Religions > Atheism > Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction)
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Editor of EvilBible.com" |
| Date: |
01 Jan 2004 03:13:12 PM |
| Object: |
Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1, 2004 from www.EvilBible.com:
Complete Destruction (Jeremiah 25:8-11 NLT)
"And now the LORD Almighty says: Because you have not listened to me, I
will gather together all the armies of the north under King Nebuchadnezzar
of Babylon, whom I have appointed as my deputy. I will bring them all
against this land and its people and against the other nations near you. I
will completely destroy you and make you an object of horror and contempt
and a ruin forever. I will take away your happy singing and laughter. The
joyful voices of bridegrooms and brides will no longer be heard. Your
businesses will fail, and all your homes will stand silent and dark. This
entire land will become a desolate wasteland.
What kind of person would get their moral guidance from an ancient book of
myths and magic that says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?
Read more about the evils of the Bible at www.EvilBible.com
.
|
|
| User: "melikamp" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
03 Jan 2004 09:21:03 PM |
|
|
Editor of EvilBible.com wrote:
"melikamp" <jplsp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
OK so I failed to show that Moses was an uber humanitarian, but
you haven't shown that he was an evil-doer either, not when compared
to his contemporaries.
Moses was a violent dictator. He invented the commandments and killed his
own people when they didn't listen to him. The rest lived in fear of him.
Clearly the people he killed didn't think he was moral. Moses was very
similar to Saddam Hussein. He installed his family (the Danites) as rulers
and killed or tortured anyone who didn't obey him. He also wanted to invade
his neighboring nations.
OTOH, show me another nation at the time of Moses that would
disapprove conquest. Such ideas were hardly entertained by anyone
until Ashoka applied the moral insights of Siddhartha Gautama.
Here goes 1 for world religions.
The Israelites *strongly* disapproved of conquest when it was happening to
them. There are entire books of the Bible concerning the Israelite's
disapproval of conquest.
Don't you think that *every* nation that was resisting their conquest by
others was expressing very strong disapproval of this act? How stupid can
you get? Do you think the conquered peoples just let themselves be
slaughtered like ignorant sheep without putting up a fight?
Nations disapproved the *acts* of Moses, not the moral standard of Moses,
or lack thereof, can't you see the difference?
No I can't see the difference! There is no difference. These invasions
were not accidents. They were carefully planed and thought about. Moses
thought that these invasions were morally acceptable. It's not like he
thought they were bad and did it anyway.
There's difference. Moses had a narrow, tribe-centric understanding of
morals. His own tribe was of much greater value to him, in all respects,
than any other tribe. I claim that the case was similar for every nation
in the ancient world: they were all prone to equate the good of the
nation (often, a tribe, or a blood line) with the highest good.
We, today, expanded our view to all of the humanity. Many agree today
that human life has an intrinsic value that is independent from gender,
nationality, ethnicity, race, etc. No such standard existed back then:
the value of an individual was greatly affected by how closely related
you were to her/him, and also by the gender. Everyone was working using
this scale, not just Moses.
If I walked down the street and saw a parked car with the windows rolled
down and a suitcase full of cash sitting on the front seat, I might be
tempted to take it even though I know it is wrong. In this case I can see
someone disapproving of my act but approving of my moral standards. I knew
it was wrong but I did it anyway.
At the basic state of understanding of morals I described earlier,
your moral standard would be considered lame, but you would be redeemed
by your act. Your moral would look stupid because you disregarded the
well being of your wife & children, and instead left the cash to
a stranger, who will probably try to rob you later, because she has
her own family to feed. Thank goodness, you did take the money,
so now your family won't starve.
That is, you would look like a fool, even an evil-doer, if you
did something like this back in the time of Moses.
Moses and the Bible *never, ever* said
anything that would come close to expressing remorse for these invasions.
Moses never thought they were wrong!
No one expressed remorse for their *respective* invasions! Ashoka was the
first (and it seems like the last too) who did. OK, ok, here's another:
Gemans *did* express remorse for the holocaust they themselves performed.
This is a fairly modern moral standard - to respect all human beings
equally. I do not deny that Moses lacks it. So does everyone around him.
God of Moses wasn't all-knowing, and Torah wasn't written by God.
You are objecting what Bible did not assert.
The Bible claims that God is all-knowing. Do I really need to dig up the
quotes?
The Torah has lots of direct quotes from God. I know that they are all lies
because God doesn't exist. Are you now admitting that the Bible has lies?
Books cannot lie, only their authors can.
Suppose the writer says: "This is the word of God: Thou shall not baptize
your donuts in your coffee." This is not a command of God. You should be
the last who calls it "the direct quote from God" - you don't even believe
that God exists.
This can only be the respective writer's opinion of what the word
of God is. The writers of the Bible have differing opinions, on just about
any topic you choose. Some say God is fire, others say God is breath, go
figure.
Moses often treats God as not-all-knowing, quotes may be found;
some other writers, especially the latter ones, imply him to be all-knowing.
This doesn't yet make them liers. They may be (and probably are) *honestly*
expressing their private opinions. Often, they claim that their private
opinions coincide with the "word of God", but that in turn is also their
private opinion, which they are *honestly* expressing.
What is a "lie"? Can't be just any deviation from the most objective
exposure of ideas. Figures of speech are not lies, and neither are
biased opinions. A "lie" cannot be defined apart from the intentionality;
for something to be a "lie", an intention "to deceive" must be present
in the writer.
Writers can be ignorant, and in disagreement with each other,
yet still honest.
WHERE ARE THE VERSES FROM JESUS OR THE O.T. THAT SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM THAT
*ANY* OF GOD'S COMMANDMENTS APPLIES ONLY TO THE JEWS?
And yet again, if you are stating that *Jewish* law somehow applies
to Gentiles, you need to furnish the quotes yourself. If the Jewish
writers intended the Torah to be a universal law, they should've (a)
translated it to every language or (b) killed everyone else.
Get a hint.
<Digression: By contrast, the moral message of NT is universally
addressed, as seen from how they say it should be spread: by
living apostles, in what they percieve to be an all-Greek-speaking
world.>
But I'll quote nonetheless :P
RSV, Exodus 24
[3] Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD and all the
ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice, and said,
"All the words which the LORD has spoken we will do." [4] And Moses
wrote all the words of the LORD. And he rose early in the morning, and
built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars, according
to the twelve tribes of Israel. [5] And he sent young men of the people
of Israel, who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of
oxen to the LORD. [6] And Moses took half of the blood and put it in
basins, and half of the blood he threw against the altar. [7] Then he
took the book of the covenant, and read it in the hearing of the people;
and they said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be
obedient." [8] And Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people,
and said, "Behold the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with
you in accordance with all these words."
The covenant (contract) was made with the 12 tribes of Israel.
Those who do not belong to the 12 tribes, stand clear of this covenant
altogether; just like those who do not know Abraham as their ancestor
stand clear from the covenant of circumsision.
Mel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
04 Jan 2004 03:22:16 PM |
|
|
"melikamp" <jplsp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:zELJb.278937$_M.1357726@attbi_s54...
Editor of EvilBible.com wrote:
"melikamp" <jplsp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
OK so I failed to show that Moses was an uber humanitarian, but
you haven't shown that he was an evil-doer either, not when compared
to his contemporaries.
Moses was a violent dictator. He invented the commandments and killed
his
own people when they didn't listen to him. The rest lived in fear of
him.
Clearly the people he killed didn't think he was moral. Moses was very
similar to Saddam Hussein. He installed his family (the Danites) as
rulers
and killed or tortured anyone who didn't obey him. He also wanted to
invade
his neighboring nations.
OTOH, show me another nation at the time of Moses that would
disapprove conquest. Such ideas were hardly entertained by anyone
until Ashoka applied the moral insights of Siddhartha Gautama.
Here goes 1 for world religions.
The Israelites *strongly* disapproved of conquest when it was happening
to
them. There are entire books of the Bible concerning the Israelite's
disapproval of conquest.
Don't you think that *every* nation that was resisting their conquest
by
others was expressing very strong disapproval of this act? How stupid
can
you get? Do you think the conquered peoples just let themselves be
slaughtered like ignorant sheep without putting up a fight?
Nations disapproved the *acts* of Moses, not the moral standard of
Moses,
or lack thereof, can't you see the difference?
No I can't see the difference! There is no difference. These invasions
were not accidents. They were carefully planed and thought about.
Moses
thought that these invasions were morally acceptable. It's not like he
thought they were bad and did it anyway.
There's difference. Moses had a narrow, tribe-centric understanding of
morals. His own tribe was of much greater value to him, in all respects,
than any other tribe. I claim that the case was similar for every nation
in the ancient world: they were all prone to equate the good of the
nation (often, a tribe, or a blood line) with the highest good.
We, today, expanded our view to all of the humanity. Many agree today
that human life has an intrinsic value that is independent from gender,
nationality, ethnicity, race, etc. No such standard existed back then:
the value of an individual was greatly affected by how closely related
you were to her/him, and also by the gender. Everyone was working using
this scale, not just Moses.
The Bible states that God gave these commandments to Moses. Are you saying
that God had a narrow, tribe-centric understanding of morals?
If I walked down the street and saw a parked car with the windows rolled
down and a suitcase full of cash sitting on the front seat, I might be
tempted to take it even though I know it is wrong. In this case I can
see
someone disapproving of my act but approving of my moral standards. I
knew
it was wrong but I did it anyway.
At the basic state of understanding of morals I described earlier,
your moral standard would be considered lame, but you would be redeemed
by your act. Your moral would look stupid because you disregarded the
well being of your wife & children, and instead left the cash to
a stranger, who will probably try to rob you later, because she has
her own family to feed. Thank goodness, you did take the money,
so now your family won't starve.
That is, you would look like a fool, even an evil-doer, if you
did something like this back in the time of Moses.
Come on now, stealing was specifically listed in the commandments as
something you shouldn't do. Clearly they thought that stealing was wrong.
Moses and the Bible *never, ever* said
anything that would come close to expressing remorse for these
invasions.
Moses never thought they were wrong!
No one expressed remorse for their *respective* invasions! Ashoka was the
first (and it seems like the last too) who did. OK, ok, here's another:
Gemans *did* express remorse for the holocaust they themselves performed.
Most of the Nazi leaders never expressed remorse.
This is a fairly modern moral standard - to respect all human beings
equally. I do not deny that Moses lacks it. So does everyone around him.
Since the Bible claims that God gave Moses these commandments, doesn't that
mean that God also did not respect all humans equally.
God of Moses wasn't all-knowing, and Torah wasn't written by God.
You are objecting what Bible did not assert.
The Bible claims that God is all-knowing. Do I really need to dig up
the
quotes?
The Torah has lots of direct quotes from God. I know that they are all
lies
because God doesn't exist. Are you now admitting that the Bible has
lies?
Books cannot lie, only their authors can.
Books can contain lies. Now answer the question. Does the Bible contain
lies?
Suppose the writer says: "This is the word of God: Thou shall not baptize
your donuts in your coffee." This is not a command of God. You should be
the last who calls it "the direct quote from God" - you don't even believe
that God exists.
Let's look at an actual example from Exodus 20:22 (from the NAB). "The Lord
told Moses, 'Thus shall you speak...'" This is clearly written in the Bible
as a direct quote from God. Are you denying that the Bible literally says
that these are the words of God?
And why can't I call a direct quote a direct quote if I don't believe it?
If someone wrote a book and he has direct quotes from UFO aliens, am I not
allowed to call them direct quotes simply because I think he made them up?
This can only be the respective writer's opinion of what the word
of God is. The writers of the Bible have differing opinions, on just about
any topic you choose. Some say God is fire, others say God is breath, go
figure.
So they lied and claimed that their own opinions were the words of God. I
have been saying this all along. I'm glad you agree. So if the writers of
the Bible are liars, don't you think they might have lied about the
existence of God too?
Moses often treats God as not-all-knowing, quotes may be found;
some other writers, especially the latter ones, imply him to be
all-knowing.
This doesn't yet make them liers. They may be (and probably are)
*honestly*
expressing their private opinions. Often, they claim that their private
opinions coincide with the "word of God", but that in turn is also their
private opinion, which they are *honestly* expressing.
If you write down your own opinion and claim that God said that, then you
are lying.
What is a "lie"? Can't be just any deviation from the most objective
exposure of ideas. Figures of speech are not lies, and neither are
biased opinions. A "lie" cannot be defined apart from the intentionality;
for something to be a "lie", an intention "to deceive" must be present
in the writer.
Writers can be ignorant, and in disagreement with each other,
yet still honest.
I use dictionary definitions of words. In this case a lie is "A false
statement deliberately presented as being true". And you are right, an
intent to deceive is required. Don't you think that falsely attributing
your own words to another person is a lie?
WHERE ARE THE VERSES FROM JESUS OR THE O.T. THAT SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM THAT
*ANY* OF GOD'S COMMANDMENTS APPLIES ONLY TO THE JEWS?
And yet again, if you are stating that *Jewish* law somehow applies
to Gentiles, you need to furnish the quotes yourself. If the Jewish
writers intended the Torah to be a universal law, they should've (a)
translated it to every language or (b) killed everyone else.
Get a hint.
There is nothing in the Old Testament that says that God's commandments were
only for the Jews. To call it "Jewish law" is deceptive. That is why you
can't provide any quotes from Jesus or the OT that say this.
<Digression: By contrast, the moral message of NT is universally
addressed, as seen from how they say it should be spread: by
living apostles, in what they percieve to be an all-Greek-speaking
world.>
No one in the Bible thought that Greek was the only language spoken.
But I'll quote nonetheless :P
RSV, Exodus 24
[3] Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD and all the
ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice, and said,
"All the words which the LORD has spoken we will do." [4] And Moses
wrote all the words of the LORD. And he rose early in the morning, and
built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars, according
to the twelve tribes of Israel. [5] And he sent young men of the people
of Israel, who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of
oxen to the LORD. [6] And Moses took half of the blood and put it in
basins, and half of the blood he threw against the altar. [7] Then he
took the book of the covenant, and read it in the hearing of the people;
and they said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be
obedient." [8] And Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people,
and said, "Behold the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with
you in accordance with all these words."
The covenant (contract) was made with the 12 tribes of Israel.
Those who do not belong to the 12 tribes, stand clear of this covenant
altogether; just like those who do not know Abraham as their ancestor
stand clear from the covenant of circumsision.
The covenant was that if the Israelites obeyed the commandments then God
would reward them by driving out the other tribes and give the Israelites
their land. God hates the other tribes because they don't obey him. Look
at Leviticus 20:23 "Do not live by the customs of the people whom I will
expel before you. It is because they do these terrible things that I detest
them so much." Clearly God wanted them to obey his commandments too. If
God didn't want to apply his commandments and morals to the other tribes he
would have no reason to hate them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "melikamp" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
04 Jan 2004 04:14:33 PM |
|
|
<snip>
Editor of EvilBible.com wrote:
"melikamp" <jplsp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
But I'll quote nonetheless :P
RSV, Exodus 24
[3] Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD and all the
ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice, and said,
"All the words which the LORD has spoken we will do." [4] And Moses
wrote all the words of the LORD. And he rose early in the morning, and
built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars, according
to the twelve tribes of Israel. [5] And he sent young men of the people
of Israel, who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of
oxen to the LORD. [6] And Moses took half of the blood and put it in
basins, and half of the blood he threw against the altar. [7] Then he
took the book of the covenant, and read it in the hearing of the people;
and they said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be
obedient." [8] And Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people,
and said, "Behold the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with
you in accordance with all these words."
The covenant (contract) was made with the 12 tribes of Israel.
Those who do not belong to the 12 tribes, stand clear of this covenant
altogether; just like those who do not know Abraham as their ancestor
stand clear from the covenant of circumsision.
The covenant was that if the Israelites obeyed the commandments then God
would reward them by driving out the other tribes and give the Israelites
their land. God hates the other tribes because they don't obey him. Look
at Leviticus 20:23 "Do not live by the customs of the people whom I will
expel before you. It is because they do these terrible things that I detest
them so much." Clearly God wanted them to obey his commandments too. If
God didn't want to apply his commandments and morals to the other tribes he
would have no reason to hate them.
God, according to Moses, did not want them to obey his commandments, he
just wanted to kill them. Why do you think Jonah struggles with God's
command to go preach to Nineveh? Exactly because he's still caught up
in Moses' mentality: he wants to see other tribes oblitirated, because
they are not like Israel. The book of Jonah is a good example of how the
*notion* of God develops over time in Judaism.
How are you planning to overthrow this quote? You agreed that the covenant
was made with Israelites. In Moses' view, *his tribal God* (with accent on
tribal) was disconcerned with other nations; last thing Moses wanted is to
give God's law to them, lest they be deemed worthy of blessing. The writers
of the Torah made no attempt to address the law of Moses to the Gentiles.
Mel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
04 Jan 2004 07:35:30 PM |
|
|
"melikamp" <jplsp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:df0Kb.741575$Tr4.2013917@attbi_s03...
<snip>
Editor of EvilBible.com wrote:
"melikamp" <jplsp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
But I'll quote nonetheless :P
RSV, Exodus 24
[3] Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD and all the
ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice, and said,
"All the words which the LORD has spoken we will do." [4] And Moses
wrote all the words of the LORD. And he rose early in the morning, and
built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars,
according
to the twelve tribes of Israel. [5] And he sent young men of the people
of Israel, who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of
oxen to the LORD. [6] And Moses took half of the blood and put it in
basins, and half of the blood he threw against the altar. [7] Then he
took the book of the covenant, and read it in the hearing of the people;
and they said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be
obedient." [8] And Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people,
and said, "Behold the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with
you in accordance with all these words."
The covenant (contract) was made with the 12 tribes of Israel.
Those who do not belong to the 12 tribes, stand clear of this covenant
altogether; just like those who do not know Abraham as their ancestor
stand clear from the covenant of circumsision.
The covenant was that if the Israelites obeyed the commandments then God
would reward them by driving out the other tribes and give the
Israelites
their land. God hates the other tribes because they don't obey him.
Look
at Leviticus 20:23 "Do not live by the customs of the people whom I
will
expel before you. It is because they do these terrible things that I
detest
them so much." Clearly God wanted them to obey his commandments too.
If
God didn't want to apply his commandments and morals to the other tribes
he
would have no reason to hate them.
God, according to Moses, did not want them to obey his commandments, he
just wanted to kill them.
How does killing people without cause show that God is moral??? I think
that this pretty much proves my point that the Biblical God is immoral.
Why do you think Jonah struggles with God's
command to go preach to Nineveh? Exactly because he's still caught up
in Moses' mentality: he wants to see other tribes oblitirated, because
they are not like Israel. The book of Jonah is a good example of how the
*notion* of God develops over time in Judaism.
In the book of Jonah, God applies his moral judgments to the gentile city of
Nineveh. He threatens to kill the city for their evil acts and when they
repent and change their evil ways he shows mercy on them. Clearly this is
an excellent example of God applying his commandments to gentiles.
How are you planning to overthrow this quote? You agreed that the covenant
was made with Israelites.
The covenant was a contract that if the Israelites obeyed his commandments
then he would clear out land for them. There is nothing there about the
commandments only applying to Jews. As an analogy consider a father who
sets rules for his children. Then he makes an agreement with one of his
sons that if he obeys all his rules he will hand down the family car to him
when he turns 16. This agreement with only one son does not mean the other
children don't have to obey the rules.
In Moses' view, *his tribal God* (with accent on
tribal) was disconcerned with other nations; last thing Moses wanted is to
give God's law to them, lest they be deemed worthy of blessing. The
writers
of the Torah made no attempt to address the law of Moses to the Gentiles.
Look at Leviticus 18:25. "Thus the land became defiled; and I punished it
for its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants." God is
punishing the gentile nations because of their wickedness. Clearly God was
judging these gentile nations according to the commandments.
All of this is digressing away from the fact that the Biblical God has evil
commandments, such as killing witches, homosexuals, and nonbelievers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "melikamp" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
05 Jan 2004 03:02:28 AM |
|
|
Editor of EvilBible.com wrote:
"melikamp" <jplsp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:df0Kb.741575$Tr4.2013917@attbi_s03...
<snip>
Editor of EvilBible.com wrote:
"melikamp" <jplsp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
But I'll quote nonetheless :P
RSV, Exodus 24
[3] Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD and all the
ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice, and said,
"All the words which the LORD has spoken we will do." [4] And Moses
wrote all the words of the LORD. And he rose early in the morning, and
built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars, according
to the twelve tribes of Israel. [5] And he sent young men of the people
of Israel, who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of
oxen to the LORD. [6] And Moses took half of the blood and put it in
basins, and half of the blood he threw against the altar. [7] Then he
took the book of the covenant, and read it in the hearing of the people;
and they said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be
obedient." [8] And Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people,
and said, "Behold the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with
you in accordance with all these words."
The covenant (contract) was made with the 12 tribes of Israel.
Those who do not belong to the 12 tribes, stand clear of this covenant
altogether; just like those who do not know Abraham as their ancestor
stand clear from the covenant of circumsision.
The covenant was that if the Israelites obeyed the commandments then God
would reward them by driving out the other tribes and give the Israelites
their land. God hates the other tribes because they don't obey him. Look
at Leviticus 20:23 "Do not live by the customs of the people whom I will
expel before you. It is because they do these terrible things that I detest
them so much." Clearly God wanted them to obey his commandments too. If
God didn't want to apply his commandments and morals to the other tribes he
would have no reason to hate them.
God, according to Moses, did not want them to obey his commandments, he
just wanted to kill them.
How does killing people without cause show that God is moral??? I think
that this pretty much proves my point that the Biblical God is immoral.
Eh... Here we go again... God was seen as moral back in the time of
Moses, because nation-centric (even tribe-centric) moral system was the
best moral standard that ancients had. God was simply rooting for his
tribe. Other tribes had their own gods to protect them.
Why do you think Jonah struggles with God's
command to go preach to Nineveh? Exactly because he's still caught up
in Moses' mentality: he wants to see other tribes oblitirated, because
they are not like Israel. The book of Jonah is a good example of how the
*notion* of God develops over time in Judaism.
In the book of Jonah, God applies his moral judgments to the gentile city of
Nineveh. He threatens to kill the city for their evil acts and when they
repent and change their evil ways he shows mercy on them. Clearly this is
an excellent example of God applying his commandments to gentiles.
He urges them to worship him, in general terms, but he does not make them
to observe the Jewish law. You are right, his judgement is on moral, not
on legal grounds of Torah, and that's what makes Jonah so confused.
How are you planning to overthrow this quote? You agreed that the covenant
was made with Israelites.
The covenant was a contract that if the Israelites obeyed his commandments
then he would clear out land for them. There is nothing there about the
commandments only applying to Jews. As an analogy consider a father who
sets rules for his children. Then he makes an agreement with one of his
sons that if he obeys all his rules he will hand down the family car to him
when he turns 16. This agreement with only one son does not mean the other
children don't have to obey the rules.
Excellent example. But wait... The father forgot to tell his other children
what the commandments were! I guess, they are free to roam the streets now.
And he really did forget. Funny how you think that OT laws were intended to
Gentiles, but Jews, for more than 1000 years, did not share them with anyone,
but instead *boasted* in their exclusive standing with God, thanks to the
covenant only *they* had. Are you saying you know better what Jews intended
to do with the law than Jews - the writers and the keepers of the said law -
themselves?
In Moses' view, *his tribal God* (with accent on
tribal) was disconcerned with other nations; last thing Moses wanted is to
give God's law to them, lest they be deemed worthy of blessing. The writers
of the Torah made no attempt to address the law of Moses to the Gentiles.
Look at Leviticus 18:25. "Thus the land became defiled; and I punished it
for its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants." God is
punishing the gentile nations because of their wickedness. Clearly God was
judging these gentile nations according to the commandments.
He can't, he never even *tried* to give them the commandments.
Jews thought that whenever other nation got busted, it was their tribal
God cleaning up some space. The other tribes didn't have to do much to be wicked;
they only needed to have a different blood and a different god.
All of this is digressing away from the fact that the Biblical God has evil
commandments, such as killing witches, homosexuals, and nonbelievers.
These are legal statutes for the Jewish tribe, not moral standards. None of
them are outrageous for the time they were given at.
Mel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
05 Jan 2004 01:07:18 PM |
|
|
"melikamp" <jplsp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:EK9Kb.64686$xX.419428@attbi_s02...
Editor of EvilBible.com wrote:
"melikamp" <jplsp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:df0Kb.741575$Tr4.2013917@attbi_s03...
<snip>
Editor of EvilBible.com wrote:
"melikamp" <jplsp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
But I'll quote nonetheless :P
RSV, Exodus 24
[3] Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD and all
the
ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice, and said,
"All the words which the LORD has spoken we will do." [4] And Moses
wrote all the words of the LORD. And he rose early in the morning, and
built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars,
according
to the twelve tribes of Israel. [5] And he sent young men of the
people
of Israel, who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings
of
oxen to the LORD. [6] And Moses took half of the blood and put it in
basins, and half of the blood he threw against the altar. [7] Then he
took the book of the covenant, and read it in the hearing of the
people;
and they said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will
be
obedient." [8] And Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people,
and said, "Behold the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made
with
you in accordance with all these words."
The covenant (contract) was made with the 12 tribes of Israel.
Those who do not belong to the 12 tribes, stand clear of this covenant
altogether; just like those who do not know Abraham as their ancestor
stand clear from the covenant of circumsision.
The covenant was that if the Israelites obeyed the commandments then
God
would reward them by driving out the other tribes and give the
Israelites
their land. God hates the other tribes because they don't obey him.
Look
at Leviticus 20:23 "Do not live by the customs of the people whom I
will
expel before you. It is because they do these terrible things that I
detest
them so much." Clearly God wanted them to obey his commandments too.
If
God didn't want to apply his commandments and morals to the other
tribes he
would have no reason to hate them.
God, according to Moses, did not want them to obey his commandments, he
just wanted to kill them.
How does killing people without cause show that God is moral??? I think
that this pretty much proves my point that the Biblical God is immoral.
Eh... Here we go again... God was seen as moral back in the time of
Moses, because nation-centric (even tribe-centric) moral system was the
best moral standard that ancients had. God was simply rooting for his
tribe. Other tribes had their own gods to protect them.
So how many Gods are there (in reality)???? Don't you think that polytheism
is in contradiction to the God described in the New Testament?
Why do you think Jonah struggles with God's
command to go preach to Nineveh? Exactly because he's still caught up
in Moses' mentality: he wants to see other tribes oblitirated, because
they are not like Israel. The book of Jonah is a good example of how the
*notion* of God develops over time in Judaism.
In the book of Jonah, God applies his moral judgments to the gentile
city of
Nineveh. He threatens to kill the city for their evil acts and when
they
repent and change their evil ways he shows mercy on them. Clearly this
is
an excellent example of God applying his commandments to gentiles.
He urges them to worship him, in general terms, but he does not make them
to observe the Jewish law. You are right, his judgement is on moral, not
on legal grounds of Torah, and that's what makes Jonah so confused.
You have never shown a single verse that shows that Mosaic law is only
intended for the Jews. To call it "Jewish law" is self-serving and
incorrect. And it is also incorrect of you to imply that I said that "his
judgment is on moral, not on legal grounds of Torah". I have said no such
thing. In fact, I have said that "this is an excellent example of God
applying his commandments to gentiles." This is in direct contradiction to
your statement. Please don't continue with these lies. If you have to lie
to support your argument, your argument is probably incorrect.
Jonah appears to be a mentally ill person. He was suicidal, thought he
lived in a whale's belly, heard voices (which he attributed to God), and
walked around Nineveh saying that these voices predicted the destruction of
their city in 40 days. When this didn't come true, he assumed that God
changed his mind. This is a good example of the early Israelites
attributing the voices heard by mentally ill people as messages from God.
How are you planning to overthrow this quote? You agreed that the
covenant
was made with Israelites.
The covenant was a contract that if the Israelites obeyed his
commandments
then he would clear out land for them. There is nothing there about the
commandments only applying to Jews. As an analogy consider a father who
sets rules for his children. Then he makes an agreement with one of his
sons that if he obeys all his rules he will hand down the family car to
him
when he turns 16. This agreement with only one son does not mean the
other
children don't have to obey the rules.
Excellent example. But wait... The father forgot to tell his other
children
what the commandments were! I guess, they are free to roam the streets
now.
There is an excellent example of a covenant between God, Noah and "your
descendents after you in Genesis 9. This would clearly apply to all humans
because Noah and his wife are the only ones who survived the flood. In
Genesis 9:17 "God told Noah: 'This is the sign of the covenant I have
established between me and all mortal creatures that are on the earth'".
In this chapter God has commandments against murder (verses 5-6), and eating
flesh with blood still in it, which are similar to the later Mosaic laws.
Clearly this passage prohibits murder, and it applies to all humans. Your
claim that God did not intend to rule over gentiles is absurd.
And he really did forget. Funny how you think that OT laws were intended
to
Gentiles, but Jews, for more than 1000 years, did not share them with
anyone,
but instead *boasted* in their exclusive standing with God, thanks to the
covenant only *they* had. Are you saying you know better what Jews
intended
to do with the law than Jews - the writers and the keepers of the said
law -
themselves?
The exclusive covenant that the Jews had was an agreement that if they
obeyed God's laws then God would clear out land for them. Surely we can
agree on this rather obvious point. It was *not* an agreement that the laws
only applied to them!
The Jews had a special place in God's heart and were God's chosen people.
God helps them out because they obeyed his laws. Much like a father who
gives a car to his obedient son but not to his disobedient sons.
And all of this is digresses from the original point we were trying to make,
which was that burning "witches" is immoral, and this is one of God's
commandments. Clearly if God thought it was good for the Israelites to kill
witches, why shouldn't this apply to everyone?
In Moses' view, *his tribal God* (with accent on
tribal) was disconcerned with other nations; last thing Moses wanted is
to
give God's law to them, lest they be deemed worthy of blessing. The
writers
of the Torah made no attempt to address the law of Moses to the
Gentiles.
Look at Leviticus 18:25. "Thus the land became defiled; and I punished
it
for its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants." God is
punishing the gentile nations because of their wickedness. Clearly God
was
judging these gentile nations according to the commandments.
He can't, he never even *tried* to give them the commandments.
Surely the covenant between God and Noah's descendents applies to all of
mankind. This proves that God wants to rule over all of mankind. It is
absurd to say that God failed to properly communicate his commands to the
gentiles and then wants to kill them for not obeying the rules. Or do you
think that the gentiles were supposed to read God's mind?
Jews thought that whenever other nation got busted, it was their tribal
God cleaning up some space. The other tribes didn't have to do much to be
wicked;
they only needed to have a different blood and a different god.
The Jews did not think that their God was only a tribal god. He clearly
ruled over the entire earth.
All of this is digressing away from the fact that the Biblical God has
evil
commandments, such as killing witches, homosexuals, and nonbelievers.
These are legal statutes for the Jewish tribe, not moral standards. None
of
them are outrageous for the time they were given at.
These commandments are claimed to be directly from God. If you are going to
claim that this is moral because people were so stupid they had a ignorant
sense of morality, and this is the best that they could think up, then you
also need to claim that God is ignorant. So you either need to; 1) admit
that God is very ignorant, or
2) the Israelites made up the commandments and falsely attributed them to
God, or
3) God made immoral laws, or
4) you need to give up this absurd claim.
Which is it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "melikamp" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
05 Jan 2004 03:38:21 PM |
|
|
Editor of EvilBible.com wrote:
"melikamp" <jplsp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Editor of EvilBible.com wrote:
How does killing people without cause show that God is moral??? I think
that this pretty much proves my point that the Biblical God is immoral.
Eh... Here we go again... God was seen as moral back in the time of
Moses, because nation-centric (even tribe-centric) moral system was the
best moral standard that ancients had. God was simply rooting for his
tribe. Other tribes had their own gods to protect them.
So how many Gods are there (in reality)???? Don't you think that polytheism
is in contradiction to the God described in the New Testament?
I'm doing my best to argue from your assumptions, not from mine. For the
purposes of this discussion I assert that God does not exist in reality,
there's only a concept of God, and it changes over time.
Why do you think Jonah struggles with God's
command to go preach to Nineveh? Exactly because he's still caught up
in Moses' mentality: he wants to see other tribes oblitirated, because
they are not like Israel. The book of Jonah is a good example of how the
*notion* of God develops over time in Judaism.
In the book of Jonah, God applies his moral judgments to the gentile city of
Nineveh. He threatens to kill the city for their evil acts and when they
repent and change their evil ways he shows mercy on them. Clearly this is
an excellent example of God applying his commandments to gentiles.
He urges them to worship him, in general terms, but he does not make them
to observe the Jewish law. You are right, his judgement is on moral, not
on legal grounds of Torah, and that's what makes Jonah so confused.
You have never shown a single verse that shows that Mosaic law is only
intended for the Jews. To call it "Jewish law" is self-serving and
incorrect. And it is also incorrect of you to imply that I said that "his
judgment is on moral, not on legal grounds of Torah". I have said no such
thing. In fact, I have said that "this is an excellent example of God
applying his commandments to gentiles." This is in direct contradiction to
your statement. Please don't continue with these lies. If you have to lie
to support your argument, your argument is probably incorrect.
To call it "Jewish" law is factual, because no other tribe *ever*
adhered to this legal standard.
I've shown you a very nice passage, which you chose to dismiss with
a single centence, see below.
Please explain to me, what do you mean by "God applying his commandments
to gentiles". What are you stating? Is he giving them the commandments?
Does he make a covenant with the Gentiles? No and no. In the eyes of
the ancient Jew the nations were sometimes punished because they didn't
have the law. This is a very simple idea: that nations which do not
have a strong sense of identity (like Jews do) and a well-developed
civil code (like Jews do) are not going to do very well! It has nothing
to do with them *breaking the law*, which they don't have.
How are you planning to overthrow this quote? You agreed that the covenant
was made with Israelites.
The covenant was a contract that if the Israelites obeyed his commandments
then he would clear out land for them. There is nothing there about the
commandments only applying to Jews.
Is this your reply to my quote? Ordinances are a civil code, do you
want to contend with that? Jews alone were given this civil code, and
they never tried to share it with anyone. The *moral* precept given by
Moses is simply: *obey the God-given law*. This moral precept cannot
be extended to gentiles: they were not given the law.
What if you work on a farm, and you write a memo: "Kill them all,
feed their guts to the dogs." referring to a bunch of chikens.
You do not publish your memo, you give it directly to your employees.
They do not publish the memo, they file it and kill the chickens.
1000 years later your memo is unearthed, and is used as a founding
document for the new religion. Maaaaan what an evil-doer you are,
for you did not specify who to kill, and therefore must've been
referring to all living beings with guts. Nevermind that the memo is
on the farm letterhead and is easily identified as a document
*intended* to farm employees only, and *intended to refer* to
chickens only, when it's red in the proper context.
This is what you are trying to do with the verses in the Bible.
Bible was not addresed to you, but for some reason you take
it as such.
And all of this is digresses from the original point we were trying to make,
which was that burning "witches" is immoral, and this is one of God's
commandments. Clearly if God thought it was good for the Israelites to kill
witches, why shouldn't this apply to everyone?
It was *lawful* for Israelites to kill witches. It was *good* to obey
the law that God has given them.
Jews thought that whenever other nation got busted, it was their tribal
God cleaning up some space. The other tribes didn't have to do much to be wicked;
they only needed to have a different blood and a different god.
The Jews did not think that their God was only a tribal god. He clearly
ruled over the entire earth.
In earlier texts, he clearly has competitors.
All of this is digressing away from the fact that the Biblical God has evil
commandments, such as killing witches, homosexuals, and nonbelievers.
These are legal statutes for the Jewish tribe, not moral standards. None of
them are outrageous for the time they were given at.
These commandments are claimed to be directly from God. If you are going to
claim that this is moral because people were so stupid they had a ignorant
sense of morality, and this is the best that they could think up, then you
also need to claim that God is ignorant. So you either need to; 1) admit
that God is very ignorant, or
2) the Israelites made up the commandments and falsely attributed them to
God, or
3) God made immoral laws, or
4) you need to give up this absurd claim.
Which is it?
I'll choose (2) but not in its given form. Israelites made up the commandments
and *honestly* attributed them to God, as they understood him. They did not
intend them as universal moral precepts (not ordinances, anyway) but as
a civil code for the Jewish nation, and they (ordinances) functioned as such
for a gazilion of years.
Mel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
11 Jan 2004 08:29:19 AM |
|
|
"melikamp" <jplsp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gPkKb.743796$HS4.5714020@attbi_s01...
Editor of EvilBible.com wrote:
"melikamp" <jplsp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Editor of EvilBible.com wrote:
How does killing people without cause show that God is moral??? I
think
that this pretty much proves my point that the Biblical God is immoral.
Eh... Here we go again... God was seen as moral back in the time of
Moses, because nation-centric (even tribe-centric) moral system was the
best moral standard that ancients had. God was simply rooting for his
tribe. Other tribes had their own gods to protect them.
So how many Gods are there (in reality)???? Don't you think that
polytheism
is in contradiction to the God described in the New Testament?
I'm doing my best to argue from your assumptions, not from mine. For the
purposes of this discussion I assert that God does not exist in reality,
there's only a concept of God, and it changes over time.
Well then we are in agreement. There is no God. Anything that is claimed
to be about God is fiction. And all quotes from God are lies.
Why do you think Jonah struggles with God's
command to go preach to Nineveh? Exactly because he's still caught up
in Moses' mentality: he wants to see other tribes oblitirated, because
they are not like Israel. The book of Jonah is a good example of how
the
*notion* of God develops over time in Judaism.
In the book of Jonah, God applies his moral judgments to the gentile
city of
Nineveh. He threatens to kill the city for their evil acts and when
they
repent and change their evil ways he shows mercy on them. Clearly this
is
an excellent example of God applying his commandments to gentiles.
He urges them to worship him, in general terms, but he does not make
them
to observe the Jewish law. You are right, his judgement is on moral, not
on legal grounds of Torah, and that's what makes Jonah so confused.
You have never shown a single verse that shows that Mosaic law is only
intended for the Jews. To call it "Jewish law" is self-serving and
incorrect. And it is also incorrect of you to imply that I said that
"his
judgment is on moral, not on legal grounds of Torah". I have said no
such
thing. In fact, I have said that "this is an excellent example of God
applying his commandments to gentiles." This is in direct contradiction
to
your statement. Please don't continue with these lies. If you have to
lie
to support your argument, your argument is probably incorrect.
To call it "Jewish" law is factual, because no other tribe *ever*
adhered to this legal standard.
To call it "Jewish law" is deceptive because it implies that it only applies
to the Jews.
I've shown you a very nice passage, which you chose to dismiss with
a single centence, see below.
Please explain to me, what do you mean by "God applying his commandments
to gentiles". What are you stating? Is he giving them the commandments?
Does he make a covenant with the Gentiles? No and no. In the eyes of
the ancient Jew the nations were sometimes punished because they didn't
have the law. This is a very simple idea: that nations which do not
have a strong sense of identity (like Jews do) and a well-developed
civil code (like Jews do) are not going to do very well! It has nothing
to do with them *breaking the law*, which they don't have.
In a previous post I pointed out passages that clearly show that God gave
commandments to the entire world.
How are you planning to overthrow this quote? You agreed that the
covenant
was made with Israelites.
The covenant was a contract that if the Israelites obeyed his
commandments
then he would clear out land for them. There is nothing there about
the
commandments only applying to Jews.
Is this your reply to my quote? Ordinances are a civil code, do you
want to contend with that? Jews alone were given this civil code, and
they never tried to share it with anyone. The *moral* precept given by
Moses is simply: *obey the God-given law*. This moral precept cannot
be extended to gentiles: they were not given the law.
There is absolutely nothing in the Bible to support your argument that this
was merely a civil code.
What if you work on a farm, and you write a memo: "Kill them all,
feed their guts to the dogs." referring to a bunch of chikens.
You do not publish your memo, you give it directly to your employees.
They do not publish the memo, they file it and kill the chickens.
1000 years later your memo is unearthed, and is used as a founding
document for the new religion. Maaaaan what an evil-doer you are,
for you did not specify who to kill, and therefore must've been
referring to all living beings with guts. Nevermind that the memo is
on the farm letterhead and is easily identified as a document
*intended* to farm employees only, and *intended to refer* to
chickens only, when it's red in the proper context.
This is what you are trying to do with the verses in the Bible.
Bible was not addresed to you, but for some reason you take
it as such.
Your analogy is absurd.
And all of this is digresses from the original point we were trying to
make,
which was that burning "witches" is immoral, and this is one of God's
commandments. Clearly if God thought it was good for the Israelites to
kill
witches, why shouldn't this apply to everyone?
It was *lawful* for Israelites to kill witches. It was *good* to obey
the law that God has given them.
Doesn't it logically follow that it is good to kill witches?
Jews thought that whenever other nation got busted, it was their tribal
God cleaning up some space. The other tribes didn't have to do much to
be wicked;
they only needed to have a different blood and a different god.
The Jews did not think that their God was only a tribal god. He clearly
ruled over the entire earth.
In earlier texts, he clearly has competitors.
There are several gods in the early books. Then there is only one. This
just supports my assertion that the Bible is pure fiction.
All of this is digressing away from the fact that the Biblical God has
evil
commandments, such as killing witches, homosexuals, and nonbelievers.
These are legal statutes for the Jewish tribe, not moral standards. None
of
them are outrageous for the time they were given at.
These commandments are claimed to be directly from God. If you are
going to
claim that this is moral because people were so stupid they had a
ignorant
sense of morality, and this is the best that they could think up, then
you
also need to claim that God is ignorant. So you either need to; 1)
admit
that God is very ignorant, or
2) the Israelites made up the commandments and falsely attributed them
to
God, or
3) God made immoral laws, or
4) you need to give up this absurd claim.
Which is it?
I'll choose (2) but not in its given form. Israelites made up the
commandments
and *honestly* attributed them to God, as they understood him. They did
not
intend them as universal moral precepts (not ordinances, anyway) but as
a civil code for the Jewish nation, and they (ordinances) functioned as
such
for a gazilion of years.
This is absurd. How can you honestly lie?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
11 Jan 2004 04:16:25 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:29:19 GMT, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<Dont_Reply@Here.com> posted to alt.atheism:
To call it "Jewish law" is deceptive because it implies that it only applies
to the Jews.
Many Christians make exactly that claim.
--
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus
was not born of a virgin."
Cardinal Bellarmine,[1615, during the trial of Galileo]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
11 Jan 2004 09:48:35 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:koi300lkc4cph1erv8tpqk5gjakaia2ekq@Pern.rk...
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:29:19 GMT, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<Dont_Reply@Here.com> posted to alt.atheism:
To call it "Jewish law" is deceptive because it implies that it only
applies
to the Jews.
Many Christians make exactly that claim.
My objection is that to call it "Jewish law", in an argument about who this
law applies to, is deceptive. There is nothing in the Bible that calls it
"Jewish law". To call it "Jewish law" and then say that it applies only to
Jews because it is "Jewish law" is a circular argument.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
03 Jan 2004 09:31:30 PM |
|
|
melikamp wrote:
Moses had a narrow, tribe-centric understanding of
morals.
Moses didn't understand anything; he never existed.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
| User: "melikamp" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
03 Jan 2004 10:02:32 PM |
|
|
David V. wrote:
melikamp wrote:
Moses had a narrow, tribe-centric understanding of
morals.
Moses didn't understand anything; he never existed.
That has nothing to do with the topic. Moses, as discribed,
is all that matters here.
Now, let me define Moses as a leader of a semitic tribe(s)
which exited Egypt around 1470 BCE and ended up settling in
Palestine. How about that?
Mel
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
03 Jan 2004 10:08:01 PM |
|
|
melikamp wrote:
David V. wrote:
melikamp wrote:
Moses had a narrow, tribe-centric understanding of
morals.
Moses didn't understand anything; he never existed.
That has nothing to do with the topic.
It has everything to do with the topic. Half the newsgroups
this is being crossposted to believe the guy existed and did
all the things he is claimed to have done.
Also, your claim that he had a "narrow, tribe-centric
understanding of morals," is made about Moses, not the
authors of the writing about him.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
| User: "melikamp" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
03 Jan 2004 10:43:54 PM |
|
|
David V. wrote:
melikamp wrote:
David V. wrote:
melikamp wrote:
Moses had a narrow, tribe-centric understanding of morals.
Moses didn't understand anything; he never existed.
That has nothing to do with the topic.
It has everything to do with the topic. Half the newsgroups
this is being crossposted to believe the guy existed and did
all the things he is claimed to have done.
Also, your claim that he had a "narrow, tribe-centric understanding of
morals," is made about Moses, not the authors of the writing about him.
If you take your time to thumb through this thread, you will see that
I mostly argue that it is unfair to evaluate a historical figure as
"evil" when his moral standard was on par with other moral standards
held in his historical period. Whether the historicity of the figure
is well justified is of no relevance to this question.
Because we hardly use any extra-biblical sources concerning Moses,
whenever I say Moses, I must mean, Moses, as described in the Bible.
Mel
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
04 Jan 2004 12:11:01 AM |
|
|
melikamp wrote:
David V. wrote:
melikamp wrote:
David V. wrote:
melikamp wrote:
Moses had a narrow, tribe-centric understanding
of morals.
Moses didn't understand anything; he never existed.
That has nothing to do with the topic.
It has everything to do with the topic. Half the
newsgroups this is being crossposted to believe the guy
existed and did all the things he is claimed to have
done. Also, your claim that he had a "narrow,
tribe-centric understanding of morals," is made about
Moses, not the authors of the writing about him.
If you take your time to thumb through this thread, you
will see that I mostly argue that it is unfair to
evaluate a historical figure
Moses isn't "historical" he's mythological.
as "evil" when his moral standard was on par with other
moral standards held in his historical period.
When that mythological figure is held up as a source for our
morals, he is open to critical inquiry.
Because we hardly use any extra-biblical sources
concerning Moses, whenever I say Moses, I must mean,
Moses, as described in the Bible.
There are no extra biblical sources for a Moses as described
in the bible. The bible when claimed as the source of morals
is also open to critical inquiry. Since the bible contains
many lies, it is a poor source of morals. It doesn't matter
what time it was written, the morals of that book have
nothing to do with todays morals. It is not the source of
todays morals.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
| User: "melikamp" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
04 Jan 2004 12:41:56 AM |
|
|
David V. wrote:
melikamp wrote:
David V. wrote:
melikamp wrote:
David V. wrote:
melikamp wrote:
Moses had a narrow, tribe-centric understanding
of morals.
Moses didn't understand anything; he never existed.
That has nothing to do with the topic.
It has everything to do with the topic. Half the
newsgroups this is being crossposted to believe the guy
existed and did all the things he is claimed to have
done. Also, your claim that he had a "narrow,
tribe-centric understanding of morals," is made about
Moses, not the authors of the writing about him.
If you take your time to thumb through this thread, you
will see that I mostly argue that it is unfair to
evaluate a historical figure
Moses isn't "historical" he's mythological.
as "evil" when his moral standard was on par with other
moral standards held in his historical period.
When that mythological figure is held up as a source for our
morals, he is open to critical inquiry.
Because we hardly use any extra-biblical sources
concerning Moses, whenever I say Moses, I must mean,
Moses, as described in the Bible.
There are no extra biblical sources for a Moses as described
in the bible. The bible when claimed as the source of morals is also
open to critical inquiry. Since the bible contains many lies, it is a
poor source of morals. It doesn't matter what time it was written, the
morals of that book have nothing to do with todays morals. It is not the
source of todays morals.
I do not wish to argue with any of that, and some of that I agree with,
except this one comment:
Moses didn't understand anything; he never existed.
This statement is so broad, it becomes false. I told you which Moses
existed, according to a consensus of modern scholars, but you chose
to ignore that. Try again. Let me define Moses as a leader of the semitic
tribe(s) which exited Egypt around 1470 BCE and ended up settling in
Palestine. We have archeological evidence of Semitic presense in Egypt,
and of civil unrests; and shortly thereafter we have an actual semitic
tribe occupying Palestine, with a tradition tracing their origin back
to Egypt. Who led them out? An angel?
Mel
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
04 Jan 2004 01:49:31 AM |
|
|
melikamp wrote:
David V. wrote:
melikamp wrote:
David V. wrote:
melikamp wrote:
David V. wrote:
melikamp wrote:
Moses had a narrow, tribe-centric
understanding of morals.
Moses didn't understand anything; he never
existed.
That has nothing to do with the topic.
It has everything to do with the topic. Half the
newsgroups this is being crossposted to believe the
guy existed and did all the things he is claimed to
have done. Also, your claim that he had a "narrow,
tribe-centric understanding of morals," is made
about Moses, not the authors of the writing about
him.
If you take your time to thumb through this thread,
you will see that I mostly argue that it is unfair to
evaluate a historical figure
Moses isn't "historical" he's mythological.
as "evil" when his moral standard was on par with
other moral standards held in his historical period.
When that mythological figure is held up as a source
for our morals, he is open to critical inquiry.
Because we hardly use any extra-biblical sources
concerning Moses, whenever I say Moses, I must mean,
Moses, as described in the Bible.
There are no extra biblical sources for a Moses as
described in the bible. The bible when claimed as the
source of morals is also open to critical inquiry.
Since the bible contains many lies, it is a poor source
of morals. It doesn't matter what time it was written,
the morals of that book have nothing to do with todays
morals. It is not the source of todays morals.
I do not wish to argue with any of that, and some of that
I agree with, except this one comment:
I understand, just stick with the easy stuff.
Moses didn't understand anything; he never
existed.
This statement is so broad, it becomes false.
A person that did not exist cannot understand anything.
I told you which Moses existed, according to a consensus
of modern scholars...
The consensus of modern archaeologists is that a group of
people as described in the bible did not leave Egypt. There
is no record of it in Egyptian history. There are no
artifacts from over a million people wandering around the
Sinai for 40 years. Such a migration would have left tons of
copralites. There are none. The notion of that many people,
or even one tenth that amount, wandering around a small
desert for 40 years, or even one year, is ludicrous. Moses
is a myth, just like the rest of the bible.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
| User: "melikamp" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
04 Jan 2004 02:42:09 AM |
|
|
David V. wrote:
melikamp wrote:
David V. wrote:
melikamp wrote:
David V. wrote:
melikamp wrote:
David V. wrote:
melikamp wrote:
Moses had a narrow, tribe-centric
understanding of morals.
Moses didn't understand anything; he never
existed.
That has nothing to do with the topic.
It has everything to do with the topic. Half the newsgroups this is
being crossposted to believe the
guy existed and did all the things he is claimed to
have done. Also, your claim that he had a "narrow, tribe-centric
understanding of morals," is made
about Moses, not the authors of the writing about
him.
If you take your time to thumb through this thread,
you will see that I mostly argue that it is unfair to
evaluate a historical figure
Moses isn't "historical" he's mythological.
as "evil" when his moral standard was on par with
other moral standards held in his historical period.
When that mythological figure is held up as a source
for our morals, he is open to critical inquiry.
Because we hardly use any extra-biblical sources concerning Moses,
whenever I say Moses, I must mean, Moses, as described in the Bible.
There are no extra biblical sources for a Moses as
described in the bible. The bible when claimed as the
source of morals is also open to critical inquiry.
Since the bible contains many lies, it is a poor source
of morals. It doesn't matter what time it was written,
the morals of that book have nothing to do with todays
morals. It is not the source of todays morals.
I do not wish to argue with any of that, and some of that
I agree with, except this one comment:
I understand, just stick with the easy stuff.
Moses didn't understand anything; he never
existed.
This statement is so broad, it becomes false.
A person that did not exist cannot understand anything.
I told you which Moses existed, according to a consensus
of modern scholars...
The consensus of modern archaeologists is that a group of
people as described in the bible did not leave Egypt. There
is no record of it in Egyptian history. There are no
artifacts from over a million people wandering around the
Sinai for 40 years. Such a migration would have left tons of
copralites. There are none. The notion of that many people, or even one
tenth that amount, wandering around a small desert for 40 years, or even
one year, is ludicrous. Moses is a myth, just like the rest of the bible.
You seem to be fond of shooting down false arguments which you conjure
just for that purpose, and evading very direct questions of mine.
When I say, scholars attest that Moses existed, I don't mean archeologists,
who could only attest that by digging up his corpse; I mean historians.
It is /their/ educated opinion that you are trying to ignore.
No sane historian thinks that semites exited with millions of people;
neither they take for granted the way semites went and the time they
spent travelling. You've only disproved the biblical notions of Moses,
not his existence.
In order for semites to settle in Palestina, they must come from
*somewhere*, don't you think? According to you, they didn't, they
just popped out of the grass. To explain their origins, they came
up with a completely fictional story, that, by some weird chance,
agrees on major points with the evidence unearthed in Egypt:
that semitic tribes were living there, and that the country
suffered a period of civil unrest. *You* have to *invoke miracles* to
place semites in Palestine without Moses. Historians explain it
without miracles, by asserting that Moses led.
Mel
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
04 Jan 2004 11:28:44 AM |
|
|
melikamp wrote:
You seem to be fond of shooting down false arguments
which you conjure just for that purpose, and evading
very direct questions of mine.
You seem to love strawmen arguments.
When I say, scholars attest that Moses existed, I don't
mean archeologists, who could only attest that by digging
up his corpse; I mean historians.
You mean only those that agree with you.
In order for semites to settle in Palestina, they must
come from *somewhere*...
No, they didn't. Since Moses is a mythological character
that wasn't where they came from.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
| User: "melikamp" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
04 Jan 2004 05:10:49 PM |
|
|
David V. wrote:
melikamp wrote:
You seem to be fond of shooting down false arguments which you
conjure just for that purpose, and evading
very direct questions of mine.
You seem to love strawmen arguments.
When I say, scholars attest that Moses existed, I don't mean
archeologists, who could only attest that by digging
up his corpse; I mean historians.
You mean only those that agree with you.
I guesss. And they are Wellhausen ("I. J. G." pp. 13 et seq.), W. R. Smith
("Old Test. in the Jewish Church," 2d ed., pp. 333 et seq.), Kittel
("Hist. of the Hebrews," i. 238 et seq.), Cornill ("Hist. of the People
of Israel," pp. 41 et seq.), Budde ("Religion of Israel to the Exile,"
pp. 12 et seq.), Guthe ("Gesch. des Volkes Israel," pp. 19 et seq.), A. B.
Davidson ("Theology of the Old Test." p. 110), McCurdy ("History, Prophecy,
and the Monuments," ii. 92 et seq.), Kent ("Hist. of the Hebrew People,"
i. 36 et seq.), Barton ("Sketch of Semitic Origins," pp. 272, 291 et seq.),
J. P. Peters ("The Old Test. and the New Scholarship," pp. 116 et seq., and
"The Religion of Moses," in "Jour. Bib. Lit." 1901, xx. 101 et seq.), Paton
("Early Hist. of Syria and Palestine," pp. 137 et seq.), and H. P. Smith
("Old Test. History," pp. 55-65), to name a few.
Let me see your list.
In order for semites to settle in Palestina, they must come from
*somewhere*...
No, they didn't.
As I said, popped out of the grass. Now that's a historical theory
we can trust.
Mel
Since Moses is a mythological character
that wasn't where they came from.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
04 Jan 2004 06:40:40 PM |
|
|
melikamp wrote:
David V. wrote:
melikamp wrote:
You seem to be fond of shooting down false
arguments which you conjure just for that purpose,
and evading very direct questions of mine.
You seem to love strawmen arguments.
When I say, scholars attest that Moses existed, I
don't mean archaeologists, who could only attest that
by digging up his corpse; I mean historians.
You mean only those that agree with you.
I guesss. And they are...
Yep, sounds like they're all biblically based scholars.
What's in the bible is their source and they search for
whatever backs it up. Anything to the contrary is
automatically discounted.
Let me see your list.
Do a google search on "moses myth" and you'll get over
100,000 hits.
A search on Amazon.com for the same will turn up 13,871 hits.
In order for semites to settle in Palestina, they
must come from *somewhere*...
No, they didn't.
As I said, popped out of the grass. Now that's a
historical theory we can trust.
Straw man argument again? Since Moses is a myth, he cannot
be the progenitor/founder of the Hebrews in that area. The
obvious answer is they came from somewhere other than Egypt,
or they were always in that area now called Palestine. It's
a disingenuous argument to claim they just "popped out of
the grass."
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
| User: "melikamp" |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
05 Jan 2004 02:37:41 AM |
|
|
David V. wrote:
melikamp wrote:
David V. wrote:
melikamp wrote:
You seem to be fond of shooting down false
arguments which you conjure just for that purpose,
and evading very direct questions of mine.
You seem to love strawmen arguments.
When I say, scholars attest that Moses existed, I
don't mean archaeologists, who could only attest that
by digging up his corpse; I mean historians.
You mean only those that agree with you.
I guesss. And they are...
Yep, sounds like they're all biblically based scholars.
What's in the bible is their source and they search for
whatever backs it up. Anything to the contrary is
automatically discounted.
Let me see your list.
Do a google search on "moses myth" and you'll get over
100,000 hits.
A search on Amazon.com for the same will turn up 13,871 hits.
LOL way to counter books written by historians, books that
are held as a standard in the field, books that are available in
any decent library. With web hits! Not even *texts*, however
badly written, but a *number* of mostly unrelated pages. Try
using that trick in your next business proposal.
In order for semites to settle in Palestina, they
must come from *somewhere*...
No, they didn't.
As I said, popped out of the grass. Now that's a
historical theory we can trust.
Straw man argument again? Since Moses is a myth, he cannot
be the progenitor/founder of the Hebrews in that area. The
obvious answer is they came from somewhere other than Egypt,
or they were always in that area now called Palestine. It's a
disingenuous argument to claim they just "popped out of the grass."
You are admitting of *your* incapability of proving where they came from.
I have no trouble with that. Please, take time to add IMHO next time you
say that Moses is a pure fiction, because the historians are not on your
side.
Mel
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 1 (Complete Destruction) |
05 Jan 2004 10:52:11 AM |
|
|
melikamp wrote:
David V. wrote:
melikamp wrote:
David V. wrote:
melikamp wrote:
You seem to be fond of shooting down false
arguments which you conjure just for that
purpose, and evading very direct questions of
mine.
You seem to love strawmen arguments.
When I say, scholars attest that Moses existed, I
don't mean archaeologists, who could only attest
that by digging up his corpse; I mean historians.
You mean only those that agree with you.
I guesss. And they are...
Yep, sounds like they're all biblically based scholars.
What's in the bible is their source and they search
for whatever backs it up. Anything to the contrary is
automatically discounted.
Let me see your list.
Do a google search on "moses myth" and you'll get over
100,000 hits.
A search on Amazon.com for the same will turn up 13,871
hits.
LOL way to counter books written by historians
It sure is. You have 13,871 choices to see differing views.
You can take you pick of any of them. And your books weren't
written by historians, but those just repeating what the
bible said.
In order for semites to settle in Palestina, they
must come from *somewhere*...
No, they didn't.
As I said, popped out of the grass. Now that's a
historical theory we can trust.
Straw man argument again? Since Moses is a myth, he
cannot be the progenitor/founder of the Hebrews in that
area. The obvious answer is they came from somewhere
other than Egypt, or they were always in that area now
called Palestine. It's a disingenuous argument to claim
they just "popped out of the grass."
You are admitting of *your* incapability of proving where
they came from.
No, proving you don't know where they came from.
--
David V.
Yo | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
