The bible makes me sick.

[Eos of the Eons]

http://www.ffrf.org/bquiz.html

Again. Bad enough women lay with their sonless father to try to give him a son (those bad girls for being daughters instead of sons). There are more things to piss me off that I learned by taking the above quiz.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
http://www.ffrf.org/bquiz.html

Again. Bad enough women lay with their sonless father to try to give him a son (those bad girls for being daughters instead of sons). There are more things to piss me off that I learned by taking the above quiz.

No one said they were bad because they were not males.
Neither does the Bible tell us that the incident was approved.
Those ideas are ideas that your mind infuses into the text either voluntarily or involuntarily. Furthermore, if reading the Bible makes you sick, perhaps not reading it would be the solution in your particular case. Makes sense?

[scribble]

Originally posted by Radrook
Furthermore, if reading the Bible makes you sick, perhaps not reading it would be the solution in your particular case. Makes sense? [/B]


Maybe you'd like to explain to Eos instead how the destruction of the Temple is regarded by Christians to be the symbolic shedding of the old law?

I think you could probably represent your viewpoint better by responding to these facts for what they are. There was only one question on that page that I thought the answer to was wrong.

And while we're at it, I've got some open questions for you in your Hume thread.

[jj]

Originally posted by Radrook


No one said they were bad because they were not males.


Really, that story about original sin was just made up, then?


Neither does the Bible tell us that the incident was approved.


Then how come it doesn't say that they were smitten with pox and gangrene?


Those ideas are ideas that your mind infuses into the text either voluntarily or involuntarily.


Why would you say something so disgusting as that? Why isn't the Bible specific? If it's the word of God, are you saying that God wants to talk about stuff she doesn't approve of, and not express her dislike? God is trying to mislead us? Hello???


Furthermore, if reading the Bible makes you sick, perhaps not reading it would be the solution in your particular case. Makes sense?

Really? Ignorance is bliss?

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Radrook


No one said they were bad because they were not males.
Neither does the Bible tell us that the incident was approved.
Those ideas are ideas that your mind infuses into the text either voluntarily or involuntarily. Furthermore, if reading the Bible makes you sick, perhaps not reading it would be the solution in your particular case. Makes sense?

No, but God doesn't dole out punishment either for Lot's daughters. Unless it was excised for whatever reason. That's why people keep bringing that up. God liked to lay the Holy Smack down on people a lot in the Old Testament. That these two women are apparently left unscathed implies that God was ok with this to us.

The Bible consistantly treats women as second-class citzens and property. While it doesn't make me sick, it is disquieting and I'm thankful we've moved past having to hold to that as a society in general.

I personally feel the tendancy towards screwed-up crap is not limited to Judeo-Christians and Islam and for all the good religion can do for people, it's done and is doing a holy metric #$%@ton of bad too because of the afore-mentioned crap.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Radrook
Neither does the Bible tell us that the incident was approved.
Those ideas are ideas that your mind infuses into the text either voluntarily or involuntarily.

The OT God definately approves of incest - at least in some circumstances.

Remember, Onan was killed by God because he thought it was wrong to have sex with his sister-in-law. God disagreed. Violently.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by LostAngeles

The Bible consistently treats women as second-class citizens and property.


Consisteantly does what?


Man is described as being incomplete, unable to function properly without a woman.

Genesis 2:18
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

In short, he needed her help.


There are two biblical books which bear the name of women

The Book of Esther
The Book of Ruth

Esther was instrumental in saving Israel from being slaughtered by a scheming Edomite.

Modern Jews still celebrate this event on the holiday called Purim.


Ruth became the ancesstress of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Miriam was a prophetess:

Exodus 15:20
Then Miriam the prophetess, Aaron's sister, took a tambourine in her hand, and all the women followed her, with tambourines and dancing.
:21
Miriam sang to them: "Sing to the LORD , for he is highly exalted. The horse and its rider he has hurled into the sea."


King Solomon was inspired to praise a good wife.
All the privileges such women enjoyed are described here:

Proverbs 18

22 He who finds a wife finds what is good
and receives favor from the LORD .


Proverbs 31:
The Wife of Noble Character
10 [3] A wife of noble character who can find?
She is worth far more than rubies.
11 Her husband has full confidence in her
and lacks nothing of value.
12 She brings him good, not harm,
all the days of her life.
13 She selects wool and flax
and works with eager hands.
14 She is like the merchant ships,
bringing her food from afar.
15 She gets up while it is still dark;
she provides food for her family
and portions for her servant girls.
16 She considers a field and buys it;
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
17 She sets about her work vigorously;
her arms are strong for her tasks.
18 She sees that her trading is profitable,
and her lamp does not go out at night.
19 In her hand she holds the distaff
and grasps the spindle with her fingers.
20 She opens her arms to the poor
and extends her hands to the needy.
21 When it snows, she has no fear for her household;
for all of them are clothed in scarlet.
22 She makes coverings for her bed;
she is clothed in fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is respected at the city gate,
where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them,
and supplies the merchants with sashes.
25 She is clothed with strength and dignity;
she can laugh at the days to come.
26 She speaks with wisdom,
and faithful instruction is on her tongue.
27 She watches over the affairs of her household
and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children arise and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her:
29 "Many women do noble things,
but you surpass them all."
30 Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.
31 Give her the reward she has earned,
and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.

Solomon was also inspired to write a whole book dedicated to praising both the loveliness of a woman he sought and her unyielding faitfulness to her true love.

Song of Solomon 8:
7Many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods drown it.

This faitfulness prefigured the faithfulness that the Church would have toward Christ though it be placed under tempation as Solomon placed the Shulamite maiden.



The Apostle Paul reminds the Christian husband to treat their wives with kindness as if they were their own bodies.


Ephesians 5
28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church--

God appointed Deborah, a prophetess to lead his people during the time of the Judges:

Judges 4:4
Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading [ 4:4 Traditionally [ judging ] ] Israel at that time.

God also granted Anna, the privilege of prophesying about the Christ:

Luke 2
36There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, 37and then was a widow until she was eighty-four.[5] She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. 38Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.


The Christian Church is described as being female--the bride of Christ:


2 Corinthians 11:2
I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.


Revelation 19

6Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting:
"Hallelujah!
For our Lord God Almighty reigns.
7Let us rejoice and be glad
and give him glory!
For the wedding of the Lamb has come,
and his bride has made herself ready.
8Fine linen, bright and clean,
was given her to wear." (Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of the saints.)

God saw fit to transef the life of his only Begotten Son into the womb of a woman--Mary

Luke 1:
26In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."
29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."
34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"
35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[3] the Son of God.

There are many more verses which are positive in reference to women. So the statement that the Bible is invariably negative toward women is not true.

[LostAngeles]

Eve was made to be subject to Adam for starters.

Solomon, in his wisdom, gets more p@$$! than Ramseses and doesn't even get a condom named for him.

In fact, aside from Jesus and Paul, who else in the Bible isn't getting a whole bunch of booty? Polygamy runs rampant.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife or ass or anything that is his.

The Book of Esther tells of a drunken king who demands his wife perform a strip tease for his guests. Because she refuses, she is replaced by Esther and the king decrees that all women are subject to their husbands and must "give them honor" Esther gets to be queen by being the best lay. Then she saves the Israelites, granted. Because she's good in the sack.

Ruth is solely about how Naomi has Ruth hook up with her husband and she gets knocked up with the grandfather of King David.

Paul spends plenty of time in Corinthians about how women suck, should keep their mouths shut in church and must cover their head, lest they tempt men with their innate wickedness.

For added fun:

Leviticus 12:1-5
Bearing a female child makes you more unclean than bearing a male
12:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
12:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
12:3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
12:4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
12:5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.

Dueteronomy 22:13-
Hate your wife? Commit rape?
22:13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
22:14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
22:15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
22:16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
22:17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
22:18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
22:19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
22:27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Radrook

...
God saw fit to transef the life of his only Begotten Son into the womb of a woman--Mary

Luke 1:
26In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."
29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."
34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"
35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[3] the Son of God.

She had to purify herself afterwards and what else was God going to put his Beloved Fetus into?

Also, Adam's helper was first looked for amongst the animals in KJV

[Radrook]

Originally posted by LostAngeles


She had to purify herself afterwards and what else was God going to put his Beloved Fetus into?

Also, Adam's helper was first looked for amongst the animals in KJV


Ceremonial cleansing was merely that-ceremonial.
Men also had their rituals of ceremonial cleanings.
Even the priests themselves had them.
So women were not being singled out as you prefer to believe.
The fact is that if women were considered inferior, then why were they allowed to prophesy, lead Israel, used as symbols of God's church, husbands instructed to treat them with kindness, whole biblical books written about them and bearing their names, and why would Adam be said to need a woman's help to function properly?

Also, Solomon praises a good wife and depicts her as running the house according to how she saw fit. For which the husband is grateful. All this just doesn't jive with the accusation that women were treated like scum CONSISTENTLY as the other accuser states.

Your reference to bestiality is a pure figment of your imagination.
The expression that there was not found a helper among the animals merely means that non qualified as a helper or companion for Adam as they obviously qualified for one another due to being of the same species.

Simply stated, Adam noticed that among the animals there were non that bore his physical image and so all were unsuitable. It doesn't mean that he went berserk rampaging and trying to copulate with the beasts as you seem to suggest.

Being a perfect man he would have no such degraded tendencies.
Neither would Adam be susceptible to the uncontrollable lusts that are so common among imperfect mankind. His mind was perfectly balanced and fully under his rational control.

That is the correct, common sense and decent understanding of what is said. Neither should we assume that God waited until Adam was overcome with desperate loneliness to provide him with Eve. That too would be unreasonable to conclude unless one has an ulterior agenda that needs to be satisfied and therefor MUST understand it in that particular way.

[scribble]

Radrook, do you plan to get back to me?

[Radrook]

Originally posted by scribble
Radrook, do you plan to get back to me?

I have been searching all day for that subject where a scripture is said to mean that God brings evil and have not been able to find it. I tried yesterday morning. Can you please tell me where it is?

[scribble]

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870520293

Just look for my shiny happy avatar.!

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Radrook

Your reference to bestiality is a pure figment of your imagination.
The expression that there was not found a helper among the animals merely means that non qualified as a helper or companion for Adam as they obviously qualified for one another due to being of the same species.



Actually I was taking it as a "helper" literally, not bestiality.

Originally posted by Radrook
Genesis 2:18
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

In short, he needed her help.

No where in there do I see "sex". I see "helper", something that will help Adam in his duties of tending the garden.

[Doctor X]

Though the quiz has some errors:

First of which it should use a better witnessed translation than the KJV. . . .

1. What is the last of the Ten Commandments?

There are different versions and there are not ten.

3. What is God's name?

Not really fair. One can argue "my name is jealous" is figurative. It also neglects the names suggest the school of authorship. There are numerous names. Many have titles attached to El such as El Shadday. There is also Elohim which is plural but often used as a singular. There is also YHWH.

9. What is the origin of the "mighty men" giants known as nephilim?

1. They were the offspring of God's angels and young women.

The really screw this one up. Most ironic because the truth is more offensive! First, they are not "giants"--this results in translations into the Greek Septuagint. Giants do exist in later episodes, and later commentators equated them.

Worse, they are NOT angels.

They are the bene elohim--"sons of the gods." Most try to argue it is "sons of God" but other examples in the texts biblical and extrabiblical indicate otherwise. This is the opening to the Flood Myth and some scholars feel this fragment is part of the whole myth in that you have a mating of gods with women, then offspring, thus a threat, hence squish the humans.

12. According to the bible, what is God not able to do?

There are even more:

1. Unable to find people.
2. Unable to defeat a Moabite god--most likely Chemosh

13. According to the bible, where does God live?

Depends on the passage.

31. According to Jesus, what must you do to have eternal life?

Depends on the gospel.

In Mk you have to be part of the group told the secrets--that is you have to be part of his intended audience!

In Jn you have to be predestined for salvation--"born from above."

--J.D.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Though the quiz has some errors:

First of which it should use a better witnessed translation than the KJV. . . .


I flagged two of those - but in my defense, I only skimmed it after I realized 90% of it was old law.

By the way, the KJV is still the favorite of all the fundies I know personally. Which is a fair number.

[Doctor X]

Scribble:

Well that is true, so a FundiDestroyer [Tm.--Ed.] must know the KJV and where it is wrong.

In the KJV defense it translates the Ezekiel passage where YHWH admits to ordering child sacrifice quite strictly.

Of course Radrook will ignore all of this because it does not fit his preconceived notiions.

--J.D.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
http://www.ffrf.org/bquiz.html

Again. Bad enough women lay with their sonless father to try to give him a son (those bad girls for being daughters instead of sons). There are more things to piss me off that I learned by taking the above quiz.
I scored 32 out of 50, I feel proud :)

[Doctor X]

Well . . . you did make the laws afterall. . . .

--J. "Ego Eimi!" D.

[LW]

Originally posted by scribble

Remember, Onan was killed by God because he thought it was wrong to have sex with his sister-in-law. God disagreed. Violently.

You appear to use a rather peculiar definition for incest.

[LW]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Though the quiz has some errors:


I'd like to add the question

28. How should you feel when you dash babies against the rocks?

To the errors since it encourages happines specifically when bashing babies of the daughter of Babylon, not when doing some random baby bashing.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by Radrook
Luke 1:
26In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."
29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."
34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"
35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[3] the Son of God.


Sounds like a great pick up line to me.

[Doctor X]

. . . or the children of the Amelekites.

They do try to play the "surprise" game a bit. Best for them to just let the facts lay where they are.

--J.D.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Yahweh

I scored 32 out of 50, I feel proud :)

43 here...


Proud? Sounds like you didn't work closely enough with your ghost writers...

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Radrook
Man is described as being incomplete, unable to function properly without a woman.

Genesis 2:18
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

In short, he needed her help.


You stopped short on the story - after this the all-knowing god parades animals by Adam in hopes one of these will be his help-mate. It was only after Adam couldn't settle on one of the four-legged creatures - that god made woman. Nice call, god.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by triadboy


You stopped short on the story - after this the all-knowing god parades animals by Adam in hopes one of these will be his help-mate. It was only after Adam couldn't settle on one of the four-legged creatures - that god made woman. Nice call, god.

But...you know...erm..God works in - Yeah! That's it! God works in mysterious ways! Question not his judgement~! Or we'll burn you at the stake!

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Radrook
Being a perfect man he would have no such degraded tendencies. Neither would Adam be susceptible to the uncontrollable lusts that are so common among imperfect mankind. His mind was perfectly balanced and fully under his rational control.


Bwahahahahaha! Yeah, Adam was rational. He rationally choose to condemn all humanity to suffering and death.

If the Bible is true, then Adam makes Hitler look like an amateur.

[Dancing David]

The god of the OT is not the god of jesus.

I refer y'all to Numbers 31, where the children of Israel are running rampant through the land of Midian. They have become blood sated and no longer wish to kill very thing that they encounter. This is in violation of God's orders.

So Moses goes to the man with the power, his brother Aaron, who gets on the horn anbd communicates with God, God at first is pissed that the CoI would dare consider not killing every living thing they encounter. He almsot sends them to the wilderness gain.

Fortunately with a lot of pleading and whining Aaron is able to change the mind of God, god decrees that they can keep the virgins, kill everything else. Kine, humans, you name , if it has had sex kill it.

[Skeptical Greg]

And there is no virgin like a Midiannite virgin.. Or, so I hear anyway..

[LW]

Originally posted by Dancing David
The god of the OT is not the god of jesus.

On the other hand, Acts 3:13 says:

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go.

(Yeah, I know what you mean, I just had to).

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by Ipecac



Bwahahahahaha! Yeah, Adam was rational. He rationally choose to condemn all humanity to suffering and death.

If the Bible is true, then Adam makes Hitler look like an amateur.

'Adam' must have been a primitive and bicameral creature. He could not be held accountable for his actions and good and bad had no meaning to him. (It is like being angry at a wolf for eating a lamb. He's just being a wolf.) Hence, he was perfect and sinless.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LW


On the other hand, Acts 3:13 says:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yeah, but what's the ' servant ' thing.. Loose translation of ' son ' , maybe?

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
'Adam' must have been a primitive and bicameral creature. He could not be held accountable for his actions and good and bad had no meaning to him. (It is like being angry at a wolf for eating a lamb. He's just being a wolf.) Hence, he was perfect and sinless.

That's not what Radrook is saying.

If your interpretation is true, then god is truly evil, as his punishing of Adam and all humanity was unjust.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun


'Adam' must have been a primitive and bicameral creature.

He had a house AND a senate? ;)

[scribble]

Originally posted by LW


You appear to use a rather peculiar definition for incest.

What's so odd about it? He didn't want to have sex with his sister. Granted, she was his sister by marriage but in the eyes of God, marriage is sacred to the point where that should not matter.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by scribble


What's so odd about it? He didn't want to have sex with his sister. Granted, she was his sister by marriage but in the eyes of God, marriage is sacred to the point where that should not matter.

Incest is generally defined as sex between blood-relatives; not between in-laws. As far as I know (which admittedly isn't particularly far on this subject), there is no passages in the bible that equates a bond of marriage with a bond of blood.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


Incest is generally defined as sex between blood-relatives; not between in-laws. As far as I know (which admittedly isn't particularly far on this subject), there is no passages in the bible that equates a bond of marriage with a bond of blood.

Well, whatever. Seems bad enough to me - but then I'm not God, and we disagree often enough.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by scribble


Well, whatever. Seems bad enough to me - but then I'm not God, and we disagree often enough.

Well, my point was really that you were applying a definition of incest that seemed to be neither derived from the bible (as the subject of discussion) nor which is generally used by society at large.

On top of my head I can't think of any culture where marriage between in-laws is considered taboo or wrong; and I do know that in some agricultural societies it was considered "the right thing to do" for an unwed man to marry his brother's wife if his brother died.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
[B]

Well, my point was really that you were applying a definition of incest that seemed to be neither derived from the bible (as the subject of discussion) nor which is generally used by society at large.


I'm not aware that the Bible has *any* concpet for "incest," thus my inability to choose that one.

My understanding about society at large is if you have a stepsister who is related to you only by marriage and you have sex with her, most people would consider that incest. From that, I naturally assume that *********** your brother's wife would fit as well.

On the other hand, my understanding is probably tainted by decades of bad pornography.

[LW]

Originally posted by scribble


I'm not aware that the Bible has *any* concpet for "incest," thus my inability to choose that one.

Check Leviticus 20 that enumerates the forbidden sexual realtionships, including the incest cases. Having sex with a sister-in-law is forbidden because it "dishonours your brother" (the laws are written from male viewpoint, giving several nice loopholes for women who read the text literally) and with the wife of an uncle because it "dishonours your uncle". So, the main problem in these two cases is adultery, while the others are forbidden as crimes against divine order.


My understanding about society at large is if you have a stepsister who is related to you only by marriage and you have sex with her, most people would consider that incest.

I've seen a theory (can't remember by whom) that explains that the icky reaction for having sex with close relatives is a product of evolution that in part prevents hereditary diseases. According to it, the mechanism covers the people you grow up with. So, if you live as a child with a completely unrelated person of the opposite sex, you are not likely to fall in love with him or her when reaching puberty. (Contrary to lots of love stories from fiction).

In the stepsister case the presumably same age may trigger that icky reaction. On the other had, brother's wife is not likely to be a relative so the reaction is not triggered.

The definitions of incest have varied from society to society. A quite common case is that two children who were suckled by the same nurse are considered to be siblings and thus may not marry. The Catholic world usually extends incest to cover also the case of a godparent and a godchild.

[The Decamerone contains a story where a monk who is the godfather of a child manages to seduce the mother by explaining that the woman has already sex with the father who is even more close relative than the godfather is, so it doesn't matter anymore if she has sex with him, also]

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Ipecac



Bwahahahahaha! Yeah, Adam was rational. He rationally choose to condemn all humanity to suffering and death.

If the Bible is true, then Adam makes Hitler look like an amateur.

Snickering and then mangling what someone says to suit your agenda is not very convincing. Neither is it an incentive to continue a dialogue.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by scribble
What's so odd about it? He didn't want to have sex with his sister. Granted, she was his sister by marriage but in the eyes of God, marriage is sacred to the point where that should not matter.


So if he didnt want to have sex with his sister (by marriage), why is he having sex with his wife (who, coincidentally, is his sister by marriage)?



:p

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Yahweh



So if he didnt want to have sex with his sister (by marriage), why is he having sex with his wife (who, coincidentally, is his sister by marriage)?



:p

You tell us! You're the one who smited him!
:p

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by LostAngeles

You tell us! You're the one who smited him!
:p Ha ha ha ha ha ha! ... Very funny! :D :D :D

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Dancing David
The god of the OT is not the god of jesus.

I refer y'all to Numbers 31, where the children of Israel are running rampant through the land of Midian. They have become blood sated and no longer wish to kill very thing that they encounter. This is in violation of God's orders.

So Moses goes to the man with the power, his brother Aaron, who gets on the horn anbd communicates with God, God at first is pissed that the CoI would dare consider not killing every living thing they encounter. He almsot sends them to the wilderness gain.

Fortunately with a lot of pleading and whining Aaron is able to change the mind of God, god decrees that they can keep the virgins, kill everything else. Kine, humans, you name , if it has had sex kill it.



Very wonderful innocent people those Midianites!

Really?


It seems you are oblivious to the events leading up to this or else have cunningly chosen to ignore them. Midianites had purposefully striven to weaken Israel militarily by causing them to lose the assistance of their God. They did this by sending their women to entice Israel to sin leading to apostasy. The women did this because Ballam, a sorcerer had advisedt hem that this was the best way to proceed.

That resulted in a plague upon Israel.
That is what the scriptures below is referring to.


Numbers 25:
16 The LORD said to Moses, 17 "Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them, 18 because they treated you as enemies when they deceived you in the affair of Peor and their sister Cozbi, the daughter of a Midianite leader, the woman who was killed when the plague came as a result of Peor."

The Midianite women killed were those that had been involved in purposefully turning Israel away from God via prostituting themselves. Since the women had voluntarily allowed themselves to be used as part of a military strategy, their removal meant a removal of a military weapon from the enemy. That is what the following verses speak about.

“Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. [Num 31.15]


That the Midianites were enemies is further proven by how they continued to attack Israel and form alliances with Israel's enemies.

Judges 6
2 Because the power of Midian was so oppressive, the Israelites prepared shelters for themselves in mountain clefts, caves and strongholds. 3 Whenever the Israelites planted their crops, the Midianites, Amalekites and other eastern peoples invaded the country. 4 They camped on the land and ruined the crops all the way to Gaza and did not spare a living thing for Israel, neither sheep nor cattle nor donkeys.

Very nice people indeed!

The rest of your accusations don't hold much water either.
I will address them later.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Radrook
Midianites had purposefully striven to weaken Israel militarily by causing them to lose the assistance of their God. They did this by sending their women to entice Israel to sin leading to apostasy.

That the Midianites were enemies is further proven by how they continued to attack Israel and form alliances with Israel's enemies.

So if an Isreali fscks an Arab girl, god will send a plauge down upon them? No wonder there's so much tension in Palestine. :D

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

So if an Isreali fscks an Arab girl, god will send a plauge down upon them? No wonder there's so much tension in Palestine. :D Back in the old days that's quite possible, but that's only because people were closer to the source. Remember when David was confronted by Nathan regarding Bathsheba and Uriah? And basically there went the kingdom all to hell ...

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Back in the old days that's quite possible, but that's only because people were closer to the source.

You mean the Poor Man's Donald Sutherland from the "Matrix" sequels?

Or is because we're losing something and we no longer see the "gods" like the ancients did?:rolleyes:

[Doctor X]

Some one remind Radrook that he is spewing fantasy and not history.

--J.D.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by LostAngeles

You mean the Poor Man's Donald Sutherland from the "Matrix" sequels?Haven't seen any of the sequels.


Or is because we're losing something and we no longer see the "gods" like the ancients did?:rolleyes: If someone didn't bring up the possibility how would you ever know?

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Piscivore


So if an Isreali fscks an Arab girl, god will send a plauge down upon them? No wonder there's so much tension in Palestine. :D

God no longer has that type of relationship with Israel.
No one is any longer under the Law Covenant.
It was removed by Jesus' sacrifice.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Back in the old days that's quite possible, but that's only because people were closer to the source. Remember when David was confronted by Nathan regarding Bathsheba and Uriah? And basically there went the kingdom all to hell ...

A the annointed king of Israel who was said to rule as a representative of God, David had a serious responsibility to set the moral example. God could and would withdraw his blessings from Israel as an expression of disaproval of such a wicked king.
It happened repeatedly.That is why it would have been better for Israel niot tro have a king. But since they requested to have kings --God gave them kings. But such kings were required not to be a law unto themselves.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by Ipecac


That's not what Radrook is saying.

If your interpretation is true, then god is truly evil, as his punishing of Adam and all humanity was unjust.
By taking knowledge Adam and Eve were then aware of morality, making everything they did after eden subject to punishment. Yeah, God's a bastard

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by LW


I'd like to add the question



To the errors since it encourages happines specifically when bashing babies of the daughter of Babylon, not when doing some random baby bashing.

They are babies. No bashing should ever be done to innocent babies, and especially not happy bashing. I don't even care if it is hitler's babies, bash hitler, not the babies. With the diversity of the gene pool in any person, no baby is ever a complete replica of the parent, and should not suffer just for having a certain parent.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons


They are babies. No bashing should ever be done to innocent babies, and especially not happy bashing. I don't even care if it is hitler's babies, bash hitler, not the babies. With the diversity of the gene pool in any person, no baby is ever a complete replica of the parent, and should not suffer just for having a certain parent.

Does that include the babies at Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki who were unnecessarily and unceremoniously cooked alive or are they excempted from your compassion based on patriotism?

[LW]

Originally posted by LW

So, the main problem in these two cases is adultery, while the others are forbidden as crimes against divine order.

Thinking again, I retract this statement since I can't really support it based from the text.

But anyway, the law-mandated marriage between a woman and the brother of his late husband is a special case in that the first child of this union would be considered to be a child of the dead brother. The reason given for this law is that to prevent a family line dying without a heir.

[Beancounter]

Originally posted by Radrook
Does that include the babies at Dresden and Hiroshima who were unnecessarily and unceremoniously cooked alive or are they excempted from your compassion based on patriotism?

FWIW my opinion is that killing any babies is despicable, but would you parallel the children killed in Sodom and Gomorrah with Dresden/Hiroshima? If so then then you are equating acts of god with acts of man (or vice versa), which brings him to our level. If not, given that babies are innocent and clearly not evil, why the difference?

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Radrook
Snickering and then mangling what someone says to suit your agenda is not very convincing. Neither is it an incentive to continue a dialogue.

Then answer the charge. Either Adam knew that he was condemning all humanity to suffering and death or he didn't. Which is it?

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Radrook


Does that include the babies at Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki who were unnecessarily and unceremoniously cooked alive or are they excempted from your compassion based on patriotism?

Right, and you were there as americans happily roasted babies on spits while alive? The americans danced in the streets as the babies were fired up?

Your comparision is ridiculously out there. Not only that, but the Japanese attacked and killed first. Ever hear of Pearl Harbour?

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons


Right, and you were there as americans happily roasted babies on spits while alive? The americans danced in the streets as the babies were fired up?

Your comparision is ridiculously out there. Not only that, but the Japanese attacked and killed first. Ever hear of Pearl Harbour?

So you approve of the burning alive of those babies.
just as I thought!
No more need be said.
Case closed.

[Doctor X]

Eros:

Read his first post on this page then his whinning above and you shalt know hypocrisy.

--J.D.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Radrook
Does that include the babies at Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki who were unnecessarily and unceremoniously cooked alive or are they excempted from your compassion based on patriotism?
They are exempted because we had no choice.

It was not within America's power to destroy Dresden militarily and economically without killing its children.

Is your argument that God has no more power than the American military in WWII?

Because, you know, we've gotten better. Has God? Does he have GPS bombs now? Or are we gonna kick his ass like we kicked Iraq's 30-year old Soviet technology ass?

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Yahzi

They are exempted because we had no choice.

It was not within America's power to destroy Dresden militarily and economically without killing its children.

Is your argument that God has no more power than the American military in WWII?

Because, you know, we've gotten better. Has God? Does he have GPS bombs now? Or are we gonna kick his ass like we kicked Iraq's 30-year old Soviet technology ass?


This has NOTHING to do with Iraq.
I do not take sides in politics.
So please try to keep the discussion politically neutral.
The issue is the inconsistency you show in your moral sensitivities.

Anyway, in reference to Dresden,
it wasn't just the USA involved.
It was England as well.
They took turns.
One in the daytime and one at night.
Even when their was nothing left to bomb they bombed the rubble. The Russian army was within earshot and heard the whole demonstration from a distance.


If you were familiar with the background of Dresden and the reason why it was bombed you would not have made that statement that it was necessary. This also applies to Nagasaki and Hiroshima but let us restrict it to Dresden temporarily.

The reason Dresden was bombed was political.
As the Communist Russians advanced they began to pose a threat to the democracies.

A show of deterrent force was needed in order to dissuade the Russians and convince them that any imperial ambitions in Western Europe would be far too costly to attempt. So Dresden was chosen not because it was an important military target. It was chosen merely on the basis of being within earshot of the Russian armies. In short, the fire bombing of civilians was done to impress the Russians.

After the war this became widely known and widely criticized.
But of course, as you proudly say, my country right or wrong but my country as they say. Even if it means burning children alive.


BTW
My argument is that if you are so horrified with the death of caanaitr children why aren't you equally condemnatory and horrified at the burning alive of babies and children when it has to do with your chosen political agendas?

Excerpt:
The prelude to the bombing of Dresden was sounded by the Russian communique of January 12, 1945, which announced that the Red Army had resumed its offensive all along the front, and was advancing into Prussia and Silesia. This news could hardly have been more embarrassing, either to General Dwight D. Eisenhower whose armies were still recovering from the humiliating effects of General Karl von Rundstedt's Christmas offensive in the Ardennes, or to President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill who were now preparing for the Yalta Conference due to start on February 4. Since the post war settlement was bound to be discussed with Josef Stalin in terms not of principle but of pure politics, Sir Winston felt that the impression created by the Red Army's occupation of Eastern Europe and advance deep into Germany must somehow be countered. But how? The obvious answer was by a demonstration right up against the Red Army of Western air power. What was required, he decided, was a thunderclap of Anglo-American aerial annihilation so frightful in the destruction it wreaked that even Stalin would be impressed.


FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/628617/posts



Excerpt:

On Shrove Tuesday, February 13, 1945, a flood of refugees fleeing the Red Army 60 miles away had swollen the city's population to well over a million. Each new refugee brought fearful accounts of Soviet atrocities. Little did those refugees retreating from the Red terror imagine that they were about to die in a horror worse than anything Stalin could devise.

Normally, a carnival atmosphere prevailed in Dresden on Shrove Tuesday. In 1945, however, the outlook was rather dismal. Houses everywhere overflowed with refugees, and thousands were forced to camp out in the streets shivering in the bitter cold.

However, the people felt relatively safe; and although the mood was grim, the circus played to a full house that night as thousands came to forget for a moment the horrors of war. Bands of little girls paraded about in carnival dress in an effort to bolster warning spirits. Half-sad smiles greeted the laughing girls, but spirits were lifted.

No one realized that in less than 24 hours those same innocent children would die screaming in Churchill's firestorms. But, of course, no one could know that then. The Russians, to be sure, were savages, but at least the Americans and British were "honorable."

The WWII Dresden Holocaust -
http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm

[Doctor X]

Thus his god is worse than men.

--J.D.

[crocodile deathroll]

I think the problem here is paper poisoning. Your ate your Bible raw that is not recommended.

I suggest you soak your Bible ever night and then put it through a blender the next day. Mix it then with a tablespoon of salt, beef stock and mixed herbs. Then place in a large pot of water that was brought to the boil and you have a nice recipe for Bible soup Yum! that is guaranteed not to make you sick. Especially nice for Bibles whose paper was made from hemp fiber.

... and that is another thought. You could smoke your Bible

:D :D

[Benguin]

Radrook, are you seriously suggesting that the perpetrators of Dresden, Nagasaki etc would not avoided roasting babies if they could?

I don't know the truth of that one, and neither do you. I strongly suspect it was not something they viewed desirable, merely acceptable or unavoidable.

That is one hell of a long way from Isaiah 13 or 1 Samuel 15 where the slaughter of infants is not only approved, it is commanded and venerated.

In any case a Tu quoque fallacy hardly supports your case, it merely begs the question. It would be difficult use the actions of man, either now or historically, to suggest we are incapable of immorality. The question at hand is whether bible has anything on offer in this respect.

I don't care too much that that kind of action was acceptable in israel all the way back then, it is still perfectly acceptable in parts of our world today. If the bible is meant to be a moral guide it should have stood for better values regardless of the flaws in the world it was initially written in.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Benguin
Radrook, are you seriously suggesting that the perpetrators of Dresden, Nagasaki etc would not avoided roasting babies if they could?

I am not suggesting anything.
It is common knowledge that Japan was trying to surrender via the Russian embassy prior to the Hiroshima attack.

It is also common knowledge that Dresden was not a military arms production center and was of little direct military value.

If you are against this common knowledge then I suggest you contact the sources I give and take the issue up with them. Also with the hundreds of other sources which corroborate what they say.



I don't know the truth of that one, and neither do you. I strongly suspect it was not something they viewed desirable, merely acceptable or unavoidable.


You don't know but choose to strongly suspect?
Wellll, OK?





That is one hell of a long way from Isaiah 13 or 1 Samuel 15 where the slaughter of infants is not only approved, it is commanded and venerated.

In any case a Tu quoque fallacy hardly supports your case, it merely begs the question.

What is my case?
What is the question?
The case and the question from my standpoint is your double standards. Claiming to feel for the babies of Caanan but then asserting not to care that much about the babies of Dresden is sheer hypocrisy.


Obviously you prefer strawman to what my case really is.



It would be difficult use the actions of man, either now or historically, to suggest we are incapable of immorality. The question at hand is whether bible has anything on offer in this respect.

I am beginning to strongly suspect that you have never read the whole Bible but have merely pecked here and there and everywhere you find enjoyable to peck in order to criticize. Otherwise you would never make the statement that the Bible provides no valuable moral guidance.





I don't care too much that that kind of action was acceptable in Israel all the way back then, it is still perfectly acceptable in parts of our world today. If the bible is meant to be a moral guide it should have stood for better values regardless of the flaws in the world it was initially written in.


The Bible is NOT telling you to kill children.
If you derive that conclusion it is because you are either totally unfamiliar wih the most of the Bible and only understand it in a fragmented way based on the pecking modus operandi you choose to use--or maybe because you prefer to understand it that way because it suits your purposes.

If read within context, the Bible is simply telling you that God saw fit to empty that geographical; location so that his chosen people could occupy it in reasonable peace. Neither is the Bible telling you tat removal of those people was eternal destruction. They will be brought to life in the resurrection. So it was a temporary removal from earth.

[Z]

Actually, the Bible doesn't promise the victims of these attacks would be brought back later... in fact, it seems pretty clear through much of the OT that if you weren't a Jew, you were an animal unfit for God's love.

You DO realize, do you not, Radrook, that Moses' tablet containing the commandment, "Thou Shall Not Kill" specifically referred to a Jewish man killing another Jewish man? The specific terminology involved excluded Jewish women and children and anyone not of Israel. So, a more accurate translation would be, "Thou Shalt Not Kill Thy Male Countrymen".

Scary, huh?

[Doctor X]

The Bible is NOT telling you to kill children.

About that Child Sacrifice and Levitical requirement to sacrifice people to YHWH?

Must have ignored that . . . just as he ignored history of WWII.

--J.D.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Radrook



If read within context, the Bible is simply telling you that God saw fit to empty that geographical; location so that his chosen people could occupy it in reasonable peace. Neither is the Bible telling you tat removal of those people was eternal destruction. They will be brought to life in the resurrection. So it was a temporary removal from earth.


:dl:

[Doctor X]

Diogenes:

Indeed.

Did not Hitler speak of "living space?"

I gather he merely cleared the land of Jews.

[Godwin.--Ed.] Oh hush!

--J.D.

[Benguin]

Claiming to feel for the babies of Caanan but then asserting not to care that much about the babies of Dresden is sheer hypocrisy.


Obviously you prefer strawman to what my case really is.


Somebody define irony for him!


Otherwise you would never make the statement that the Bible provides no valuable moral guidance.


Well only if you peck and choose the bits you see as moral. Overall it is incomplete, contradictory and confusing as a moral guide.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Radrook
If read within context, the Bible is simply telling you that God saw fit to empty that geographical; location so that his chosen people could occupy it in reasonable peace. Neither is the Bible telling you tat removal of those people was eternal destruction. They will be brought to life in the resurrection. So it was a temporary removal from earth.

I have to agree with Godwin. This is hysterical.

Couldn't god just have commanded his chosen people to get along with those who already lived there? Couldn't god just have solved the problem without wholesale death?

The god in which you believe is immoral and weak.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Ipecac


I have to agree with Godwin. This is hysterical.

Couldn't god just have commanded his chosen people to get along with those who already lived there? Couldn't god just have solved the problem without wholesale death?

The god in which you believe is immoral and weak.

Agreed, and it would have been nice if he intervened to stop the likes of Hiroshima, Dresden (and srbrenica, rwanda and a million other horrid occurences). Or at least signalled he wasn't too impressed.

It's either proof he's not about, or that he doesn't care. And that's being charitable!

[Z]

More like proof that He's an insensitive prick with a serious mean streak.

Better off without the JCM God.

[Eos of the Eons]

Noah and his floating zoo was spared the mass killing from the flood. Everything else suffered intentional wipeout.

How rude.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Noah and his floating zoo was spared the mass killing from the flood. Everything else suffered intentional wipeout.

How rude.

Perhaps you consider indiscriminate carpet fire bombing as at Dresden a much more polite alternative.



Genesis 18
Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare [6] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing-to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge [7] of all the earth do right?"


26 The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake."....


32 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?"
He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."

(NIV)

[Doctor X]

Dresden.

Thus is his god as evil as the Nazis.

Most unfortunate, but understandable why no one worships his god.

--J.D.

[Z]

No, but God is generally held to higher standards than Man.

War is wrong - mass killing is wrong - but it's OK if God does it.

Boyoboyoboy...

[Eos of the Eons]

What's dresden?
Any god that participates in intentional mass killing is no better than a sicko dictator, and is a sicko dictator themselves, no matter how the mass killing is undertaken. Saying humans do mass killing is no excuse for a god to.

This argument is so ridiculous since gods don't exist anyway.

[Radrook]

This argument is so ridiculous since gods don't exist anyway. [/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by Radrook


Some people deserve to die.
The problem is that God knows who they are and your trigger happy mindless snickering self-righteous bloodthirsty carpet firebombers don't.


BTW
Since you do not believe in gods then it is rather quaint that you should be accusing God of being rude.

[Radrook]

oops!

[Doctor X]

Do Not Try to Pick Up Chicks in THIS Herem:

Collins article discusses the herem, ". . . or ban, the practice whereby the defeated enemy was devoted to destruction." There is a "." underneath the "h" for ye purists, indicating het. This section alone makes Collins' article worth a read. Basically, he notes that the various YHWH-ordered smiting of various Somethingorotherakites--such as:

1 Sam 15:3: "Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy (hrm) all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

Apparently YHWH likes bunnies. . . .

Anyways, the herem is not an odd practice. The Moabite Stone erected by the 9th century BCE King Mesha has him squishing "Nebo from Israel" and offering "seven thousand men, boys, women, girls, and maid-servant" to Ashtar-Chemosh. [Text of Moabite Stone is from the ANET.--Ed.]

The point Collins stresses:

The enemy is deemed worthy of being offered to God. [That refers to the argument of Niditch.--Ed.] One hopes that the Canaanites appreciated the honor. Rather than respect for human life, the practice bespeaks a totalistic attitude, which is common in armies and warfare, wherein the individual is completely subordinated to the interests of the group. Niditch is quite right, however, that the ban as sacrifice requires "a God who appreciates human sacrifice," and that those who practiced the ban "would presumably have something in common with those who believed in the efficacy of child sacrifice."

For those who might consider that those "devoted" to YHWH were given light cleaning duties in the Tabernacle, consider Lev 27:29 "No one devoted who is to be utterly destroyed from among men shall be ransomed; he shall be put to death."

References:

Albright WF. "The Moabite Stone," Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691035032/qid=1089187395/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-8055445-3759946?v=glance&s=books), JB Pritchard, Ed., 3rd. Ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Collins JJ, The Zeal of Phinehas: The Bible and the Legitimation of Violence, JBL 120 (2003): 3-21.

Day J. Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Freidman RE. Who Wrote the Bible? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060630353/qid=1080647130/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-9499964-0449663)

Levenson JD. The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0300065116/qid=1080646921/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-9499964-0449663?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Lüdemann G. The Unholy in Holy scripture: The Dark Side of the Bible (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0664257399/qid=1080647208/sr=1-9/ref=sr_1_9/002-9499964-0449663?v=glance&s=books)

Niditch S. War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195076389/qid=1080647354/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/002-9499964-0449663?v=glance&s=books). New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Schmidt BB. "The Aniconic Tradition," The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802841619/qid=1087214495/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0920779-1461501?v=glance&s=books). Edelman DV, ed. Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
What's dresden?
Any god that participates in intentional mass killing is no better than a sicko dictator, and is a sicko dictator themselves, no matter how the mass killing is undertaken. Saying humans do mass killing is no excuse for a god to.

This argument is so ridiculous since gods don't exist anyway.

Dresden was (or rather is) a city in Germany.

The allies carpet bombed it when it was full of german refugees running from soviet forces to the east.

Quite a lot out of controversy exists as to what their motives were, whether it was carelessness, indifference or (as radrook asserts) the deliberate targeting of civilians.

Dresden did have a large number of military hardware manufacturers (such as zeiss jena making gunsights and messhershmit making engines), though evidence does not exist that that formed part of the allied bombing plan.

There seems to have been a belief that victory could be achieved by pounding civilian populations into submission, and demonstrating military superiority. Whether this biblically inspired I do not know. It was certainly something the Axis and Allied powers did with comparable enthusiasm.

Winston Churchill is noted as having stated (after WW2) that he had serious reservations about the value of those bombing campaigns, he certainly knew by then he'd been mislead for most of the early part about the accuracy of targeting and success rates.

There is a bit more here (http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=106)

[Radrook]

During the early stages between the war of Britain and Germany only militarily important targets were bombed. These included harbors, arms manufacturing installations, bridges important to transporting troops, airports where fighter aircraft were stationed as well as radar stations.

What happened was that during a certain raid, German pilots became disoriented and mistakenly flew off course. So instead of hitting military targets they hit London residential areas instead.
Since the British assumed it had been on purpose, they immediately began bombing German residential areas.

This of course began an Allied policy that was to end only after the War had finally ended.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Radrook
During the early stages between the war of Britain and Germany only militarily important targets were bombed. These included harbors, arms manufacturing installations, bridges important to transporting troops, airports where fighter aircraft were stationed as well as radar stations.

What happened was that during a certain raid, German pilots became disoriented and mistakenly flew off course. So instead of hitting military targets they hit London residential areas instead.
Since the British assumed it had been on purpose, they immediately began bombing German residential areas.

This of course began an Allied policy that was to end only after the War had finally ended.

I'm afraid that's not entirely true. They also dropped remaining payload on cities in the east, rather than carry unused bombs back to germany.

Though we're flying massively off topic with that!

Hull was absolutely flattened, and was still being rebuilt when I was there about ten years ago. Other cites suffered similarly, though I'm sure Allies were also playing that game. From a safety point of view, they did not want to land their planes again with weapons strapped to them and, presumably, neither side's pilots would countenance just dropping bombs in the north sea.

[Beancounter]

Originally posted by Radrook
What happened was that during a certain raid, German pilots became disoriented and mistakenly flew off course. So instead of hitting military targets they hit London residential areas instead.
Since the British assumed it had been on purpose, they immediately began bombing German residential areas.

This of course began an Allied policy that was to end only after the War had finally ended.

They must have got lost rather often because as far as I am aware the Blitz was not a one-night affair and it wasn't only London. The "allied policy" you mention above was matched by an equivalent "axis policy".

Pointless tit-for-tat, possibly.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Benguin


I'm afraid that's not entirely true. They also dropped remaining payload on cities in the east, rather than carry unused bombs back to germany.

Though we're flying massively off topic with that!

Hull was absolutely flattened, and was still being rebuilt when I was there about ten years ago. Other cites suffered similarly, though I'm sure Allies were also playing that game. From a safety point of view, they did not want to land their planes again with weapons strapped to them and, presumably, neither side's pilots would countenance just dropping bombs in the north sea.

I was referring to the beginning of the back and forth bombing of civilian populations between Germany and Brittain. Germany had already bombed civilian populations in Poland even straffing civilians with their Stuka dive bombers. But they did not choose to do that against England because to Hitler, England was special.

But you are right, the thread is goung off topic too far.
Sorry.