Originally posted by SuzianneGee, thanks for the penetrating synopsis. But the paper puts forth actual argument to the basic effect that a literal interpretation of the text does indeed suggest that God sanctioned genocide and that attempts to morally justify this are not viable; ergo, the paper argues, the best holistic conclusion is that the text is not intended strictly literally and/or is not inerrant. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to address the actual argument put forth in the paper.
This paper is ridiculous. He seems to be taking the easy road in saying "God didn't really say this". This is gutless and faithless in the extreme.
And, by the way: you need to get over yourself. The position taken by the paper is neither "gutless" nor "faithless". I have much more respect for someone who (a) puts forth an actual argument for starters and (b) fashions at least a coherent story of faith while remaining true to their moral fiber; as opposed to someone who just lets their intellect and moral sensibilities take a holiday in the service of hard-nosed faith and hyper-literal interpretation, which is the most we can say you have accomplished here. This reminds me of the time you presumed to bash believers for having some doubts...while at the same time, hilariously, you were arguing that it is not possible to have solid evidence for God due to some ridiculous free will notions you carry. It makes you look so foolish when you bash others of faith for not contorting themselves into the same grotesque, intellectually vapid positions that you hold in the service of "faith". It does not mean that you are somehow courageous and they are gutless. If anything, these sorts of contortions make you an intellectual and moral fraud; and the others you bash would be foolish to follow the fool. Seriously, get over yourself.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
09 Nov 14
Originally posted by FMFBut you don't understand the spiritual implications. You can play with words all you want, but you are still in the dark about why this happened. Even after I posted the link which you did not read or believe, take your pick.
I have a pretty solid clue about what justice is and what morality is. Some of you Christians don't seem able to discuss either of them coherently but just reference your own superstitions instead. Has the term "spiritual warfare" got something to do with justifying genocide?
11 Nov 14
Originally posted by LemonJelloYeah, gee, thanks for the penetrating synopsis.
Gee, thanks for the penetrating synopsis. But the paper puts forth actual argument to the basic effect that a literal interpretation of the text does indeed suggest that God sanctioned genocide and that attempts to morally justify this are not viable; ergo, the paper argues, the best holistic conclusion is that the text is not intended strictly literally ...[text shortened]... aud; and the others you bash would be foolish to follow the fool. Seriously, get over yourself.
You know I might be able to give half a damn for your opinion, such as it is, if you actually had faith in anything outside yourself.
You're simply not qualified to speak on faith, so this renders much of what you say inane, at best.
12 Nov 14
Originally posted by FMFRead about Abraham. He lived in Canaan and would have been considered a Canaanite at one time in his life. It was while he was living in canaan that God promised his descendants land.
Did your God figure reveal Himself to the Canaanites before he sought to have all of them killed for not worshipping Him, according to your beliefs?
12 Nov 14
Originally posted by sonhouseGod did speak to Adam and Eve and they were the entire human race. God can not commit genocide until he destroys the entire human race for there really is only one.
Why does your god confine itself to just the middle east? If it was a god worth its salt, it could just as easily spoken to the entire human race in their various languages. If your god is THE true god, there would have been thousands of times more false gods outside Jerusalem and such. So why would your god have confined itself to just that region when the ...[text shortened]... ot to explain why there was no such movement in Australia or Siberia or Europe or the America's.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!
12 Nov 14
Originally posted by SuzianneIf you truly "don't give a damn" about the opinions of the "faithless", then aren't you wasting a lot of time here interacting with so many of them? 😕
Yeah, gee, thanks for the penetrating synopsis.
You know I might be able to give half a damn for your opinion, such as it is, if you actually had faith in anything outside yourself.
You're simply not qualified to speak on faith, so this renders much of what you say inane, at best.
12 Nov 14
Originally posted by SuzianneHow exactly does having faith in something automatically qualify you to speak on faith? It would seem to me to be quite the opposite. I would think that if LemonJello has managed to throw off the shackles of faith, or otherwise managed to avoid it, then he is far better qualified to talk about it than you.
You're simply not qualified to speak on faith, so this renders much of what you say inane, at best.
12 Nov 14
Originally posted by SuzianneSo I am not qualified to speak about your faith unless I already share in it? I'm afraid that's not how debates work.
Yeah, gee, thanks for the penetrating synopsis.
You know I might be able to give half a damn for your opinion, such as it is, if you actually had faith in anything outside yourself.
You're simply not qualified to speak on faith, so this renders much of what you say inane, at best.
I hope you'll see fit to stop bashing others, even those who are faithful, just because they are willing to subject faith to some healthy scrutiny. You give faith a bad name, not that it needs any help in that regard.
And it would be nice if you would present some actual arguments. You claimed on page 1 that God had sufficient moral reason to issue the commands under discussion. What's the support for that claim?
13 Nov 14
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357"God had a sufficient moral reason for issuing those commands,"
Either:
God had a sufficient moral reason for issuing those commands,
or,
God did not issue those commands and the Bible is wrong about that.
I expect people will choose the alternative that rocks their boat the least. (Edit: Which may be: ignoring the issue.)
http://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/DidGodCommandGenocide.pdf
there is no justification for genocide
14 Nov 14
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloBut the paper puts forth actual argument to the basic effect that a literal interpretation of the text does indeed suggest that God sanctioned genocide and that attempts to morally justify this are not viable; ergo, the paper argues, the best holistic conclusion is that the text is not intended strictly literally and/or is not inerrant.
Gee, thanks for the penetrating synopsis. But the paper puts forth actual argument to the basic effect that a literal interpretation of the text does indeed suggest that God sanctioned genocide and that attempts to morally justify this are not viable; ergo, the paper argues, the best holistic conclusion is that the text is not intended strictly literally ...[text shortened]... aud; and the others you bash would be foolish to follow the fool. Seriously, get over yourself.
I remember, some years ago, when ConrauK presented a rather insightful and wonderful case for different kinds of discourse in the Biblical corpus: e.g., mythological, poetic/metaphorical, descriptive/historical, philosophical/propositional, etc.—but with an emphasis on the ”elicitive” use of language.
Obviously (one would think), there are a number of literatures at play in the Biblical corpus. Who would (reasonably) assert that, for example, Kings/Chronicles is the same kind of literature (the same kind of discourse) as the Psalms—or that Ecclesiastes (a kind of proto-existentialist essay) should be (can meaningfully be) read the same way as Isaiah, or (for that matter) the Gospel of Mark in the same way as Paul’s letter to the Romans? Etc., etc., etc..
My personal opinion is that so-called “biblical literalism/historicism” is a (largely) modernist view illegitimately superimposed on ancient texts—by both religionists and secularists (the latter, perhaps, reacting to the former)—but that a literalist/historicist hermeneutics is neither pre-modern nor post-modern, and (in my view) is a hermeneutical travesty when applied to the biblical texts generally.
14 Nov 14
Originally posted by vistesdwelcome back to the site fora
[b] But the paper puts forth actual argument to the basic effect that a literal interpretation of the text does indeed suggest that God sanctioned genocide and that attempts to morally justify this are not viable; ergo, the paper argues, the best holistic conclusion is that the text is not intended strictly literally and/or is not inerrant.
I remembe ...[text shortened]... my view) is a hermeneutical travesty when applied to the biblical texts generally.[/b]