The Good, the Bad and God

[MJFlores]

That's totally false, and as usual notably vague.

When I asked you to show me how God ordered mass rape - you just went silent.
Until now you don't have an answer because you wanted to assume something that is simply not there. You simply froze and tried to weasel out by diverting attention. You chose to be quiet, demurrer - so to speak.
When that happens, I know my opponent has a hard time defending his charges.

So all your fuming and raging here was just an act? I'm pleased to hear that for your sake.

How can I be very emotional tying on my keyboard?
Its part of the game - even in basketball
But here, we are less physical.

I don't know what you mean by 'disclosing it'. There are millions, maybe billions, of copies of the bible around the world, and every one of them discloses it.

When the Bible records massacre, battle gore and sorts, what is written is written.
I can show it and I could provide pictures of it.

Personally I won't carry a sword and start it swinging at people

But you see no difficulty with God making invasive war for the benefit of [his] followers? War is fine with you if God does it? You remember the Bob Dylan song With God on Our Side?

What about the massacres? Them too?

With God On Our Side
Bob Dylan

Oh my name it ain't nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I was taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And that land that I live in
Has God on its side
Oh, the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh, the country was young
With God on its side
The Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War, too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
I was made to memorize
With guns in their hands
And God on their side
The First World War, boys
It came and it went
The reason for fighting
I never did get
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side
The Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave…

Great song but are Americans really with God on their side?
Really?

What I understand is before Jesus Christ was born, Israel had God on their side.
But it is not continuous, there are some periods of time when God hid his face because Israel sinned.
So it was an off and on relationship.

After Jesus Christ was born, died and raised by God to life to be taken up to heaven, it was a different thing.
It was a new covenant - it is no longer the nation of Israel but the Church founded by Jesus Christ which had God on their side. The church disappeared due to apostasy. It disappeared for a long time until the ends of the earth came and the reemergence of the church.

So America had God on their side?

Hard to tell...

Numbers 31:9-17 Massacres. My first post on your topic, I have mentioned that Israel is a rag tag nation with a rag tag army. They came out of Egypt as free slaves as their former skill set. Killing is not one of them. They had to be warriors in a short span of time to drive away 7 kingdoms occupying the land which God gave to Abraham. Basically these 7 kingdoms are SQUATTERS when they saw Jacob and his sons flee to Egypt because of the famine, opportunity presented itself for them to squat.

Squatting is the action of occupying an abandoned or unoccupied area of land or a building, usually residential, that the squatter does not own, rent or otherwise have lawful permission to use. Author Robert Neuwirth suggested in 2004 that there were one billion squatters globally. Wikipedia

These are kingdoms, not your ordinary run in the mill indigent squatters. They have armies, trained in the art of war and military tactics. Some of them are giants. What was the directive given by God to the Israelites?

Deuteronomy 7 New International Version (NIV)

When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girga$hite$, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you— and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

The Lord did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the Lord loved you and kept the oath he swore to your ancestors that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments. But

those who hate him he will repay to their face by destruction;
he will not be slow to repay to their face those who hate him.

Therefore, take care to follow the commands, decrees and laws I give you today.

If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the Lord your God will keep his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your ancestors. He will love you and bless you and increase your numbers. He will bless the fruit of your womb, the crops of your land—your grain, new wine and olive oil—the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks in the land he swore to your ancestors to give you. You will be blessed more than any other people; none of your men or women will be childless, nor will any of your livestock be without young. The Lord will keep you free from every disease. He will not inflict on you the horrible diseases you knew in Egypt, but he will inflict them on all who hate you. You must destroy all the peoples the Lord your God gives over to you. Do not look on them with pity and do not serve their gods, for that will be a snare to you.

You may say to yourselves, “These nations are stronger than we are. How can we drive them out?” But do not be afraid of them; remember well what the Lord your God did to Pharaoh and to all Egypt. You saw with your own eyes the great trials, the signs and wonders, the mighty hand and outstretched arm, with which the Lord your God brought you out. The Lord your God will do the same to all the peoples you now fear. Moreover, the Lord your God will send the hornet among them until even the survivors who hide from you have perished. Do not be terrified by them, for the Lord your God, who is among you, is a great and awesome God. The Lord your God will drive out those nations before you, little by little. You will not be allowed to eliminate them all at once, or the wild animals will multiply around you. But the Lord your God will deliver them over to you, throwing them into great confusion until they are destroyed. He will give their kings into your hand, and you will wipe out their names from under heaven. No one will be able to stand up against you; you will destroy them. The images of their gods you are to burn in the fire. Do not covet the silver and gold on them, and do not take it for yourselves, or you will be ensnared by it, for it is detestable to the Lord your God. Do not bring a detestable thing into your house or you, like it, will be set apart for destruction. Regard it as vile and utterly detest it, for it is set apart for destruction.

On Massacres - Is there a convention. law or set of rules set agreed to by the warring parties then that these acts are prohibited in war and are considered crimes against humanity?

Massacre - Wikipedia

Do you think computer hacking during the time of Israelites is a crime?
Do you think jay walking during the time of the Israelites is a punishable offense?
Do you think that cigarette smoking and vaping in public during the time of the Israelites is breaking an ordinance?
Do you think that a person should be jailed even there is no law condemning that person?

Nullum crimen sine lege is latin for "no crime without law."
Are you familiar with that?
Nulla poena sine lege - Wikipedia

There is to be no penalty without previous law.
This prohibits ex post facto laws, and the retroactive application of criminal law.

 

[blü 2]

When I asked you to show me how God ordered mass rape - you just went silent.

You have an unbelievably convenient memory. There is one explanation and I gave it to you several times.

As for unanswered questions, I asked if you thought copulation had taken place and if so whether you thought they were all consensual.

Not a peep out of you.

But I suppose you don't remember that either.

 

[MJFlores]

You have an unbelievably convenient memory. There is one explanation and I gave it to you several times.

As for unanswered questions, I asked if you thought copulation had taken place and if so whether you thought they were all consensual.

Not a peep out of you.

But I suppose you don't remember that either.

I have noted your explanation, it did not hold water either.
You assumed and would want to create a story despite your story wasn't written in the Bible.
It was like - what would happen if the Israelite takes a Midianite woman, do you think rape will not happen?
That would only come from a dirty mind. A worst assumption.
So I hollered again - prove it and you went blank - probably you realized that your assumption is just a figment of your imagination.

Call it out again and again - you were like....

 

[blü 2]

I have noted your explanation, it did not hold water either.

Now who's moving the goalposts? You said there'd been no explanation.

You assumed and would want to create a story despite your story wasn't written in the Bible.

I'd normally assume that such an untenable statement was a joke. However, by now I know better.

It was like - what would happen if the Israelite takes a Midianite woman, do you think rape will not happen?

A woman? These are all the virgins in the massacred population, enough to be 'shared out among yourselves' by the winning army.]

That would only come from a dirty mind. A worst assumption.

No, it would come from anyone with even the vaguest familiarity with history and with war.

And in the OP I gave 14 instances of atrocities attributed to God. You're the one who made this thread all about rape. And when answered you went on about rape. And when answered again you went on about rape. And here you are still going on about rape and trying to blame me for it.

Whereas I've continually pointed to your indifference to invasive war, support for slavery, massacre of populations, human sacrifice (or did you mention that too once?), religious intolerance, and so on through the rest of the OP list. They're only worth a perfunctory mumble from you, or no reply at all ─ if God does those things, that's all cool with you.

So I hollered again - prove it and you went blank

I replied, repeated and repeated. Only then did I stop repeating.

And you MUST have read it, because you repeated called me a liar for it ─ no, belay that, I 'm forgetting to take your hysteria into account.,


Oh, and you also said my replies gave you a good chuckle, but here you are, spitting and fuming and whining all over again. So it looks like your 'good chuckle' was an untrue report, merely a belittling tactic against what you couldn't and can't debate.


Oh, and you forgot to tell me whether copulations took place and whether they were all consensual. (Okay, I know you didn't forget, you ducked instead ─ just teasing.)

 

[Oeste]

I have continued to try to communicate the obvious to our good friend @MJFlores, most recently at #198 above. The idea that rape could be implicit has eluded him so far, but that's probably because he's distracted by the effort he puts into his visuals, so I haven't given up hope.

You made a rather slanderous accusation for which @MJFlores has continuously taken you to task, and this rightfully so. Both @1213 and @MJFlores have decimated your argument but you continuously insisted on inserting a rape narrative that was simply not there.

More on that later. Right now, let's address some other points:

And this, in your opinion, turned Jephthah into a robot?

I think the term is 'undue influence'.

So now, not only does the Spirit turn people into robots, it does this because it's influence is unwarranted or inappropriate!

Where do you get this nonsense from? You appear to be making this stuff up as you go along without any attempt at meaningful exegesis.

It seems to me this is simply argument arguendo, or "argument for the sake of argument" because you have yet to quote anything in scripture that would make such a premise defensible.

In short, it's an indefensible argument made only to insult or rile Christians on this board. The Spirit has a meritorious rather than "undue influence" all while allowing the recipient to retain free will.

Since fantastic claims require even more fantastic evidence, I leave it to you to provide evidence for your assertion. As of now, I consider the argument nothing more than nonsensical fodder that was thrown in to make a non-responsive reply.

So now we know that God will give you victory in battle in exchange for a suitable human sacrifice. Or at least back in Jephthah's day that was the case.

Nah, we simply know that Jephthah was prideful and stubborn as previously stated.

We also know Jephthah could have redeemed his daughter for 10 shekels, just as I pointed out on two separate occasions.

Leviticus 27:1–8 (ESV):

Laws About Vows

27 The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, If anyone makes a special vow to the LORD involving the valuation of persons, 3 then the valuation of a male from twenty years old up to sixty years old shall be fifty shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary. 4 If the person is a female, the valuation shall be thirty shekels. 5 If the person is from five years old up to twenty years old, the valuation shall be for a male twenty shekels, and for a female ten shekels. 6 If the person is from a month old up to five years old, the valuation shall be for a male five shekels of silver, and for a female the valuation shall be three shekels of silver. 7 And if the person is sixty years old or over, then the valuation for a male shall be fifteen shekels, and for a female ten shekels. 8 And if someone is too poor to pay the valuation, then he shall be made to stand before the priest, and the priest shall value him; the priest shall value him according to what the vower can afford.

But that's much later theology, and Christian, indeed Pauline, at that. Back in Jephthah's day, there was no concept of a soul (or if Samuel at Endor was a spirit, no coherent concept). Clarity doesn't come until Alexander brings Greek culture to that part of the world around 300 BCE. That's also where Christian ideas of soul, judgment, afterlife, come from. Until then, the dead were just dead (eg Job 12:7-8, Psalm 146:3, Ecclesiastes 3:18-21, Ecclesiastes 9:4-5) ─ though not always unambiguously so.

Modern Judaism focuses much on the here and now (Olam HaZeh), but Jewish afterlife or World to come (Olam Ha-Ba) has always been part of Judaism.

Isaiah 8:19:

"And when they will say to you consult the mediums, and the wizards who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?" (Isaiah 8:19)​

If the Jews didn't believe in ghosts there would be no need to admonish consultations with the dead, and this is long before the Greeks.

And what his death achieved that God could not have achieved better and more quickly with one snap of [his] omnipotent fingers

I find it absolutely bizarre for an irreligious skeptic to suggest a life of automation is somehow preferable to one of free will. As for the “one snap” thingy…that’s Thanos (named after the Greek god of death) and the Marvel universe. In that universe the gods are made in the image of man. In the real universe we are made in His.

I need to get the 'ten shekels' bit sorted out before I comment on this.

The quote is there. Take your time.

Really? I've read the chapter a number of times but I failed to notice that part.

Please quote it to me.

Leviticus 27:1-8. See above.

 

[Oeste]

It's VERY late (actually early in the morning) and again I find it difficult to devote as much time as I would like here, so I'll add my response against Blu's assertion that God ordered "mass rape".

First, it appears Blu has moved on from his earlier allegation and admits that there is no mention that God ordered "mass rape":

It does not say copulation will occur. But tell me, do you think that copulation will NOT occur as a result?

And is it your view that all such copulations as occur will be consensual?

That is a small progress on his part and I applaud him on that. But we now have a new goalpost, from rape to "potential" rape, or copulation. On top of that he sets another goalpost, called "consent":

Oh, really? You think these women were being offered a choice by the soldiers who'd just massacred their parents, siblings, relatives, friends and community?

I am not sure why he adds an additional "consent" or "choice" to female captives during an ancient era. As far as I know, there was very little female choice or consent with free women, much less captives. The husband took the wife, not the other way around. But even here his argument fails.

As @1213 has already pointed out, if a Jew want to have intercourse with a female captive he had to marry her first:

Marrying Female Captives

10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife." (Deut 21:10-13)

This was in the law, but why?

God put it in the law to protect female captives! The marriage requirement was a hedge to prevent female captives from being passed around like sexual chattel. If any "copulation" occurred, the captive had to be married.

However it's quite possible that Blu has evidence that war captives of Baal and Canaan were much better off than captives of Yahweh and the Jews. If so, I would be very interested in any of the rights, freedoms, and privileges Canaan offered to Jews or other captives.

In terms of woman's rights (consent & copulation), this would allow us to make an apple to apple comparison between ancient Israel and Canaan rather than the apple to orange comparison he attempted to make with ancient Israel and modern Western civilizations.

But wait wait wait!!!

What about all that wiping out of this people and that? Needless genocide isn't it? Well it is, but only if you're a skeptic. Remember Blu's response to @1213's response to eternal life:

If one chooses evil, unrighteous way, he doesn’t live eternally, but is free to live as he wants. It is freedom, but it is not eternal free life. And I really don’t see why evil people should have eternal life, because they would turn it to eternal suffering for all, if they would have it.

I don't think the idea of eternal life is helpful; but I'm wholly in favor of decency and respect and inclusion while we're here.

Therein lies the key. Blu does not believe in eternal life. It is this disbelief that makes it difficult for him to understand why God would order the execution of a whole people.

The difference here is that it is GOD who is ordering the Jews to slay, not the Jews. As such, it is GOD pronouncing direct JUDGEMENT upon the city-states of Canaan. However God is fair and just. He does not convict you for the same crime twice. That's why Jesus could say it would be better for the inhabitant of Sodom and Gomorrah than it would be for some Jews on the Day of Judgement. This makes sense if you know God can raise from the dead, but makes little sense if you don't believe in God at all.

It's late...good night (or more like good morning) and I'll post back when I can. This has been an enjoyable and fun thread.

​

 

[blü 2]

You made a rather slanderous accusation for which @MJFlores has continuously taken you to task, and this rightfully so. Both @1213 and @MJFlores have decimated your argument but you continuously insisted on inserting a rape narrative that was simply not there.

You haven't put a scratch on my argument. You've simply tried to shout it down.

Let me ask you the same question I asked our friend MJFlores.

Is it your view that no copulation followed when the men of Moses' army did as he commanded and divided the virgins between them? Or do you think, yes of course copulations followed. And in that case, is it your view that each of those copulations occurred as the free choice of the relevant virgin? If not, what would you think the percentage of such free choices would be across the range? Bearing in mind these soldiers have just massacred their families and tribes?

So now, not only does the Spirit turn people into robots, it does this because it's influence is unwarranted or inappropriate!

What are you talking about? If it's based on something I posted, please quote it.

In short, it's an indefensible argument made only to insult or rile Christians on this board.

If you're referring to the OP, it's a perfectly valid question for the debate boards here.

Since the bible attributes the atrocities set out in the OP to God (now the Christian god), why aren't these atrocities taken into account when talking of God's morality?

As I understand it, many Christians say God is morally perfect. It seems fair to point out that if the bible is an accurate reporter, moral perfection allows invasive war, massacre of populations, mass rape, human sacrifice, slavery, murder, religious intolerance and more.

Whereas I find all of those things morally vile.

And I suspect you do too, but you think it would be somehow disloyal to say so out loud.

Since fantastic claims require even more fantastic evidence, I leave it to you to provide evidence for your assertion.

What assertion?

Leviticus 27:1–8 (ESV):27 The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, If anyone makes a special vow to the LORD involving the valuation of persons, 3 then the valuation of a male from twenty years old up to sixty years old shall be fifty shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary. 4 If the person is a female, the valuation shall be thirty shekels. 5 If the person is from five years old up to twenty years old, the valuation shall be for a male twenty shekels, and for a female ten shekels. 6 If the person is from a month old up to five years old, the valuation shall be for a male five shekels of silver, and for a female the valuation shall be three shekels of silver. 7 And if the person is sixty years old or over, then the valuation for a male shall be fifteen shekels, and for a female ten shekels. 8 And if someone is too poor to pay the valuation, then he shall be made to stand before the priest, and the priest shall value him; the priest shall value him according to what the vower can afford.

It's not clear from the text that you pay to be released from the vow. It can equally be read that you pay to enter into the vow. But assuming the former, the story is completely silent as to why Jephthah didn't avail himself of it, nor why none of his friends mentioned the rule. Considering his reported regret that his daughter was forfeit, my best guess is that he'd never heard of it. Since God would have known of Jephthah's ignorance, it's hard to escape the conclusion that God decided to leave him in the dark so the sacrifice could go ahead.

If the Jews didn't believe in ghosts there would be no need to admonish consultations with the dead, and this is long before the Greeks.

Believing in ghosts is not the same thing as believing in souls. Believing in resurrection is not the same thing as believing in souls.

But it's not my position that the idea of souls was unknown; only that early on the idea that death is the end is more clearly attested.

I find it absolutely bizarre for an irreligious skeptic to suggest a life of automation is somehow preferable to one of free will.

There's theological freewill, which is impossible if God is omnipotent, omniscient &c ─ in such a case God perfectly foresaw this conversation, every letter and punctuation mark of it, before [he] made the universe (hence made the universe intending this conversation to happen exactly in this form), and no one can deviate from what [he] perfectly foresaw, not even by the width of a quark.

And then there's scientific freewill, the observation that dualism is unevidenced and incoherent, and that the biology of the brain (and body) explains thought, conscience, creativity, memory, speech, reflex action and so on, as a great and growing amount of evidence says. The only apparent chink in that proposition would be if, as QM presently states, events happen at the quantum level that are authentically random, are not produced in the course of chains of cause+effect; and that these events are capable of interrupting the complex and interacting chains of cause+effect in the brain. That wouldn't lead to free will, of course, but it would interrupt strict determinism.

As for the “one snap” thingy…that’s Thanos (named after the Greek god of death) and the Marvel universe. In that universe the gods are made in the image of man. In the real universe we are made in His.

Let the record show that you said the Marvel heroes can do what God can't.

If you're omnipotent, you can do magic ─ alter reality independently of the rules of reality, usually just by wishing. When God says "Let there be light!" (or, more strictly translated, cries "Light!") light magically appears. Since real things are said to have pre-existed this command, and that necessarily entails the EM spectrum, I hypothesize [he] meant light in the visible spectrum. And then I wonder by what physical process light was brought into being just because a word was spoken. (The silence on such points is why saying "God did it" is never an explanation ─ we need to understand how God did it.)

 

[blü 2]

First, it appears Blu has moved on from his earlier allegation and admits that there is no mention that God ordered "mass rape":

I haven't moved an inch. It's a description of mass rape.

But we now have a new goalpost, from rape to "potential" rape, or copulation. On top of that he sets another goalpost, called "consent":

Because lack of consent is what constitutes rape, of course. Sheesh!

I am not sure why he adds an additional "consent" or "choice" to female captives during an ancient era. As far as I know, there was very little female choice or consent with free women, much less captives.

You're saying that rape was normal and consent was exceptional.

So what on earth are we arguing about?

 

[MJFlores]

A woman? These are all the virgins in the massacred population, enough to be 'shared out among yourselves' by the winning army.]

You assumed that these women would be passed around by the winning army. See?

Now let me assume. These Midianite virgins have arm pit hairs and pungent body odors so nobody, but nobody in their right mental faculties would rape them - how about that for an assumption?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You assumed that these women would be passed around by the winning army. See?

Now let me assume. These Midianite virgins have arm pit hairs and pungent body odors so nobody, but nobody in their right mental faculties would rape them - how about that for an assumption?

 

[blü 2]

You assumed that these women would be passed around by the winning army. See?

I didn't say passed around. That's your idea.

Now let me assume. These Midianite virgins have arm pit hairs and pungent body odors so nobody, but nobody in their right mental faculties would rape them - how about that for an assumption?

It says a great deal about you.

 

[MJFlores]

I didn't say passed around. That's your idea.
It says a great deal about you.

 

[blü 2]

QUOTE] Nothing to assume. Your statement said it all.

 

[MJFlores]

John 8:44 Religious intolerance– Jesus says to the Jews, “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning ... he is a liar and the father of lies.”

Saying to the Jews, "Your father is the devil" is not religious intolerance.
Jesus only told the truth.
What can he do when they are really the devil's children?

John 8:41-51 New International Version (NIV)

You are doing the works of your own father.”

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?”

“I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.”

Examining what Jesus said and what the Jews said - we can evaluate who is telling the truth.

1. Jesus said the devil and devil's children love to lie and unable to tell the truth.
2. The Jews said Jesus is a Samaritan and demon possessed.

Actually the original post is a bunch of lies, so ....

 

[blü 2]

Actually the original post is a bunch of lies, so ....

So I was right ─ when you can't mount a reasoned argument you resort to the 'liar' word.

And since the OP consists of quotes, and references to quotes, from the bible, I take it you're calling the various authors liars ─ or are you saying God wrote it and God's the liar you have in mind?

 

[Kenny]

If I may, where's that quote about everlasting life and everlasting abhorrence from?

That STILL sounds like the resurrection concept to me. In this version, you don't die, but you exist in a bodily form. I agree there are clues to a soul concept about the place, but the substantial early statements are about death being the end.

Though, as I understand it, ruach means 'breath' and the ruach is the spirit of God, a manifestation of the Jewish monogod, not a distinct entity. I assume the Holy Ghost inherited that mantle. Breath is also mentioned in that Ecclesiastes quote, is pneuma in Greek, and is spiritus in Latin, making it the basis of the concept of a living element that's distinct from the body.

The quote was the verse that I quoted from Daniel:
Daniel 12:2
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Yes... ruach is 'breath' but soul, though there are different words, is nephesh.

Strongs defines it as :

1. that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man
2. living being
3. living being (with life in the blood)
4. the man himself, self, person or individual
5. seat of the appetites
6. seat of emotions and passions
7. activity of mind
   1. dubious
8. activity of the will
   1. dubious
9. activity of the character
   1. dubious

But the point here is just that "soul" wasn't a "Greek" understanding although they may have added to it.

I think King David made the distinction in Psalms 103: Oh soul and all that is within me, bless the name of the Lord..

Not body, but soul -- separating the two.

They can resurrect because, as with Adam, God breathes life (back) into them. I can't think of any clear statement to that effect, but that's what happened in those three resurrections in Kings 1 & 2 I mentioned ─ then you add the idea that this time it's for keeps. And it's not too far from Paul's 'incorruptible body', though that's later than we're talking about.

Yes... but in those instances it is back into their natural bodies... not everlasting. I don't think, in this case, we are just talking about apples but rather the proverbial "apples and oranges".

It depends on the word being translated, and the translator, I guess. You'll have noticed that the Trinity concept, which isn't found in the bible, nonetheless often leads translators to translate so as not to deny the idea. (This is where I should have kept notes when I noticed them.)

That is true... but we aren't referencing NT - Godhead Trinity concept after the Greeks but soul before the Greeks.

I should indeed make more enquiries than I do about the Jewish view of various parts of the Tanakh. I know they don't think the Garden story is about the Fall of Man for instance, and if you read it, you'll see they're right. And if you're Jewish it must be annoying to be told that Jesus is prophesied in eg Isaiah 7, when that's obviously about a particular past time and place, or to be told the Suffering Servant is Jesus when it's the nation of Israel &c &c. Because I'm interested in what the text says, I side with the Jewish view of those matters thus against the Christians, starting with the author of Mark and the full-bloom confabulating of Matthew and Luke (inventing the nativity yarns with utter disregard for history &c). (I don't say that in order to offend, but to affirm I think it's correct.) But you're right, one day I should go more a little more deeply into Jewish theology.

I'm not sure why we are changing subjects here, though good as they may be... a different thread could be in order?

 

[halbhh]

A Jewish belief in the afterlife in ancient times is hard to demonstrate. The only early example, and a problematic one, I can think of is Saul consulting the woman of Endor who calls up the dead 'Samuel' as an apparently sentient spirit. The resurrections of the Zarapath woman's son (1 Kings 17:17+), the Shunammite woman's son (2 Kings 4:32+), and the man whose corpse touched Elisha's bones (2 Kings 13:21) are just that, coming-back-to-life.

Instead we find ─

Job 14:10 But man dies, and is laid low; man breathes his last, and where is he? 11 As waters fail from a lake, and a river wastes away and dries up,12 so man lies down and rises not again; till the heavens are no more he will not awake, or be roused out of his sleep.

Psalm 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help. 4 When his breath departs he returns to his earth; on that very day his plans perish.

Ecclesiastes 3:18 I said in my heart with regard to the sons of men that God is testing them to show them that they are but beasts. 19 For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts; for all is vanity. 20 All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. 21 Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down to the earth?

Ecclesiastes 9:4 But he who is joined with all the living has hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion. 5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward; but the memory of them is lost.​

Jewish ideas about a soul are from the Greeks, following Alexander's conquests around 300 BCE, (Christian ideas of soul, judgment, afterlife, are also essentially Greek.)

So I don't think we can with any confidence attribute ideas of the immortality of the soul to the authors of the early Tanakh.

Blu 2 - a question to you below.

A full reading in the old testament gives more than only the view of an individual at a moment in time.... Reading for the entirety of all that is in the books, instead of the error of only trying to see an idea (which blinds the reader).

With full reading, we soon learn eternal life is repeatedly talked of the in the books:

Isa 26:19 "But your dead will live, LORD; their bodies will rise— let those who dwell in the dust wake up and shout for joy— your dew is like the dew of the morning; the earth will give birth to her dead."

Dan 12:1-3 “At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book— will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.”

And so on.

Notice the difference between a view at a moment in time from one person, such as Job in distress as you quoted above, vs the overall message delivered repeatedly in scripture.


10For all can see that the wise die,
that the foolish and the senseless also perish,
leaving their wealth to others.

11Their tombs will remain their houses b forever,
their dwellings for endless generations,
though they had c named lands after themselves.

12People, despite their wealth, do not endure;
they are like the beasts that perish.
13This is the fate of those who trust in themselves,
and of their followers, who approve their sayings. d

14They are like sheep and are destined to die;
death will be their shepherd
(but the upright will prevail over them in the morning).
Their forms will decay in the grave,
far from their princely mansions.

15 But God will redeem me from the realm of the dead;
he will surely take me to himself.

Psalm 49 NIV


So, here's a question for you

Blu 2 -- When you find out you are mistaken, do you change your view?

?

 

[halbhh]

Either God knows what's going to happen or God doesn't know what's going to happen.

If theological free will works as you suggest, then God doesn't know what's going to happen, can't foretell human history, is incapable of prophecy because of that ignorance.
No, it's from Latin omnis 'all, everything' and scire 'to know'. The claim, therefore, is that God knows everything, not just the present and the past. The same applies to 'omnipresent' ─ if God is omnipresent then God is there not just in the past and the present but the future as well.

And if God is omnipotent ('all-powerful') then even if God isn't omniscient or omnipresent in the future right now, [he] being omnipotent can instantly make [him]self so at will.
If you mean that an omnipotent omniscient god must ultimately be responsible for everything that ever happens, then I completely agree. No human (for example) can ever deviate even by the breadth of a quark from what God perfectly foresaw before [he] made the universe, and everything that ever happens in the universe is exactly and only as [he] perfectly intended.

So the omni-god model has major problems, which it seems fashionable to ignore or for which workarounds have to be invented.

Simply, Christ answers why only some will find heaven -- it is in part one's own personal choice -- whether we listen to Him and do as He says:

12“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

13“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few....

21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. ... 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

24“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”
Matthew 7 ESV

As you can see, this is a humble road: to listen to Christ as being wiser/better/smarter than we are, and to follow and do as He says. Not all are willing to be humble. It's just as I quoted to you above already:

" God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble."

 

[blü 2]

The quote was the verse that I quoted from Daniel:
Daniel 12:2
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Yes... ruach is 'breath' but soul, though there are different words, is nephesh.

Strongs defines it as :

1. that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man
2. living being
3. living being (with life in the blood)
4. the man himself, self, person or individual
5. seat of the appetites
6. seat of emotions and passions
7. activity of mind
   1. dubious
8. activity of the will
   1. dubious
9. activity of the character
   1. dubious

But the point here is just that "soul" wasn't a "Greek" understanding although they may have added to it.

I think King David made the distinction in Psalms 103: Oh soul and all that is within me, bless the name of the Lord..

Not body, but soul -- separating the two.

Hmm. My reaction is that Strong's

1. seat of the appetites
2. seat of emotions and passions

are a better fit here.

Yes... but in those instances it is back into their natural bodies... not everlasting.

Indeed, as with Lazarus &c. But it occurs to me that my own thinking has been sloppy, in that so far I haven't given a firm definition of what I mean by soul. So ...

Miriam-Webster relevantly says
[1] : the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life
[2] : the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe

Shorter Oxford:
[3] : The principle of life in man or animals
[4] : the principle of thought and action in man, commonly regarded as an entity distinct from the body
[5] : the spiritual part of man as distinct from the physical body.

Collins
[6] : the spirit or immaterial part of man
[7] : the seat of human personality, intellect, will and emotions, regarded as an entity that survives the body after death

And of those, the last one, [7], is closest to what I'm talking about.

I welcome your comments here, because it may be that at certain points we've been talking past each other.

That is true... but we aren't referencing NT - Godhead Trinity concept after the Greeks but soul before the Greeks.

D'accord.

I'm not sure why we are changing subjects here, though good as they may be... a different thread could be in order?

Mea culpa, I was thinking out loud ─ rambling, is another word for it.

 

[Oeste]

You haven't put a scratch on my argument. You've simply tried to shout it down.

Your assertion that God is vile and orders mass rape was incendiary Blu. Of course it's going to be shouted down. Compare such a statement to this one:

s it your view that no copulation followed when the men of Moses' army did as he commanded and divided the virgins between them? Or do you think, yes of course copulations followed.

The latter question is EXCELLENT and promotes discussion. The former, which appear to be something swiped from an anti- Judaeo-Christian site, is simply inflammatory.

I'll discuss you second question later, perhaps tomorrow or if I have time (doubtful) tonight.

What puzzles me immediately is the rationale behind such arguments. Are not the irreligious interested in adding to their ranks? How do you do that when you so effortlessly coalesce normally warring theological parties into a unified whole?

I think the term is 'undue influence'.

So now, not only does the Spirit turn people into robots, it does this because it's influence is unwarranted or inappropriate!

What are you talking about? If it's based on something I posted, please quote it.

See above. "Undue influence" is an unwarranted or inappropriate influence.

Since the bible attributes the atrocities set out in the OP to God (now the Christian god), why aren't these atrocities taken into account when talking of God's morality?

No, no... it's Blü that attributes atrocities to God, not the bible. Let's not confuse the two!

As @KenS stated in post 20, the OP is Christophobia and Tanakaphobia rolled into one.

It's not clear from the text that you pay to be released from the vow. It can equally be read that you pay to enter into the vow. But assuming the former, the story is completely silent as to why Jephthah didn't avail himself of it, nor why none of his friends mentioned the rule. Considering his reported regret that his daughter was forfeit, my best guess is that he'd never heard of it. Since God would have known of Jephthah's ignorance, it's hard to escape the conclusion that God decided to leave him in the dark so the sacrifice could go ahead.

As stated previously I find it hard to believe Jephthah, a Judge of Israel, had no knowledge of the law and that no one around him had knowledge either.

And you stretch such arguments to incredulity when you allege that somehow silence by God is permission by God. By that reasoning, falling down and worshiping the golden calf was fine with God because He didn't say anything at the time.

But it's not my position that the idea of souls was unknown; only that early on the idea that death is the end is more clearly attested.

I will agree that it's the end of any earthly plans we have.

There's theological freewill, which is impossible if God is omnipotent, omniscient &c ─ in such a case God perfectly foresaw this conversation, every letter and punctuation mark of it, before [he] made the universe (hence made the universe intending this conversation to happen exactly in this form), and no one can deviate from what [he] perfectly foresaw, not even by the width of a quark.

I'm not following this Blu. God foresees our plans and simply allows for it. His plans come to fruition despite any plan we make to the contrary.

And if He created, as some models suggest, a multiverse of infinite parallelisms, then He has allowed every possible combination of plan that could be made to be made...and yet His plan for us will still come to fruition.

In any event, you have theological free will...the ability to believe what you wish to believe, even though God is omnipotent and omniscient.

Because lack of consent is what constitutes rape, of course. Sheesh!

In ancient cultures, consent did not come from the woman...it came from the father. It was dad that gave consent for the daughter to be married.

Under your premise of female consent, married Jewish women were being raped by their husbands because they were taken and hadn't consented to marriage.

It was a different time and a different culture.

You're saying that rape was normal and consent was exceptional.

No, I'm saying that it was normal for a woman to be taken in marriage regardless of whether she consented to the marriage or not. That constitutes a different time and culture, not a rape.

And yes, female consent was exceptional rather than the rule. The brides price was paid to the father of the bride. As such, allowing a woman to marry whomever she wished (such as her poor neighbor's son) could prove financially costly to the bridal family.