quote:Well good luck with your trying to make normal human beings better without using negative reinforcement at all.
Negativge reinforcement? This is how you refer to killing off several thousand people using nasty diseases? These are real people, you know. They bled and screamed and quite likely pleaded for mercy. They're not some abstract characters in an old book that you can just wave off as 'negative reinforcement'. I have to wonder how you'd refer to the Holocaust if you believed it had been ordered by your god. Endlosung, perchance?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:How do you know "lay hold of her" is a synonymous with "against her will?"
Well, considering that rape is the generally accepted translation of that verse and it's directly preceded by other laws referring to rape (which you've already conceded), I think the onus is on you to show how it isn't rape.
quote:And it has nothing to do with, "Screaming loud enough" it has to do with objecting to it in the first place. I seriously doubt if you gagged a girl or rendered her unconscious that she could then be liable and executed.
I'm talking about Deuteronomy 22:24. There is another verse following it regarding rape in a field (i.e. not in the city or near people) which 'excuses' the rape victim from punishment because there would have been no one there to help her if she had cried out. It's not about objecting or not; it's about crying out and getting help.
And again, there are precedents for such cruelty, so there's little reason to be surprised. For example, if a newly wed couple make love and the husband claims that his wife is not a virgin, she could be executed unless proof of her virginity is produced. Presumably in the form of bloodied bedsheets.
quote:Funny, usually intent is what is used to describe an action.
Many Nazis thought they were cleansing the earth's genetic pool. In the case of genocide, international precedent has been to try war criminals according to their crimes rather than their intent. Though I'll concede that is not always the case. Speer for example is a grey area. He was largely responsible for keeping the German war machine running in its final years, and may not have had a direct hand in the Holocaust (though he probably knew about the shipments of supplies - and people - headed to the concentration camps). I'd say he knew enough to not want to know more.
If your argument regarding the Midianite case though is that it wasn't genocide because the Israelites deliberately left the virgins alive, then consider that the Nazis deliberately left certain collaborators alive, even among Jews (Kapos, Jewish police).
quote:
quote:Can you tell me then; what is the difference between you and a religiously motivated terrorist, except your understanding of god's will?
What's the difference between you and an atheist who thinks the religious are a dangerous liability that need to be eliminated?
The difference is that I consider genocide inherently to be a moral abomination. Whereas you've said that genocide would not be evil, or would be morally justifiable in the name of some cause, if it were directed by god:
quote:
quote:You give god the benefit of the doubt in saying that there could be a complicated higher reason for acting immorally. Would you extend the same possibility to the Nazis?
Um...nope, the Nazis are not perfect and thus do not have a perfect understanding of all that is. If God was directing their actions then yes. God has not informed me that this is the case, so I continue to condemn their actions.
It seems to follow that you don't find genocide to be inherently immoral, and that you would be okay with acts we consider heinously immoral today so long as they were "directed by god." That is unless you're willing to concede that god engages in 'necessary evils' for some reason, and is not purely good.
Do you see how dangerous the belief is, if held by someone who's understanding of god's will is different to yours for the worse?
quote:Well good luck with your trying to make normal human beings better without using negative reinforcement at all.
Negative reinforcement? Like jail terms and fines? You know, even those don't work as well as a good education system does.
quote:
quote:No, he didn't tell the Babylonians to attack. But he created the Babylonians in the first place.
So? As far as we know, He didn't make the Babylonians into the culture they became, that was their own doing.
I forgot that you don't necessarily believe god is omniscient.
quote:Well good luck with your trying to make normal human beings better without using negative reinforcement at all.
Is smiting people with plagues really equivilent to all forms of negative reinforcement? I think there are maybe a few things you can do that are slightly lower in degree than this.
---
- "I don't think it's right to shoot your kids." - "Yeah, well you try to get them to behave without punishing them in any way whatsoever."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: - "I don't think it's right to shoot your kids." - "Yeah, well you try to get them to behave without punishing them in any way whatsoever."
posted
Perhaps I'm already too far behind in this conversation, but we're still talking about the chapter in numbers where Jews wipe out the Midianites, right? What if we took G-d's order out of the equation?
We have untold numbers of Jews breaking their own laws to go scthupp around with a fertility cult of undetermined nastiness. The Jews suffer an undescribed plague thereafter.
Gee, many of our people go off to some dirty orgies and come back, and -suddenly- we've got a plague! Maybe G-d's not the only reason to end the threat of these nearby people? Maybe we can consider the line of reason that would lead the Jews to think - the plague isn't G-d's fault, G-d just didn't protect us from said plague 'cause we were being idiots in the first place... My G-d there's people right next door screwing goats and loose men/women and giving us diseases! What are we going to do?
Well, today, of course, we'd have them quarantined, and we'd look into a way to cure them of their icky VDs. germ theory didn't exist thousands of years ago, and we weren't enough of a force that people would look at us and say - uhm, let every last one of us leave our village afore we are royally spanked - so war was the only option left.
And then the lesson we decided to take from this, instead of - letting your children play around in orgies is a very bad idea, as you don't know what diseases they'll take from the experience - was, if G-d tells you to kill an entire people, you kill them, no questions, no griping.
To equate this with the Shoah is so obviously disgusting. Nazi Germany wanted the Jews out because of propaganda that any rational thinker at the time could find his way out of. They lost patience with deportation and moved on to killing. The Jewish people didn't have the power, the knowledge, the option to simply make the Midianites stop their dangerous religious practices, or make them leave. the only answer for the time was war, and when you made war in those times and left survivors, you were asking for another war. The Shoah was an answer to a problem that did not exist. The war against the Midianites was an answer to a threat to the Hebrews' health, at the cost of a piece of their souls. They purified, remember. they repented of those necessary murders, and it's not wrong today to still mourn those deaths, and to wish that there had been another option for our people in antiquity. But there wasn't. And however G-d spoke to us before and after the War, whatever words he gave us, they were, essentially, ones of consolation for the terrible deed we had to commit to.
So if you're a Jew, perhaps you can find your peace in understanding we were between a rock and a hard place, and mourn with our ancestors that the peaceful faith we have today was not without horrible cost. If you're a Christian or Muslim who's inherited the Old Testament, same to you.
If you're an athiest who likes to point at this story to proclaim the evils of G-d, try to imagine how you might survive a week in the time before the creation of Israel, or any time in antiquity, with the morals and ethics you clothe yourself in now.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Filled with misery? I'm interested to know exactly where you got this idea. Even if they willingly condemned themselves to a path filled with misery, maybe you should stop and consider why they would do this and consider the possibility that their sacrifice actually means something, BTW.
The Book of Mormon makes it even more clear, " 2 Nephi 2:17-18 You are welcome to read the Pearl of Great Price account of the creation of the heavens and the earth online, its on the same website
quote: Although you might admit that if God did explain what is right and wrong it would be really really handy for, you know, making our own decisions and stuff.
I already stated as much, by trusting God we can learn through personal experience the superiority of his way.
Tom:
quote:Bear in mind that you're saying this to God. Does He need the luck?
I'm not saying that to God, I'm saying it to Euripides.
KOM:
quote:Negativge reinforcement? This is how you refer to killing off several thousand people using nasty diseases? These are real people, you know. They bled and screamed and quite likely pleaded for mercy. They're not some abstract characters in an old book that you can just wave off as 'negative reinforcement'. I have to wonder how you'd refer to the Holocaust if you believed it had been ordered by your god. Endlosung, perchance?
Oh grow up, I take the death of a human being every bit as seriously as you do, your the one who jokes about once you are in charge removing all traces of religion from civilization by violence if necessary. God says time and time again to the Israelites once they settled in Canaan and got down to the business of being wicked in effect, "Had the Canaanites been decent people I would have allowed them to continue living on the land you now live in." The God's people in the Book of Mormon actually at one time surpass in wickedness everyone on the continent and God allows them to kill each other into extinction with internal wars. And are you railing on God for managing his creations period or for using human beings as an instrument?
quote: Well, considering that rape is the generally accepted translation of that verse and it's directly preceded by other laws referring to rape (which you've already conceded), I think the onus is on you to show how it isn't rape.
generally accepted sez you, <looks around for Lisa>.
quote:And again, there are precedents for such cruelty, so there's little reason to be surprised. For example, if a newly wed couple make love and the husband claims that his wife is not a virgin, she could be executed unless proof of her virginity is produced. Presumably in the form of bloodied bedsheets.
You presume too much, do you know what the "tokens of viginity" are? I get the impression you are simply guessing.
quote:If your argument regarding the Midianite case though is that it wasn't genocide because the Israelites deliberately left the virgins alive, then consider that the Nazis deliberately left certain collaborators alive, even among Jews (Kapos, Jewish police).
OK so the Nazis are hypocrites and inconsistent in what they SAID they were trying to do. And seeing how the genetic pool has never asked anybody to clean it, its amazing how many people are willing to try anyway.
quote: The difference is that I consider genocide inherently to be a moral abomination. Whereas you've said that genocide would not be evil, or would be morally justifiable in the name of some cause, if it were directed by god:
Inherently a moral abomination huh? Well we will have to disagree then, I think there ARE instances where genocide is preferable to extinction, like say if a disease germinated in a certain country of such devastation the country had to be completely obliterated to prevent it from spreading.
quote:That is unless you're willing to concede that god engages in 'necessary evils' for some reason, and is not purely good.
OK look, what is inherently wrong with a human being taking the life of another human being? What is inherently wrong with God bring to a close the mortality of his creation? Especially in view of the idea that this life is not the only time men and women have to live? I see murder and killing as wrong as I am using my agency to terminate the agency of another human being. I am wiping out all the possibilities of tomorrow in this world for him, whether he is prepared or unprepared to meet God, I have sent him to the next life anyway. I have in effect played God with another man's life when I am not God.
I think you are overplaying the danger of my beliefs. If we take the Bible at its word then God has only asked good people to wage war on the people who are wicked beyond correction. Look at Jonah, everyone talks about the Whale, nobody talk about the fact that God had told him to tell the people of Ninevah to repent or face destruction. Jonah (after the whale business) finally does so and the people of Ninevah all repent, God does not destroy them. I refuse to believe God is out to destroy everybody as I believe God to be honest in his descriptions of himself. I fully accept that an omnipotent evil being is not something I can really deal with.
quote:Negative reinforcement? Like jail terms and fines? You know, even those don't work as well as a good education system does.
And look, God publishes his teachings and attempts to educate people. But even you have to concede that fines and jail time are preferable to no jails, no fines, or only jail/only fines.
God is also extremely patient, he didn't punish the Israelites for every offense, he let them descend into serious iniquity before correcting them. They had God himself actually deliver them from slavery and promise them a new land to settle. He was leading them constantly by day and by night, as well as miraculously providing them with food daily. God told them to not pick up mana on the sabbath, some did anyway. God didn't smite them, he spoiled the mana. But he did get indignant when after doing all this the people still said, "We want to go back to Egypt, it sucks being out here." God let them wander in the desert for 40 years until all the old unwilling people died of natural causes before letting them proceed. Does this sound like a God with an itchy smiting finger?
quote:I forgot that you don't necessarily believe god is omniscient
Actually I do, but omniscient does not mean "Aware of all that is, and makes all that is so." Unless again you believe that if God knowingly does not stop me from say falling over, that its God's fault I fell.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well good luck with your trying to make normal human beings better without using negative reinforcement at all.
Is smiting people with plagues really equivilent to all forms of negative reinforcement? I think there are maybe a few things you can do that are slightly lower in degree than this.
---
- "I don't think it's right to shoot your kids." - "Yeah, well you try to get them to behave without punishing them in any way whatsoever."
As I said before God does not have a "to smite or not to smite" policy. If you read the Bible and think God does nothing but smite people you have seriously missed MOST of the passages found therein. I really cannot tell if people are arguing that God should not ever kill his own creation regardless of what they do, that people are unable to rationally and justly end the lives of other human beings on a large scale, or that God has punished humanity too much.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate and BlackBlade, What are your individual beliefs regarding what happened to the souls of the Midianites after they were killed? For those that believe that God was responsible for those deaths, then whatever afterlife these people were ushered into should be taken into account when judging the morality of this event.
(The misunderstanding of the relationship between the Pigies and the Father Trees comes to mind)
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but you responded with "I think it was evil to smite them with plagues." with what I quoted. I'm not talking about the Bible, in toto. I'm talking about your non sequitor response to a challenge.
You seemed to be justifying a specifc harsh action by asserting a need for a general class of things that that action could belong to without addressing the specific action brought up. It seemed to me to be a very poor response and basically equivilent to the shoot your kids thing I posted.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by camus: Kate and BlackBlade, What are your individual beliefs regarding what happened to the souls of the Midianites after they were killed? For those that believe that God was responsible for those deaths, then whatever afterlife these people were ushered into should be taken into account when judging the morality of this event.
Its been said many times before, but in the Midianites case I suspect they went to the spirit realm, where they would be informed of the truth. The truth would either move them into a state of sorrow followed by repentance, or else some would remain committed to their evil mindset and eventually find themselves in a place that is not heaven.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Yeah, but you responded with "I think it was evil to smite them with plagues with what I quoted." I'm talking about the Bible, in toto. I'm talking about your non sequitor response to a challenge.
You seemed to be justifying a specifc harsh action by asserting a need for a general class of things that that action could belong to without addressing the specific action brought up. It seemed to me to be a very poor response and basically equivilent to the shoot your kids thing I posted.
I'm sorry, I am not feeling well today, and I have been up and down over the last 1.5 weeks, I somewhat understand what you are saying, but could you restate it alittle more simply so there is no chance of mistake on my part?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, Thank you for your response. I wasn't aware of any specific answer posted in this thread. The point that I was interested in was that if they were not destined to eternal torment and if their lives were not permanently extinguished, but rather resulted in their enlightenment, then their deaths would have a different meaning and moral significance than it would for an atheist.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How does that follow? I claimed that god's decision to smite the Israelites with plagues was evil. The fact that the Israelites acted immorally is not an excuse to me. Especially if god is the arbiter of good and evil, and apparently is all good and no evil.
You responded with:
quote:Well good luck with your trying to make normal human beings better without using negative reinforcement at all.
I felt this was a very poor response. See, Eurip was talking about a specific instance where he felt what God did was wrong. You responded by not addressing this specific instance, but instead implying that there was a need for "negative reinforcement". Euripides never said there wasn't. He was taking issue with a particular case that could fall under the heading of negative reinforcement.
In the same way, if I said "Hey, I don't think you should shoot your kids." and someone responded with "Yeah, well good luck getting them to behave without disciplining them." they would not have answered my challenge at all.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: The other point is that you insist on painting people who believe in the literal truth of the Bible as some radical small group. The problem is that its not particularly true, the group is still pretty sizable at about 28% of Americans (link) or about 84 million Americans or so.
Out of more than 2 billion Christians. Also, historically it is a relatively new (between 100 and 200 years) method of interpreting Scripture.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
camus, my answer is not dissimilar to BlackBlade's. I believe they were in relationship to God (should they choose) and were able to understand the truth. I think the same for the Jews that killed them. I hope both groups repented for the wrong they had done and were forgiven, both by God and by each other.
I don't think this particularly mitigates the sin of what was done on either side.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How does that follow? I claimed that god's decision to smite the Israelites with plagues was evil. The fact that the Israelites acted immorally is not an excuse to me. Especially if god is the arbiter of good and evil, and apparently is all good and no evil.
You responded with:
quote:Well good luck with your trying to make normal human beings better without using negative reinforcement at all.
I felt this was a very poor response. See, Eurip was talking about a specific instance where he felt what God did was wrong. You responded by not addressing this specific instance, but instead implying that there was a need for "negative reinforcement". Euripides never said there wasn't. He was taking issue with a particular case that could fall under the heading of negative reinforcement.
In the same way, if I said "Hey, I don't think you should shoot your kids." and someone responded with "Yeah, well good luck getting them to behave without disciplining them." they would not have answered my challenge at all.
OH IC, I responded in the way I did because I was fairly certain that Euripides was not suggesting that God would knowingly make an evil decision. If Euripides does believe that, we really can't have any further discussion, therefore I thought he was suggesting that commanding the midianites be killed was evil because punishing people period is evil.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: camus, my answer is not dissimilar to BlackBlade's. I believe they were in relationship to God (should they choose) and were able to understand the truth. I think the same for the Jews that killed them. I hope both groups repented for the wrong they had done and were forgiven, both by God and by each other.
I don't think this particularly mitigates the sin of what was done on either side.
Killing them was not a sin. God commanded it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: camus, my answer is not dissimilar to BlackBlade's. I believe they were in relationship to God (should they choose) and were able to understand the truth. I think the same for the Jews that killed them. I hope both groups repented for the wrong they had done and were forgiven, both by God and by each other.
I don't think this particularly mitigates the sin of what was done on either side.
Killing them was not a sin. God commanded it.
Clearly kmbboots does not believe that is so Lisa.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Killing them was not a sin. God commanded it.
If God could use an angel to kill 185,000 Assyrians in a night, why couldn't he have done the same here? That would have prevented any deaths to the Israelites resulting from the battle, and it would have removed any ambiguity over whether it was God's command or not.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, That many people believe that the OT God is evil is one of the central threads of this discussion. I think you may want to check your assumptions on that one.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: I understand your position that the bible can't be taken at face value, and I fully agree. And while your insistence that there are thousands of books out there to explain scripture and that you yourself don't have sufficient understanding to explain which parts are metaphor does smack of 'hiding behind obfuscation,' I can accept that this would be the case because there are plenty of humanists who have a very limited understanding of secular moral philosophy.
What I can't accept is giving that argument a blank cheque and making a conscious effort to ignore the ugly bits and whitewash god (and resolving paradoxes). Were all those plagues metaphor? Did god really mean that you were supposed to stone poeple for doing this and that? Does one really go to hell for sins like speaking blasphemies about the spirit?
The bible needs so much adjustment, correction, and reinterpretation that if it was any other historical text, it's overall validity would be highly suspect.
quote:
quote:I have asked this before many times too. What parts are to be taken literally, and what parts metaphorically? How do you know?
You could spend years, a lifetime, learning the accumulated scholarly research of centuries. You could study the work of people who have done that. There are probably hundreds of thousands of books that explain scripture. We don't assume that we can understand Shakespeare without some knowledge, study etc. this is considerably more true when reading ancient religious texts.
Again, I understand this and the literary theories which rightly argue that total objectivity in a text is simply impossible. Yet there are moral absolutes in the bible, and even the metaphorical meanings of passages are often ugly. What kind of message is one to draw from Abraham and Isaac's story? You would have to twist rhetoric and manufacture arguments to conclude that it is anything other than that blind obedience to god is the right way.
quote:Often the writing was hugely symbolic, and Jesus's actions were also symbolic much of the time. One example: when a gospel writer says that "Jesus stood" or "Jesus sat" that is significant to the listener, it is a clue about what is coming next. Body position was symbolic. If I recall, sitting was a teaching position, "Jesus sat" would be a clue to the listener that what comes next is a lesson.
That's fascinating, but are adulters still going to hell?
I apologize that my example wasn't exciting enough for you. It was supposed to be an example of how what we see as actions are often symbols.
I don't think adulterers were ever going to "hell". Unless they choose to be. Or unless you are considering the possible wreck some adulterer make of their lives "hell".
I think the lesson in the Abraham/Isaac story is that God's wants obedience instead of human sacrifice. Human sacrifice was not a particularly uncommon thing in many cultures.
quote:
Sorry I've repeated myself in my response. I think the same point of not giving convoluted interpretations a blank cheque applies to most of your examples and arguments.
This conversation is (subject matter aside) incredibly similar to the conversations I have with people who think that a week of bitter cold in Chicago disproves global climate change. Or who think that global warming will just mean nicer weather in Canada. They think that my explanations are convoluted, too. Intuitively it seems like it makes sense, but the more you learn, the more you realize that it isn't a simple as it appears.
quote:
BlackBlade,
quote: Why is it unlikely? There are precedents indicating Moses and the Israelites didn't find rape as objectionable as we find it today. Consider for example Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
Seems you did not read many of the preceding verses of the ones you quoted. Rape was capital offense in most cases. Only in the instances where the woman (if she was betrothed or married) objected, is the death sentence commuted. And in the verses you quoted it is not clear if the virginal woman is being raped or simply having sex with a man. The preceding examples prescribe capital punishment, yes. But can you show me evidence that the actual verses I cited prescribe a fine and an obligation to marry, rather than execution? And yes it is quite clear that it is rape; it is preceded by "lay hold on her" and is one among a list of other rape laws.
quote:Making the man pay 50 shekels and marrying the woman he had raped certainly would deter folks rolling around in the hay spontaneously and it would deter quite a few men from acting on their lusts.
Do you care about the woman and her choices?
What do you make of the rule regarding rape victims who don't scream loud enough when being "humbled" in the city?
Of course they didn't care. Women were basically property. Rape was less a crime against the woman than it was a property crime against her father or husband. As was true for most cultures at the time - and for a long time after. You are judging ancient people by modern standards. What you seem to be missing is that the relationship that the Jewish people had with God made things better than they had been before. More humane. The Law seems cruel because we don't see it in comparison to what things were like before the Law. Concepts such as care for the poor for example.
quote:If you're an athiest who likes to point at this story to proclaim the evils of G-d, try to imagine how you might survive a week in the time before the creation of Israel, or any time in antiquity, with the morals and ethics you clothe yourself in now.
Do I have an omnipotent God on my side?
--------
quote:Bear in mind that you're saying this to God. Does He need the luck? I'm not saying that to God, I'm saying it to Euripides.
No, you're saying it to God. The hypothetical was this: you're trying to train a people without besetting them with plagues. Your argument is that this is too hard to do. But Euripides, in this hypothetical, is God.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Killing them was not a sin. God commanded it.
If God could use an angel to kill 185,000 Assyrians in a night, why couldn't he have done the same here? That would have prevented any deaths to the Israelites resulting from the battle, and it would have removed any ambiguity over whether it was God's command or not.
It's interesting. If you read the story, God commands Moses to take revenge on the Midianites on behalf of the Israelites. Moses commands the people to take revenge on behalf of God. Neither one was doing it for themselves.
It was us that the Midianites sinned against. It was only proper that we deal with them.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the lesson in the Abraham/Isaac story is that God's wants obedience instead of human sacrifice. Human sacrifice was not a particularly uncommon thing in many cultures.
I think the lesson is that Abraham made the wrong choice. When someone in power tells you to commit an evil action, the proper response is not unquestioning obediance. Much of the horrible things in the Bible and the history of Judaism and Christianity can be seen as contributed to by the reverence of this act.
Can you imagine the OT progressing as it did if Abraham said "No. Not unless you give me a good reason." The whole structure falls apart for me at that point. A continuing narrative would have to have a deity of a very different character.
---
edit: To head it off before it comes up, boots and I also have very differening views of scripture.
quote: I think the lesson is that Abraham made the wrong choice. When someone in power tells you to commit an evil action, the proper response is not unquestioning obedience.
Mr S. That may be the lesson you see, but its not the lesson the Bible is trying to teach.
From Joseph Smith, "Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life ..."
All things does indeed include your free will. Lay down your life for God and you find it. People seem to think that the religious who take that sentiment to heart are at best mindless zombies or at worst genocidal suicide bombers.
Ultimately we are supposed to become as wise as God is. But while He is God and we are humans we are required to trust in Him entirely. Yes absolute trust in a false God is a terrible danger that comes with trusting in a true God, but what virtue does not have its' excessive vice?
We are not supposed to be in constant ignorance as to what the end result of all the crazy things God is having us do. Even the short term results of a religion can be observed by a studious observer.
Abraham had a LONG history of trusting in God and experiencing miracles beyond our comprehension through obedience to him. God already knew ultimately what Abraham would do, but he commanded it anyway so that Abraham could accomplish that heavy task, and set an example for the rest of us. Its doubtful that God under normal circumstances would ask his people as a whole to up and sacrifice their firstborns. Such dramatic trials of faith are usually preceded by much less intrusive and difficult tasks, followed by a corresponding reward to properly encourage increased obedience.
The difference in Mormonism is that ultimately we are all accountable to God not some man who represents him. If God himself commanded us to die for him, we would NOT be expected to do it without a perfect revelation from God that He did indeed so command.
Persuasive rhetoric, respect for leaders of astounding accomplishments, manifestations of supernatural power, even combined these things for Mormons do not persuade us of God's participation. 95% of the time, I believe I know what the correct course of action is based off of personal experience with God, and careful study of the scriptures/everything else that educates. For that 5% of the time where a critical choice must be made and I just do not know how I ought to act, prayer has never left me wanting, and the results have never been regretful in my experience.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lay down your life for God and you find it. People seem to think that the religious who take that sentiment to heart are at best mindless zombies or at worst genocidal suicide bombers.
Err...aren't they, often?
quote:Even the short term results of a religion can be observed by a studious observer.
Yes. I've been going on about the effects of the belief structures of religions for a while, both in this thread and in others. They're far from universally beneficial.
quote:doubtful that God under normal circumstances would ask his people as a whole to up and sacrifice their firstborns.
Isaac wasn't his first born. Are you talking about God's slaughter of the innocent Egyptians? I'm not sure how that would be relevant.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rose the ____: Gee, many of our people go off to some dirty orgies and come back, and -suddenly- we've got a plague! Maybe G-d's not the only reason to end the threat of these nearby people?
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Inherently a moral abomination huh? Well we will have to disagree then, I think there ARE instances where genocide is preferable to extinction, like say if a disease germinated in a certain country of such devastation the country had to be completely obliterated to prevent it from spreading.
How completely creative. If only some perpetrators of genocide had ever accused their victims of spreading disease and immorality, their crimes would be completely excused. What a novel idea!
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, today, of course, we'd have them quarantined, and we'd look into a way to cure them of their icky VDs. germ theory didn't exist thousands of years ago, and we weren't enough of a force that people would look at us and say - uhm, let every last one of us leave our village afore we are royally spanked - so war was the only option left.
Uh-huh. Your healthy, clean-minded teenagers are sleeping with their dirty sluts, so the only possible solution is to wipe them out, down to the last non-virgin. Right. Do you hear what you are actually saying?
quote:I take the death of a human being every bit as seriously as you do
Pardon me, but you have just proved that, in fact, you do not. You are quite willing to dismiss the deaths of thousands as 'negative reinforcement' if that is necessary to excuse your god of an evil act.
quote:God says time and time again to the Israelites once they settled in Canaan and got down to the business of being wicked in effect, "Had the Canaanites been decent people I would have allowed them to continue living on the land you now live in."
Since the morality of your god is the topic of discussion, its propaganda should not be taken at face value. Consider what you would think if the word 'Canaanites' in that sentence is replaced by 'Jews'.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Greeks and Romans used human sacrifice, the Celts used human sacrifice, the Aztecs really used human sacrifice. Mayans, Indians, Aficans, Chinese, Vikings...
Because of God, the Jews stopped performing human sacrifice relatively early.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because of unknown factors, the Jews stopped performing human sacrifice relatively early.
There, fixed that for you. Incidentally, what's your source for human sacrifice by Greeks and Romans?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the Greeks, their mythology and plays. For Romans, vestal virgins, Greek and Gaulic couples being buried alive at the Forum, gladiators, later Romans "sacrificing" puppets that replaced actual humans (as they got more civilized)and finally a decree to officially make it illegal (wouldn't need to do that if it had never existed) in aboutn 100BCE.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I see. I had the impression that Greek mythology deals with Mycenean Greeks, who would have been roughly contemporaneous with the human-sacrificing Jews; I don't know if you can take that as evidence for what the Classical Greeks - what we usually think of as 'Greeks' - were doing. (Though I'm prepared to be corrected by classicists.) For the Romans, I'm not sure what you mean about the vestal virgins; gladiators and the fate of prisoners of war seems more in the nature of war atrocities than what we would usually think of as human sacrifice; but it's true that the Romans were generally not that nice, so I won't dispute the main point.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Often, the sacrificed humans were captured in battle no matter what the culture, so I'm not sure how "the fate of prisoners of war" is different.
I'm thinking of Iphegenia at Aulis for the Greeks. Some accounts had her mysteriously replaced by an animal (hmmmm...where have I heard somethiing similar...?) some don't. Clearly though the concept of sacrificing a child was one that was part of Greek culture.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm thinking of Iphegenia at Aulis for the Greeks.
Which, as I say, deals with Mycenean Greeks. You might as well say that witch trials are part of our culture because "The Crucible" portrays them.
I won't argue about the Romans, just saying that "Watch these people die so you can learn how to face death stoically" is different from "Oh Lord, accept these lives in exchange for a good harvest this year".
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
But the gladiator games were (originally) to please the gods, yes?
Many cultures at one point in their history practiced human sacrifice. Most cultures stopped. So did the Jews. The Abraham/Isaac story address that change away from human sacrifice.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yes, but the issue is when. Quoting Homer to show that Classical Greeks practiced sacrifice is like quoting "The Crucible" to show that Americans had witch trials in the 1950s.
quote:But the gladiator games were (originally) to please the gods, yes?
This is not my impression, but I could be wrong.
quote:Many cultures at one point in their history practiced human sacrifice. Most cultures stopped. So did the Jews. The Abraham/Isaac story address that change away from human sacrifice.
Remind me again, is that a part of the Bible that is to be taken literally, or is it allegory? In any case, I don't think the Jews were necessarily unusually early in ceasing human sacrifice, but here you get into archeological evidence which Christians are generally reluctant to accept.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wrote that in a hurry and skipped some steps. Let me start with 'unusually early'. Just for one thing, we would need to agree on when Abraham is supposed to have lived, as well as on whether the story represents a sharp cutoff in human sacrifice, or is an allegory of "things we did in the past". Here it is my understanding that Biblical dating tends to disagree with dating from other sources; this also ties in with the female consort to Yahweh, which Lisa at least has absolutely refused to believe in. Not being a literalist you perhaps have less trouble with this.
Then, let me point out that the Egyptians, for example, ceased human sacrifice sometime around the end of the Second Dynasty, or roughly 2500 BCE. (Cursory Google, may contain inaccuracies.) That's well before the Hebrews enter any kind of verifiable historical record, and you would presumably not attribute it to their god.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it needs to be a "sharp cutoff". I don't know what you mean by a female consort to Yahweh. I am interested in finding out.
I don't know enough about Egyptian mythology to know why they stopped human sacrifice. My guess is that their understanding of the nature of God changed as well.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Here it is my understanding that Biblical dating tends to disagree with dating from other sources; this also ties in with the female consort to Yahweh, which Lisa at least has absolutely refused to believe in. Not being a literalist you perhaps have less trouble with this.
That female consort was an artifact of Samaritan syncretism. Even the Bible says that the Samaritan tribes worshipped Anat and Asheira along with God. And I'll buy that the Israelites in the northern kingdom did the same thing. After all, they were destroyed because of their idolatry. It's when people theorize without any basis that this came before Israelite monotheism that I have a problem.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps the Israelites of 1000 or so BCE, having recently left Egypt, would not have been likely to practice human sacrifice. But since they were headed for a land where it was practiced by their neighbors, how handy to have a story in their scriptures reminding them that God doesn't want it. Just in case.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's when people theorize without any basis that this came before Israelite monotheism that I have a problem.
Yes, well - your reason for believing that monotheism came first is the oral tradition plus the Torah; since the trustworthiness of that tradition is precisely what is being doubted, oops, suddenly you don't have any evidence either. Incidentally, did you intend to respond to my last post touching the evil of genocide?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
