Top 10 worst Bible passages

[emad]

A list of the top 10 worst Biblical verse has been drawn up, which includes approval for sexism, genocide and slavery.
01 Sep 2009


No. 1:St Paul’s advice about whether women are allowed to teach men in church:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

No. 2: In this verse, Samuel, one of the early leaders of Israel, orders genocide against a neighbouring people:

“This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

No. 3: A command of Moses:

“Do not allow a sorceress to live.” (Exodus 22:18)

No. 4: The ending of Psalm 137, a psalm which was made into a disco calypso hit by Boney M, is often omitted from readings in church:

“Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)

More:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6120373/Top-10-worst-Bible-passages.html

[ccharles000]

1. k/r

[rpannier]

2. k&r

[Recursion]

3. I loved Jeremiah Wright's sermon on Psalm 137

"Blessed is he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks -- that, beloved, is a very dangerous place to be, and a place we of faith find ourselves all too often..."

[Buzz Clik]

4. That's ugly stuff. But I have noticed...

... the Telegraph from the UK has been the source of a ton of off-the-wall crap that gets posted here. Do they do any serious journalism at all?

[arikara]

13. All newspapers have sections and stories

not necessarily "serious". Stuff like lifestyles, religion, sports and human interest. I guess thats what people are into posting.

:shrug:

[struggle4progress]

16. The Telegraph prefers controversy over substance: if there's a way to

emphasize aspects of a story, to make the story sound like it was plucked from the National Enquirer, you can count on the Telegraph to do so. They do have some standard reporting: it's not usually the deepest coverage available, and if possible The Telegraph will aim for out-of-context quotes and somewhat wacko spin intended to elicit an "OMG! That's terrible!" emotional reaction from readers. When I find a story first covered in The Telegraph, I will almost always get a much more accurate view of the subject by waiting until somebody else reports on it or by careful web-searching

[Why Syzygy]

17. The telegraph story links to

this site >
http://www.shipoffools.com/

.. which may or may not be parody. Did not dig deep enough to discover. Who knows these days.
But, knowing what I do of the pop culture of Christianity, it could very well be (considered) not parody.

[struggle4progress]

18. Can psychics be good for your health?

A phenomenon known as remote viewing, which claims to use psychic powers to 'see' what is invisible to the naked eye, may have an intriguing role to play in healthcare
By Lucy Pinney
Published: 7:00AM BST 31 Aug 2009
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/wellbeing/6110544/Can-psychics-be-good-for-your-health.html

Other things I learned from The Telegraph's webpage today: older and older women are wearing miniskirts! there's a computer program to turn lunar topographic data into music! scientists have found the coldest place on earth! the reporter assigned to write about topiary bought a little bush but cut off too much!

[laconicsax]

22. I looked around there for a while.

There's nothing that clearly points to parody. It's either legit or a fantastic Poe.

[Why Syzygy]

24. I looked again

and it does seem to be legit. It's all the commercialism for Jesus that tips it to the true column.

[gorfle]

5. Magic and superstition.

I can't believe this stuff holds any sway in the world today. It is depressing.

[customerserviceguy]

7. When it gets sanitized for Sunday School comprehension

it has an enormous hold on a childlike mind.

[DeSwiss]

6. Numbers 31:17-18

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

- Give me that 'ol time religion, with some of those good 'ol family values, give me that 'ol time religion -- it's good enough for me....

K&R

on edit: spelling

[Zebedeo]

21. The conquest of the Midianites

is a complex issue that requires an understanding of the context in which it occurred. If taken out of context, it can be easily misunderstood. You can learn more about the full context here:

Apocalipsis

- Zeb

[DeSwiss]

26. Right.

You wish to use the explanations of the apologist's of the murderers, kidnappers and rapists for understanding of this "complex issue."

- No thank you. My years of acceptance of dogmatic bullshit and the brainwashing that goes with it, ended long ago.

DeSwiss

[Zebedeo]

28. Is it worth considering

whether you are still dogmatic, only now you are dogmatic against Christianity? I only ask because of your disinterest in learning about the context of the Midianite conquest and the views of those who have come to a different conclusion than yours.

[DeSwiss]

29. Whether or not something is worth considering....

...is a matter of personal opinion. I happen to disagree with yours. Period. It's all bullshit. No matter how its framed, justified, nor how many contextual splints are added to these broken tales in an attempt to hold them up as still worthwhile or beneficial in some way. They are no longer relevant and anyone still using them as such, is sorely out of step and an anachronism.

Giving half my life to this bullshit, was sacrifice enough.....

[darkstar3]

31. Why should the context matter?

Explain to me how a genocide can EVER be justified.

And don't try and cop-out and say it wasn't a genocide. They killed everyone who fought, and took the women to breed. And it wasn't the first or last time such a story was told.

So who needs context? What possible explanation can there be for such mass-murder?

[laconicsax]

33. When God says so.

[darkstar3]

35. Okay, that wasn't kind of you...:)

I read the title and my BP spiked a little, then I saw who it was from.

I gotta watch who's pullin' my leg, I wouldn't want to bloody a nose with a pointless knee-jerk.

:hi:

[laconicsax]

36. I should just change my avatar and make Poe comments.

[darkstar3]

37. Educate me, what does "Poe comment" mean? n/t

[laconicsax]

38. Poe's Law:

"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."

For example, this video is a parody: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvVAV09-dQ8

[Why Syzygy]

40. LOL!

It isn't even a conjecture. It's a LAW!

[laconicsax]

42. Right up there with Murphy's, Muphry's, and Skitt's

[darkstar3]

43. Hmm...Poe's Law, Godwin's Law, Rule #31...

Is there some sort of index on the internet where I can find all of these together?

[Zebedeo]

39. Because context matters

in issues of morality.

[The Magistrate]

41. The 'Context' Supplied, Sir, Does Not Justify Or Make Right The Actions Described

You are attempting to justify extermination of an entire people: the murder of all adults and all male children, and the enslavement of young girls who survive as virgins. You are only doing this because it is presented as being done by command of a deity you believe in, and believe to be good and righteous altogether. Thus, when in the black and white of what you believe to be the inspired word of this deity, and believe to be wholly true, you find this monstrous crime set down, and set down with approval, you cannot face the implications, and must resort to degraded and shameful exercises in amateur sophistry of the lowest conceivable order. You do yourself a dis-service by this, Sir, and bring disrespect, even contempt, down upon yourself by doing so.

[darkstar3]

44. What he said. ^

Plus, in what twisted moral frame is genocide acceptable? You're talking about morality, and all I see is monstrosity.

[Zebedeo]

47. Thank you, Magistrate,

for your thoughtful, albeit condescending, reply. Unfortunately, you commit the error of ascribing motives for others based on assumptions grounded in your own prejudices. As regrettable as that is, I am confident that with earnest self-reflection, progress can be made. Each of us is human, and inevitably sees the world through his own biases. Although this condition cannot be completely vitiated, we should endeavor to become aware of our prejudices and preconceptions and do our best to exclude them from our analyses, through the application of disciplined thought.

- Zeb

[DeSwiss]

49. What?!?! Talk about cheek!!!

Although this condition cannot be completely vitiated, we should endeavor to become aware of our prejudices and preconceptions and do our best to exclude them from our analyses, (sic) through the application of disciplined thought.

Why don't YOU try endeavoring in this manner, the next time you want to incorporate some "context" into your justifications for biblical murder, rape, kidnapping and genocide.

[Zebedeo]

53. Before you use (sic),

you should probably check to see whether the spelling is actually in error, or whether you are simply ignorant of the word or its correct spelling. This may avoid embarrassment to you in the future. Alternatively, you could avoid use of (sic) altogether, or better yet, eschew attempts to find and expose trivial errors in the message board posts of other DU members. For your information, "analyses" is the plural of "analysis."

As for your admonition that I follow my own recommendation as regards endeavoring to put aside one's own biases, I of course agree. However, your comment seems to be a non sequitur.

Yours truly,

Zeb

[The Magistrate]

50. Nonesense, Sir

This is hardly our first pass at this sort of thing. You once, some years ago, when asked, stated you would, if you felt commanded by your deity to do so, kill another human being for no other cause than that command. This casts a certain light on your comments regarding this matter.

It remains a matter of cold fact that none of the 'context' raised in that discussion you linked to would be recognized as a defense if offered by men arraigned for genocide in a court, any more than 'God said to' would be recognized as a defense if offered by a man on trial for murder in civil life.

[Zebedeo]

54. I do not disagree

with the content of your post, although I of course take issue with the subject line.

However, I regard the content of your post as being rather irrelevant to the issue. What a court of law established by man would condemn or condone is rather beside the point, don't you think? After all, courts of law established by mankind have endorsed or excused every manner of injustice and wickedness, and have furthermore condemned many persons innocent of any crime to punishments far worse than what the Midianites received.

It is therefore self-evident to any thoughtful person that we cannot use the probable outcome of an issue if presented to a court of law as the ultimate standard of morality. Mankind is far too imperfect for that.

[darkstar3]

55. I smell fish...

Must be the old red herring you laid out there. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but in reading your post, it seems you are stating that mankind cannot judge the morality of the Christian god. Allow me to retort:

In the Christian religion:
1. God is the source of morality, and is always moral and just.
2. Mankind was created by God in his image
3. The law of God is written on the hearts of men. (Paul in Romans 2)

Ergo, the morality or just nature of God is carried on into his creations. Unless you're saying that part of the bible is wrong. And if you are, then how do you know which parts are right?

If we have the morality of God written into our beings (on the hearts of men), then we at least have an inkling of God's morality. So if genocide is horrible by even the lowest standards here on earth, then must it not also be so in heaven?

Also, aside from the morality argument, the fact that anyone here on this planet can blithely dismiss such a heinous crime as genocide by stating that an intangible creature commanded it horrifies me. In my mind, and the minds of many of my friends, there is precisely zero difference between someone who defends biblical genocide, and a Muslim who defends the 9/11 terrorist attacks or the Danish cartoon riots. You are both disturbingly wrong in your actions, your intents, and your view of morality.

[Zebedeo]

57. Not what I said

"Please correct me if I'm wrong, but in reading your post, it seems you are stating that mankind cannot judge the morality of the Christian god."

No, I didn't say that. The Magistrate suggested that my citation to the context of the Midianite conquest would not prevail if offered as a defense in a court of law, any more than a defense that "God commanded it" would prevail. I responded to the Magistrate's post by pointing out that courts of law established by mankind have endorsed or excused all manner of wickedness and have subjected many who were innocent of any crime to punishments far worse than what the Midianites received. I concluded that what would be condemned or condoned by courts of law established by mankind cannot be sensibly regarded as the ultimate standard of morality. I stand whole-heartedly behind that statement and that reasoning, and I challenge you or anyone else reading this post to refute it.

You raise quite a different point and attribute it to me - the concept that mankind cannot judge the morality of God. Certainly, I think mankind can and does judge the morality of God. Whether that judgment is justified or not is another issue. What I would ask a man who is engaged in judging God's morality is: "By what standard are you measuring the morality of God?" Is it an objective standard or a subjective standard?" What do you say?

Furthermore, you point out that the law of God is written on the hearts of men. That is true, but it is also true that mankind is sinful. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23 It is presumptuous to believe that because God wrote his law on our hearts, or that He made us in His image, that we have thereby acquired His perfection. Far from it. For a man to set himself up as judge of God is the height of hubris, and an act of sinful rebellion against the Creator. It is a product of pride. The sin of pride leads to every other sin. It is indeed pride that led to Satan's fall from Heaven. Rather than be prideful and seek to judge God, we should instead be humble and learn from His infinite wisdom.

Yours respectfully,

Zebedeo

[darkstar3]

59. I think you're splitting hairs.

Mankind CAN judge God, he just SHOULDN'T. Either way, the effect is exactly the same. You refuse to call genocide what it is: Wrong. Flat-out, unequivocally, undeniably W-R-O-N-G.

That still scares the **** out of me.

[The Magistrate]

56. Not In The Slightest, Sir

You are upholding here the concept that it is moral to kill on direct command of the deity you believe in, and that obedience to commands of that deity is the sum of moral behavior, the only standard by which an act can be judged moral or otherwise. You are attempting to do this in the face of the plain fact that a great many commands of that deity, as recorded in a book you deem sacred, are counter to the moral standards of the culture in which you live here today, and clearly criminal under its legal codes. You can provide no reason why obedience to the commands of this deity provide a superior standard of moral behavior to those of the culture you live in, save the assertion in this book that this is the case. You cannot prove the assertion to be a fact, and your believing the assertion does not make it true for anyone. It does not even make it true for you.

Everything you say about legal systems is just as true of moral ones. Human beings have held a wide variety of moral beliefs, many of them contradictory, and it is a commonplace for humans encountering people of a different culture to regard behavior the other deems moral as either ridiculous or abhorrent. Your claim that the moral standards of a small culture occupying the interstices between Egypt and Syria between two and three millennia ago must be taken as universal and normative for the whole of humanity is not something that can be taken seriously by anyone who has given more than six minutes consecutive thought to the question.

The question of whether a behavior is criminal or not is a separate thing than the question of whether it is moral or not. A legal system, however, is something that persons can readily agree upon, and understand, and apply to their own behavior. The present system of international law regarding war crimes is, at least in theory, acknowledged to be in force today by every nation of the globe. It is the most widely assented to standard for the judgement of behavior by armed forces and states that has ever existed in human history. The nearest thing, in short, to a universal standard humans have ever conceived.

[Zebedeo]

60. Respectfully, may I point out

that regarding "the concept that it is moral to kill on direct command of the deity you believe in, and that obedience to commands of that deity is the sum of moral behavior, the only standard by which an act can be judged moral or otherwise," it is you who resurrected that concept from some conversation that you and I apparently had some years ago, that you evidently committed to memory. That, however, was not the subject of my original post in this thread on the conquest of the Midianites. I merely offered a link to a site in which the context of the conquest of the Midianites was discussed and analyzed. I offered no defense of the conquest on grounds that God commanded it. Indeed, if my recollection serves, God merely instructed Moses to take vengeance on the Midianites. The specifics of what was done when the fighting ceased were commanded by Moses, not God. Therefore, your entire argument appears to be irrelevant to the issue at hand. Unless I misunderstand you, what you take issue with concerning the conquest of the Midianites are the actions taken after the fighting ceased - none of which was commanded by God.

On a more specific point, you reasoned that the context in which the Midianite conquest occurred would not afford a valid legal defense in a court of law established by mankind, any more than a defense that "God commanded it" would prevail in such a court. I responded that courts of law have endorsed all manner of injustice, and condemned those innocent of any crime to punishments far worse that the Midianites received, and I concluded that "It is therefore self-evident to any thoughtful person that we cannot use the probable outcome of an issue if presented to a court of law as the ultimate standard of morality." You have not attempted to directly refute this statement, but instead, you talk around it, offering rather vague comparisons and contrasts between moral and legal systems. You seem to conclude at the end that the current system of international law regarding war crimes should somehow be regarded as the ultimate standard of morality. Please forgive me for recycling your own words (changes in parentheses):

"You can provide no reason why obedience to the commands of this (international law) provide a superior standard of moral behavior to those of (God), save the assertion (by you) that this is the case. You cannot prove the assertion to be a fact, and your believing the assertion does not make it true for anyone. It does not even make it true for you."

Have you considered that the current (2009 A.D.) international law concerning war crimes may not be the last word on the subject? Perhaps in 50 or 500 years, international law concerning war crimes will be far different. Will it be better, or worse? If it will be better, then you are now applying a flawed standard. If it will be worse than the current international law, by what standard can it be measured as being worse? Unless you have an objective standard of morality, you are adrift in a sea of meaningless and ever-changing subjective standards, none of which has any reason to be preferred over any other.

Respectfully yours,


Zebedeo

[The Magistrate]

61. Unfortunately, Sir, We Are Down To Cases Now, And The Case Is One Of Genocide

The 'objective standard of morality' you subscribe to considers it supremely moral to massacre all males and women of a conquered people, sparing only girls who remain virgins for existence as chattel of the victors. Any number of 'meaningless and ever-changing subjective moral standards' manage to consider such behavior more to the wrong side of things than otherwise, and view the perpetrators of such an act, and particularly the authority authorizing such an act, as monstrously evil.

As for your attempt to lay this on Moses exclusively, it is not supportable on the text:

Numbers 31:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Numbers 31:2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.

Numbers 31:3 And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian.

Numbers 31:4 Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.

Numbers 31:5 So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.

Numbers 31:6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.

Numbers 31-7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.

Numbers 31:8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.

Numbers 31-9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.

Numbers 31:10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.

Numbers 31:11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.

Numbers 31:12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.

Numbers 31:13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.

Numbers 31:14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.

Numbers 31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

Numbers 31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

Numbers 31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Numbers 31:19 And do ye abide without the camp seven days: whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify both yourselves and your captives on the third day, and on the seventh day.

Numbers 31:20 And purify all your raiment, and all that is made of skins, and all work of goats' hair, and all things made of wood.

Numbers 31:21 And Eleazar the priest said unto the men of war which went to the battle, This is the ordinance of the law which the LORD commanded Moses;

Numbers 31:22 Only the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead,

Numbers 31:23 Every thing that may abide the fire, ye shall make it go through the fire, and it shall be clean: nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of separation: and all that abideth not the fire ye shall make go through the water.

Numbers 31:24 And ye shall wash your clothes on the seventh day, and ye shall be clean, and afterward ye shall come into the camp.

Numbers 31:25 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Numbers 31:26 Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast, thou, and Eleazar the priest, and the chief fathers of the congregation:

Numbers 31:27 And divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation:

Numbers 31:28 And levy a tribute unto the LORD of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep:

Numbers 31:29 Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the LORD.

Numbers 31:30 And of the children of Israel's half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD.

Numbers 31:31 And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses.

Numbers 31:32 And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep,

Numbers 31:33 And threescore and twelve thousand beeves,

Numbers 31:34 And threescore and one thousand asses,

Numbers 31:35 And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.

Numbers 31:36 And the half, which was the portion of them that went out to war, was in number three hundred thousand and seven and thirty thousand and five hundred sheep:

Numbers 31:37 And the LORD's tribute of the sheep was six hundred and threescore and fifteen.

Numbers 31:38 And the beeves were thirty and six thousand; of which the LORD's tribute was threescore and twelve.

Numbers 31:39 And the asses were thirty thousand and five hundred; of which the LORD's tribute was threescore and one.

Numbers 31:40 And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the LORD's tribute was thirty and two persons.

Numbers 31:41 And Moses gave the tribute, which was the LORD's heave offering, unto Eleazar the priest, as the LORD commanded Moses.

Numbers 31:42 And of the children of Israel's half, which Moses divided from the men that warred,

Numbers 31:43 (Now the half that pertained unto the congregation was three hundred thousand and thirty thousand and seven thousand and five hundred sheep,

Numbers 31:44 And thirty and six thousand beeves,

Numbers 31:45 And thirty thousand asses and five hundred,

Numbers 31:46 And sixteen thousand persons

Numbers 31:47 Even of the children of Israel's half, Moses took one portion of fifty, both of man and of beast, and gave them unto the Levites, which kept the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Numbers 31:48 And the officers which were over thousands of the host, the captains of thousands, and captains of hundreds, came near unto Moses:

Numbers 31:49 And they said unto Moses, Thy servants have taken the sum of the men of war which are under our charge, and there lacketh not one man of us.

Numbers 31:50 We have therefore brought an oblation for the LORD, what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, earrings, and tablets, to make an atonement for our souls before the LORD.

Numbers 31:51 And Moses and Eleazar the priest took the gold of them, even all wrought jewels.

Numbers 31:52 And all the gold of the offering that they offered up to the LORD, of the captains of thousands, and of the captains of hundreds, was sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty shekels.

Numbers 31:53 (For the men of war had taken spoil, every man for himself.)

Numbers 31:54 And Moses and Eleazar the priest took the gold of the captains of thousands and of hundreds, and brought it into the tabernacle of the congregation, for a memorial for the children of Israel before the LORD.

Moses in this matter spoke with the voice of the deity, and acted as its agent. Under charge, Moses would simply assert he was following orders, and arraignment of his superior would proceed. Both would be convicted.

A code of morals or law which stigmatizes as wrong, and punishes as crime, the killing of prisoners of war, particularly the killing of non-combatant prisoners and juveniles, is self-evidently superior to a code of morals or law which treats such an action as right and proper: if you disagree with that statement, your defense of moral and legal codes which view such genocidal acts as righteous is eagerly awaited. Because that is what you are doing, Sir: you are rising in defense of the proposition that genocide is a moral act, not a crime, under the moral code you claim to subscribe to.

[Why Syzygy]

62. It is monstrously evil.

But also practiced by every dynasty of that time period. Other sects had their own offerings and methods of inducing their gods to give them success in battle. And once conquered, they did not just imprison or turn loose those they conquered. It was the Eon.

[The Magistrate]

63. So, Ma'am, If All the Other Kids Were Jumping Into The Lake In Their Good Clothes After Lunch....

You will find very few people nowadays citing the religious texts of, say, the Assyrians or the Hittites, as definitive guides to moral behavior, and as divine and unchanging standards of morality. The common behavior of others in the era is thus of no concern to this discussion. That this sort of behavior was dirt normal at the time this incident purportedly took place is common knowledge, certainly. But the person you are stepping in to assist has no ground from which to condemn such practices by any other except to say that those people were not acting on the direct instruction of the deity he is loyal to, for it is obedience to commands of that deity he considers the sole constituent of moral action.

[Why Syzygy]

64. You're right about that.

And I am not stepping in to defend that member. He is on my ignore list due to his instance on pushing the doctrine of hell. And, please note, I'm not saying those practices are valid today or should be excused by today's standards. Adults should be able to determine that was a different Age and not use it to justify the same treatments.

[The Magistrate]

65. Fair Enough, Ma'am

Actually, the only real defense that could be offered for the incident is the truthful plea that it never actually happened. Despite what viewers of the History Channel might be led to believe, there is no real archeological warrant for believing any element of the Exodus tale; there is not even any solid warrant for it in Hebrew traditions prior to the 'discovery' by priests of a book palmed off on young Josiah as authored by Moses. All it really is is a sort of ancient Levantine equivalent of "Whoo-oop! I'm the old original iron-jawed, brass-mounted, copper-bellied corpse-maker from the wilds of Arkansaw!"

[Zebedeo]

66. Granting you the benefit of the doubt, Sir

I will assume that you have overlooked my points and my specific questions through inadvertence, rather than through intellectual laziness or fear of your inability to answer the questions or refute the points.

My points were as follows:

regarding "the concept that it is moral to kill on direct command of the deity you believe in, and that obedience to commands of that deity is the sum of moral behavior, the only standard by which an act can be judged moral or otherwise," it is you who resurrected that concept from some conversation that you and I apparently had some years ago, that you evidently committed to memory. That, however, was not the subject of my original post in this thread on the conquest of the Midianites. I merely offered a link to a site in which the context of the conquest of the Midianites was discussed and analyzed. I offered no defense of the conquest on grounds that God commanded it.

This point remains unrefuted. You have endeavored to avoid the current issue by repeatedly turning the conversation to some old grudge you apparently have against me for a position that I took years ago in a conversation that I have long since forgotten.

My next point was:

Indeed, if my recollection serves, God merely instructed Moses to take vengeance on the Midianites. The specifics of what was done when the fighting ceased were commanded by Moses, not God. Therefore, your entire argument appears to be irrelevant to the issue at hand. Unless I misunderstand you, what you take issue with concerning the conquest of the Midianites are the actions taken after the fighting ceased - none of which was commanded by God.

To this point, you did respond, and while it does show that my recollection was in error regarding a detail, my point is still overwhelmingly supported by the text. You quoted the entire discussion concerning the conquest of the Midianites. In that entire chapter, there are only two commands by God. The first, as I had stated, was merely a command to take vengeance upon the Midianites. Numbers 31:2. The second was an instruction on how to divide the spoils of the war. Numbers 31:25-30. While it is true that my statement that "The specifics of what was done when the fighting ceased were commanded by Moses, not God" is in error, because in fact God did give instructions on dividing the spoils, the substance of my point remains and is reinforced by the text of this chapter as well as by your most recent post. The substance of my point was that the parts of this story that you find so objectionable - as you put it, "the killing of non-combatant prisoners and juveniles" - were not commanded by God, but by Moses. God issued only two commands. The first was a nonspecific command to take vengeance on the Midianites (no command to kill any noncombatants), and the second command was an instruction on dividing the spoils of war (a command which was issued after all the killing had ended).

Thus, your statement that my attempt to "lay this on Moses exclusively" is "not supportable on the text" is a rather creative spin on your part. Everything to which you have specifically objected as abhorrent was ordered by Moses, not God.

Apparently realizing the weakness of your argument, you then make the following deft turn: "Moses in this matter spoke with the voice of the deity, and acted as its agent." I daresay you made that up, Sir. If not, kindly show me in the quoted text where such is indicated.

My next point was:

On a more specific point, you reasoned that the context in which the Midianite conquest occurred would not afford a valid legal defense in a court of law established by mankind, any more than a defense that "God commanded it" would prevail in such a court. I responded that courts of law have endorsed all manner of injustice, and condemned those innocent of any crime to punishments far worse that the Midianites received, and I concluded that "It is therefore self-evident to any thoughtful person that we cannot use the probable outcome of an issue if presented to a court of law as the ultimate standard of morality." You have not attempted to directly refute this statement, but instead, you talk around it, offering rather vague comparisons and contrasts between moral and legal systems. You seem to conclude at the end that the current system of international law regarding war crimes should somehow be regarded as the ultimate standard of morality. Please forgive me for recycling your own words (changes in parentheses):

"You can provide no reason why obedience to the commands of this (international law) provide a superior standard of moral behavior to those of (God), save the assertion (by you) that this is the case. You cannot prove the assertion to be a fact, and your believing the assertion does not make it true for anyone. It does not even make it true for you."

Your only response to this rather devastating point is a bald assertion that it is self-evident that a moral or legal code which regards the killing of prisoners of war as wrong is superior to one which regards such actions as proper. This is a non sequitur, because it does not address the point that I made. Any code of morals or laws that you invent as you go along, or that your fellow man invents as he goes along, is by its very nature inevitably arbitrary. Why should the currently popular international law concerning war crimes be regarded as the ultimate standard of morality? You don't say.

Which brings us to my final point.

Have you considered that the current (2009 A.D.) international law concerning war crimes may not be the last word on the subject? Perhaps in 50 or 500 years, international law concerning war crimes will be far different. Will it be better, or worse? If it will be better, then you are now applying a flawed standard. If it will be worse than the current international law, by what standard can it be measured as being worse? Unless you have an objective standard of morality, you are adrift in a sea of meaningless and ever-changing subjective standards, none of which has any reason to be preferred over any other.

To this, you offer no response or attempt at refutation, other than your previously cited proposition that a moral or legal code which regards the killing of prisoners of war as wrong is self-evidently superior to one which regards such actions as proper. This does not answer any of the three questions posed, which remain pending.

Also pending and unrefuted is my final statement that "Unless you have an objective standard of morality, you are adrift in a sea of meaningless and ever-changing subjective standards, none of which has any reason to be preferred over any other."

Lastly, you accuse me of "rising in defense of the proposition that genocide is a moral act, not a crime, under the moral code you claim to subscribe to." However, if you review my posts in this thread, you will find that I have not done that. Is it possible that you have let your bias against Christianity infect your analysis and lead you to attribute what you consider to be abhorrent positions to anyone who self-identifies as a Christian? I certainly hope not.

Yours respectfully,


Zebedeo

[The Magistrate]

67. Squid's Ink, Sir: It Blinds No One To What is Going On Here

Your 'unchanging moral standard', namely obedience to the command of the deity you believe on, accepts as moral behavior genocidal murder, should that be what is commanded, as in this case, on what is claimed to be the inspired word of that deity, it was. You might attempt to save yourself by denouncing Moses as a genocidal murderer, but you must then answer why your deity chose such an evil creature as a mouth-piece, and gave him authority entire over the body of his worshippers. Do not forget this is hardly the only such instance boasted of in the book: my old King James Authorized is ready to hand, and if forced to it, it will be no trouble to unlimber the Book of Joshua....

You have indeed risen in defense of genocide, Sir, providing only that the genocide is commanded by your deity, in which case your conception of 'an unchanging moral standard' requires you to view it as moral, as righteous and good altogether. This is quite enough to destroy your claim that such an 'unchanging' standard is superior to what you describe as 'ever-changing subjective standards' of moral behavior. The standard presently in place in this world views what is described as happening at Midian as a crime, a grave breach of humanitarian law, and would not accept 'I obeyed orders' as a defense in court, whether those orders came from a human or a deity. You cannot say, with any benefit to your end of this, that at some other time or place the standard may shift and allow the acts described as being done at Midian, and so your 'objective standard' is clearly superior: your 'objective' standard already allows the acts described at Midian, and the standard presently in place does not. So for anyone who views such acts as wrongs, it is abundantly clear which of the standards, among those presently at play, is superior.

Attempting to slide away by accusing me of bias against Christianity, and you as a Christian, is about the tiredest wheeze to be seen in these parts. Posturing towards the laurels of victim status makes no impression on me whatsoever, however useful you may have found it, or think you may have found it, in disputation with leftists generally. Christianity is held in no especial ire by me, nor are Christians. It is a simple fact that its founding texts are riddled with lies, that as a system of thought it is incoherent and self-contradictory, and that a number of its self-proclaimed adherents not only fail to follow even a majority of its precepts, but put those they do actually embrace to bad use. But this is hardly unique to Christianity....

"I am without prejudice: I hate everyone equally."

[The Magistrate]

32. That, Sir, is Swill Of An Unusually High Grade

Offer up the text at that link as a defense at trial for crimes against humanity in war an you will receive the worst sentence in power of the court.

No one cares about the context because it is meaningless, and not in the slightest exculpatory.

[ZombieHorde]

8. Strange book to take seriously.

[Why Syzygy]

9. How thoughtful someone was to provide those.

:sarcasm:

[The Magistrate]

10. It Is Barely A Sampling, Ma'am....

Taken as a whole, that is one of the most bloody-minded books ever written. People who try to extract from it a meaning a benevolence and love can only do so by mental contortions impossible to an honest human.

[DeSwiss]

11. As always....

...well put, sir.

[Why Syzygy]

14. Am I your new best friend?

Yeah. It's not like we have any bloody stuff going on today. I guess it's kind of like trying to extract the meaning of "freedom" from the liberators from the USofA.

Of course it's just another "religious war". :shrug:

[The Magistrate]

30. Probably Not, Ma'am: Our Personalities And Outlooks Seem To Differ Too Greatly...

The problem with your reply here is two-fold.

First, that particular book is saddled with the claim that it is the font of moral authority, the product of a diety who is righteous and good and holy altogether. This makes point blank instruction to do things that would get a man hanged by a war crimes tribunal stand out starkly.

Second, there is little room to doubt that a good deal of the mind-set among leading figures in the last administration and its military, and among some popular Christian leaders, was conditioned by references to holy war and struggles of light against darkness in that book, which gives some of these things continued relevance.

[LAGC]

12. But being a "good" Christian means you ignore these passages.

Just believe in the parts of the "good" book that says you shall be saved if you believe in Jesus Christ! And turn a blind eye to the rest...

[kdpeters]

15. "Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces" -- Malachi 2:3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p6mArRqy2c

[moggie]

19. Maybe they liked that?

There are probably conservative preachers paying good money for that service right now.

[charlie]

20. Then they have a smorgasbord of kinks to choose from

Lotta poop threats in the Bible.

Isaiah 36 -
12. But Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? Hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?

Ezekiel 4 -
12. And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.

13. And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.

14. Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.

15. Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith.

[maxsolomon]

23. this is why i only like the Jefferson Bible

and the gospel of Thomas.

i'm post-Catholic, but there's some good points in there, and not much smiting or judging.

[Cherchez la Femme]

25. I'm solely a Red Letter reader

The Old Testament is simply evil. All kinds of God-given approval for only 'certain' human beings; how-to instructions for rape, incest, slavery, polygamy, genocide, you name it -- it's is all happily delineated for our edification. Yeah, there's Psalms and some pretty sounding stuff in there, but the 'morals' and 'lessons' and even the *cough* 'science' are stomach-turning.

And that Death Sentence... it's everywhere for just about everything. You can kill just about anyone for just about anything -- can't even call some old guy 'baldy' or the OT gawd will smite some little kiddies and good riddanceto them.
What an unforgivable sin!

Most RW'ers aren't what I call Christians -- they are what I call Old Testamenters. One of the mildest examples: some "Christians" disrupted a Bill Nye lecture for he daring to debunk that the moon emits light ("We believe in The Bible" they yelled as they stormed out). They don't live as those who wrote the Pentateuch (which the "Christians" took as their first 5 books of the OT)
Nor do they think deeper and more thoroughly examine those writings through such works as the complete Torah and the Talmud but they hold more important what evil the OT preaches than what what they call their messiah tells them.

--You know: Christ, the New Testament, the Good News, the Prince of Peace? That guy.


Of course the New Testament has Paul the Misogynist who dared to write as the second coming of Christ Himself
(and he never even met Jesus!):eyes:


...but those beautiful Red Letters... now that's a Christ I can believe in.



All MHB (beliefs) of course.

[arKansasJHawk]

27. I hate to say "Yeah, but ,,,:"

But ...

Yeah, but how, exactly, does one justify lifting those "beautiful Red Letters" out of the Bible and ignoring all those hundreds of thousands of black letters? There is no New Testament without the Old Testament. Jesus, after all, was a Jew, and, no matter what YOU feel about those red letters, he was an utterly devoted Jew. In fact, his "red letters" often provide explicit and unequivocal support for all those black letters in the OT:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished." So, you know, that's kind of a problem for you right there.

And, even if we sail off to imagine-land and pretend that Jesus didn't endorse the OT openly and often, there's still the rather gigantic problem of cherry-picking the Bible. Because if it is totally okay for YOU to pick and choose whatever parts YOU want out of the Bible and ignore all the rest, then how can you, with any integrity, turn around and condemn what you call "Old Testamenters" for picking and choosing the parts of the Bible that THEY like? I'm afraid you're not just brushing up against the line of hypocrisy, you're running right up to it, jumping over it and having a party on the other side.

[Cherchez la Femme]

46. For one

Those black letters were written by man, men with obvious agendas.
The Bible as we know it was also cobbled together by men with obvious agendas (i.e. the exclusion of the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Thomas, etc.)
Bible-thumpers always have their own agenda, too.

Although the red letters were scribed by man, too,
by their difference from the rest of the OT (& the NT) I at least can be pretty sure they're at least mostly verbatim.
That's my belief. Period.
You believe what you want, whatever; but if you have kids, don't stone them when they talk back...

You're wasting your time trying to make me believe in the OT or the converse,
which logically follows, is if the OT is debunked therefore the NT, esp. what Christ said, is false also.

As the Dali Lama said (paraphrased) 'I like what Christ said, but what Christians do...'


It's curious that both responses I got to this post both quoted the same passage.
Is that the only NT defense?
That's a rhetorical question -- I have no desire to discus this further on DU, nor will I.
As I said, you believe what you want and I'll believe what I feel is truth.

[darkstar3]

52. Out of all the Christians I've encountered...

so called "red-letter Christians" have in fact been the most bi-polar. What I mean by that is that most of them are the kindest type of believer I know, while a few of them (from personal experience) border on pure fanaticism.

So, assuming that you're the kind version of a "red-letter Christian," I hope I won't offend you when I ask the following:
You say "I at least can be pretty sure they're {the red letters} at least mostly verbatim," and I wonder, how do you know?

The Bible has been translated numerous times into hundreds of languages, and even the English translations are many and varied. Not to mention the fact that any Hebrew scholar will tell you it is difficult to translate Hebrew into English after a few hundred years, since manuscript decay and transcription errors can totally change the meaning of some words thanks to pronunciation. Monty Python, though somewhat sacrilegious, did hit this on the head in "Life of Brian:"

"What did he say?"
"I think he said 'blessed are the cheese-makers."

In that case, they weren't close enough to actually hear Jesus speak his sermon on the mound, so they couldn't be sure what he said. I think when we take that example and change the distance to time, the same claim can be made: We weren't close enough {in time} to actually hear what Jesus spoke, so we can't be absolutely sure what he said.

If Jesus existed (which is a whole different argument) he was a mostly kind man who, during his life, tried to teach people about love, kindness, and respect. If you want to follow those teachings while excluding the rest of the bible, then more power to you. But I wonder, how do you know that's really what he taught? Couldn't the many transcribers and translators along the way have gotten the message wrong?

Really not trying to be a pain in the ass...just curious. :hi:

[laconicsax]

34. Matthew 5:17-20

¹⁷Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. ¹⁸For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. ¹⁹Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. ²⁰For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Straight from Jesus' mouth. (Red letters, right?) Old Testament laws apply. Believe in Christ, follow the Old Testament in all it's depravity.

[Cherchez la Femme]

45. Christ fulfilled the prophecies

But, as The New Covenant, he established new precedents over the OT.
Otherwise may as well erase just about everything he said.

And where are all the defenses from you about all the pure hell the OT contains?
And the contradictions (2 stories of Eden, to start at the beginning).

And BTW, Christ condensed the Commandments into 2: Love the Lord thy God, and
Do unto others as ye would have done unto you.

Yep, covers them all.

I'm not going to argue scripture with you, here of all places.
You believe that evil book? Fine. Have fun. Good luck defending its craziness.
But you're not going to convince me it has any merit past prophecy of Christ mainly because if I believed that book there is no way I could believe in what Jesus said -- what he says resonates with me where the OT certainly does not.

Fin.

[laconicsax]

48. I don't need to defend your holy book.

You talk about Jesus' words being more important than the Old Testament. I point to a place where Jesus talks about the importance of the Old Testament and you move the goalposts by saying that it holds no importance past except to show that Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies. If he was the Jewish messiah, he would have fulfilled all of them, which he didn't.

Here are some of the prophecies that Jesus didn't fulfill:
-He wasn't a descendant of David, only adopted by one.
-He didn't bring about world peace
-The entire world did not accept the Abrahamic god as "the one true god"
-The Temple wasn't rebuilt
-He didn't gather all the Jews to Israel.

Jesus didn't even fulfill his own prophecy that he'd return and fulfill the rest of the prophecies within the lifetime of his disciples. If you're talking about the Old Testament's prophetic value, you can't skip Deuteronomy 18:20-22

²⁰But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. ²¹And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? ²²When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Seems that if a prophet speaks for God when God didn't tell him to, that prophet will die and you can discern between true and false prophet by whether or not their predictions happen. Jesus' prediction that he'd return within the lifetime of his disciples didn't happen, making him a false prophet. Jesus was executed for what he said, making him a false prophet.

[The Magistrate]

51. You Are Not, Ma'am, On Solid Ground Here

There is no doubt the early sect centered in Jerusalem considered full adherence to Mosaic law required of believers on the Christ who were of Jewish heritage, which was just about the entirety of the congregations in Judea. Further, these seem to have believed that conversion to Judaism, followed by such adherence was required of Gentile believers. This was the main point of dispute with Paul, who held that Gentiles could be baptized in the Christ without either condition, and still be full members of the sect. It is mostly owing to the fact that the center of the early sect was swept up in the great destruction attendant on suppression of the Judean revolt by Vespatian and Titus that the Pauline position, and the largely non-Jewish congregations he had contrived elsewhere in the Roman Empire, came to be the dominant element in Christian tradition and theology.

[EvilAL]

58. I am surprised they could narrow it down.

Especially the Old Testament. http://www.evilbible.com is chock full of them.