S
st_lucy
Guest
Are you really trying to compare the modern world to the ancient world?!
Obviously the time and people were much different and thus cannot be compared.
The Pope is called "a liar" by atheist for his Sept. 11 statement condemning terrorism
- Status
Obviously the time and people were much different and thus cannot be compared.
H
Heuchler
Guest
Wow, you want God to perform some miracles and send a marketing team (moses) and Exodus shows that didn’t work. That was the only way the Jewish people could have been freed. The Pharaoh wouldnt release them without a reason or proof so God gave it to him. And like most who harden their hearts, the pharaoh didn’t care. Eventually he let them go but then he tried to get them back in slavery. It eventually took a red sea flooding them to give them the message. You wanted God to try to reach an agreement, he tried in Exodus and they didn’t want to reach a compromise. Since God was higher up in the hierarchy and had been wronged, He made an executive decision to get what he wanted. You can take that up with him when you meet him.
And Jericho was the place God had destined for them. Once again his executive choice. It wasn’t a random choice, they would have been there 40 years earlier if they hadn’t complained and constantly turned to false idols. In things like this, I don’t question why there, I just accept the decision and see the rationality that fitted with the time for their actions. And back then if you didn’t enslave people (as the Jewish people didn’t own many slaves) you didn’t just let them go. Only places like Rome had the power and want to create an empire by conquering the area. The jews just wanted their land that God had told them to go to.
H
Hokomai
Guest
So, let’s get this straight. God was talking directly to Joshua and decided not to mention to him that slaughtering non-combatants, including children, was bad?
C
cerad2
Guest
People were born, they lived and then they died. Not really any significant difference from what happens today. Especially when you add in absolute unchanging morality, natural law and an all powerful lord of the universe.
P
Petergee
Guest
No problem, it’s nice to have someone agree with me.
P
Petergee
Guest
He’d already told Moses in no uncertain terms that murder is prohibited. And He’d written it into the natural law which governs every human mind since before Cain murdered Abel. You’re right, people shouldn’t have to be told the same thing again and again. But people do, and if the Old Testament illustrates anything, it illustrates human nature.
I wonder if you had asked the Jerichoites if they would rather spend the rest of their lives in slavery, or be killed on the spot, which they would choose? Because they were the two alternatives.
C
Contarini
Guest
But this seems to be cultural relativism.
Sure, lots of things change. But the character of God doesn’t change. The evil of killing an innocent person (and children are by definition innocent in the relevant sense) doesn’t change.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
The most direct talking God has ever done to anyone was when Jesus walked around on earth. So your premise is wrong.
Edwin
M
manualman
Guest
Is that just your assertion? Are you implying that Moses didn’t receive any more clear instruction from God than you and I have had in our lives? Abraham? David?
Please clarify. Thanks.
A
Ana_v
Guest
A few things can be said here:
-These depictions offend us Westerners. But it should be noted that if the one criticizing these depictions (on moral grounds) is a moral-subjectivist, the criticism is quite suspicious. Unless (1) there exists an objective moral foundation and (2) the person doing the criticizing *believes in the existence *of the objective moral foundation (and thus that moral truths are objective and binding on everyone), it does not make sense to talk about these episodes of war as being evil (using I-believe-in-objective-morality-sounding-language, which is what the folks at TAE use).
- I listened to a radio debate not too long ago, between Paul Copan and an atheist
wherein he mentioned that hyperbolic language of total-annihilation is not unique to the Bible. He talked about this being normal in Mesopotamian “war texts” that portrayed conquer/victory. The extra biblical example he gave is of a Moabite king inscription that states “Israel is no more” and how we (obviously) know that that’s not (literally) true. Israel and its people never ceased to exist. His argument is that “driving people out” of their country, is what the heart of biblical war text is conveying.
21 At that time Joshua went and destroyed the Anakites from the hill country: from Hebron, Debir and Anab, from all the hill country of Judah, and from all the hill country of Israel. Joshua totally destroyed them and their towns. 22 No Anakites were left in Israelite territory; only in Gaza, Gath and Ashdod did any survive
(emphasis mine)
And yet, in Joshua 14, the presence of Anakites in the hill country is implied:
“I am still as strong today as the day Moses sent me out; I’m just as vigorous to go out to battle now as I was then. 12 Now give me this **hill country **that the LORD promised me that day. You yourself heard then that the Anakites were there and their cities were large and fortified, but, the LORD helping me, I will drive them out just as he said.”
(emphasis mine)
Matt did not specify what part of the Pope’s message he thinks is a lie. In fact, he used the plural “lies”
Then therein rests the problem: the Pope did not claim that terrorism is not justifiable by “many dogmatic religions”. The qualifier “many dogmatic religions” is an addition made by Matt.
Another problem: no where did the Pope identify his statement about the unjustifiable nature of terrorism, as being dependent upon the Bible. It is NOT dependent upon the Bible.(If he had said it was, it would have implied that prior to the compilation of the canon in the 4th century, terrorism was morally permissible!)
In all honesty (and I don’t say this to be obnoxious to Matt, I’m being very serious) I think Matt’s Southern Baptist background has left traces of Sola Scriptura in him, so that he uses the Bible (as if it alone were the measure of Christian teaching) across-the-board to judge the theological/moral statements made by Christians. Catholics however, just like the Catholic Christians 2,000 years ago, do not go by “Bible-alone”.
A
Ana_v
Guest
Humans as created “in the image of God” is a quality that Christians understand to be why ALL humans have dignity. Whether that dignity is respected by people, is a related but separate issue. It is one thing to possess dignity; it is another for that dignity to be respected.
The reason why God can take any human life, is because he is the creator of it (it belongs to him in the first place). This absolute right does not extend to us humans because we are all equally the created, not the creators; we are not the creators of each other (other peoples’ lives do not belong to us, in the first place).
H
Hokomai
Guest
This is exactly what the 9/11 hijackers believed. God said it was ok with him, so they did it. Same with Joshua at Jericho. And the crusaders. And the perps of genocide in the former Yugoslavia. Imagine no religion . . .
H
Hypnotoad
Guest
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060704050625/en.futurama/images/8/85/Hypnotoad_animated.gif
One person’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist; with that said it’s difficult to argue these things because they deal with morality and in order to make any headway you would have to first prove that there is an objective moral law.
P
Petergee
Guest
Yep, you nailed it.
The basis of this atheist’s claim that the Pope is lying is his assumption that the doctrines the Pope teaches “rely on the authority” of the Bible.
As Catholics we know that every word of the Bible is inspired by God, and that the Bible is one of the Pillars of the Church. But we know that the Church, not the Bible, is the Pillar of Truth (as the Bible itself says). And that anything in the Old Testament can only be understood in light of the New Testament, and even more importantly, in light of the Church’s teaching.
The Catholic Church has never claimed that Christian doctrine relies on the authority of the Bible, as if the Bible had some authority of its own independently of the Church, which made the Bible. This error was first invented by certain extreme protestants less than 500 years ago and has been vehemently and continually rejected by every pope since. Even most protestants no longer believe this. So it’s very odd for this atheist to accuse the pope of believing it and so calling him a liar.
When a man (as many do) claims that the Church is “wrong” in its understanding or interpretation of some Bible passage which the man has pulled out of context and put his own contrary interpretation on, claiming that he has received some personal communication or insight from God telling him the Church is wrong, well that man is wrong of course, but at least his claim is logically coherent and consistent. He’s not contradicting himself.
But incredibly, it’s very common for someone like this atheist who claims that God is just a figment of other people’s imaginations, to then in the same breath purport to give Christians his pseudo-“authoritative” interpretation about what (the unreal) God “really” meant when He inspired a particular passage of the Bible. Even when it’s contrary to the understanding of 99% or 100% of those people who actually belive that God is real and that the Bible is His inspired Word. These atheists don’t seem to realise how self-contradictory they are being. And these are the people who call themselves “Brights”.
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
The discussion was about terrorism, not morality. If you want to argue that none of the events sanctioned by Yahweh in the Old Testament were acts of terrorism, while holding that acts such as the 911 attacks were acts of terrorism, you first have to come up with a generally agreed upon definition of ‘terrorism’ and go from there.
Since the generally accepted view among scholars, especially archeologists, is that the Old Testament is about 99% fiction, this text you mention is generally considered to have historical relation to the OT, which is why the OT always mentions Israel as the aggressors, never as defenders.
But suppose for the sake of argument that the Old Testament is historically accurate and can be corroborated with the text you mention. The OT depicts Israel as the aggressors. Wouldn’t it make sense that the Moabites would want to drive out the invading Israelites? When one text mentions a god ordering a nation to invade a land destroy cities and all living things in them, while the text from the other side said that they have driven the opponents out, who is the aggressor?
Apparently, you have never read through the entire OT. Total annihilation was ordered on more occasions:
Deuteronomy 2:33-34
“And the Lord our God delivered [Sihon] before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.”
Deuteronomy 13:6-15
“If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
. . .]
Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
. . .]
Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. ”
I Samuel 15:2-3
“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***.”
Note that that was Yahweh ordering the genocide.
Numbers 31:16-18
“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.”
Deuteronomy 3:6-7:
“And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Hesbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities we took for a prey to ourselves.”
Ezekiel 9:5-6
“And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and woman: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.”
Joshua 6:21
“And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ***, with the edge of the sword.”
In addition to this is the worldwide flood and Sodom and Gomorrah.
Those, and many other acts ordered or condoned by Yahweh in the Old Testament fulfill any conventional definition of the word ‘terrorism’.
Even if Joshua 11:22 was the only instance of annihilation in the OT, the excuse you gave for it was weak. In essence, you said that because they didn’t follow Joshua’s order to surrender their land, Joshua carried out the threat!
Perhaps you could call in to the atheist experience to ask about this and to debate.
Matt was talking mostly about Christianity, but was not excluding other religions.
I don’t think that’s what Matt was saying the Pope said. I think Matt was calling the Pope out for claiming that ‘terrorism’ is not justified in any circumstance while the Bible records Yahweh ordering and condoning violent acts of aggression which would fit any conventional definition of ‘terrorism’.
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
Part 2
After explaining that all humans have dignity, you quickly move on to explain why it is OK for god to kill those being who have dignity, which tells me that the character you are defending does not always recognize or care about that dignity. I’ll avoid going into a discussion about how your explanation why people have dignity (because they are made in the image of a powerful supernatural being) is silly in order to stay on topic.
But what if the Bible records Yahweh as clearly ordering and condoning “X”, while the pope says that “no circumstances can ever justify ‘X’” (according to Yahweh)?
As another person already noted, this was what the 911 hijackers believed.
After explaining that all humans have dignity, you quickly move on to explain why it is OK for god to kill those being who have dignity, which tells me that the character you are defending does not always recognize or care about that dignity. I’ll avoid going into a discussion about how your explanation why people have dignity (because they are made in the image of a powerful supernatural being) is silly in order to stay on topic.
T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
The basis of Matt’s claim was that what the Pope said contradicted the Bible.
On that note, Jesus said:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.” (Matt 5:17-18)
Luke 12:51 - Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation.
Atheists generally aren’t being self-contradictory when citing the Bible because they do not believe it was actually inspired by a god. You don’t have to believe that a god authored the Bible to point out that the (fictional) character Yahweh condoned and ordered genocide and many other terrible things in the Old Testament.
A
Ana_v
Guest
What it means is that I don’t confuse “Humans have dignity” with “humans have self-owership over their lives”. The endowment of dignity is for US to relate to eachother, and have a basis for respect and love. (Furthermore, as to your characterization of my statement that humans are made in the “image of God” as being silly, I suggest that the true silliness comes from those who are materialist naturalists who believe in human dignity, which is not tangible in any way and not empirically verified to exist, but they need to claim is exists in order for secular humanism to have any leg to stand on. If we are just configurations of atoms, there is NO human dignity to speak of; human diginity is illusory. No one argues mushrooms have dignity.)
P
Petergee
Guest
Can’t you see the language you are using? You purport to “point out” to us poor ignorant Christians what certain carefully selected out-of-context passages of our Bible “really” mean, even though we all believe something totally different. It would be as ludicrous for a Catholic to presume to “point out” to Moslems what certain passages of the Koran “really” mean according to the Christian although such is rejected by Moslems.
A
Ana_v
Guest
(emphasis mine)
The terminologies “genocide” or “infanticide” or “[mass] murder” (the first two having the connotation of the latter) is really what atheist-Christian discussions about God in the Old Testament, will boil down to.
No one here denies that God sanctioned the death of people in the Old Testament. What is objected to by non-Christians, is God having the right to do that. “Murder” is the unlawful/unjust killing of a human being. For something to be “unlawful”, there must be a standard it violates. Critics always go on to claim that “God violates his own standard”. That’s nonsensical because God’s nature IS the standard. Does the “THOU” in “Thou shalt not murder” need to be emphasized? He never said in the Fifth Commandment " I shalt not kill" he said “THOU shalt not murder”.
- Status