[Kazan]

Gank: bingo

[Turambar]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Anyone else find it funny that Satan is always shown ruling Hell, but he is never once mentioned in the Bible as actually being in Hell, or being the devil?

In the Qur'an Shaitan (satan) is an angel employed by Allah (God- yes, the same god worshipped by Christians and Jews) who tests people to see if they are good or bad by tempting them to do bad things, kind of the guy who whispers in your ear

[Grey Wolf]

That's one of the two non-devil interpretations. The other is very similar, but is a group of angels with the same job.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Liberator
If it was mass murder, who would you drag into court mik?  God?

God, as Creator, reserves the right to eliminate those of his creation that don't at least as a general rule do what he says.  The group in question was reveling in their sin, which is equivalent to killing a random person in front of a bunch of police.

Yes, if I could, I'd drag the bastard into court and try him. Though I doubt you could find a jury of his peers.

You might worship God, Lib, but I think, if he exists (in the manner to which you ascribe), he's a crusty, cruel, outright racist, and vile bastard, and he should hang.

I never said I was reasonable.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
You overstate your position, mikhael.  Even the most suspicious stance towards the Bible cannot reasonably dismiss it as a witness to history.  Frankly, we accept the historical value of scores of other ancient documents with religious content without difficulty, so why should the Bible be especially singled out as untrustworthy? If the biblical text says in multiple passages in multiple books that the Canaanites made it their regular religious practice to burn their babies alive as sacrifices to their gods, it is difficult to see how one could dismiss that evidence out of hand so easily while accepting Herodotus' history as substantially true without any more corroborating evidence.

Actually, I can dismiss the Bible as a witness to history. I do so, unreservedly. Even in the depths of a lunacy, a delusional mental patient will mention things that are real and exist. That doesn't make his story true. It just means that he mentioned some things that are real and exist. The President has told the truth, but that doesn't mean everything he says is true.
 
I don't accept any version of history as 'real' on its own. I would need to see corroborating (or contradicting) accounts from multiple sources on the subject in question. I recognize, truly, that some things in the Bible are corroborated to the degree that I am willing to stipulate to the veracity of the passages. This, however, as I said previously, does not render the entire account true. Is there any other, non-Biblical documentation that the Canaanites sacrificed their babies? Is there any Canaanite documentation that references the time in question?

History is full of cases where the victor has written that the loser was monstrous, subhuman and evil.

Moreover, the Bible shows a remarkable willingness to paint its supposed heroes in a bad light when they deserve it.  Both David and Solomon are shown with all their faults, despite the status and esteem their memory had in the minds of the people.  That's a far cry from the records one finds in Assyrian or Egyptian or Hittite annals.

While you are indeed correct, this does not render the text inerrant. All it does is show that someone felt that there was value in writing about the characters in such a way.

Furthermore, I might point out some serious inconsistency in your approach.  It looks to me like you are willing to accept the biblical evidence when it suits you, and disregard it when it doesn't.  That the Israelites killed many Canaanites you'll accept on no one's testimonty but the Israelites, but their testimony that the Canaanites regularly, universally, and systematically practiced infanticide is dismissed.  What basis do you have for picking and choosing?  Do the Israelites report history, or not?

Actually, as I said before, I take the entire Bible with a grain of salt. I judge what is written by my own moral and ethical inclinations. I do not consider it factual, except where corroborating evidence has been found. I am, unfortunately, a cynic. I do not know if the Israelites killed Canaanites--but I'm willing to stipulate that they DID. I also understand history, and remember that winners have a historical tendency to paint losers as monstrous. Did that happen here? Maybe, maybe not. Do I belive it happened here? Let's just say I give it better than even odds. Lacking any other documentation, I'll give you good odds that there was a victory for the Israelites over the Canaanites, and even better odds that the reasons given for the killing are bull****.

Now having said all that, I'll point out that there actually is corroborating evidence that the Canaanites sacrificed their babies in this way.  Heaps of babies bones have been found near sacrifice sites, apparently burned.

Interesting. Given my feelings about other people's children, perhaps I should have been a Canaanite. (that's a joke people)
Seriously, that still doesn't clear up the issue, though it does help support the Israelite position, I'll admit.

But returning to the case in point, the killing of the Canaanites comes down to one issue so far as the Bible is concerned: they sacrificed their babies to their gods.  This quick search shows just some of the references made to it.  Burning babies alive is, so far as God is concerned, such a terrible thing as to be worthy of capital punishment, and is the underlying reason for 1) why he decided to have the Canaanites executed and the survivors dispossessed of their land, and 2) why he later decided that the Israelites who emulated the practices of surviving Canaanites would similarly be killed and the survivours dragged off into exile.

Now, what do we do with baby killers today?  Where captial punishment exists, we execute them.  Where it does not, we lock them up with no chance of parole.  We kill them and do the modern equivalent of dispossessing them of their land.  So, was God's action against the Canaanites murder or execution?

I smell a logical trap here, and I think you've neatly penned me in.
To answer your first question, I don't think it matters what we do with baby killers today--we're a different society with different laws.
However, I did support the idea of trying God by those modern laws in a modern society, so we have a contradiction. Thus, I concede defeat.
As for your second question? That depends on which way the wind is blowing today, or the phases of the moon. Next time we get a thread on capital punishment, I'll explain that in more detail.

Oh, and what do you find questionable in the process of canon selection?  I've heard you mention it before, so what exactly is it you have issue with?

That's better left to a different thread, I think. Quick summary:
1. Men did the original writing.
2. Men did the final selection.
3. The men involved had a vested interest in controlling the message of the resulting text.

Seriously, its best left to a different thread.

PS: Man I like debating with Sesq.

[Grey Wolf]

Of course, you have to remember that the original impetus for the Council of Nicea and the compiling of the Christian Bible was the fact that Emperor Constantine wanted a standard scripture for all of the new churches he was building in his new capital.

[Liberator]

Originally posted by mikhael


3. The men involved had a vested interest in controlling the message of the resulting text.

Over the course of hundreds of years?(OT only of course since most of the NT consists of letters written to the early church by John and Paul)

[mikhael]

The men in power in the Church had a vested interest over the course of the better part of two millennia, Lib. The human desire for power knows no age. But, as I recall, the Council of Nicea--to which I was referring--was NOT over the course of hundreds or thousands of years.

Want to discuss this further? Start another thread. I'll say no more on the topic here. Its not really relevant, at all.

[Kazan]

liberator: translations are easily manipulated - and the council of nicea was in 300AD - which is also when the earliest copies of the so-called origional scriptures measure to be.  


I'll try the patient approach with you for a while liberator since i have some patience right now.

Please do yourself a favor and read up on formal logic and the scientific process.  Learn the language of science and it's nuances and read real science books.   Know that something being emotionally appealing has nothing to do with it's factuality, nor does your parents having taught it to you as long as you can remember.

Something being said doesn't make it true, something being written doesn't make it true.  All that is true and all that exists can be observed, measured, quantified and figured out and we have a strict process for doing so and its self-correcting in light of new evidence.


Know that morality is not black and white and need not be rested on some authoritarian entity - that the highest and purest form of morality comes from rationality.  This morality deals in the complexities of the real world where morals can conflict with each other and involves processes for mitigating this conflict and resolving it.  


Please liberator - do us all, the entire species, a favor and LEARN.   The first rule of knowledge and wisdom is never accepting anything on face value, always look for real evidence

[Bobboau]

on a slight derail, it may come as interest that recent studies have showen that most moral judgments come not from the reasoning centers of the brain, but the emotional centers, like the superior temporal sulcus, the posterior cingulate and the precuneus, are found to become active during most personal moral judgements. (though impersonal moral judgements are handeled by the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, a logical center, this explains how people can have such difering and inconsistant views on similar things)

[Kazan]

that would make sense for someone who is at the conventional stage

they should have given them a questionaire to determine if tey were at the conventional or the post conventional stage

[Liberator]

Sometimes Kaz, you sound too reasonable for your own good.  Are you sure you're not some angry AI or a racist Vulcan?

[Kazan]

I can't determine if that's suppose to be a joke or an insult

[Sesquipedalian]

This took awhile, and I have to go to work now.  I'll be back later to address more posts.

Originally posted by Kazan

WRONG

Dictionary

genocide n.
systematic killing of a racial or cultural group

Doesn't say anything about _why_ just the act of killing a racial/cultural group is genocide.  This is the definition you're going to find everyone in academia using to my knowledge

Really?  Are you sure you didn't write that up yourself?  This is the definition I find:
Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId
Function: noun
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
There's a substantial difference there: in your version, if a group of people is killed who collectively form a racial or cultural group, regardless of the intention behind the action, it is a genocide.  In Merriam-Webster's version, it is a genocide if the elimination of the group is the purpose.

The earliests payruses for the NT are in the THIRD century - and there are large gaps in the bible and glaring misognist meddling.

It has sense been translated numerous times, always with intentional alterations.   When I said "modern" i was refering to modern translations which are really translations of translations of translations of translations - all translated by people with agendas

No, second century.  Lemme see here...
Papayri from the second century: P77, P90, P98 (?), P103, P104
There is also one uncial from the second century: 0189
By "large gaps", what do you mean?

Of course it has been translated, but your English version off of the shelf is not a translation of a translation.  They translate directly from the original languages.  Or perhaps you meant recopied, not translated?  In which case, of course, but textual criticism does an excellent job of sorting through the texts, each with their own scribal errors, and finding the original reading.  Where uncertainties exist, they are usually on the order of "you were wandering like sheep" vs. "you were like wandering sheep"--which is hardly a major dificulty.

I have read the bible cover to cover - several translations.  IT's all a load of lengendized historical fiction written by a bunch of people who didn't understand the world around them so they came up with a god to explain it - humans have been doing that for thousands of yeras.  The problem is now we can explain what was once unexplainable, and that which isn't yet explained some of us have reached the emntal maturity to accept that it isn't explain yet but we will find the explaination.

You are welcome to your interpretation of both this book and of reality, but do recognise that it is your interpretation.  Unless you can provide convincing evidence or argument for why one should accept your interpretation over another, do not pretend that your beliefs have any more claim to be true than another's.  In all you've written, I've only seen you assert that atheism is true.  If I want to claim that God exists, you are perfectly in your rights to demand some corroboration before accepting my claim.  But the instant you make a counterclaim, the same obligation falls on you.  So, show me that you have somehow gained a better access to reality than I have, and maybe I'll believe you.

However, be careful before accusing people of bias unless you can explain why they would have one.

You have a pro-bais favor because you being in your invisible friend in the sky since it';s emotionally appealing to you

Mikhael is an atheist, and will therefore have a predilection to give more weight to things that support, in one way or another, his position.  The aim that both of us are striving towards, however, is to see as much as we can as clearly and truly as we can.  I would expect him to call me on places where my bias is causing me to swerve, even as I have done for him.

Of course I am going to defend my beliefs against misrepresentation and assault: they are my beliefs.  But I try not to let my bias cause me to ignore the things I find in the world.

Because I can say with 100% certainty and without being stereotyping that everyone who believes in teh bible picks and chooses which verses to believe, for one it contradicts itself in many places - for two that's human nature that is only overcome through a sense of intellectual integrity (which is requisit lacking in relation to the bible to believe it - compartmentalization allows someone who otherwise has it to loose it in relation to the bible)

Ignoring the unsubstantiated pot shot at the end...

Indeed there are contradictions.  The reason is that different texts address different situations.  Awareness of both the text and the situation allows one to understand the full message.  When we then take what we learn from understanding all these different passages in their contexts, and put it all together into a cohesive whole, we are able to learn what the biblical teaching is.  It is very much like the old parable about the six blind men and the elephant.  Each of their individual statements alone are contradictory, but this comes from a failure to appreciate the whole.  With a recognition of the whole, I am able believe the biblical text without having to pick and choose between its various contents.

I don't believe your justificatios until i find indpendant historical documents predating the bible and predating the destruction of Canaan documenting their atrocities - then I'll halfway believe you

Here are a few articles that came up on Google.  They mention in one way or another the infant sacrifices practiced by the Canaanites (a.k.a. Phonecians).  A large trove of bones was found in Carthage (a Canaanite colony), and others have been found in places like Tyre and on Megiddo.  The one in Tyre seems to be the most recent discovery.  I tried finding some more info on it, but it seems nothing else has been put on the net about it since--maybe a publication is still in the works?
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/b/baal.html
http://www.ualberta.ca/~csmackay/CLASS_365/Carthage.html
http://www.msn.fullfeed.com/~scribe/digest19983.htm (
http://ddc.aub.edu.lb/projects/archaeology/berytus-back/berytus39/seeden-tophet/

I am concerned with the actual history - however for the sake of this argument the actual history is irrevelant - you are supporting and trying to justify genocide with a post facto rationalization and I'm not going to let you get away with it - it smells to high hell of BULLL****...

redundunt stuff about how I supposedly support genocide

That is rather confusing, Kazan.  You are concerned with it and find that it is irrelevant?

Let's go with option one, and assume that you are concerned with the actual history.  Well then, the Israelites neither decimated the ethnic group of the Canaanites, nor apparently intended too.  They targeted certain smaller groups of Canaanites, made treaties with some, and in general had the sort of long and turbulent relationship with them that one would normally expect.  No genocide to be found here.

For option two, I'll briefly recap and say that those sacrificing their children to their gods were the ones targeted in the text.  The aim there also was not to destroy a people group--the fate of the people group is not really in view here, only the destruction of those engaging in this practice.  So the text's directives do not meet the criteria of Merriam-Webster's defintion of genocide.

If they really were "baby killers" as you want to put it in such an emotinoally provacative manner to try and emotionally blackmail us - then it changes little.  It changes from being a post facto rationalization to being an excuse.

Is there a non-emotionally provocative manner of saying that they sacrificed their children as burnt offerings to their gods?  There is no emotional blackmail intended here--it is the spontaneous expression of my revulsion.

Now, it seems we have reached an end to our line of argument here.  To you, the action of killing children in this way is not sufficient grounds for capital punishment.  To me, the action is sufficiently heinous to warrant it.  I doubt any argument over which of us is right in this matter will be fruitful, since that decision is a non-rational one at its core.

You have no evidence to support this claim

In some cultures/religions.  You conviently ignored my point about your imaginary friend in the sky demanding Job kill his son (only to stay his hand at the last minute - however that is just saying "I want you to be willing to kill your child for me if you have to!")  INFACT the bible in multiple places advocates killing of children.  In one place it not only ADVOCATES it - it has the "angel of death" doing it.  (Don't try to justify it as being pharo's decry - your imaginary sky friend still did it)

Which is it?  First you say I have no evidence, then you grant my evidence.  Ancient Near Eastern ritual was conducted communally, especially for such major rituals as infant sacrifice.  The whole town or nation or whoever was being sacrificed for would attend.  Thus, they were all party to it.

God does indeed ask Abraham to sacrifice his son, but it is not at all insignificant that God stops him from doing it.  The whole point of including the story is to underline this fact.  God doesn't want child sacrifices.  In a culture where  sacrificing children is an accepted ritual, that stopping is the shocking part, and it says a lot.  To the minds of the writer and his intended audience, this story said one thing: God doesn't want child sacrifices.  Later on God makes an explicit ban on sacrificing children.

The angel of death, now there's a good one.  It is a different sort of thing than the others we've been talking about: it isn't humans sacrificing to the gods.  Punishing people for heinous acts is one thing, but this brings us to a new place: how can God take life away from people when he forbids us to do so?  In fact, how can he allow any children to suffer and die?  How could he let it happen to my sister?  Or anyone at all?  These are all instances of the problem of evil, and I've wrestled with that a lot. These are my thoughts:

The simplest answer, of course, is that God is God, and both gives and takes away.  It is not right if I "play God" with the lives of others, for they are my peers.  But if God plays God, he is doing his job.  This answer is true so far as it foes, but it isn't very satisfying.

Mostly, we want an explanation for evil.  If it can be explained, we think, then that'll make it okay.  Why?  Because then we'll be able to say it makes sense, that it belongs here.  But it doesn't belong here.  We might be able to say how it got here, but where it came from can never make sense in this world.  It'll never be "alright."  This is why the simple answer, even if it is true as far as it goes, is not enough.  It doesn't do anything about the situation.

You've read the book of Job.  Now here's a fellow who is a really great guy.  Then all this crap happens to him, and through it all he insists that he didn't deserve it despite the veiled accusations of his three friends that he did.  God's answer to Job at the end is the most interesting bit.  God basically 1) says that he knows what he is doing, 2) tacitly approves Job's insistence that he didn't do anything to deserve this, 3) also tacitly approves the words of the fourth friend who said that the issue wasn't merely what one did, but that even the best human being is not sufficiently good to be able to make a counterclaim against God, and 4) most importantly, changes things.

In this, parts 1, 2 and 3 are all essentially more detail on the simple answer.  It is part 4 that is the most important bit.  The author of this story is telling us something significant: explanations are all well and good, but what we want and need is change.  The only satisfying answer there can be is for things to be fixed.  

And it is this that is the more profound and meaty answer to the problem of evil.  God intends to fix it.  The whole Judeo-Christian religion is one big exercise in answering the problem of evil.  God is God, and he'll deal with the world as he sees fit in the meantime, but in the end he intends to fix it.

However in 21st century Western civilization YOU do not make religion a private thing.  There is a very large christian fundamentalist movement trying to rip up the constitution and establish a theocracy .... I will laugh at, and the fundamentalists will rue the day, that they make it a shooting war.

I beg your pardon, but did you really just accuse me of that?  

First of all, I am Canadian.  I don't care a whit about the American constitution or what you guys do with it.  Not my country, not my problem.  I have better things to worry about.

Second, I am not a fundamentalist.

Third, fundamentalists are only one tiny fraction of Christianity, so don't equate the two.  Just because they are vocal doesn't make them representative.

Fourth, not all fundamentalists think this way.  In fact, I would suspect it is a few wackos with big mouths who are saying this, and the average fundamentalist Christian doesn't agree.

Really, you should knock it off with the ad hominem attacks, Kazan.  They don't accomplish anything except alienating the people who might otherwise want to support you.

Show me evidence

Of group trials?  Probably the fastest way to do that is PM Su-tehp.  He's in law school, so he should be able to name a few cases from your own system pretty easily

No really your THINK - you act like I don't.  What ever the reasons for you supporting genocide IT'S STILL GENOCIDE.  I don't give a rats if your god believesa it - that is unacceptable behavior.  IT is made even worse by the fact that you're simply believing in something emotionally appealing that has no semblance of being real, no REAL evidence (you people like calling things which are absolutely not evidence 'evidence for god'), no logic [without logical fallacy]

However YOU are not god, the people who killed the Canaanites are NOT GOD - lots of people claim to know gods word.  This is boviously impossible when you a) rationally approach whether god exists and b) lots of people claiming they have gods word contradict e/o on a regular basis

post facto rationalization by the victors

If you'd like to come down from your soapbox and talk to me, I'd like too.  You accuse Setekh, and now I, with supporting genocide on the basis of this text.  The way Setekh and I read it, it doesn't advocate genocide.  Whatever you think it "really" says is irrelevant: we are talking about Setekh and me.  The way we read it, it isn't about genocide, and neither of us would give approval to genocide on the basis of this text.  Now, if you wish to ignore me and get back on your soapbox and tell me what "really" I think, go ahead.  But don't expect me to accept that you know what I think better than I do, or that I am going to support a genocide on the basis of a text when I know myself I am not going to.

And furthermore to the eyes of those of us who have matured enough to be beyond gods (And don't take that as an intetional insult - psychologically, and sociologically speaking those who reach post-conventional morality and value real knowledge are psychologically and sociologically more mature than those who believe in emotionally appealing accounts of reality and in conventional morality, even worse quite often theists are all for pre-conventional morality)

Yes.  Of course.  Your position is obviously more mature than any other option.  Everyone's always is.

I see the logical path for it to be justified in your eyes - however I call you person  willing to commit crimes against humanity.  

You call me willing to commit crimes against humanity when I say I am not and that in this text I find no legitimation for that.  Don't be daft.  If I read this text and find no legitimisation for genocide in it, I don't find one, which is all that matters for whether I am going to support one.

[Turambar]

whoa, too much reading *rubs eyes*  

lets rant about censorship!

[mikhael]

Sesq, I'm not going to read all that. I only have so much time before ER.

One thing caught my eye, however, and I must respond.

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian

Mikhael is an atheist, and will therefore have a predilection to give more weight to things that support, in one way or another, his position.  The aim that both of us are striving towards, however, is to see as much as we can as clearly and truly as we can.  I would expect him to call me on places where my bias is causing me to swerve, even as I have done for him.

I am NOT an atheist. I don't know how these rumors get started.

[Kazan]

genocide
n : systematic killing of a racial or cultural group [syn: race murder, racial extermination]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
Among others

----

the Papayri you named are of dubious origins and confirmability - take it up with Dr Hector Avalos, an expert on the Papayri
"Large Gaps" as in entire books were ignored because they were pro-female-equality

----

If you think the off-the-shelf English version is a direct translation from Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic you're grossly mistaken.  Furthermore the translator can (And does) easily manipulate meanings.

-----

My "interpretation" of reality has the force of evidence and logic behind it.  I can easily give compelling arguments that you cannot refute.  You would instead ignore them since you cannot refute them.  I've seen the pattern a hundred times.  My assertions come off as a strong-atheist because I assert that people who believe in religion are dangerous and irrational.  I also often use the simplification "god does not exist" which is the compression of "Since there is absolutely no evidence for god, nor any logical reason for one to exist I find it extremely unlikely one exists" - and irrational is by definition, if you believe in something that you have no evidence to support you are irrational.  

As for better access to reality - I consider everything logically and evenly, I do not make a judgement until I have all the evidence. I do not make judgements without evidence, and I can pick out logical fallacies quicker than you can say "Shivan Juggernaut".  It is extremely difficult if not impossible to deceive someone like that.  Furthermore by not subscribing to irrational worldviews that do nothing but appeal to emotion I maintain intellectual integrity.   Faith is a fallacy, if you cannot understand why having a fallacy as the foundation of your worldview is bad then perhaps you're beyond hope.


-------------------

Mikhael being an atheist is almost certainly more likely to have a sense of intellectual integrity and will avoid doing that when possible.  Furthermore the honest atheist almost rarely takes a poisiton without real evidence behind them.  


Important Question: Have you ever asked yourself WHY you believe what you do

-------------

That "unsbustatiated pot shot" is about the farthest from unsubstantiated you can get.  It is a psychological requirement for someone to either a) compartmentalize or B) have no critical thinking skills what-so-ever, to be religious.  I find stating B can be taken more offensive than saying someone compartmetnalizes.  I am more willing to believe you compartmentalize as well.


There are DIRECT contradictions - ie contradictions that cannot be explained away by situation.  If you do not know this then you should, if you do know this then you're making cheap excuses.

--------------

I accept your sources about the Canaanites sacrificing children.  However it should be known that Carthage was the site of several VERY large battles throughout history.  

This still does not justify genocide


------------

It is confusing only if you are not paying attention and do not understand me.  For matters of factuality i am very concenred with the actual history.  However in the context of the conversation you are supporting genocide - whether or not the particular incident of genocide the bible claims happened happened.  

Can you see the difference?

Is it a fact that Israelities commited Genocide against the Canaanites? I do not know right now

The Bible claims 'yes', you support the actions of the Canaanites if this was true - therefore you support genocide.


Killing an entire city is technically "genocide" - just small scale.

--------------



You assert it is capital punsihment - HOWEVER KILLING CHILDREN FAR TOO YOUNG TO HAVE BEEN GUILTY OF SAID CRIME BY THE ISRAELITIES IS NOT JUSTIFIED AT ALL - and goes to show that it was indeed genocide!

Are you going to continue to ignore trying to justify the Israelities doing exactly what you're condemning the Canaanites for?   by your logic the Israelities killed the Canaanites children to punish the Canaanites for killing their children.

You setup contradiction in your logic all by yourself.  Way to go!

---------------

Which is it? First you say I have no evidence, then you grant my evidence. Ancient Near Eastern ritual was conducted communally, especially for such major rituals as infant sacrifice. The whole town or nation or whoever was being sacrificed for would attend. Thus, they were all party to it.

If you cannot tell the difference between real and hypothetical based off you're thinking than you need to go back and take logic and rhetoric classes REALLY BADLY.

So children taken there by their parents are guilty of killing because they're parents took them see a killing - BULL****

----------------

God does indeed ask Abraham to sacrifice his son, but it is not at all insignificant that God stops him from doing it. The whole point of including the story is to underline this fact. God doesn't want child sacrifices. In a culture where sacrificing children is an accepted ritual, that stopping is the shocking part, and it says a lot. To the minds of the writer and his intended audience, this story said one thing: God doesn't want child sacrifices. Later on God makes an explicit ban on sacrificing children.

Perhaps - however it's still conveying "I want you to be willing to killer your own children, but I don't want you to do it"

The angel of death, now there's a good one. It is a different sort of thing than the others we've been talking about : it isn't humans sacrificing to the gods. Punishing people for heinous acts is one thing, but this brings us to a new place: how can God take life away from people when he forbids us to do so? In fact, how can he allow any children to suffer and die? How could he let it happen to my sister? Or anyone at all? These are all instances of the problem of evil, and I've wrestled with that a lot. These are my thoughts:

Not only are you not addressing the question, but you're trying to construct a false analogy for usage in a straw man

The simplest answer, of course, is that God is God, and both gives and takes away. It is not right if I "play God" with the lives of others, for they are my peers. But if God plays God, he is doing his job. This answer is true so far as it foes, but it isn't very satisfying.

That's not an answer - that's avoiding thinking about it

Mostly, we want an explanation for evil. If it can be explained, we think, then that'll make it okay. Why? Because then we'll be able to say it makes sense, that it belongs here. But it doesn't belong here. We might be able to say how it got here, but where it came from can never make sense in this world. It'll never be "alright." This is why the simple answer, even if it is true as far as it goes, is not enough. It doesn't do anything about the situation.

Evil and Good do not exist, learn to think beyond terms of good and evil.  They are childish definitions and limitations on thinking.

And that is also just more talking in circles to avoid thinking

You've read the book of Job. Now here's a fellow who is a really great guy. Then all this crap happens to him, and through it all he insists that he didn't deserve it despite the veiled accusations of his three friends that he did. God's answer to Job at the end is the most interesting bit. God basically 1) says that he knows what he is doing, 2) tacitly approves Job's insistence that he didn't do anything to deserve this, 3) also tacitly approves the words of the fourth friend who said that the issue wasn't merely what one did, but that even the best human being is not sufficiently good to be able to make a counterclaim against God, and 4) most importantly, changes things.

*cough* continuing to not address the question *cough*

In this, parts 1, 2 and 3 are all essentially more detail on the simple answer. It is part 4 that is the most important bit. The author of this story is telling us something significant: explanations are all well and good, but what we want and need is change. The only satisfying answer there can be is for things to be fixed.

So since you have no explainations for things, you don't need one.  Bull**** - that doesn't fly anywhere that people actually use their brains.

And it is this that is the more profound and meaty answer to the problem of evil. God intends to fix it. The whole Judeo-Christian religion is one big exercise in answering the problem of evil. God is God, and he'll deal with the world as he sees fit in the meantime, but in the end he intends to fix it.

Continuing to Cop out and ignore the question

INFACT the bible in multiple places advocates killing of children. In one place it not only ADVOCATES it - it has the "angel of death" doing it. (Don't try to justify it as being pharo's decry - your imaginary sky friend still did it)

ADDRESS THE FACT THAT YOUR SUPPOSEDLY LOVING GOD COMMITED GENOCIDE

You cannot deny it - you can only try and doublespeak your way out of it.  I jsut waisted ten minutes of my life replying to meaningless thoughtless doublespeak that shows an extremely high level of cognitive dissonance in you while trying to think about that.  However you hit a "thinking block" that doesn't allow you to actually think about anything in relation to your great emotional addiction.

-----------------------------------

beg your pardon, but did you really just accuse me of that?

I implicate your PEERs which there is more than enough evidence to implicate.  You are aiding an abbetting them - and are therefore accessory to the crime.

First of all, I am Canadian. I don't care a whit about the American constitution or what you guys do with it. Not my country, not my problem. I have better things to worry about.

So you don't care about freedom eh?  A loss of freedom anywhere is a loss of freedom everywhere

Second, I am not a fundamentalist.

Do you subscribe to a literal interpretation of the bible.  You seem to (and do a very poor job of interpreting)

If you do then you are a fundamentalist.

Third, fundamentalists are only one tiny fraction of Christianity, so don't equate the two. Just because they are vocal doesn't make them representative.

"One TINY" fraction my posterior region.  It is a very significant section, it is dominating it and is growing.  Furthermore I find anyone supporting thinking irrationally for your entire worldview as aiding and abetting the fundamentalists to a certain ammount.

However if you truely are not fundamentalist then they are a huge threat to you and you should be fighting against them tooth and nail

Fourth, not all fundamentalists think this way. In fact, I would suspect it is a few wackos with big mouths who are saying this, and the average fundamentalist Christian doesn't agree.

Incorrect - it is part of the definition of fundamentalism - due to the fact that they take a literal interpretation of the bible this behavior is mandated by their take on religion

Really, you should knock it off with the ad hominem attacks, Kazan. They don't accomplish anything except alienating the people who might otherwise want to support you.

Soemthing that is true is not an argumentum ad hominem - "You" in this situation was "You"="Christianity" - the fact that part of chrisitanity does that satisifies the condition that it is true.

Know the definition of a logical fallacy BEFORE you accuse someone of commiting it


-----------------------------------------


"The way you read it" is then a clear and total twisting of the words and actions - it is very CLEAR AND CONCISE that they commited genocide, whether they thought it justified or not.

What I think it says is based off professional literary and linguistic analysis rules.  


------------------------

"Yes. Of course. Your position is obviously more mature than any other potion.  Everyone's always is."

However - not everyone has psychology texts backing up that statement.  I DO

----------------


You don't find one because you're unwilling to admit that actions taken therein are genocide by attempting to unreasonable pigeonhole your definition of the word genocide.

Don't try to play semantices with me

[Bobboau]

nu-uh

[mikhael]

uh-huh!!

[Grey Wolf]

More random fun Judeo-Christian/Islamic facts: Angels did not originally have wings.