CharliePF1 wrote:

"melikamp" <jplsp@moc.oohay> wrote in message

Answering Editor's posts didn't amount to much, as I tried, for he

see the difference between the book and its modern application.

I thought Christians claim that God doesn't change. Why is an atrocity
justified because it happened thousands of years ago? Torture, murder,
and genocide is wrong no matter what century it happened.

Don't be concerned with God. Understanding of God *does* change, and OT
writers understood this simple fact better than most people do today.

CharliePF1 wrote:

"melikamp" <jplsp@moc.oohay> wrote in message

Answering Editor's posts didn't amount to much, as I
tried, for he refuses to see the difference between
the book and its modern application.

I thought Christians claim that God doesn't change.
Why is an atrocity justified because it happened
thousands of years ago? Torture, murder, and genocide
is wrong no matter what century it happened.

Don't be concerned with God. Understanding of God *does*
change...

CharliePF1 wrote:

"melikamp" <jplsp@moc.oohay> wrote in message

Answering Editor's posts didn't amount to much, as I tried, for he refuses to
see the difference between the book and its modern application.

I thought Christians claim that God doesn't change. Why is an atrocity
justified because it happened thousands of years ago? Torture, murder,
and genocide is wrong no matter what century it happened.

Don't be concerned with God. Understanding of God *does* change, and OT
writers understood this simple fact better than most people do today.

Atrocity can be "justified" if it happened at the time when no better
ethics existed - i.e. it wasn't considered an atrocity by anyone.
I'm sure tribes that got eliminated considered it a very bad, unfortunate
thing, but not an atrocity, because they understood all too well how
Semites justified themselves in their tribe-centric thinking - that was
the way all tribes justfied themselves back then. Convince yourself that
this is not a moral relativism, but a simple consequence of
the fact that ethics & morals, just like any other discipline, develop
over time.

This "justification" should not allow us to repeat the atrocity today,
God forbid, but should enable us to see the past events the way
they were seen by the ancients, and to appreciate how, thanks to their
efforts, we got to the great place where we find ourselves today.

So what if
the book describes atrocities (only by today's standards);

So it's ok if God was a genocidal manic thousands of years ago,
you'll still worship him today? That makes no sense to me.
Has God ever officially apologized to humanity about His
past criminal history. No, and neither will the RCC apologize
for its criminal past.

God doesn't have to apologize because of how ancient Jews understood
him, nor because they ascribed to him such and such actions, and for all
you care, there's no God. Ancient Jews who wrote the book don't have to
apologize either, because they were doing the best they knew. If you
don't agree, show me a more humane religion or more humane civil code
from the same time period (around 1500 BC). They all looked pretty ugly
back then.

It is modern Christians who should come forward and apologize for how
they treat the Bible today; for it is not OK to ignore the progress
that humanity made in all areas, from science to law to theology, and sink
back to the primitive (but not evil in themselves) notions of the ancient
Hebrews.

shouldn't he
be angry at uneducated fundamental approach to the book, done by a well
defined group of people *today*, rather than to slander the book and the culture
that produced it more than 2000 years ago, while they clearly intended it
to be a text defining /tribal/ identity and /tribal/ religion? (I'm talking
OT now).

Yup, we're talking about the horrific stuff that's in the OT. It was wrong
3000 years ago, and it's wrong to do that today. Boy, talk about moral
relativism!

The stuff that's in OT is no more horrific that in any big history book.
OT gives Hebrews their tribal identity, documents their history (even if it
mythologizes it some), documents their civil code, documents the developement
of their theology, morals, ethics, politcs, art, you name it. Regardless to
what the Editor is trying to push here, OT writers never state that
this *book* is intended to be *obeyed* as an ultimate moral code. Even when
they appear to command something to the reader, understand that we, today,
are not their intended audience, and it is not writers' fault that some
fanatics today think that they must follow OT to the word, although it
wasn't addressed to them.

There are at least two ways to read this book: one is to learn how
we got our modern values, by seeing how they (or similar values) developed;
another is to determine it's direct applicability. The latter one should
be done with modern standards in mind; but the former should be done only
with the standards that existed back in the time of writing.

My position is not that of a moral relativist, just because I evaluate the
motives & actions of Hebrews according to the state of knowledge that
humanity had in their own time. OTOH, the /moral/ judjement of them
(i.e. calling them evil), according to the /present/ state of knowledge,
doesn't make any sense. According to such view, everyone was evil 3000
years ago, and everyone who's alive today is going to be considered evil
3000 years from now.....

I'm very much against such use of "good" and "evil", because it effectively
prevents us from perceiving the positive in history. Moral judgement has
to consider the intention of the actor as well as the act.

Mel

"CB" <charismaticcatholic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BUxNb.34341$ZuL1.2595@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...

"JPG" <ME@PRIVACY.NET> wrote in message
news:duqc009lvpek512jnji3vkmggdiv4g8cu4@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 02:59:08 GMT, "Chris C." <carneyc@comcast.net>

wrote:

|
| >
| >
| >Editor of EvilBible.com wrote:
| >> Evil Bible Quote of the Day for Jan. 14, 2004 from www.EvilBible.com:
| >>
| >> Bashing Babies Against Rocks (Psalms 137:9 NAB)
| >>
| >> "Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a
rock."
| >>
| >>
| >> 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
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >You are a person we all will pray for, no I have not gone away. Just
| >reminds me everytime I see you post this stuff, its time again to pray

a

| >prayer for you, and all your friends who support you.
| >Chris
|
| You are a person we all will think for, no we have not gone away. Just
| reminds us every time I see you post this stuff, its time again to think

a

| thought for you, and all your friends who support you.
|
| Atheist

Your post is in a thread designed to get Christians and non-Christians
fighting each other .. notice the headers:

alt.atheism
alt.recovery.religion
alt.religion.christian
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic

My posts are appropriate to all of these groups. Alt.religion.christian is
not just for Christians, it is for anyone discussing the Christian religion.
Alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic is not just for Roman Catholics, it is
for anyone discussing the Roman Catholic Religion.

The 'Editor of EvilBiblie.com' does this just about every day. He is

trying

to disrupt.

I'm try to have debates about the morality of religion. No intelligent
person would hold a debate and only invite people from one side. If you
don't want to read my posts then don't click on my posts. It's as simple as
that. Or stick me in your kill file like you said you would....

Taking things out of context is tantamount to lying. Please try again.
Read the whole thing. It is talking about how good someone will feel when
they take revenge upon there enemies.

It neither condones or condemns, it
simply tells the truth about revenge, they feel blessed or happy.

No wonder you guys dont like the bible. you read into it what you want.

Taking things out of context is tantamount to lying. Please try again.

Read the whole thing. It is talking about how gtood someone will feel when
they take revenge upon there enemies. It neither condones or condemns, it
simply tells the truth about revenge, they feel blessed or happy.

No wonder you guys dont like the bible. you read into it what you want.

Taking things out of context is tantamount to lying. Please try again.

Read the whole thing. It is talking about how gtood someone will feel when
they take revenge upon there enemies. It neither condones or condemns, it
simply tells the truth about revenge, they feel blessed or happy.

No wonder you guys dont like the bible. you read into it what you want.

Taking things out of context is tantamount to lying. Please try again.

Read the whole thing. It is talking about how gtood someone will feel when
they take revenge upon there enemies. It neither condones or condemns, it
simply tells the truth about revenge, they feel blessed or happy.

No wonder you guys dont like the bible. you read into it what you want.

Taking things out of context is tantamount to lying. Please try again.

Read the whole thing. It is talking about how gtood someone will feel when
they take revenge upon there enemies. It neither condones or condemns, it
simply tells the truth about revenge, they feel blessed or happy.

No wonder you guys dont like the bible. you read into it what you want.

Taking things out of context is tantamount to lying.