CMike
Well-Known Member
:no:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The OT = UGH
- Thread starter dgirl1986
- Start date
:no:
dgirl1986
Big Queer Chesticles!
Yeah it looks like its full of morality *sarcasm*
I know nothing of the Torah. I speak about the Old Testament in the Holy Bible, the christian text. Yes, I do know the first lot of books are from the Torah but I am talking about the bible.
CMike
Well-Known Member
You are absolutely right :yes:
If you want to compare the morality of religions, should we discuss the tens of thousands of people tortured and burned at the stake by the church?
Shermana
Heretic
Okay, so you're NOT reading it in the intended context. Got it.
dgirl1986
Big Queer Chesticles!
Not sure what there is to discuss other than the fact it was horrific and based on fear.
dgirl1986
Big Queer Chesticles!
Christians in my experience.
I'm saying the vedas and the OT should not be accepted as the truth just because it's part of those traditions. We should think and experience ourselves and determine what we believe. These, like all documents should be considered fairly.
I think that's only true for a shrinking number of Christians as modernity is changing the face of Christianity. The more conservative fundamentalist sector is the shrinking island that gets too much attention here.
Levite
Higher and Higher
It might be worth noting that, first of all, Christians generally do not read the Hebrew Bible correctly, as they read it purely in translation (often poor translation), and they read it literally, and in the absence of the Oral Torah, through which it is meant to be understood; and in any case, it was written for Jews by Jews, not for non-Jews.
Not everything-- perhaps a great many things-- in the Hebrew Bible are not meant to be taken literally. The Rabbis of the Talmud tell us dibra Torah ki'leshon b'nai adam "The Torah [meaning the entire Tanach] speaks after the fashion of human speech;" which is to say, using metaphor, poetic imagery, exaggeration or hyperbole for dramatic purposes, idioms, and other literary devices.
And this is not even to mention the fact that, most if not all of the Hebrew Bible was written by people who lived over 2500 years ago in a cultural context vastly different from our own. Even if much or part of what they wrote was inspired by revelation, it is still revelation seen through the eyes and written through the cultural biases and norms of the Ancient Near East two and a half millennia ago. It cannot just be read at the most literal level, in the most simplistic way, without Oral Torah, without interpretive commentary, and still be useful as practical sacred text.
Also, the Hebrew Bible represent a canon of texts written over the course of around a thousand years. Style, agenda, theology, and many other aspects of the texts change over the course of that time. The theology of E-text Genesis, for example, has striking differences with Deuteronomy, far starker differences with Isaiah or Jeremiah, and even sharper differences with Job or Ecclesiastes. It is a meaningless statement to speak of "the God of the Old Testament." God isn't even always depicted or understood the same way within single books of the Bible, let alone from book to book.
dgirl1986
Big Queer Chesticles!
A lot of christians tend to use selected verses from the OT in certain issues and debates...
'Christians' are not a monolithic group.
I think it's natural for atheists to focus on the worst sides of Christianity. I'll bet most modern Christians on RF actually hold quite reasonable positions.
dgirl1986
Big Queer Chesticles!
No they are not, which is why I didnt say all christians.
I do not focus on the worst sides of christianity. I am aware of the good sides and participate in those discussions. I know a lot of really great christians that are just really beautiful people and compassionate people.
Well the debate on this thread is OT = UGH
dgirl1986
Big Queer Chesticles!
yes I am talking about the text not the worst parts of christianity. Huge difference.
It's what I read. The Book of Joshua, on its own, separate from Talmudic tradition or other books of the Tanakh, appeared to me as a glorification of the conquest of innocent people who, as far as I can tell, did NOTHING to the Israelites.
I know that's not the intended experience. But it's the one I had.
Last edited:
Correct. I can't stomach the story, to the point where I doubt the intended context will ease the pain.
That's not to say that it's not useful to those who were properly introduced to it, but honestly, because I'm not a Jew, I'm not particularly interested. My deep respect for Judaism as a whole is not diminished by my opinion of this single book.
Last edited:
Shermana
Heretic
So you admit that you need to change the intended point of the story to feel better or to maintain your interest. That's fine and all, but it's not really helpful for an honest debate.
It glorifies the slaughter of innocents. That's not something I can really get past.
If the story was that the Israelites moved into the Promised Land peacefully and tried to live side by side with the Canaanites, who then attacked them, then that'd be fine. War is war, and the aggressor needs to be defeated.
But as far as I can see, the Israelites were the aggressors in that story. No amount of interpretations or extra-scriptural contexts or additions can change that for me.
Shermana
Heretic
The context of the story is that they are not innocent. The Israelites had to wait for their "iniquity to be complete".
If you are saying they are innocent, you are changing the story to fit your nice little strawman to burn down.