Accuracy of the Bible

[rojse]

It was merely an example, clearly you missed the point. Try reading the post again and responding with something worth addresssing.

You said it was a baby, not a fetus without understanding what you were saying.

I do have an understanding of what you were saying. You want to try and confuse the tags of baby and foetus, when they are clearly different.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That's funny. I was raised to love the Tanakh and did--until I read it.

You don't find a problem with this sort of commandment:

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

I'd say if you don't find that hateful, the mind is a powerful thing.

And even in that verse there is another level is human disrespect shown...How would the men know if the woman was a virgin or not unless he forced her legs open and........._________________(You fill in the rest)...:no:

 

[TheKnight]

And even in that verse there is another level is human disrespect shown...How would the men know if the woman was a virgin or not unless he forced her legs open and........._________________(You fill in the rest)...:no:

He could, oh I don't know, ask? And Rashi answers that question anyways:

They passed them all in front of the showplate, and the faces of those capable of intercourse turned green.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

it is posts like this that make me wish we had a "climbing into boat" smiley.

Here ya go...
http://sick-of-misery.deviantart.com/art/Noah-s-Ark-2min14sec-59010824

 

[Humanistheart]

I do have an understanding of what you were saying. You want to try and confuse the tags of baby and foetus, when they are clearly different.

If they were different then surely you'd be able to list some evidence of justitification for your claim.

 

[Humanistheart]

God's opinion matters over others because He is the initiator, owner, and ruler of all that is. If He is the one in control of disseminating life, then it is up to Him when and how that life dissemination is ceased..

The bible idicates the earth was given to humans. The earth then would be ours. Bleievers often liken life to a gift from god. A gift. So again, it would be ours. Plus if it really is only god's to give and take then all the people who die in genocides, car accidents, rape/homicides and the like can be attributing to god planning them to die that way. That's messed up.

Put it another way though. If I was some super genious living 100 years from now, I fashion new living cells from innatimate material, and develope a new sentient race would that mean because I created them that whatever I decided was right and wrong they must accept? I should think not, yet that's what your proposing.

That's assuming that morality is external to God. It isn't. God is the definer of morality because He is the Creator of all that exists.

The 'creator' claim carries no weight unless you can offer a reason for it to. Can you? And even if you could you'd then also have to acknowledge that if god makes a rule, he must follow it as well, but doesn't. So even if morality was defined by god we could at the very least call this being immoral. Plus there's no reason to think this god exists. And so on and so on.

 

[logician]

As much of the Xian bible is fiction, it's accuracy should not be of importance.

 

[TheKnight]

The bible idicates the earth was given to humans.

Really? Where does it indicate that?

The earth then would be ours. Bleievers often liken life to a gift from god. A gift. So again, it would be ours.

Life is something that is sustained by God. He gives it to us for free and can take it from us when He so desires. I wouldn't necessarily say it's something of ours that we own. It's like the water company letting have water for free. But then one day deciding to turn it off.

Plus if it really is only god's to give and take then all the people who die in genocides, car accidents, rape/homicides and the like can be attributing to god planning them to die that way. That's messed up.

All deaths are "caused", in a sense, by God.

Put it another way though. If I was some super genious living 100 years from now, I fashion new living cells from innatimate material, and develope a new sentient race would that mean because I created them that whatever I decided was right and wrong they must accept? I should think not, yet that's what your proposing.

If you created them from nothing. If you created them completely out of non-existence then yes, you could do whatever you wanted with them.

The 'creator' claim carries no weight unless you can offer a reason for it to. Can you?

A reason for it to? He owns it.

And even if you could you'd then also have to acknowledge that if god makes a rule, he must follow it as well, but doesn't.

God makes rules for us. He is not bound by anything.

So even if morality was defined by god we could at the very least call this being immoral.

Not at all. God is not limited by the moral rules that He sets for us. The fact that He is sovereign over that which He creates gives Him the power to do what He wants with it.

Imagine it like this: Suppose you have a bunch of toys that require batteries to operate. Once you're done with the toy, you take out the batteries. That is, essentially, what death is like. People need a flow of life that comes from God in order to live. At a certain point, a person's flow of life is cut off and their body dies (their soul still lives on).

 

[Dirty Penguin]

He could, oh I don't know, ask? An

No problem if that's your take on it but to me it doesn't appear that it happened that way unless I've missed a verse somewhere......

 

[TheKnight]

No problem if that's your take on it but to me it doesn't appear that it happened that way unless I've missed a verse somewhere......

It doesn't say how it happened. Which means that when you ask "How did they make that determination?" the appropriate answer is "I don't know."

To assume that they pried their legs open and.... is to make an assumption off of predisposed ideas. If we're using our brains to read, however, we cannot come to a conclusion as to how they knew they were capable of having sex unless we have extra information (which the Oral Tradition provides).

 

[Humanistheart]

Really? Where does it indicate that?

Gen.

Life is something that is sustained by God.

Prove it.

He gives it to us for free and can take it from us when He so desires.

If you give something you can't ethically take it back. Indian giver.

I wouldn't necessarily say it's something of ours that we own.

You JUST said he GIVES it to us. Water and killing someone are no where near the same thing, poor analogy.

All deaths are "caused", in a sense, by God.

This isn't helping defend you position.

If you created them from nothing. If you created them completely out of non-existence then yes, you could do whatever you wanted with them.

Your discribing slavery. Also, creating is creating, regaurdless of the material used. I see no reason to think your qualifier makes a differnce.

God makes rules for us. He is not bound by anything.

That's called a tyrant. Our legal system and other government institues makes rules for us to, this doesn't allow them to bypass the same rules now does it?

Not at all. God is not limited by the moral rules that He sets for us. The fact that He is sovereign over that which He creates gives Him the power to do what He wants with it.

If he was real then yes, he would have the power to do so. But in this you are argueing that might makes right. You're essentially saying that all the many genocides and holocausts, like the jewish holocaust was morally right because hitler had the power to make it happen.

God can do what he wants to a sentient species. He can rape, kill, torture, abuse, etc etc and it's okay in your mind. It's a little disturbing that your actually attempting justify this.

Imagine it like this: Suppose you have a bunch of toys that require batteries to operate. Once you're done with the toy, you take out the batteries. That is, essentially, what death is like. People need a flow of life that comes from God in order to live. At a certain point, a person's flow of life is cut off and their body dies (their soul still lives on).

No, we need chemical energy sustianed by food intake. I suppose one could liken your example to old age (batteries wearing out) but we were discussing the killing of infants, not the elderly so it's not an apt example.

 

[TheKnight]

Gen.

Really? Where?

Prove it.

Proving it isn't relevant to this situation. If God commanded the Israelites to commit genocide, then in the context of the book it is because He is the sustenance of all that exists.

If you give something you can't ethically take it back. Indian giver.

See it like this. Life is a gym. And everyone alive has a free gym membership provided for by the gym owner. The gym has rules. Violate the rules and you get kicked out of the gym. Sure, maybe the owner of the gym wouldn't kick you out directly, but his security people would.

Guess what, if mommy gets kicked out, then so does baby.

You JUST said he GIVES it to us. Water and killing someone are no where near the same thing, poor analogy.

See gym membership analogy.

This isn't helping defend your position.

I don't see it as a position needing defending really.

Your discribing slavery. Also, creating is creating, regaurdless of the material used. I see no reason to think your qualifier makes a differnce.

Eh, your probably right about the qualifier.

Slavery is not immoral. We just don't like it.

That's called a tyrant.

And?

Our legal system and other government institues makes rules for us to, this doesn't allow them to bypass the same rules now does it?

The people that comprise our government aren't above us in the way that God is superior to us.

If he was real then yes, he would have the power to do so. But in this you are argueing that might makes right. You're essentially saying that all the many genocides and holocausts, like the jewish holocaust was morally right because hitler had the power to make it happen.

God can do what he wants to a sentient species. He can rape, kill, torture, abuse, etc etc and it's okay in your mind. It's a little disturbing that your actually attempting justify this.

Might doesn't make right. Ownership makes right. God owns everything He creates. Hitler did not own the Jews. Those who commit crimes against others do not own them. No human being can own another because no human being is above another (status-wise).

No, we need chemical energy sustianed by food intake. I suppose one could liken your example to old age (batteries wearing out) but we were discussing the killing of infants, not the elderly so it's not an apt example.

I didn't say the batteries wearing out. I said you took them out. Suppose you just bought the toy, put in a fresh pack of batteries. And after a couple of hours of play decided that you'd prefer to use those batteries for the remote. The toy, an infant per se, is now dead because you removed that which allowed it to be animated.

 

[rojse]

If they were different then surely you'd be able to list some evidence of justitification for your claim.

How about basic dictionary definitions? Would this be enough?

From Biology Online:

A developing unborn offspring of an animal that gives birth to its young.

I have taken the liberty of highlighting the two important words here that separate a foetus from a baby.

 

[linwood]

.... Historical accuracy is relatively unimportant

But it`s historical relevancy isn`t unimportant...

-- as we understand it today, since the writers were not largely writing history text books or news articles. What history was written was of a completely different literary nature, compatible with other historical writings of the time. In that sense, the compatibility counts for more than the factual accuracy in the exegetical process.

...as you obviously understand.



Well said Sojourner

 

[Autodidact]

God commanded the Israelites to end lives that He was responsible for. In essence, God was ending those peoples lives and the Israelites were commanded to be the agents of God's action.

That's right. Even if you accept that the OT is accurate (extremely dubious) then at best, as agents for God, they were commanded to slaughter innocent babies that never hurt anyone. I can't think of anything more immoral than that, can you?

A person should only be killed if commanded by God.

And how can a person ever be sure that God (1) exists (2) is Whom she thinks He is (3) so commanded?

And what kind of God commands people to stab babies to death because their great-grandparents offered your great-grandparents a BLT?

I don't call it anything because I don't know what it is that that soldier is doing with her. He might want to have her marry his sons, he might want to adopt her as a daughter, he might want her to be a servant, he might want her to marry him.

(1) is sexual slavery. (2) He only adopts virgins? (3) Is he allowed to have sex with his female servants? (4) is sexual slavery. (Unless she has the right to refuse him. Does she? Can she say "No, I don't love you, you just killed my father, uncle, cousin and baby brother," and go free--and live?

What he does isn't relevant. The fact that he is allowed to take her into his custody does not mean that he can do whatever he wants to her. He is still subject to Jewish law which forbids rape, murder, and brutality to other human beings.

Let us count the many ways you've contradicted yourself so far. You can slaughter gentile babies, in fact, you must, whenever God commands it, but you're prohibited from brutality against other human beings? Why, aren't gentiles human? Or don't you consider running a baby through with your sword to be brutal? If throwing a newborn baby on the ground and sticking your sword into it isn't murder, what is?

God does not frequently order the death of babies (unless you consider everyday deaths a result of God's ordering--which you could probably make an argument for).

Would you like me to cite all the times in the Tanakh that He does? You're wrong. Have you even read it?

The death of people is unfortunate.

And murder is reprensible. We're not talking about little babies who just didn't live, we're talking about a God who orders soldiers to slaughter them.

The fact that a person is younger than another person doesn't necessarily make their death any more tragic.

Well, depends on whether you're their mother or not. What it does is make it perfectly clear that it has nothing to do with any evil they committed, because newborn babies can't do evil. It demonstrates how utterly barbaric and bloodthirsty your so-called morals are.

Perhaps a problem with our society is that we are OK with some deaths and not OK with others. For you, the death of a baby is some sort of horrific event whereas the death of an adult doesn't bother you as much. You should be just as bothered by both in my opinion. People are still people. Whether they be wicked or righteous. And the death of said people, creations of God, should sadden us all.

Don't jump to conclusions. The point is NOT that babies are more valuable, but more innocent.

You can get away with slandering innocent Midianites and calling them wicked for not worshipping your God, but you can't even try that with poor little Midianite (Amalekite, Mulekite, Iraqi, Bosnian, Hutu, Japanese...) babies. That's the point.

Good try and evading it.

Now why not just come out and own your morality: You think killing babies and other innocent people is fine whenever God orders it, and that's your moral code. It doesn't matter whether they did anything wrong, all that matters is that God told you to. That's good enough for you.

Now tell us how a person could ever know it was God commanding it.

Let's use Andrea Yates as an example. Do you know who that is?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That's right. Even if you accept that the OT is accurate (extremely dubious) then at best, as agents for God, they were commanded to slaughter innocent babies that never hurt anyone. I can't think of anything more immoral than that, can you?


And what kind of God commands people to stab babies to death because their great-grandparents offered your great-grandparents a BLT?

:tsk:.............It's all good now because "God"...changed the rule...(see. Eze. 18:20)

 

[Autodidact]

So Knight, let's take the 9/11 terrorists. God commanded them to take down the towers. Their actions were:
(1) right
(2) wrong
(3) other?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Most who read the Bible with predisposed hatreds come to that conclusion. One who is hateful and wishes to see hatred in that which is not hateful will see it there. The mind is a powerful thing.

Now, now...be nice.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

And you see nothing to support the view that the OT does contain a lot of hatred? God commanding armies to sack cities, kill the inhabitants, and keep the women for themselves? God creating a worldwide flood to drown the sinful? The entirety of Leviticus, for example?

Since when is the satisfying of law deemed hateful?

 

[Humanistheart]

How about basic dictionary definitions? Would this be enough?

From Biology Online:



I have taken the liberty of highlighting the two important words here that separate a foetus from a baby.

I assume that's meant to be a definition of either baby or infant, or perhaps fetus. See the problem here rojse is you didn't list the word or words your trying to define. Try again.