholars than charging in with the arrogance of a “freethinker”. Neither extreme is desirable – and I’d like to think that I at least try to maintain a happy medium. I’d suggest that bud’s assertion that ALL wars, famines, diseases, etc. would be avoided without Christianity is as dogmatic as any position you’re likely to find!

bud

Dec 19th, 2005 - 9:55 AM

Re: understanding

wayne. jim. i'm an old man and i gotta try to use the time i got left constructivly. and as for this bible thing i've been there, done that on other boards. the way it goes is the atheists quoting the slaughter &, inconsistencies of the bible, the theists denying & reationalizing. it goes on and on, ending with the theists, the more honest ones, unable to deny the hard facts, falling back on the old "god is perfect and whatever he does is done for our own good" and the atheists patting themselves on the back saying "yaya see told ya so"" or some such. don't change nobodies mind one way or the other.

jim, i'm here to deconvert you and any other theist i can. can't make it no clearer than that and if you want to just ignore me, ok. it's happened b4.

but if you do have just a little coursity about why, please read on.
the why is i have this wild, idea that our lives, the lives of everyone on the planet can be improved beyond imagination when or if we began using this wonderful intelligence, that nature, through evolution has blessed us with to improve our lives generally, as in making the health care we already have avalable to all people. using the increditable amount of wealth waisted on the killing machines of war to inhance our lives rather than destroy them. can your relegion do that jim?? has it ever?? is it anything more than a very effective method of maintaining the status quo?? ie. the hatred, bigatry, wars desiese?? the alternative jim, is we will ourselves provide the apocalips your superstitions fortell. you say you'll have to think up some good questions for me jim. and you will have to "think them up" and think hard. wonder why that is?? questions are the antithisis of blind, unquestioning, no evidence, unprovable, faith jim. questions come naturally to atheists jim. just as they do to you theists in every life situation save your superstition.
i'll presume here to anticapate your response (if any). all the wars, dezeis, starvation, the hate and bigatory are caused by relegion??
AFERMATIVE,MY FRIEND, AN UNEQICAL YES.
and if ever you're able to remove the blinders of your evidencless, proofless, unquestioning theoloigic faith for just a few moments, and take a good hard,objective look around, you will began to get a glimmering of the hard stone cold PROOF of what i'm saying.

Jimbojsr

Dec 19th, 2005 - 10:36 AM

Re: Re: understanding

"ending with the theists, the more honest ones, unable to deny the hard facts"

Such as the fact that all the other nations considered the Canaanites to be evil and deserving of extinction?

"jim, i'm here to deconvert you and any other theist i can. can't make it no clearer than that and if you want to just ignore me"

Meh, at least you're honest about it. I don't have any problem with that, so long as you try to keep as open minded as you want me to be.

"all the wars, dezeis, starvation, the hate and bigatory are caused by relegion??
AFERMATIVE,MY FRIEND, AN UNEQICAL YES."

Dude... I agree that bad things have been done in the name of religions, some justified by them, some patently not. But no reputable historian is gonna be as broad and sweeping as you were in that statement. There are COUNTLESS problems in the world in which Christianity was not a cause; likewise, there are millions of people out there who are driven by their Christianity to make a difference. As a student doctor, I'm one of them. Some of the biggest aid organisations that exist (Christian Aid, Tear Fund, the Red Cross) were founded on Christian principles. For a good, intelligent read have a look at "For The Glory Of God", by the well-known sociologist Rodney Stark.

As shown by my "faith" comment above, nowhere in Christianity are we required to believe unquestioningly. Naturally, we can debate the evidence we do have, but I have as much disregard for "fundie" (for want of a better word) christians who don't bother to engage their grey matter as you do - and likewise for the many fundie atheists there are out there! If there are specific areas of evidence for the truth of Christianity that you want to discuss, then go for it man - and I hope we'd both learn something from a civil discussion.

Lastly, I have actually asked you a question, which perhaps we could start a new thread on - what's your story? Why atheism? What has your experience of christianity been? We've covered some of it already, but I generally think it's a good idea to listen before talking - so whenever you feel ready, it's over to you...

Wayne

Dec 19th, 2005 - 1:35 PM

Re: understanding

"Now now, Wayne, we’ve been over THIS one before. You say the sun rises in the morning – would an astrophysicist pull you up for not meaning what you say?"

Yep, still a bone of contention with me. Now as a medical student you aren't going to pin me down by saying there's no such thing as a literal "bone" of contention are you? I understood your point from our previous discussions that the common usage for sunrise doesn't imply a literal rising of the sun from a cosmological perspective. So in all fairness to you I will let it slide if you can show me where "leave nothing alive" and "utterly destroy them" are terms that mean relocate in common usage.

I'm afraid we are beating a dead horse on this topic while, as you said, the more important question is whether the stories are even true at all.

So what makes you believe the Bible is true and other "sacred" writings are not?

Jimbojsr

Dec 20th, 2005 - 11:08 AM

Re: Re: understanding

"Now as a medical student you aren't going to pin me down by saying there's no such thing as a literal "bone" of contention are you?"

Nope - because I appreciate the need to take things in their proper context (for example, acknowledging the fact that the expression "bone of contention" is a well-used idiom for a disagreement. Deut 20 is one part of a larger order to Israel to dismantle a culture which was not only sinful in God's eyes, but threatened the survival of all other nations around it. Taking the quoted verses on their own suggest a malevolent (sp?), spiteful God who slaughters innocent folk on a whim - but appreciating the context shows that, if anything, God is being overly merciful on a sinful nation.

"I'm afraid we are beating a dead horse on this topic while, as you said, the more important question is whether the stories are even true at all... So what makes you believe the Bible is true and other "sacred" writings are not?"

Fair enough. Pretty big question though, and one which may lead to many off-shoots - may I suggest a new thread in a couple of days, once I construct a decent opening post?

PS. I seem to be getting a new forum structure intermittently; sometimes the posts are presented in their entirety in a big list, other times it's a list of headings. What gives?

Jimbojsr

Dec 21st, 2005 - 9:30 AM

Re: understanding

"what if i'm reading and interpreting based on human nature and assuming it's the same today as it was then, regareless of the culture?? and forming my opponions base on the fact that you theists DO consider the bible "divinely inspired" by this supposed divine, perfect, being??."

Then you're being very simplistic and naive. The Bible was composed by men, yes, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is never claimed, however, that this inspiration involved the Spirit taking any kind of unnatural force over the Bible’s authors, much less that it fell from the clouds. Rather it is held that God chose specific instruments from men and that the Spirit guided them. Dan Brown's idea of the Bible being "a fax from heaven" is a straw man that few Christians actually hold to. See http://www.answers.org/theology/illumination.html for more.

"what's happening with all these mood changes throughout the bible (no matter how you read it) with this supposed "perfect" being??? "

What mood changes? Examples, please, with verses and some sign that you understand the context of any example you choose to put forward.

bud

Dec 22nd, 2005 - 9:57 AM

Re: Re: understanding

i wrote;
"what if i'm reading and interpreting based on human nature and assuming it's the same today as it was then, regareless of the culture?? and forming my opponions base on the fact that you theists DO consider the bible "divinely inspired" by this supposed divine, perfect, being??.

you wrote;
Then you're being very simplistic and naive. The Bible was composed by men, yes, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is never claimed, however, that this inspiration involved the Spirit taking any kind of unnatural force over the Bible’s authors, much less that it fell from the clouds. Rather it is held that God chose specific instruments from men and that the Spirit guided them. Dan Brown's idea of the Bible being "a fax from heaven" is a straw man that few Christians actuallyholdto.Seehttp://www.answers.org/theology/illumination.html for more."

ok jim. simplistic & nieve?? i've read & reread this and i'm still lost. didn't know there was a certain way you're supposed to to read the bible. you'll have to explain that to me. don't recall any mention in my own posts about "unnatural force" but since you mention it ain't god supernatural?? and ain't supernatural, unnatural??? and i never heard of dan brown so can't really coment on that.

"what's happening with all these mood changes throughout the bible (no matter how you read it) with this supposed "perfect" being??? "

What mood changes? Examples, please, with verses and some sign that you understand the context of any example you choose to put forward.

ok jim you got me there. i was thinking of all the times in the bible when "and this angered the lord and he caused this or that catastraphy" and the point was these things that "angered the lord" were things he already knew were going to happen, being omnicient and all. how you get angery over something you've known for infinity,was going to happen and why it was going to happen?? ie. he knew the jews were going to get dumped as the "chosen" when he chose them. right?? so what sense you make jim for him choosing them in the first place???"?

Jimbojsr

Dec 23rd, 2005 - 4:11 AM

Reading the Bible, cont.

"didn't know there was a certain way you're supposed to to read the bible"

You're supposed to read it with at least a rudimentary understanding of its context, and an appreciation that different genres of literature provide different functions. For example, Psalms is a collection of poetry and song; Proverbs is wisdom literature; Deuteronomy is an ancient treaty between God and the Israelites. Reading these books with a basic understanding of these different genres and how they were traditionally put together will help you a LOT when you try to understand what the authors were on about (for example, in clarifying issues of doctrine) or when resolving apparent contradictions.

"ain't god supernatural?? and ain't supernatural, unnatural???"

I meant that God did not necessarily "pupetteer" their bodies. This is in response to Dan Brown, who wrote a wee book called "The DaVinci Code", which I'm told is fairly popular... in it, he addresses the Christian view that the Bible "arrived by fax from heaven" - a view that's actually a straw man, and that I thought you were burning. Anyway, point is that just because something is written in the style of the time does not mean that it's not inspired by God.

"how you get angery over something you've known for infinity,was going to happen and why it was going to happen?? "

Why not? Even if God knew something was coming, his response would still be appropriate. I'd be more upset if God saw the vast, repugnant sin of the Amalekites and responded by shrugging his shoulders and going "Meh, I knew that was gonna happen anyway".

"he knew the jews were going to get dumped as the "chosen" when he chose them. right?? so what sense you make jim for him choosing them in the first place?"

The english is a bit tortured here... do you mean "Of all the peoples out there, why did God make the Jews his chosen people when he knew they would let him down?" I can answer that, I just want to check I've got the question right this time

	The Naked Emperor Forum You know what I believe. Feel free to post what you believe.
Search For Similar Forums · Return to Website