Numbers 31: a happy story of sunshine and rainbows

Originally posted by twhitehead
I avoid belief altogether and stick with science. I think choosing to believe something based on your desire for it to be true is utter foolishness.

Sorry, I clicked on the wrong Poster...

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i would say save that gun and shoot any charismatic "prophet of the lord" that commands the sheep to murder in his name. otherwise the sheep are harmless.

And I say that sheep are dangerous because of the risk of charismatic "prophets of the lord" showing up and using them. Much better to educate people so that they are less sheep like.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I meant to ask you what God do you believe in, if any?

i have faith in the fundamental notions of christianity. i believe jesus and god are the central point. i believe that most of what is written in the bible is false, metaphorical or no longer applicable in modern society. i believe that the fundamentals of christianity will never change, but all else can, without making the supreme being creator of all there is make a frowny face.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i have faith in the fundamental notions of christianity. i believe jesus and god are the central point. i believe that most of what is written in the bible is false, metaphorical or no longer applicable in modern society. i believe that the fundamentals of christianity will never change, but all else can, without making the supreme being creator of all there is make a frowny face.

Now I find this puzzling.

Now you say that you believe most of the bible is "...false, metaphorical or no longer applicable..."

But that you still believe that the "Christian" god exists...

Why?


You already accept that the bible is not a reliable source of information.

So what makes you think that the "Christian" god exists?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Now I find this puzzling.

Now you say that you believe most of the bible is "...false, metaphorical or no longer applicable..."

But that you still believe that the "Christian" god exists...

Why?


You already accept that the bible is not a reliable source of information.

So what makes you think that the "Christian" god exists?

the fundies are afraid that to accept one thing in the bible to be false is to somehow invalidate the entirety of it.

you claim that if 90% of the bible is false, the rest of 10% must be false as well.

both stances are flawed in their own way.

think of the bible as one big plate of food. there is shrimp there, there is caviar, there is chicken, there is pork, some cheese, etc. there are also big decorative plastic ducks in the middle.
now, the ducks were obviously never meant to be eaten. the caviar and the shrimp, while good, perhaps is not to your taste. you have gotten old and the pork is too fattening for you, you are lactose intolerant and cannot eat the cheese. but the chicken is good. everybody enjoys chicken. choose what you want to eat and let the others enjoy that big plate too. or you can refuse that chickin just because it touches the pork and go hungry.

it is your choice as it is mine.



btw, if you do in fact refuse the chickin because it touched the pork, or you don't like the aspect of the big plate of food, let me enjoy my chickin in peace.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i have faith in the fundamental notions of christianity. i believe jesus and god are the central point. i believe that most of what is written in the bible is false, metaphorical or no longer applicable in modern society. i believe that the fundamentals of christianity will never change, but all else can, without making the supreme being creator of all there is make a frowny face.

i should have added "not that it matters". the story in numbers 31 (and all others like it, like jericho) should be repulsive to any being, no matter what they have faith in.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i should have added "not that it matters". the story in numbers 31 (and all others like it, like jericho) should be repulsive to any being, no matter what they have faith in.

Do you hold that any book from God would only contain, from beginning to end, things which you approve of ?

It seems we have to start from the assumption that controversy between you and God is of course impossible. So whatever repulses you in any portion of the word of God fails the test of meeting your personal approval. And therefore it cannot be authored in God.

I think this is very presumptuous of you. I expect that a book from God would probably rub my fur the wrong way at least now and then.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
the fundies are afraid that to accept one thing in the bible to be false is to somehow invalidate the entirety of it.

you claim that if 90% of the bible is false, the rest of 10% must be false as well.

Um, no I don't.

I made no such claim or anything remotely resembling it.

You said that you thought that much of the bible was wrong, and/or metaphorical.

Given that...

I wonder how it is that you still believe in the "Christian" god, the god OF the bible.

When the bible is by your own admission unreliable.


Note I say Unreliable, rather than wrong.

I am not about to claim that the bible is 100% false. There are things in it that are true.
Like the existence of Romans and the Roman empire for example.

But symmetrically the fact that it contains some truths doesn't make it all true and the fact
that it is mostly false doesn't mean it's all false.

What it does mean is that it is unreliable, and highly so.

We only know that bits those bits of the bible that are true, are true because of independent
reliable sources.

We don't know that they are true simply because they are written in the bible, as the bible is
an unreliable source.



So given that you admit that the bible is mostly wrong, and that this makes it unreliable pretty much
by definition.

I ask again, why do you believe in the existence of the "Christian" god?
As opposed to any other god or simply being a deist?

(ignoring for the moment the question of whether you should believe in god/s at all)

Originally posted by sonship
Do you hold that any book from God would only contain, from beginning to end, things which you approve of ?

It seems we have to start from the assumption that controversy between you and God is of course impossible. So whatever repulses you in any portion of the word of God fails the test of meeting your personal approval. And therefore it [b]cannot[/b ...[text shortened]... u. I expect that a book from God would probably rub my fur the wrong way at least now and then.

yes, basically that is how someone deals with the contradiction in the bible. i am talking about the sane christians that do in fact see the contradiction in the bible (both with itself and with established fact)

when faced with contradiction, with two equally probable(or probability undetermined) events, we choose to believe what sounds more pleasant. what is more pleasant? that a supreme being is playing favourites and chooses to utterly obliterate a group of people for being guilty of stuff the israelites get away with over and over? that a supreme being is going to punish one's family until the seventh generation for the sins of that man?

or that he loves us monkeys so much that he took an active hand in shaping us towards better people and sent his son to teach us, knowing full well we savages will murder his holy as$?


and no, both of these cannot be correct at the same time. unless god has split personality.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes, basically that is how someone deals with the contradiction in the bible. i am talking about the sane christians that do in fact see the contradiction in the bible (both with itself and with established fact)

when faced with contradiction, with two equally probable(or probability undetermined) events, we choose to believe what sounds more pleasant. ...[text shortened]...
and no, both of these cannot be correct at the same time. unless god has split personality.

Well given that the Abrahamic god was an amalgam of the attributes of a pantheon of
pre-monotheistic gods, I would say that the bible god does have a split personality...

Pantheons make much more sense*, as gods with different attributes can have
arguments/wars.

Merging them into a monotheistic god gets you a schizophrenic and contradictory deity.



*and are a lot more fun

Originally posted by googlefudge
Um, no I don't.

I made no such claim or anything remotely resembling it.

You said that you thought that much of the bible was wrong, and/or metaphorical.

Given that...

I wonder how it is that you still believe in the "Christian" god, the god OF the bible.

When the bible is by your own admission unreliable.


Note I say Unreliable, rathe ...[text shortened]...

(ignoring for the moment the question of whether you should believe in god/s at all)

"But symmetrically the fact that it contains some truths doesn't make it all true and the fact
that it is mostly false doesn't mean it's all false. "

ok, then we agree on this aspect.

"Note I say Unreliable, rather than wrong."
it is a philosophical system, rather than a calculus manual. it is acceptable to be unreliable.
you cannot apply the same thought patterns in spirituality as you do in science. spirituality requires faith. a drill sergeant is not the same when he is with family, a clown is not wearing clown make up in his spare time. one uses rationality to solve some problems. and uses spirituality for things not described by mathematical formulas.


to get back to the matter at hand, it doesn't matter it is unreliable, it is a collection of opinions on how one should live one's life. you don't have to accept them all or even most of them. and frankly, i am not fond of the idea of including most from the old testament in there, and most of the bible can be reduced to "don't be a dick".

i simply don't dwell on the fillers.




"I ask again, why do you believe in the existence of the "Christian" god?
As opposed to any other god or simply being a deist?"
that is a matter of personal choice. i believe the christian god is an aspect of God. i believe that allah is suitable for muslims, the buddha is suitable for buddhists and so on. They are simply ways through which one may reach God, or better said, godliness.


for all your talk of rationality, you still believe(i hope) in good, love, fairness, compassion. Those things are in fact god. Theists simply claim there is someone self-sentient that stands for those concepts.

that a supreme being is playing favourites and chooses to utterly obliterate a group of people for being guilty of stuff the israelites get away with over and over?

I do not see Israel "getting away" with things for which God did judge other nations.

If you missed that He took Israel aside a number of times and scolded and judged them for essentially being worse than the surrounding nations, I wonder how carefully you have been reading the Bible.

Try the first few chapters of the book of the prophet Amos . The rhythm of the book is that God is telling what judgments are going to happen to this and that nation around Israel. And if you are gloating over how your enemies are going to get it, it doesn't last too long. Then all of a sudden God informs Israel how He is likewise going to punish them.

Not playing favorites is the flavor of the book.

that a supreme being is going to punish one's family until the seventh generation for the sins of that man?

Is it not a fact that the stupidity carried out by a parent can cause the negative repercussions to one's descendants ?

I don't share your skepticism here, all things considered. It is a fact of life that stupid stuff done by my forebearers can have a negative effect on my life which I certainly did not choose.

And you fail to factor in that following generations can humble themselves before God and seek His salvation.

But if you have kids, you are darn right, dumb stuff you did in sinning can cause your kids after you to suffer. So I don't see your problem. Neither do I see this as a dead end situation from which offspring cannot themselves turn to God for salvation.

or that he loves us monkeys so much that he took an active hand in shaping us towards better people and sent his son to teach us, knowing full well we savages will murder

Hey, don't blame God if you think you're a monkey. That stuff can be blamed on your Charles Darwin. Thank him for the "us monkeys" concept.

You are a petty little angry fellow, aren't you ?

Originally posted by sonship

that a supreme being is playing favourites and chooses to utterly obliterate a group of people for being guilty of stuff the israelites get away with over and over?

I do not see [b]Israel "getting away" with things for which God did judge other nations.

If you missed that He took Israel aside a number of times and scolded and ...[text shortened]... or the "us monkeys" concept.

You are a petty little angry fellow, aren't you ?[/b]

israel gets some years of ocupation. madianites get total anihilation.

"Is it not a fact that the stupidity carried out by a parent can cause the negative repercussions to one's descendants ? "
sure, but it is the parent's direct actions. a pregnant woman smokes and drinks and the child is born with an extra foot. we don't execute the family of the serial murderer, along with any servants might be in his employ and livestock he might own.

"So I don't see your problem."
no problem? numbers 16: korah speaks against moses and eleazar. not even against god. what does god do? he commands the earth to swallow not only korah (for a idiotic thing as free speech) but also his family, his family's family, his servants and his family and their livestock.

basically, it would be like obama would kill mitt romney and all his employes including his mexican nanny that might not have even heard of obama.


You are a petty little angry fellow, aren't you?
heh, i am not the one saying it is ok to kill and rape children. madianite children were murdered in numbers 31 and you insist that god had a plan there? seriously? say that at the water cooler next time you are at work. i am sure you would be much more popular.

here it doesn't matter much, we know you are a little psychopath, but distance between us makes it unimportant.

israel gets some years of ocupation. madianites get total anihilation.

The Midianites planned to corrupt the Israelites with sexual seduction to commit mass fornication (Num.25:1-3; Num. 31:15,16; Rev. 2:14).

"Is it not a fact that the stupidity carried out by a parent can cause the negative repercussions to one's descendants ? "
sure, but it is the parent's direct actions. a pregnant woman smokes and drinks and the child is born with an extra foot. we don't execute the family of the serial murderer, along with any servants might be in his employ and livestock he might own.

You are just letting your imagination run wild.

no problem? numbers 16: korah speaks against moses and eleazar. not even against god. what does god do? he commands the earth to swallow not only korah (for a idiotic thing as free speech) but also his family, his family's family, his servants and his family and their livestock.

And "the sons of Korah" latter wrote some of the Psalms.

" ...sons of Korah" in the titles of Psalms 42-49 and 84; 85; 87-89 ...".

How God honored the worthy descendants of the man who spearheaded such a nasty rebellion.

You are a petty little angry fellow, aren't you?
heh, i am not the one saying it is ok to kill and rape children.

I add liar to the list. There is no divine commanded rape anywhere in the Old Testament.

Out of the 54 verses in Numbers 31 I read no verses having God command rape of children.

If you say the examination of females to see if they were virgins or not was rape then you can also accuse any standard gynecologist of being a rapist.

Originally posted by sonship

israel gets some years of ocupation. madianites get total anihilation.

The Midianites planned to corrupt the Israelites with sexual seduction to commit mass fornication [b](Num.25:1-3; Num. 31:15,16; Rev. 2:14).

[quote]
"Is it not a fact that the stupidity carried out by a parent can cause the negative repercussions to one's de ...[text shortened]... r not was rape then you can also accuse any standard gynecologist of being a rapist.[/b]

The Midianites planned to corrupt the Israelites with sexual seduction to commit mass fornication

are you kidding me? children were killed. little girls were raped. so in the end, there was fornication, ironically enough. which is not even relevant. there is nothing that would justify the killing of an entire people, women and children included.




Out of the 54 verses in Numbers 31 I read no verses having God command rape of children.

If you say the examination of females to see if they were virgins or not was rape then you can also accuse any standard gynecologist of being a rapist.

hey, o moronic one. all virgins were to be made slaves. what DO you think happened to them? education and a career, then a happy family life?


And "the sons of Korah" latter wrote some of the Psalms.
not that korah. he was dead. along with his family. the bible doesn't lie and doesn't contradict itself. remember?




the way you justify the killing of women and children is disgusting