Originally posted by lucifershammer Which is why I said "in the way it is described".
I don't think the actual "ancients" who won that battle thought their actions were divinely justified (not in the sense the story is - for a specific crime). I think that, over time, the victories of the ancient Israelites (now suitably exaggerated) were associated with specific moral/religious virt ...[text shortened]... d) were co-opted to provide the (now well-settled) Israelites moral and religious guidance.
I tend to agree with you, with the exception that the Israelites who beat the Midianite Arabs undoubtedly believed that God was on their side, unless they had other gods at that stage.
Of course, your conclusions emphasise that the Old Testament is historically inaccurate, or, to put it from a literal perspective, untrue.
Only someone who believes in the literal historical truth of the Bible need be concerned by God's apparent genocidal mania. The rest can happily interpret it as they see fit, just as the later Israelites (not to mention the modern ones) co-opted and mythologised their own history for their own purposes.
Originally posted by DragonFriend I think the best evidence of the existance of God is the change in people's lives when they accept Jesus.
So his life changed ? I thought you said he died! Surely that is not a good sign. He accepted God and died a terrible death soon after.
On a related note. I have unequivocle proof that the muslims have the right God. All these suicide bombers are proof. What else could cause a man to do that. To give your life for your faith is the ultimate sacrifice and evidence that your faith is true and correct. More muslim suicide bombers than any other religion = proof that they are the one true religion !
Originally posted by lucifershammer He hasn't "turned his existence around". As I've pointed out in other threads about the Midianite massacre, there is no reason to think that it was a historical incident (in the way it is described). The purpose of that story is to remind the Israelites to stay true to the Law they received, not provide an account for historians.
WHAT????? Where did you ever make such a claim? Perhaps the numbers were exagerrated but it's a rather remarkable way to pick and choosein the Bible to say that Moses parted the Red Sea and that is utterly believable, but that he certainly did not order the killing of children (actually according to the story, God ordered the killings). Whatever makes you sleep at night, LH.
Originally posted by lucifershammer Which is why I said "in the way it is described".
I don't think the actual "ancients" who won that battle thought their actions were divinely justified (not in the sense the story is - for a specific crime). I think that, over time, the victories of the ancient Israelites (now suitably exaggerated) were associated with specific moral/religious virt ...[text shortened]... d) were co-opted to provide the (now well-settled) Israelites moral and religious guidance.
Like Moses parting the Red Sea?
Or the plagues of Egypt?
Or the burning bush?
Or God giving Moses the Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai?
Originally posted by DragonFriend What massacre are you referencing?
DF
There are a lot of 'em in the Good Book; pretty much any page in Joshua's got one. But the one in particular we're referring to Numbers 31: 1-19. For some hilarious "explanations" of why the Midianite kids got what they deserved, see http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=20100
There's a few other good stories in that thread, too. Enjoy!
Originally posted by no1marauder WHAT????? Where did you ever make such a claim? Perhaps the numbers were exagerrated but it's a rather remarkable way to pick and choosein the Bible to say that Moses parted the Red Sea and that is utterly believable, but that he certainly did not order the killing of children (actually according to the story, God ordered the killings). Whatever makes you sleep at night, LH.
When/where did I say anything about the parting of the Red Sea?
Originally posted by twhitehead So his life changed ? I thought you said he died! Surely that is not a good sign. He accepted God and died a terrible death soon after.
On a related note. I have unequivocle proof that the muslims have the right God. All these suicide bombers are proof. What else could cause a man to do that. To give your life for your faith is the ultimate sacrifice a ...[text shortened]... ore muslim suicide bombers than any other religion = proof that they are the one true religion !
You're focusing on the wrong thing.
It's not the fact that he was killed that makes his story important, it's the complete change in direction of this life. It's the complete 180 degree change in attitude. It's the fact that the man the mafia killed wasn't the same man as the one who did the killings. He was a completely different person after accepting God's forgiveness. It's the change that's the important part of the story, not the man death.
Originally posted by no1marauder There are a lot of 'em in the Good Book; pretty much any page in Joshua's got one. But the one in particular we're referring to Numbers 31: 1-19. For some hilarious "explanations" of why the Midianite kids got what they deserved, see http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=20100
There's a few other good stories in that thread, too. Enjoy!
What? So now you believe the stories in the Bible? I didn't think you were a Bible believer.
Originally posted by scottishinnz No, I haven't repeated all those experiments. The point is though, if I were so inclined I could. Of course, one cannot even test for the existance of God, and there is nothing other than a book and some circumstantial evidence that he exists. Then you start to base wild, unprovable assertions on your idea. Doesn't make for a very strong case overall....
I certainly is a weak case if you don't do any research at all on the topic. I agree.
DF
PS
You BELIEVE you can repeat those experiments. If you haven't actually done it, you don't have any proof that you can. All you have is first hand reports from other people who have done it. The same type of evidence you are shrugging off here.
Originally posted by no1marauder There are a lot of 'em in the Good Book; pretty much any page in Joshua's got one. But the one in particular we're referring to Numbers 31: 1-19. For some hilarious "explanations" of why the Midianite kids got what they deserved, see http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=20100
There's a few other good stories in that thread, too. Enjoy!
Originally posted by lucifershammer Which is why I said "in the way it is described".
I don't think the actual "ancients" who won that battle thought their actions were divinely justified (not in the sense the story is - for a specific crime). I think that, over time, the victories of the ancient Israelites (now suitably exaggerated) were associated with specific moral/religious virt ...[text shortened]... d) were co-opted to provide the (now well-settled) Israelites moral and religious guidance.
What, I wonder, qualifies you to determine what parts of the Bible are exagerated and which are not? Is a post doc thesis required, a masters, a few classes, anything? I would like to have such power. Because as it is now whenever I suggest that the Bible means something other than what it actually says my Christian friends tell me I can;t do that. I think it would be nice to be able to show them my certificate or pocket card, or whatever, that authorizes me to tell them what the Bible "really" means.
Originally posted by TheSkipper What, I wonder, qualifies you to determine what parts of the Bible are exagerated and which are not? Is a post doc thesis required, a masters, a few classes, anything? I would like to have such power. Because as it is now whenever I suggest that the Bible means something other than what it actually says my Christian friends tell me I can;t do that. I ...[text shortened]... ard, or whatever, that authorizes me to tell them what the Bible "really" means.
TheSkipper
As far as I'm considered, you're qualified to determine what parts of the Bible are exaggerated when you're a Bishop teaching what the Church teaches or when you're the Pope. Otherwise, an STB (Baccalaureate in Sacred Theology) would allow you to give an expert opinion deserving serious consideration.
Originally posted by lucifershammer As far as I'm considered, you're qualified to determine what parts of the Bible are exaggerated when you're a Bishop teaching what the Church teaches or when you're the Pope. Otherwise, an STB (Baccalaureate in Sacred Theology) would allow you to give an expert opinion deserving serious consideration.
In your estimation must one be divinely inspired or is the schooling and/or church affiliation qualification enough?
Originally posted by DragonFriend I certainly is a weak case if you don't do any research at all on the topic. I agree.
DF
PS
You BELIEVE you can repeat those experiments. If you haven't actually done it, you don't have any proof that you can. All you have is first hand reports from other people who have done it. The same type of evidence you are shrugging off here.
The best evidence
23 Feb '06 08:19
Back to Top