Bible vs Koran - the Clown's Challenge

Originally posted by rwingett
Is that all it takes to make genocide OK in your eyes?

First of all, i dont accept the term 'genocide', that is your term not mine, and
secondly, I am not a God, i am a human being, therefore how am i to instruct God as
to the rightness of his actions, please tell.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
rubbish, the authors in many instances make clear they are speaking on behalf of God,
and in many instances very little is actually proffered about themselves!

Don't be a simpleton, Robbie. Any fool can claim they're speaking on behalf of god. And while they don't directly say much about themselves, one can deduce their character by how they characterize their god.

Originally posted by rwingett
Don't be a simpleton, Robbie. Any fool can claim they're speaking on behalf of god. And while they don't directly say much about themselves, one can deduce their character by how they characterize their god.

your statement remains naught but mere unsubstantiated opinion, you cannot prove
that they were not talking on behalf of God, can you now, infact, one can ask, on
what basis are you claiming that it was their own personality that they were
projecting, and of course, there is nothing, a desolate region, and lastly, even if they
were, which they were not, a personality from over 40 different writers, stretching over
a period of more than 1,500 years is discernible and surprisingly consistent, regardless
of your wild claims!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
First of all, i dont accept the term 'genocide', that is your term not mine, and
secondly, I am not a God, i am a human being, therefore how am i to instruct God as
to the rightness of his actions, please tell.

I think killing almost the entire human race counts as genocide in anyone's book. Secondly, god must behave in a manner that is recognizable to humans as being 'good' or you have no basis for claiming that he is in fact good. If he behaves in a manner that is recognizable to humans as being 'evil', then one would naturally conclude that such a god is evil himself. There is no way to link such demonstrably evil acts to an allegedly good character. At best you could claim that god is 'unknowable', which would allow you to keep the charge of evil at an arm's length, but it would likewise preclude the claim of goodness as well.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
your statement remains naught but mere unsubstantiated opinion, you cannot prove
that they were not talking on behalf of God, can you now, infact, one can ask, on
what basis are you claiming that it was their own personality that they were
projecting, and of course, there is nothing, a desolate region, and lastly, even if they
were, which the ...[text shortened]... e than 1,500 years is discernible and surprisingly consistent, regardless
of your wild claims!

It is not up to me to prove anything. That is your job.

The various writers of the bible all harmonize to some extent because they're all writing from a similar cultural perspective. But there are differences between them. Contrary to your assertion, they are not all saying exactly the same thing. How the ancient Israelites conceived of their god is vastly different from how the first century proto-Christians conceived of theirs. And within the New Testament canon, there are different theological opinions between the various writers. You are blind to them because you read the bible in a 'devotional' manner rather than in a 'critical' manner. It allows you to harmonize the differences that crop up between the various authors.

Originally posted by rwingett
I think killing almost the entire human race counts as genocide in anyone's book. Secondly, god must behave in a manner that is recognizable to humans as being 'good' or you have no basis for claiming that he is in fact good. If he behaves in a manner that is recognizable to humans as being 'evil', then one would naturally conclude that such a god is evil h f evil at an arm's length, but it would likewise preclude the claim of goodness as well.

your sooo wrong, and this demonstrates the sheer folly of the rationalist, for in
denying the divine element you cannot make sense of it. Firstly, it is easily
discernible that God does not arbitrarily put anyone to death, infact, he reasoned
with Abraham, that if five righteous men could be found, he would spare the city, in
the case of Ninevah, he chastised his own prophet for having a merciless attitude
towards the destruction of the city and he spared it on account of their repentance,
Peter tells us that he does not desire any to be destroyed, but desires that all attain
to repentance etc etc etc, therefore it is evident that those persons who were
executed, were irredeemable, otherwise God would not have exercised justice in
the way that he did, for his justice is always tempered with mercy, of which there
are many examples. Therefore, it is both logical and consistent that a God of Love
and of Justice would act in such a manner, for he is able to discern the thoughts and
intentions of the heart, which we as humans are incapable of doing.

Originally posted by rwingett
It is not up to me to prove anything. That is your job.

The various writers of the bible all harmonize to some extent because they're all writing from a similar cultural perspective. But there are differences between them. Contrary to your assertion, they are not all saying exactly the same thing. How the ancient Israelites conceived of their god is vas anner. It allows you to harmonize the differences that crop up between the various authors.

no i dont need to prove anything, i accept that its the inspired word of God. As for
being different, i dont accept that there is much of a difference, Christ himself makes
references to Sodom and Gomorrah, and to the days of Noah, infact, he tells of a
great tribulation, worse than the Noachin flood! making assertions of difference
, unfounded. The problem that all higher critics face, is that in denying the divine and
viewing scripture from a merely imperfect and limited human perspective, they cannot
make sense of the different elements, so as to form a whole, they are so busy
concerning themselves with brush strokes, that instead of viewing the painting, they
are busy sniffing it! As if paintings were meant to be sniffed???

Originally posted by rwingett
Well, the Christian god committed genocide by drowning almost the entire population of the earth. It's kind of hard to top that one.

No, that was the Jewish God. The same one the Christians and the Muslims follow.

Almost anything in the OT would count towards both the Bible and the Quran.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, that was the Jewish God. The same one the Christians and the Muslims follow.

Almost anything in the OT would count towards both the Bible and the Quran.

The consensus is that there is no dependency of text from the Bible in the case of the
Koran. In the case of the Book of Mormon, who sections have been lifted.

Originally posted by rwingett
Well, the Christian god committed genocide by drowning almost the entire population of the earth. It's kind of hard to top that one.

God and Allah (trans: God) refer to the same entity.

The only clowns I see here are the one's making the funny remarks about a faith(Christianity) they have no idea about - but have much to say about something they just don't believe in. That is the typical clown. Just thought the clowns should know that.

Originally posted by rwingett
Yeah, mass 'divine execution' goes into the twisted part for sure. Like I said, it's hard to top that one.

=========================================
Yeah, mass 'divine execution' goes into the twisted part for sure. Like I said, it's hard to top that one.
=========================================

I still do not understand your supposed outrage.

On every post of yours I look over to the left and see a token of your fondness for "Ming the Merciless"

And you come back with something like "Oh that's just a picture".
Obviously "Ming the MERCILESS" holds some special place of fondness in your heart.

Anyway, I am about half way through a good book called:

"Is God a Moral Monster ? Making Sense of the Old Testament God" by Paul Copan.

Its very good. You should read it.

Originally posted by jaywill

Anyway, I am about half way through a good book called:

[b]"Is God a Moral Monster ? Making Sense of the Old Testament God" by Paul Copan.

Its very good. You should read it.[/b]

This might save someone spending as long as I did Googling and checking out the book.

A Springboard for Clarifying Misunderstandings and Misperceptions
By George P. Wood

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins writes:

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

In short, God is a "moral monster."

Paul Copan begs to differ with Dawkins' evaluation of the Old Testament God, not to mention the similar critiques of other New Atheists--e.g., Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. In Is God a Moral Monster? he uses these critiques as "a springboard to clarify and iron out misunderstandings and misrepresentations." More than that, he essays to defend the justice of God, properly understood and correctly presented.

Copan divides his work into four sections. Part 1 identifies the New Atheists and outlines their critique of God. Part 2 responds to critiques of God's character that revolve around his desire for the praise of his people, his "jealousy" for their fidelity, and his command to Abraham to offer Isaac as a sacrifice. Part 3 tackles what Dawkins calls the Bible's "ubiquitous weirdness" and those passages he sees as morally monstrous. This section, the book's longest, deals with kosher laws, criminal punishments, relationships between the sexes, slavery, the killing of the Canaanites particularly, and the so-called "religious roots" of violence generally. Part 4 concludes the book by questioning whether atheism can provide a foundation for morality and by pointing to Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

Copan's response to the New Atheists utilizes the following types of arguments:

First, he situates the Old Testament narratives and laws within the "redemptive movement of Scripture." As a Christian, Copan reads the Bible as a story with a beginning, middle, and end. The beginning is an unsullied creation, and the end is Jesus Christ. The historical and legal elements of the Old Testament take place in the middle, falling short of God's creational ideals and in need of Jesus Christ's redemptive work. Far from being "God's timeless wisdom," Copan argues, much of the Old Testament is "inferior and provisional," offering "incremental steps toward the ideal."

Second, Copan situates the Old Testament within its historical context, pointing out how its legal codes are often a measurable improvement on the contemporaneous legal codes of other ancient near eastern societies. Criminal punishments are less severe, relationships between the sexes are fairer to women, slavery is more strictly regulated, and warfare is less savage.

Third, regarding difficult Old Testament narratives, Copan points out that narration does not imply endorsement. Jacob married two women and used their maidservants as concubines, but this does not imply divine endorsement. Jephthah sacrificed his daughter because of a rash vow, but his action did not merit divine approval. Many New Atheist critiques of Old Testament narratives commit what Copan calls "the `is-ought' fallacy."

Fourth, regarding difficult Old Testament laws, Copan focuses on their context and their limited application. Take Deuteronomy 20:16-18, for example--where God commanded the Israelites to "utterly destroy...the Hittite, the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite." Copan points out several things worth keeping in mind.

* In issuing this commandment, God uses Israel as an agent of judgment against the Canaanites, whom God is judging for their wickedness.
* In addition to a concern for justice, God's concern is religious: Unless the Canaanites are destroyed, they will corrupt the monotheistic faith and practice of Israel.
* This commandment, and others like it, has limited application to the initial entry of Israel into the Promised Land. It is not used as justification for Israel's wars once they are established in the land.
* The commandment is not racially or ethnically motivated, since other passages of Scripture promise a similar judgment to Israel if she is disobedient to God and since Israel itself was a multi-ethnic host.
* The narratives describing the fulfillment of this commandment use "ancient near eastern exaggeration rhetoric," meaning that the descriptions of total killing are not literally true and would not have been understood to be literally true by Israel or her contemporaries.
* The targeted cities are best understood as military outposts rather than non-combatant urban areas.
* Canaanites could escape divine judgment by joining Israel (as did Rahab and her household).
* Although some verses in Joshua describe the total destruction of the Canaanites after Israel's entry into the Promised Land, other verses describe their continued presence. So, the Bible's narrative portrayal of Israel's "conquest" is itself ambivalent.

I doubt that New Atheists will think of much of this type of argument--focusing on context and limiting application. My guess is that they will still consider the commandment problematic, even contextualized and limited. Fine. But Copan's point is that they should correctly describe what the narrative describes and understood the limitations of the commandments before they simply condemn them. One of the most irritating aspects of New Atheist critiques is their fundamentalist-like citation of Scripture without bothering to understand its contextual meaning. Copan's argument helps expose the hermeneutical weaknesses of such New Atheist critiques.

In general, I found Copan's argument to be persuasive, even probative at points. I think he successfully highlights numerous weaknesses in the New Atheist critique of the Old Testament God. Results may vary for different readers. Nonetheless, I think this is a valuable book for both atheists and Christians alike. It is valuable for atheists because it offers them a nuanced interpretation of difficult Old Testament passages. Rather than constructing straw-man arguments against the Old Testament God based on facile citation of passages plucked out of context, atheists need to argue with the passages as they are interpreted by believers who stand in the mainstream Christian tradition. The book is valuable for Christian readers because it helps them read their Bibles in a Christ-centered way, recognizing the less-than-ideal character of many Old Testament figures and the inferior-and-provisional character of many Old Testament laws.

From Amazon Reviews:

http://toshiba55g300u-55-inch.ledhdtv240hz.com/newdigitalupdate200-20/detail/0801072751

Rather than constructing straw-man arguments against the Old Testament God based on facile citation of passages plucked out of context, atheists need to argue with the passages as they are interpreted by believers who stand in the mainstream Christian tradition.

Of course, pinning down the mainstream tradition is itself a problem since so many self styled Christians opt for a highly individual interpretation of what they would like Christianity to be.

First, [....] Far from being "God's timeless wisdom," Copan argues, much of the Old Testament is "inferior and provisional," offering "incremental steps toward the ideal."

Second, Copan situates the Old Testament within its historical context, [...]

Third, regarding difficult Old Testament narratives, Copan points out that narration does not imply endorsement.

These are three very important ways to restrict the so called literalist reading of the Bible. Christians adopt the whole Bible, not just the Gospels or the New Testament. That is not one book but a collection of books with diverse authors produced across a huge period of time, in which the teaching actually changes, reflecting new historical situations but also new ways of thinking about religion. It is also a book that was always intended to be read (if reading is the right term before modern times) religiously, not as a factual, definitive textbook. It has to be interpreted, not parrotted.

Originally posted by finnegan
[b] Rather than constructing straw-man arguments against the Old Testament God based on facile citation of passages plucked out of context, atheists need to argue with the passages as they are interpreted by believers who stand in the mainstream Christian tradition.

Of course, pinning down the mainstream tradition is itself a problem since so many igiously, not as a factual, definitive textbook. It has to be interpreted, not parrotted.[/b]

And since we are contrasting the Bible with the Qu'ran, similar principles arguably apply - or explain why not - viz: using the very same wording -

Rather than constructing straw-man arguments against [the Qu'ran] based on facile citation of passages plucked out of context, [Christians and atheists] need to argue with the passages as they are interpreted by believers who stand in the mainstream [Islamic] tradition. [Like fundamentalist Christians, there are fundamentalist Muslims who proclaim that they have the one true reading of the Qu'ran but who stand outside of the mainstream tradition of Islam and arguably, like some fundamentalist Christians, are actually grievously at odds with any reasonable version of their own proclaimed faith.]

much of the [Qu'ran] is "inferior and provisional," offering "incremental steps toward the ideal."
situates the [Qu'ran] within its historical context
narration does not imply endorsement

Of course the application of these principles has to be appropriate and relevant. There is only one Qu'ran and one source and it was all set down in one lifetime, so it does not alter its thinking in the way that the Bible does over its 1500 years of production by diverse authors in diverse situations. However there are examples where Muhammad has clearly changed his mind on certain points in the light of new circumstances - so that presents comparable problems at times. Much of the Qu'ran contains remarks or rulings upon very specific situations in the life of Muhammad - for example, the problems experienced by his wives in Medina - and their application or extension to other situations and times is very much a matter of interpretation - perhaps by asking the question "what might Muhammad have done here?" The Qu'ran dwells specifically upon the conflict with traditional pagan religious practices in the Arabian peninsula at that time and the ongoing violence between Arab tribes which was intolerably disruptive of social and commercial life and which Muhammad wished to replace with a rule of law and a religion based upon the monotheism of the Jews and the Christians, which he referred to as Abrahamic. Islam accepts the first five books of the Old Testament and argues for tolerance of the religions based on that, though other religions also were tolerated in the same way over time, and it argues against forcible conversion. Muhammad was a practical secular leader and not only a religious one, so he dealt with practical political problems including warfare, arguing the need for rules of a just war and the criteria for a just peace. Possibly the political and the religious get entangled? He could not attain his religious ideals without first changing the power structure, in particular winning over control of Mecca as the religious centre of the peninsula. These practical concerns put him far closer to the Old Testament than the New, and make him a very different character to Jesus, but the teachings of the Qu'ran are far closer to the values of the New in their aspirations.

Until we know what kind of a book the Qu'ran actually is we are not going to make much sense of it.