We can and must apply contemporary standards to analyse the past.
A comment in the previous post made the point that: "you can't like use our current standards to justify what happened thousands of years ago." On the contrary, we can and must use the standards of today to analyse the past. This is the only way we can learn from history and apply its lessons. How much use would history be if all that is said about it is:" Oh, thats how people do things in the past and so it is ok." For example, Hitler's anti-semitism was not unique in the early 20th century. In fact anti-semitism was widespread throughout most of the western world. Can we justify his anti-semitism based on the fact that it was just how things were done in the past? Clearly not.
Note, further, that I am treating the Bible as an accurate historical source in this discussion, which, considering some parts of the Bible, may be more than what it deserves. The part about Midianites leading the people of Israel astray holds about as much water as some Muslim fundamentalists justifying attacks on the rest of the world 'because they are leading us astray'. The adage: 'The victors write the history' also comes to mind.
The part about God having no obligation towards the Midianites clearly shows the fallacy that I denounced during the previous post, that of using the divine to justify whatever evil is done. Recall also that we only see this battle from one side, that of the victorious israelites. The Lord's Prayer itself goes: Lord, lead us not into temptation. Not Lord, help us kill all those who tempt us. And their families. And their livestock. And raze their land to the ground.
"And anyway, it doesn't mean that God is cruel and unjust now just because he unleashed his wrath onto whole nations in the old testament since the way God and Man is related now, is not the same as in OT times with the arrival of Jesus."
Yes, it does not mean so. But it does mean that he was cruel and unjust then. If the way God and Man are related have changed, presumably for the better since the arrival of Jesus, would that not mean that it was worse in the past? If that was so, then God clearly made a correction to our divine relationship, which means that there was a mistake in the relationship. Now, some will jump in now and say that the mistake was that man chose fruit from the tree of wisdom etc, thus putting all the blame onto man.(This is another argument for another time). But if so, then God took quite a long time and let a lot of people die needlessly before he decided that we have suffered enough and correct it. Is this really a God that you want to believe in? Recall Deuteronomy 24:16 which states: "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
Note, further, that I am treating the Bible as an accurate historical source in this discussion, which, considering some parts of the Bible, may be more than what it deserves. The part about Midianites leading the people of Israel astray holds about as much water as some Muslim fundamentalists justifying attacks on the rest of the world 'because they are leading us astray'. The adage: 'The victors write the history' also comes to mind.
The part about God having no obligation towards the Midianites clearly shows the fallacy that I denounced during the previous post, that of using the divine to justify whatever evil is done. Recall also that we only see this battle from one side, that of the victorious israelites. The Lord's Prayer itself goes: Lord, lead us not into temptation. Not Lord, help us kill all those who tempt us. And their families. And their livestock. And raze their land to the ground.
"And anyway, it doesn't mean that God is cruel and unjust now just because he unleashed his wrath onto whole nations in the old testament since the way God and Man is related now, is not the same as in OT times with the arrival of Jesus."
Yes, it does not mean so. But it does mean that he was cruel and unjust then. If the way God and Man are related have changed, presumably for the better since the arrival of Jesus, would that not mean that it was worse in the past? If that was so, then God clearly made a correction to our divine relationship, which means that there was a mistake in the relationship. Now, some will jump in now and say that the mistake was that man chose fruit from the tree of wisdom etc, thus putting all the blame onto man.(This is another argument for another time). But if so, then God took quite a long time and let a lot of people die needlessly before he decided that we have suffered enough and correct it. Is this really a God that you want to believe in? Recall Deuteronomy 24:16 which states: "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
posted by edwin at 5:36 am
4 Comments:
It seems to me you have so many problems because you do not have a few very basic Christian premises before starting out on your arguments.
1) There is a God.
2) God is loving and just.
3) While we are not prevented, but are even encouraged, to question God, we cannot expect to understand him all the time ( otherwise why would we worship him if we knew and understood everything he did??) c.f. Job 38
4) The Bible is divinely inspired and is the WORD OF GOD.
I fear that I'm no expert in such matters, and all I can offer are the above. I'm however sure that if you reject any of the above you are essentially NOT a Christian, for these are all attributes of the Christian God and his works. I would suggest that you check this out instead for more information and for you to think about and debate.
http://net-burst.net/hot/index.htm
Please do not launch into another tirade on why this post is anonymous. Perhaps the writer has a reason for remaining anonymous, not necessarily because he doesn't want to stand up for what he believes in, although that may be a fair assumption.
First of all, there was no ‘tirade’ against being anonymous. I was just stating a fact, which is that you are not willing to put your money where your mouth is. As a result your posts will not be regarded with whatever respect it deserves.
Now then, to your premises. I am afraid that not all of them hold very much water. If Christian beliefs are to be held as universal truths, then the premises upon which the beliefs are based must be objectively true; that is, true regardless of your point of view. Some of your premises may be true, but some are definitely incongruous to the facts.
1) There is a God--- Debatable, but if we do not hold this to be true then we end up arguing about nothing, so lets accept this, like most of the world does.
2) God is loving and just--- This is just a declaration without any supporting evidence besides some parts of the Bible, which I am arguing is biased and besides which God does some cruel things in the Bible as well.
3) While we are not prevented, but are even encouraged, to question God, we cannot expect to understand him all the time ( otherwise why would we worship him if we knew and understood everything he did??) c.f. Job 38--- This is often used as a cop out. But this argument cannot hold water, because the rejection of this argument is what our modern lives are based on. We cannot expect to understand everything about the natural world and science, but we must continue to strive to question, investigate, and understand more. The result of that works, and give us our long lives, lower mortality rates and so on.
4) The Bible has been shown to contain contradictions, and thus if it is directly from God, then God has made a mistake. However most people accept the fact that the Bible was written by men, revised and then compiled by men. Men make mistakes. Thus not all parts of the Bible should not be taken literally, even though some parts are verified by other historical documents and can then be accepted.
Finally, about the website. I do not have the time to look through each objection, but I shall quote one Appendix which shows how wrong they are. Perhaps you could scan through them and show me answers that show them in a better light.
Appendix 1: Are babies innocent?
In Australia, seemingly innocent rabbits are pests because their ancestors did something contrary to nature: they became inhabitants of the Australian bush. Though cute, it is inevitable that as a baby feral rabbit matures it will damage the ecology. Likewise, claim Christians, when we were born we, too, were adorable and too weak and too dumb to sin, the darling of God’s heart, but it was inevitable that we would contribute to this world’s suffering - lying, cheating, slandering, etc - the moment we gained the strength and intellect to do it. That’s because our ancestors abused their God-given responsibilities. There’s no point blaming them or God, the argument goes. Had our ancestors been removed before genetically transmitting their predisposition to wrongdoing, we would never have been born.
Now, here is what I see are the premises of the argument:
1) The rabbits were not responsible for their fate
2) Humans are not responsible for existing
3) They do damage to ecology
4) Likewise, humans commit sin, which damage some divine ecology
5) Humans kill the rabbits to prevent damage to the ecology
6) Baby humans, like baby rabbits, have the capacity to damage the ecology, whether natural or divine
Unspoken premise: Humans can be treated as rabbits.
Conclusion: No human is innocent and thus even babies that die are killed for their ‘sins’
Now, premise 1 and 2 are undeniably true. Premise 3 is debatable in the sense that although the present ecology will no longer exist, some form of life will still continue to exist, thus the ecology has changed. Whether this is for the better is up to debate. Premise 4 is unproven and thus not admissible. I am sure people from PETA and SPCA would be on your back about premise 5, especially since there are alternative methods for controlling the rabbit population such as capture and neutering. Premise 6 is based on Premise 4 and thus is inadmissible. The conclusion thus cannot be drawn and the argument is not valid.
Of course, the most horrendous fallacy of the argument is equating humans to rabbits. (Now the PETA are going to come after me :P) Rabbits are not humans. I would readily eat a rabbit but not another human being.
Now, I hope that I have started you thinking objectively about your religion as I have done. I do not reject Christianity in its entirety. I am merely saying that we should not accept the morally ambiguous parts of Christianity just because they come along with the useful parts. Remember, the overarching premise for accepting any idea is that it works. Thinking that humans are rabbits does not work. I think people the whole world over would be much better if they did not take religious doctrine in its whole.
Unfortunately Christianity does not come in parts. It either comes as a whole, or you reject it entirely. I hope you understand that by rejecting parts of it you should no longer be calling yourself Christian, because you would be leading people down the wrong path should they ask you about Christianity. Of course it is your choice in choosing your religion, but I hope you do not lead others to stumble as well. All the best.
Rubbish! How many of those who call themselves christians nowadays sell all they have to give to the poor, or sacrifice animals? Forgive the hyperbole, but people can and do accept or reject parts of christianity, knowingly or not. All I am doing is taking a further step and rejecting the parts which are clearly wrong and not coming up with twisted reasoning to justify them anymore. Recognising the flaws in religion helps prevent atrocities. I hope that YOU do not make others stumble and fall into the dark pit of trying to justify genocide and the like.
Post a Comment
<< Home