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

[Spiffor]

Arrian speaks the truth

[GePap]

Such as it is, God promises to delay judgement until the time of the second coming, and as such, he will not order mass killings, but instead allow each one of us to choose our own fate. But this is a gift, it has not always been this way.

So basically, what you are sayng is that God has promised to wait a while, so any massacres before the huge genocide at the end of all those who happen to be on his bad side can't be his, but not becuase he would never order such things, only that he is contractually bound not to do so until a certain date..

Interesting...

[Az]

Actually, there was. The jealous, intolerant Yahweh was rather an anomaly in religious terms. While every other people committed mass slaughter while invading, it was not oftend they so completely destroyed other peoples as did the Hebrews described in the Old Testament

The Hebrews didn't destroy all of the people of the land, as well. You're right in saying that the religious reasoning is rather exceptional.

[Ben Kenobi]

For the women...

In my highlight, the women were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD. No distinction is made for the old women.

From Constable, on his Numbers notes:

The situation took a turn for the worse when Zimri brought Cozbi into the camp. Until now, the sinning had taken place in the Moabite and Midianite camps. Evidently Zimri had contempt for the covenant, the tabernacle, Moses, the priests, and God's judgment on the leaders of Israel including his father (v. 14).He took Cozbi into the tabernacle and had intercourse with her there before Moses. They did this according to the custom of Baal worship. We should view Phinehas' act, therefore, as divine judgment on this attitude and action, not as murder. He slew them in the act of
intercourse by driving his spear through both their bodies (lit. bellies).

Thus Phinehas (an Egyptian name meaning "the dark-skinned one"), the son of the high priest, atoned for this sin (v. 13).

"The point was that in joining the sexual frenzies of the
sacrificial feasts of Baal, the man and his priestess-partner now act to transform the worship of the Lord into the type of sexual rites that were the mode of Canaan. Had this outrage not been stopped, there could never have been true worship in the Holy Place again. They were making the place of entrance into a bordello, the entrance of the meeting of God and man into a trysting spot."

For Numbers 3):

"The Midianites were a larger confederation of tribes,
associated with various smaller groups such as the
Ishmaelites (Gn. 37:28; Jdg. 8:22, 24), the Moabites (Nu.
22:4, 7), the Amalekites (Jdg. 6:3, 33), and Ephah (Gn.
25:4; Is. 60:6). They roamed through the arid lands of
Sinai, the Negeb and Transjordan. Here it is those
Midianites associated with Moab that are picked out for
vengeance (8, 16; cf. chapters 22 and 25), not the whole group."256


Now, Constable doesn't bring up the boys, so I can't answer your question.

Congrats, Boris.

[Ben Kenobi]

So basically, what you are sayng is that God has promised to wait a while, so any massacres before the huge genocide at the end of all those who happen to be on his bad side can't be his, but not becuase he would never order such things, only that he is contractually bound not to do so until a certain date..

Pretty much.

However, the huge genocide at the end, will come, not from God, but from ourselves. There are prophecies that fortell wars, and grave happenings before the end times, when everything will fade away.

God promises not to destroy even those who reject him, but rather, that they will wish he had.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


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.

See the Poly Dictionary, under kenobi.

Well you shouldn't literally be under him, but you know what I mean.

[lightblue]

So what exactly is the difference between your view and say, oh Al-Qaeda? Killing in the name of an imaginary god is still murder. Just because people are so deluded as to believe some nutjob with a severe case of schizophrenia as hearing the voice of a supreme being, doesn't make it so.

What sounds more logical? That the prophets were megalomaniac schizos, who heard voices and played on the inherent insecurities of the people or that they were talked to by a supposedly benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being who orders them to gang bang all the virgins of a tribe?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Pretty much.

This still leads to a morality by God's fiat (since he declared covenants- not like the Israelites signed anything), which leads to the invariable question of why YOUR god's fiat is better than any other god's fiat.

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris, again from Constable.

"Apart from the Lord's intention to provide a home and land for God's people, there are two criteria for the destruction of inhabitants of the land:

(1) those who oppose God's purpose and promise to Israel—that is, Sihon and Og; and

(2) those who seem to pose in a special way the problem of religious contamination and syncretism—that is, the Canaanites and Amorites."34

It is presumed, that had Sihon permitted the Israelites to cross and settle, that they would not have been destroyed. Again, we come to the earlier part of my post, in the desire of God to carve out a home for his people of Israel.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Actually, there was. The jealous, intolerant Yahweh was rather an anomaly in religious terms. While every other people committed mass slaughter while invading, it was not oftend they so completely destroyed other peoples as did the Hebrews described in the Old Testament. Most conquerers merely subjugated, taxed and interbred with the people they subdued.

But the Hebrews certainly weren't alone, no.

The Assyrians were fairly aggresive too. And the Romans of course. They both commited genocide.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lightblue
So what exactly is the difference between your view and say, oh Al-Qaeda?

None, both are religious fanatics. Fanaticism is a dangerous thing, no matter what religion it defends.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by GePap


This still leads to a morality by God's fiat (since he declared covenants- not like the Israelites signed anything), which leads to the invariable question of why YOUR god's fiat is better than any other god's fiat.

It’s well known the Fiat of Yahweh was superior to other deities because the gods of the Hittites, Midianites and Egyptians drove Ladas and 2 C.V.s .

Except for Ahriman, who drove a Pekan.

[Ben Kenobi]

So what exactly is the difference between your view and say, oh Al-Qaeda?

I don't know. I'm not talking about killing people just because God told them to, but rather, that he had very explicit instructions as to where, and when, and limitations placed upon the war, preservation of women and children.

I haven't heard anything from Al Qaeda other than the fact that they consider the US to be the great Satan. I see nothing here, in that killing people, you will go to heaven. No mention of that sort of justification, as you will be told with Al Qaeda.

Killing in the name of an imaginary god is still murder. Just because people are so deluded as to believe some nutjob with a severe case of schizophrenia as hearing the voice of a supreme being, doesn't make it so.

Well, how are you going to set aside a land for your people?

What sounds more logical? That the prophets were megalomaniac schizos, who heard voices and played on the inherent insecurities of the people or that they were talked to by a supposedly benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being who orders them to gang bang all the virgins of a tribe?

If you read the actual passages, the prophecies are very restrained, very precise, and well-thought out.

But again, that would disturb your rant, would it not?

[Ben Kenobi]

This still leads to a morality by God's fiat (since he declared covenants- not like the Israelites signed anything), which leads to the invariable question of why YOUR god's fiat is better than any other god's fiat.

As a Christian, I would say that Christ's death and resurrection, as I have earlier in the thread, attests to the truth, and authority of both him, and God the father, or YHWH.

[Vanguard]

Well then, what about when YHWH 'proscribed' whole nations, sentencing them to total destruction, with no exceptions, yea, even unto the end of time?

Not that excepting only girls under the age of 3 (which some scholars contend is what is meant by "women who have not slept with a man" actually meant) is acceptable behavior. Or even believable behavior from someone who is supposed to be the Diety.