biblical atrocities, and tigers, and bears, oh my!

[cinch]

No, no... The answer is quite simple, really: The Demiurge wished for the Israelites to do murder, and they obliged, for they knew no better.

But then the light, Jesus, came, and shone upon us all, revealing the gnostic truth! Don't trust the demiurge: he is evil! Only follow the new way of Jesus: pacifism.

Moses was a follower of the demiurge; he is evil, do not follow him. Same goes for Noah, Lot, Abrahim, Isaac, David, and the Catholic Church.

So, in closing: Don't follow the bible, because it's full of evil. Follow Christ, for he is of the last pair, and is therefore good. (Preferably the gnostic gospels as well!).

[Ben Kenobi]

How is that compatible with his own commandments? Don't kill, except when I tell you to?

Do not murder is different from do not kill. You will find the former in the commandments, and the latter in your own mind.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Arrian:

Then you are left with a much greater problem. How can you decide anything of what the LORD says to Moses is true? Even the Ten commandments?

That's the whole point, Ben. Once you start looking at the Bible with a little bit of skepticism, analyzing it as you would any other book, the whole damn thing falls apart.

-Arrian

[Mercator]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
[...] and the latter in your own mind.

God is telling it to me.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's easy. There is no lord. du-h.

Irrelevant. You already accepted the presupposition that God exists in order to speak to his prophets. Otherwise, what's the point of condemning God in this instance, and affirming him when he agrees with what you believe?

[Ben Kenobi]

God is telling it to me.

You fall victim to the first point.

So you expect every (potential) believer/hallucinator to know the entire Bible?

No 'potential' about it. Someone who does not believe in God, who recieves a voice, which he accepts as God, is in reality, a believer.

If he is not sure, he will either ask someone who he believes will know, or he will reject the voice as 'impossible.'

Secondly, it is not necessary to know the entire bible in order to know if the voice so to speak agrees with God.

However, you do have a good point, which is why such prophecies need to be carefully considered, not just by the person, but by those with some familiarity with this sort of thing. Elders, or priests do fine.

[Ben Kenobi]

Once you start looking at the Bible with a little bit of skepticism, analyzing it as you would any other book, the whole damn thing falls apart.

I would argue the opposite. Once you get your head bent out of the mold that says such things are impossible, like God speaking to his people, then you can finally make some progress.

Yes, you can analyse, but why should your analysis be anything more than your opinion? Why should it be the truth?

[Az]

Irrelevant. You already accepted the presupposition that God exists in order to speak to his prophets. Otherwise, what's the point of condemning God in this instance, and affirming him when he agrees with what you believe?

You're attacking a strawman. I did not condemn God. My claims are about the actions of the people in the bible, and how something cannot be called moral just because it's in the bible. Another point I made is just because people say that they're contacted by a supernatural being doesn't mean it's true.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Irrelevant. You already accepted the presupposition that God exists in order to speak to his prophets. Otherwise, what's the point of condemning God in this instance, and affirming him when he agrees with what you believe?

No he didn't. He said that if there was a god, he might speak through prophets. That's a pretty large leap of logic you're taking here, BK.

[Arrian]

I would argue the opposite. Once you get your head bent out of the mold that says such things are impossible, like God speaking to his people, then you can finally make some progress.

Yes, you can analyse, but why should your analysis be anything more than your opinion? Why should it be the truth?

It is just my opinion. I am not trying to offer TRUTH, but rather a convincing argument. I consider the concept of a deity such as the God of the Bible to be highly unlikely.

Throughout human history, nations have come up with all sorts of stuff to justify things they want to do.

So some people did things to Israelites they didn't like. The Israelites kill them and take their virgin women. The idea that this was sanctioned by God is, to me, a) highly unlikely; and b) disgusting. So first off, I don't believe in God. But even if I were to suspend my disbelief for a time, my second reaction is to think God is an Almighty Jerk.

-Arrian

p.s. For a modern day example of people justifying things they want to do see: Bush, George W. and "WMD"

[Ben Kenobi]

Full stop.

I need an affirmation from everybody here in the thread, of two things.

1. God exists.

2. He speaks through prophets.

Otherwise, it is pointless to condemn a non-existent God for genocide, and it is also pointless to consider that Moses can speak for God, or that the word of the LORD came to him.

[Arrian]

I need an affirmation from everybody here in the thread, of two things.

1. God exists.

/me leave the thread.

Nevermind. I didn't read the discussion that apparently lead to the creation of this thread, so perhaps my comments are not in the spirit of what Ben was trying to do.

[Ben Kenobi]

how something cannot be called moral just because it's in the bible.

True, there are plenty of immoral actions in the Bible.

Another point I made is just because people say that they're contacted by a supernatural being doesn't mean it's true.

And I fully agree. Where we disagree is that I believe God talked to Moses.

How does this justify the genocide of all the others?

Genocide seeks the complete destruction of a peoples. They would not preserve a portion, nor marry the portion, and bring them into their own families. Ergo, the action cannot be genocide.

[Az]

This is false. I do not need to think that something exists to debate it's supposed ethical value. I must accept that he exists for the sake of a particular arguement about his ethics, but not generally.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I would argue the opposite. Once you get your head bent out of the mold that says such things are impossible, like God speaking to his people, then you can finally make some progress.

Yes, you can analyse, but why should your analysis be anything more than your opinion? Why should it be the truth?

If you accept as possible that one God, Yahweh, can speak to his people, then you also have to accept as possible that all gods might speak to their people, including Marduk, Tammuz, Osiris, Zeus, Mithra, Zoroaster, Wotan, Vishnu, etc.

In that light, why does that lead you any closer to any sort of truth? After all, yoru belief in a particular god and rejection of others is nothing more than an opinion.