But why are some atheists pushy to the point where they feel I must believe as they do?Dunno. I can't figure it out either -- and I'm an atheist, as far as most gods go! In fact, the "Christian-baiting" that houstonderek so acerbically detests is sort of keeping me from posting anything substantive here.
P.S. Emperor -- When I say "let them have their faith," I mean it as in "stop annoying people by telling them to believe otherwise." It was not intended in any sort of condescending way, just for the record.
Unfortunately 'let them have their faith' was a theme carried thru several posts. Glad to see it fade.
One thing I feel compelled to point out is 'people' commit crimes, often in the name of something. Henry 8's 'purge' of Catholicism, Christian vs. Christian. Even scientists have done their share, ie. Nazis, etc. Now the wars committed in the name of belief are many tgroughout history, but the common
failing point is man.
Archeologists do not always find evidence, as most doesn't survive the passage of time. (simply stating this, not specifically to challenge the exodus.) And historical records are kept by the winners, which we've seen to be 'skewed' to serve man's ego.
No human is perfect, or without sin. We struggle everyday.
The 'failings' of religion are failings of humankind.
|
I think it is very possible to take Jesus literally at times. The parables are metaphor, but not all of his teachings are of such a nature. The sermon on the mount is a pretty straightforward piece of literal doctrine for instance.
That being said, I agree context is vital. But even having said that, Jesus and the apostles did most certainly teach the necessity of repentance for salvation. I'm not sure why this should be considered radical. A man must admit his faults before he can move past them.
I am also not sure that I think the idea that a murderer can find salvation is such an awful thing. The further one rises the greater the grace of God is shown to be.
See, and there's where you lose me. That was totally uncalled for. I absolutely agree that it is important to keep a separation of church and state. Most of the atrocities that are done in the name of religion are politically connected. We need to keep that connection cut. All people should be free to worship or not as they please and should not be discriminated against based on race, gender, or sexual preference. Because a political group claims to embrace the same faith that I do, I get tarred with the same brush as them and dismissed as...
That and all that it implies. See above, plus abandoning a 500 year tradition of using reason to advance ourselves, in favor of locking ourselves into the belief system of a group of desert nomads who lived several thousand years ago.
Who's tarring and feathering you with the same brush? Based on your statements in the paragraph above I'd say you and I are in agreement on the church/state issue and that you are not interested in locking anyone into the belief system of the ancient Israelites, who would probably not like the idea of separation of church and state, gay rights, womens rights, etc. etc. etc.
I shall so endeavor.
And I have so endeavored. This is long. I hope the boards will take it all.
Upon request and for my own further edification, I have undertaken to summarize the present state of archaeology and history vis-à-vis the story of the Exodus described in the Hebrew Bible. I am indebted entirely to Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman’s book on the present state of affairs in the field of Levantine archaeology. My organization and facts are those they present. Very little is original to this poor author, who cannot dream to be a scholar of their caliber. This work shall be a summary of theirs with my analysis and personal comment as the subject may prompt.
I wish to begin with a general assumption that the story of Exodus is a history. This is what it declares itself to be. It is not a private revelation, nor even one idiosyncratic to a particular nation. Rather the events described therein happen, according to the Bible itself, in the world accessible to all. Therefore it is only fair and reasonable to hold Exodus to the same standards of historical scrutiny to which we would hold any other work.
The Lure of Egypt
The Bible states that the Hebrew nation has its roots in Egypt, where the descendants of Jacob live under the protection of their relation Joseph, an official in the political hierarchy of the realm. The historicity of the patriarchal figures is beyond the scope of this essay. Suffice it to say that a population that of Semites had grown in Egypt, along the east side of the mouths of the Nile.
That immigrants came from Canaan into Egypt and settled on the eastern edge of the Nile delta, which was then considerably farther to the east than it is today, is well attested by numerous archaeological finds and historical texts. Why would they have come? The brute facts of geography make the answer obvious.
Canaan has a Mediterranean climate, which is dry all summer and enjoys rain only in the winter. However, the amount of rain enjoyed is not consistent from year to year. Some years see much rain, others little. The absence of rain has obvious implications for a society that must grow its own food, which is essentially every pre-modern society. Years with plentiful rain are times of plenty and prosperity. Years of average rainfall are just that: average. Years of little rainfall are times of hardship and outright famine. To some degree, populations can manage a hard year every now and then. This is especially so if the hard years are offset by frequent enough good years. But nature does not appear to schedule its weather patterns for the convenience of agriculture, as any farmer could tell you. So in times of severe famine, what is to be done?
Egypt has a hydrologic resource that Canaan lacks, the Nile. Thanks to the Nile, Egypt did not depend solely on rain for its water. Rather it could take that water from the Nile and further enjoy the bounty when its soils had their fertility renewed in yearly floods. While not immune to drought, as the Nile’s flooding is dictated by rainfall patterns in central Africa and Ethiopia, the Nile never stopped flowing. The same cannot be said for the rains in Canaan. So even in a bad year, Egypt with the Nile has more water available to use for irrigation than Canaan had without the Nile. Both lands had good years and bad years to be a farmer, but Egypt’s bad years would be less severe than Canaan’s.
The fertility of the Nile delta may not seem apparent today. While one can easily grant that it is more fertile than the surrounding desert, in ancient times we know from contemporary accounts the Nile split not into two branches, but into as many as seven which fed vast irritation systems stretching far out into what are now arid swamps by the Suez Canal. In the interim, silting and geological change have considerably dampened the river’s flow.
In addition to the benefit of the Nile itself, Egypt was at the time a more highly organized state than existed in Canaan. That organization brought with it the potential for state oppression, persecution, and the like just as it does for any civilization, but it also brought a greater ability to plan and prepare for bad years. Egypt did this by storing reserves of grain in government warehouses. Lacking that degree of organization, Canaan was not capable of doing the same thing, or doing it on the same scale.
There is thus good reason to think that when famine came to Canaan, as the Bible describes, farmers and herders would go into Egypt and settle in the eastern delta to benefit from its more dependable bounty. The record reveals however no single destiny for these migrating Semites of the Bronze Age, however. Some were conscripted labor. Some came for trade with animals and goods, as depicted in paintings of the era. Others may have been prisoners of war. We know that some were enslaved and assigned to work the land on temple estates. Some ascended the social ladder and became officials, soldiers, and priests.
The demographic trends of the delta, with Asiatic immigrants coming in bad years, being conscripted to work on various projects, and the like, are not unique to the Bronze Age but continue well into the Iron Age, nearer the era when Exodus was likely written down.
The Rise and Fall of the Hyksos
The story of Joseph’s rise in Genesis is the most famous of a Canaanite immigrant ascending through society, but we have the stories of others from an Egyptian point of view. In the third century BCE, Manetho reported what he claimed to be the contents of “sacred books” and “popular tales and legends.” These described a tremendous and brutal invasion of Egypt by people from the East, called the Hyksos. Manetho tells us that the Hyksos established themselves in the delta at the city of Avaris, founding a dynasty that ruled Egypt cruelly for more than five centuries.
Scholars initially accepted Mantho at his word. The Hyksos were presumed to be the Fifteenth Dynasty, ruling from roughly 1670 to 1570 BCE. Scholars then sought evidence of the powerful foreign nation from which the Hyksos (the name means “rulers of foreign lands”) originated. Inscriptions bearing the names of Hyksos rulers were West Semitic in nature, meaning from Canaan. More recent excavations along the Nile delta have confirmed this and determined that the invasion was not a sudden military campaign, but rather a steady process of immigration from Canaan, attested by increasing Canaanite influence in the style of pottery, architecture, and tombs from around 1800 BCE. The site identified with Avaris grew until the time of the Fifteenth Dynasty, when it was a huge and overwhelmingly Canaanite. The change in power appears to have been, contra Manetho, a gradual and mostly peaceful process. It’s likely that when writing 1500 years later, he was operating in a background where subsequent and more violent invasions by Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians remained fresh and tainted all conception of foreigners taking power in Egypt.
This is certainly a framework that is compatible with the notion of Canaanite immigrants coming into Egypt and rising far. But there is more. Manetho tells us that a virtuous Egyptian king beat the Hyksos in battle, killed many, and chased them to the frontiers of Syria. (Please do not read this too literally. Ancient geographical names do not always map well to modern borders. Syria to the ancients could denote the entire Levantine coast.) He goes on to suggest that after being driven away, the Hyksos founded Jerusalem and built a temple there.
Manetho’s trustworthiness can be doubted, both for the reasons previously addressed and because of his generally patriotic attitude. To an Egyptian partisan, rule by foreigners may be presumed to be brutal regardless of the facts. He might also presume that true Egyptians could never have accepted foreign rule willingly, and hence a very brutal and sudden conquest indeed is all that can explain it.
However, we have a more contemporaneous source from the sixteenth century BCE, predating Manetho. This source recounts the deeds of Pharaoh Ahmose, of the Eighteenth Dynasty. He sacked Avaris and chased the remnants of the Hyksos to their citadel in Canaan, Sharuhen. After a long siege, he stormed it. A point in this source’s favor, aside his being closer in time to the events depicted, is that the site identified as Avaris was abandoned around the middle of the sixteenth century BCE.
Finkelstein and Silberman summarize:
“So, independent archaeological and historical sources tell of migrations of Semites from Canaan into Egypt, and of Egyptians forcibly expelling them. This basic outline of immigration and violent return to Canaan is parallel to the Biblical account of Exodus. Two key questions remain: First, who were these Semitic immigrants? And second, how does the date of their sojourn in Egypt square with biblical chronology.”
A Conflict of Dates and Kings
The expulsion of the Hyksos is dated based on the archaeological evidence and historical records to about 1570 BCE. 1 Kings 6:1 informs us that construction on the Temple dates to the fourth year of Solomon’s reign, some 480 years after the Exodus. Correlating regnal dates (That’s dates of rule if the term isn’t familiar.) of Israelite kings with Egyptian and Assyrian records suggests that would put the Exodus about 1440 BCE. That’s more than a century after the expulsion of the Hyksos. So the identification of the Jewish nation with the Hyksos expulsion, a theory that some have advanced, is not particularly straightforward. We can still say that the Hyksos are exemplars of the type of population movement under discussion, though.
But that’s not all. The Bible tells us that the children of Israel were forced to build the city of Raamses (Exodus 1:11). In the fifteenth century BCE, no city would have born such a name. The first Ramesses to become pharaoh ascends to the position only in 1320 BCE. That’s a century late. “As a result, many scholars have tended to dismiss the literal value of the biblical dating, suggesting that the figure 480 was little more than a symbolic length of time, representing the life spans of twelve generations, each lasting the traditional forty years.”
But the Bible doesn’t say that the ancient Jews built “a city.” It names names. So the scholarly consensus was that the name of the city at least preserved some kind of historical memory. Thus they date the Exodus to the thirteenth century BCE. Other details seem to favor this dating. Egyptian sources put the city of Pi-Ramesses as being built in the days of Ramesses II (r. 1279-1213 BCE) and record the employ of Semites in the construction. More importantly, the first mention of Israel in an extrabiblical text was found in Egypt on a stele (an erect marker stone, a little bit like an old western movie style tombstone) describing the battles of Pharaoh Merneptah, Ramesses II’s son, in Canaan at the end of the thirteenth century BCE.
The stele talks about a destructive campaign in Canaan, in the course of which the pharaoh claims that he beat up Israel so thoroughly that it’s “seed is not!” This is ancient trash talk, obviously. But it tells us that some group going by the name was in Canaan at the time. Settlements linked to the early Israelites appear in Canaan around the time too. (The development of Israel as a distinct demographic and religious group is a topic beyond the scope of this essay. It’s quite complicated and much more contentious than the Exodus issues.) So the timeframe for a historical Exodus is down to the late thirteenth century BCE, as the Israelites have to be in Canaan to get attacked by Merneptah.
The stele leaves us with the question then of who were the Semites in Egypt. If they had the name Israel attached to them, why is it not mentioned earlier? The Egyptians did make records of such things. No mention exists in the inscriptions or documents of the Hyksos period. Nor do later inscriptions contain such mentions. Nor do the fourteenth century cuneiform archive at Tell el-Amerna that talks extensively of Canaan’s politics and demographics at the time.
Finkelstein and Silberman say:
“There is no recognizable archaeological evidence of Israelite presence in Egypt immediately before that time.”
NB: I have been assuming here that my readers will understand that not all Semites (or all Canaanites) are Israelites. That may not be wise considering most people probably encounter the term only in reference to anti-Semitism, which refers generally to prejudice just against the Jews. The Philistines were Semites, as are the Arabs. So Semitic presence does not in itself entail Israelite presence, any more than European presence would entail Irish presence.
Was a Mass Exodus Even Possible in the Time of Ramesses II?
So we have an idea of when the Exodus would have had to have happened from the previous sections. But that’s not the whole story. We have a window of time, but did anything go through that window?
After kicking out the Hyksos, the Egyptians got a bit paranoid about people moving across their eastern border. It’s recently turned up that beginning with the Hyksos expulsion, the Egyptians clamped down on the movement of people from Canaan into the delta. They built forts and garrisoned them to watch what was going on and make records. Presumably the idea was to make sure that not too many Canaanites, or too large of groups of Canaanites, moved in and stuck around. Issues with immigration are nothing new. Finkelstein and Silberman provide an illustrative quote from these records:
“We have completed the entry of the tribes of the Edomite Shasu [i.e., Bedouin] through the fortress of Merneptah-Content-with-Truth, which is in Tjkw, to the pools of Pr-Itm which [are] in Tjkw for the sustenance of their flocks.”
Tjkw is probably Egyptian for the Hebrew Succoth (Exodus 12:37; Numbers 33:5). That’s the first step on the Biblical itinerary. I can’t give you an explanation for that identification since I don’t have the relevant languages. The authors list it as a probably, not a definitely. However, the place is attested to an area in the eastern delta from Egyptian texts dating to the Nineteenth Dynasty, which is Ramesses II’s guys. Finkelstein and Silberman are surer of Pr-Itm, which is Egyptian for Pithom (Exodus 1:11).
So that’s good news for the Bible. We’ve got some names attested independently in the area. It’s not ironclad proof of the truth of the narrative by any stretch (consider how often Harry Potter mentions London) but a point in its favor. We’ve got two more that seem to fit the time period in question: Pi-Ramesses was built in the thirteenth century as the capital for Ramesses II, quite close to the ruins of Avaris. Building that city would have involved a lot of brick making, which is hard work that we have depictions of going back well before this. The Bible mentions it too. The second is Migdol, from Exodus 14:2. It’s a common name for forts on the eastern border of the delta along the route from Canaan into Egypt across the Sinai.
What’s all this stuff about? If the border is so tightly controlled as it appears to have been, with records of even roaming pastoralists (that’s herders) being kept, then wouldn’t 600,000 Israelites have generated such a record? Or rather, a massive load of them? I’m not sure how big that Bedouin tribe was, but I’d guess well under six hundred thousand. Yet we find in the abundant sources of the period no mention of the Israelites. Not a single word puts them in Egypt at all. We have such a mention in Canaan, but not for Egypt. Israel isn’t listed as a neighbor, a foe, a friend, or an enslaved nation. We have no mention of a distinct foreign ethnic group settling for the long term living in the distinct area mentioned in the Bible. We have that for migrant workers, but nothing like the 600,000-strong presence the Bible talks about.
The escape of such a group from Egypt at the time seems very unlikely for a separate reason, even if we allowed that against all evidence such a group did in fact live in Egypt. Remember how controlled that border is? How there are no records of such a massive movement across it? This is in a time when Egypt is as strong as it’ll ever be. Its armies march across Canaan to Syria and the Euphrates, garrison it with forts, pacify unrest there, and they left behind a whole library of information about how they controlled the region.
The main road from Sinai to Gaza was a major piece of national security, and treated as such. The Egyptians lined it with forts and wells all down its length, spaced a day’s travel apart. Thutmose III leaves record that he marched his army from the delta to Gaza in ten days. This road and fort complex, the Way of Horus, is mentioned in the Egyptian records. We have maps of it. Following those maps, we found the forts themselves in the 70s. Each one had a brick fort made in the Egyptian style, storage for food, and a water reserve.
So the route into Canaan is guarded to the nines. Egypt’s at the height of its power. It even has forts in Canaan, from which it has dispatched punitive expeditions against the locals. The land there is known to it from its campaigns and the fact that it’s generally administering the place. The border is fortified. Any group that Pharaoh didn’t want to get out was not going to get out. The Bible tells us that he didn’t want to let Israel out. A huge band of escaped slaves is going to make it through this gauntlet? They’d have to be nuts, so the Bible suggests that they didn’t use that route. The alternative is the wastes of Sinai.
Phantom Wanderers?
The Bible tells us that Israel wandered around the Sinai, which is all deserts and mountains then and now, for four decades. Even if they’re getting food and water from Heaven, they still have latrines, garbage dumps, and the like. They need places to pitch their tents. Tools will be broken and discarded. All of this would leave traces even if the number of Israelites involved was much smaller than the Bible leads us to believe. I mean, they had enough stuff with them to build a golden calf. It’s not like they went across the desert naked and floating above the ground. The Bible does not tell us that Moses drove them around in some kind of super-large bag of holding or mobile demiplane. He certainly didn’t cast some kind of epic-level teleportation spell. Miracles like that would have been mentioned, one would think. So they would leave traces.
“However, except for the Egyptian forts along the northern coast, not a single campsite or sign of occupation from the time of Ramesses II and his immediate predecessors and successors has ever been identified in Sinai. And it has not been for lack of trying. Repeated archaeological surveys in all regions of the peninsula, including the mountainous area around the traditional site of Mount Sinai, near Saint Catherine’s Monastery, have yielded only negative evidence: not even a single sherd, no structure, not a single house, no trace of an ancient encampment.”
But maybe it was a really small number of people? The Bible exaggerated. It wasn’t six hundred thousand. Maybe it was six thousand. Such a small group can’t be expected to leave remains. Except that we can trace far more meager remains of nomadic bands across the world. The record for the Sinai suggests pastoralism in the third millennium BCE (too early) and the Hellenistic and Byzantine periods (too late). But nothing in the thirteenth century BCE.
Ok, so maybe nothing’s there from when Israel was moving around. But the Bible tells us that they camped at Kadesh-barnea for thirty-eight of the forty years in the desert. The general location is clear from Numbers 34 as being on the southern border of Israel. We looked and found there a large oasis. It’s likely that the name Kadesh has shifted over the years into the name of Ein Qadis, which is a smaller spring nearby. There’s even a tell there containing a Late Iron Age (900-586 BCE) fort. That’s too late. Repeated excavations of the region turn up nothing for the Late Bronze Age (1550-1150 BCE), though. Not even a potsherd. Also so is the case for Ezion-geber, located in a mound between Eliat and Aqaba. Lots of Late Iron Age stuff, but no Late Bronze Age stuff.
There are other campsites on the itinerary that we haven’t been able to identify, but the two we have both turn up nothing from the right period. But there are still more problems. But what about other places mentioned? The King of Arad attacked the Israelites and took some captive, per the Bible. Two decades of excavation at Tel Arad have revealed a great Early Bronze Age city and an Iron Age fort, but the entire area seems to have been deserted in the Late Bronze Age. The same is the case across the Jordan. Not even a small village existed at the site of Heshbon, where Israel had to do battle with the Amorites.
The Bible also states that Israel met resistance on the Transjordan plateau (modern day Jordan, more or less), from Edom and Ammon. But it turns out that the plateau was sparsely inhabited at the time. Edom is a state ruled by a king in the Bible, but there were no kings in Edom at the time the Exodus is supposed to have occurred. We have no evidence of them.
Finkelstein and Silberman conclude:
“The pattern should have become clear by now. Sites mentioned in the Exodus narrative are real. A few were well known and apparently occupied in much earlier and much later periods-after the kingdom of Judah was established, when the text of the biblical narrative was set down in writing for the first time. Unfortunately for those seeking a historical Exodus, they were unoccupied precisely at the time they reportedly played a role in the events of the wandering of the children of Israel in the wilderness.”
Jews... traditionally they have regarded the worship of false gods and prophets (like that Jesus fellow) to be a really big no-no. First commandment and all.
The 'laws' only ever applied to Jews. Unlike Christians or Muslims, Jews aren't impelled to evangelize or persecute. We don't condemn people to Hell, either, 'cause we don't have one.
|
|
Old testament biblical law is racist, sexist, homophobic, endorses slavery and has some very choice things to say about apostates and members of other faiths.
Perhaps the police of the time could have taken care of things. Put them in prison? Arrested wrong-doers?
A few things here. Much (most?) of the old testament law was written in direct opposition to neighboring lands. It was putting some structure to a rather lawless society. It's interesting that you feel that you can put 20th century ideas to 2,000-3,000 BC law.
Racist? Possibly. But it was kind of written with an "us vs. them" theme. In addition, what other writings of the time are not "racist"? Also, there are quite a number of times where they still accepted other "races".
Sexist? Not really. You're probably using the "doesn't the Bible give rules for selling daughters" thing. Once again, you need to look at the times. Women were worthless. They had no value. If a man saw something he liked, he took it. The old testament law said "wait a minute - women are worth something too" and gave "rules" for setting up a dowry. If someone was going to marry my daughter, he needed to show me that he was going to treat her well and with respect and value her.
Homophobic? Yes and no. There are homosexuals and then there are the attrocities described in the old testament. That's rape regardless of sexual preference.
Slavery? Not really. Not as you or I understand slavery. As I said above, there weren't any police. No prisons. They didn't have three branches of government. It was a very different time. So what was it? If I wronged you -- stole your sheep, hurt your daughter, whatever -- I would have to become your slave. Which amounted to a complicated form of indentured servitude. Every day for a period of time I would have to look in the eye the person who I wronged. But then, there was a big celebration every so many years (seven?) where all sins forgiven, all debts considered paid. The "slate" was wiped clean. So also, you would have to look me in the eye every day knowing that you would need to ultimately forgive and forget. That's powerful. Also, there were very strict rules on how a "master" was to treat his slave.
Apostates? Sure. Most religions are going to have something like that.
So it sounds to me like your hang up is with regard to a complete understanding of ancient Hebrew law more than Christianity.
|
|
Regardless of what you choose to believe, the bible does make it fairly clear that an exemplary atheist is going to be punished, while a mass murderer who finds god is going to go to heaven.
What is "exemplary"? 20 good deeds? 100 good deeds? Simply more "good" deeds than "bad" ones (which to me is still a D-)? What constitutes a "good" deed anyway?
So is what you're saying that rather than have a clear-cut system for salvation, it's better to have an arbitrary notion of "good"?
The atheist has made his choice. He's not being "punished". It is his choice. Not God's. Maybe it would be more "fair" to turn your back on God and still be able to get into a heaven that you don't believe exists.
It still takes me back to teaching. I took a kid's GameBoy away because he was playing it in class. I told him to get it after school. When he came to pick it up, I told him that if I saw it in my class again, it was mine. "That's not fair." What's not fair? Here's what you need to do. If you don't do it, these are the consequences. How does it then become my fault that you choose to go against the rules?
Moff, I wasn't clear enough earlier but the post from me with the spoiler text in it is the one about Exodus. I posted it a bit ago and I suspect it's too late now to go back and edit to make it more clear what I'm about there.
Homophobic? Yes and no. There are homosexuals and then there are the attrocities described in the old testament. That's rape regardless of sexual preference.
I'll just respond to the laws that concern me personally, since I get them thrown at me most of the times I turn on the TV.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
That doesn't say rape. I would really prefer that it did since it would almost surely make my life a bit easier. But that's not what it says.
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Same problem. Unless the author of Leviticus is of the opinion that all sex is rape (that would then fall under the heading of laying as with women), or he's confused about what parts of the male anatomy are available, both of which seem unlikely, we're left with a law forbidding even consensual homosexuality, on pain of death.
If the Bible were only condemning rape, I would be fine with that. (A book that big is likely to get something right every now and then! :) ) If it were only condemning child molestation, that would be great too. But that's not what it's saying. It's condemning all forms of homosexuality, though it takes until Paul is writing for lesbians to be noticed.
But why are some atheists pushy to the point where they feel I must believe as they do?Dunno. I can't figure it out either -- and I'm an atheist, as far as most gods go! In fact, the "Christian-baiting" that houstonderek so acerbically detests is sort of keeping me from posting anything substantive here.
P.S. Emperor -- When I say "let them have their faith," I mean it as in "stop annoying people by telling them to believe otherwise." It was not intended in any sort of condescending way, just for the record.
Unfortunately 'let them have their faith' was a theme carried thru several posts. Glad to see it fade.
One thing I feel compelled to point out is 'people' commit crimes, often in the name of something. Henry 8's 'purge' of Catholicism, Christian vs. Christian. Even scientists have done their share, ie. Nazis, etc. Now the wars committed in the name of belief are many tgroughout history, but the common
failing point is man.Archeologists do not always find evidence, as most doesn't survive the passage of time. (simply stating this, not specifically to challenge the exodus.) And historical records are kept by the winners, which we've seen to be 'skewed' to serve man's ego.
No human is perfect, or without sin. We struggle everyday.
The 'failings' of religion are failings of humankind.
Mmm....just to make a point. With regards to the small number of 'scientists' involved in killing people in nazi germany. They didn't kill people because they were scientists, they killed people because they have been endoctrinated into the Nazis mindset. Claiming that 'Even scientists have done their share, ie. Nazis, etc.' is like saying 'Even artists have done their share, i.e. Nazis, etc.'
There are a good many scientists working in the military developing new ways of killing people.
That qualifies.
And there has been some horrific experimentation in history, and that was done by scientists, and science was the ultimate justification.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are a good many scientists working in the military developing new ways of killing people.
That qualifies.
And there has been some horrific experimentation in history, and that was done by scientists, and science was the ultimate justification.
And merchants, farmers and sailors have been involved in the trade of narcotics and slaves. That does not reflect on farmers, merchants or sailors as a whole in the same way that some scientists having been being involved with weapon developement, is not reflection on scientists as a whole.
This is because science, farming and sailing make no claims about how a person should behave. They are simply skill sets, mental tools, designed to solve problems. In the case of science, it is our most successful tool for answering our questions about the world and providing solutions to problems. This also goes for the other way however.In other words, it is no an ideology.
If your argument was that the ideology that 'aquasition of knowledge is of greater import than ethics' or 'eugenics', had led to great suffering and that they are wrong. You'd be correct, but they are not science.
You closing argument does not hold weight.
The fact that they are scientists and that they did bad things are distinct. They did not do these things because they were scientists, they did it because they were bad people. Certainly, being scientists may have effected their methods of doing the bad things, perhapes even made them far more effective at doing those bad things. Hell they may even have learned things from it. But they no more did it because they were scientists, than your average nominal christian who is in prizon commited their crime because they are christian.
edit:
As further illistration of this, and to show that it goes both ways.
I thought i would give a recent real world example of Anthony Powell who killed Asia McGowan and himself in detroit. Anthony Powell was a creationist and a fundementalist christian.
An equivilant statement to your openning about Anthony Powell would be
'There are a creationists who have murdered their girlfriends.'
This statement is clearly completely unfair. Mr Powell was a very sick man, and while his beliefs do appear to have been wrapped up in his sickness, to my knowledge his beliefs did not lead him to kill Asia McGowan. Why because creationism, while it is an ideology, does not make reference to killing your girl friend and commiting suicide as being a good thing.
So Anthony was a creationist and a murderer. However the two are distinct from one another.
But why are some atheists pushy to the point where they feel I must believe as they do?Dunno. I can't figure it out either -- and I'm an atheist, as far as most gods go! In fact, the "Christian-baiting" that houstonderek so acerbically detests is sort of keeping me from posting anything substantive here.
P.S. Emperor -- When I say "let them have their faith," I mean it as in "stop annoying people by telling them to believe otherwise." It was not intended in any sort of condescending way, just for the record.
Unfortunately 'let them have their faith' was a theme carried thru several posts. Glad to see it fade.
One thing I feel compelled to point out is 'people' commit crimes, often in the name of something. Henry 8's 'purge' of Catholicism, Christian vs. Christian. Even scientists have done their share, ie. Nazis, etc. Now the wars committed in the name of belief are many tgroughout history, but the common
failing point is man.Archeologists do not always find evidence, as most doesn't survive the passage of time. (simply stating this, not specifically to challenge the exodus.) And historical records are kept by the winners, which we've seen to be 'skewed' to serve man's ego.
No human is perfect, or without sin. We struggle everyday.
The 'failings' of religion are failings of humankind.
Mmm....just to make a point. With regards to the small number of 'scientists' involved in killing people in nazi germany. They didn't kill people because they were scientists, they killed people because they have been endoctrinated into the Nazis mindset. Claiming that 'Even scientists have done their share, ie. Nazis, etc.' is like saying 'Even artists have done their share, i.e. Nazis, etc.'
The point was that even scientists are human, as christians are. It was not an attempt to attribute their failings to their belief in science, but rather to their human imperfections. An artist involved in propoganda supporting/masking genocide would fall under this same analogy. Hopefully this helps clarify my intent.
The point was that even scientists are human, as christians are. It was not an attempt to attribute their failings to their belief in science, but rather to their human...But why are some atheists pushy to the point where they feel I must believe as they do?Dunno. I can't figure it out either -- and I'm an atheist, as far as most gods go! In fact, the "Christian-baiting" that houstonderek so acerbically detests is sort of keeping me from posting anything substantive here.
P.S. Emperor -- When I say "let them have their faith," I mean it as in "stop annoying people by telling them to believe otherwise." It was not intended in any sort of condescending way, just for the record.
Unfortunately 'let them have their faith' was a theme carried thru several posts. Glad to see it fade.
One thing I feel compelled to point out is 'people' commit crimes, often in the name of something. Henry 8's 'purge' of Catholicism, Christian vs. Christian. Even scientists have done their share, ie. Nazis, etc. Now the wars committed in the name of belief are many tgroughout history, but the common
failing point is man.Archeologists do not always find evidence, as most doesn't survive the passage of time. (simply stating this, not specifically to challenge the exodus.) And historical records are kept by the winners, which we've seen to be 'skewed' to serve man's ego.
No human is perfect, or without sin. We struggle everyday.
The 'failings' of religion are failings of humankind.
Mmm....just to make a point. With regards to the small number of 'scientists' involved in killing people in nazi germany. They didn't kill people because they were scientists, they killed people because they have been endoctrinated into the Nazis mindset. Claiming that 'Even scientists have done their share, ie. Nazis, etc.' is like saying 'Even artists have done their share, i.e. Nazis, etc.'
I am not sure i explained my point as well as i should have done either. The point is that the fact that they are scientists is entirely irrelivant in this case.
It is that comparison between christian and scientist which is dangerous. its a false dicotomy. A person can be both a christian and a scientist, or neither. They are not mutually exclusive.
I pointed out in my last post, that you can't blame science for the actions of a scientist who chooses to develope a weapon, because science does not say that you should develope weapons. In fact, science says nothing at all about what you should or should not use it for. Only what it can and cannot do, and that you should not use it for something that it cannot do.
Religion's tennet on the other hand often does tell its adhereants what to do, and sometimes those things are immoral.
Religion's tennet on the other hand often does tell its adhereants what to do, and sometimes those things are immoral.
Depends on the religion and the tenet, but not the major portion of Christian teachings. Thankfully. This doesn't ignore that your stmt is sometimes true. Sadly. Human failings versus spiritual ones.
Then you break into the differing views on morality between cultures and religions. That gets really murky. Ugh.
Seeing past both of these failings is a talent we lose sight of all too often.
|
|
Moff, I wasn't clear enough earlier but the post from me with the spoiler text in it is the one about Exodus. I posted it a bit ago and I suspect it's too late now to go back and edit to make it more clear what I'm about there.
I read it last night. Wow. And thank you. That was quite the post. I have a good friend of mine that's into archeology and wanted to pick her brain a bit about it before I posted much more about it. However, it looks like you (or they) are saying that the Hebrews were there and at some point migrated out, but mostly not during the time they feel the Bible says it happened. Correct?
I'll just respond to the laws that concern me personally, since I get them thrown at me most of the times I turn on the TV.
That doesn't say rape. I would really prefer that it did since it would almost surely make my life a bit easier. But that's not what it says.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Sorry about others. I can't really speak for them. Here at least are a couple of my thoughts.
It was a different time. As I said before, the "legal system" was far different than it is today. That (and the other) entire chapter very specifically talks about what other nations were doing. God wanted his people to be set apart. The chapter(s) spends a lot more time talking about incest than homosexuality or beastiality. A lot of the old law was hygenic in nature (they didn't exactly have condoms back then). I also think that a lot of the old law was simply for purposes of keeping order and to help unify the nation.
You're right though. And I will never throw those out at people. Jesus really put the whole old law on its head and showed people to look at the reasons behind the law rather than the letter of the law. And as I've said before -- at the absolute worst, it could be considered a "sin". Since I'm not perfect either -- welcome to the club. ;-)
|
I'll just respond to the laws that concern me personally, since I get them thrown at me most of the times I turn on the TV.
That doesn't say rape. I would really prefer that it did since it would almost surely make my life a bit easier. But that's not what it says.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.Sorry about others. I can't really speak for them. Here at least are a couple of my thoughts.
It was a different time. As I said before, the "legal system" was far different than it is today. That (and the other) entire chapter very specifically talks about what other nations were doing. God wanted his people to be set apart. The chapter(s) spends a lot more time talking about incest than homosexuality or beastiality. A lot of the old law was hygenic in nature (they didn't exactly have condoms back then). I also think that a lot of the old law was simply for purposes of keeping order and to help unify the nation.
You're right though. And I will never throw those out at people. Jesus really put the whole old law on its head and showed people to look at the reasons behind the law rather than the letter of the law. And as I've said before -- at the absolute worst, it could be considered a "sin".
Also, if you read the wording carefully you will notice that being homosexual is not a sin in and of itself. It is the act of homosexual intercourse. It may seem like a small distinction, but really the implications are that someone could be homosexual and not be a sinner, if they lived a celibate life. Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law of Moses and to replace it with a higher law, which is love thy neighbor. That is the problem that I have with many of my fellow Christians today. They claim to follow Christ, but many seem like they would rather have the vengeful God of the Old Testament. Jesus is the Prince of Peace, not a holy SWAT team.
Again, I don't know much about Hindus and Buddhists, but I wouldn't be surprised if they have their share of fundamentalists in their midst.
I'm not entirely sure what a fundamentalist Buddhist would be like, given the lack of emphasis on scripture, and lack of a god/gods to worship (note: many people in SE Asia who identify as Buddhist also venerate sets of local gods, but those gods are, properly speaking, an addition to their Buddhist faith, not a part of it -- see below). One of the key differences of Buddhism from other religions -- aside from the whole lack of its own gods thing -- is the message that the Buddha's path is ONE road to happiness, but not necessarly the ONLY one. Indeed, many people in Japan identify themselves and Buddhist and Shinto simultaneously, and some as Buddhist/Christian or even Buddhist/Shinto/Christian.
It still takes me back to teaching. I took a kid's GameBoy away because he was playing it in class. I told him to get it after school. When he came to pick it up, I told him that if I saw it in my class again, it was mine. "That's not fair." What's not fair? Here's what you need to do. If you don't do it, these are the consequences. How does it then become my fault that you choose to go against the rules?
But god did not tell me the rules. You have a book which you claim are god’s rules. In addition, several other religions have writings which they claim are god’s rules. None of these books have been able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are, in fact, the rules. You may have faith that your book is right, but standing from the outside, they all look about the same.
Suggesting I am merely a prideful child who has turned my back on my father could be seen as insulting.
** spoiler omitted **
email sent!
|
Also, if you read the wording carefully you will notice that being homosexual is not a sin in and of itself. It is the act of homosexual intercourse. It may seem like a small distinction, but really the implications are that someone could be homosexual and not be a sinner, if they lived a celibate life. Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law of Moses and to replace it with a higher law, which is love thy neighbor. That is the problem that I have with many of my fellow Christians today. They claim to follow Christ, but many seem like they would rather have the vengeful God of the Old Testament. Jesus is the Prince of Peace, not a holy SWAT team.
That doesn't make it any less arbitrary. Apart from Catholics*, most Christian churches don't urge celibacy for anyone... unless you're gay. I have a hard time with a doctrine that holds one group of people to a different standard than everyone else.
That said, I'm all in favor of Christians who recognize that preaching hate is not very Christian at all, so I applaud you on that point.
|
|
But god did not tell me the rules. You have a book which you claim are god’s rules. In addition, several other religions have writings which they claim are god’s rules. None of these books have been able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are, in fact, the rules. You may have faith that your book is right, but standing from the outside, they all look about the same.
My point is that you have made a choice. You know what we believe and have chosen not to believe. You know what the theoretical consequences are and have chosen to ignore them. It has very little to do with the "fairness" of God.
And while there are similarities, they do not all look the same.
As for "childish" -- whenever I hear "it's not fair" or something similar, it does come across as a bit whiny and childish. But that could simply be because I have a seven-year-old who uses that line often.
Suggesting that you are one of God's children could be seen as even more insulting. ;)
Really? I thought we were all god's children.
I am not only an anti-christ, I am an illegitimate bastard!
But god did not tell me the rules. You have a book which you claim are god’s rules. In addition, several other religions have writings which they claim are god’s rules. None of these books have been able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are, in fact, the rules. You may have faith that your book is right, but standing from the outside, they all look about the same.My point is that you have made a choice. You know what we believe and have chosen not to believe. You know what the theoretical consequences are and have chosen to ignore them. It has very little to do with the "fairness" of God.
And while there are similarities, they do not all look the same.
As for "childish" -- whenever I hear "it's not fair" or something similar, it does come across as a bit whiny and childish. But that could simply be because I have a seven-year-old who uses that line often.
So, what do you believe the consiquences are for him turning his back?
My point is that you have made a choice. You know what we believe and have chosen not to believe. You know what the theoretical consequences are and have chosen to ignore them. It has very little to do with the "fairness" of God.
Why have you chosen not to believe Mormonism? Why have you chosen not to believe Islam? Why have you chosen not to believe in Santa Claus? I still do not see how my choice not to believe in the Christian god is any different than your choice not to believe in those. Yet, somehow, there is an undertone of arrogance in my choice.
And while there are similarities, they do not all look the same.
Agreed. Every religion is different. As far as telling which one is right they all look about the same.
As for "childish" -- whenever I hear "it's not fair" or something similar, it does come across as a bit whiny and childish. But that could simply be because I have a seven-year-old who uses that line often.
I doubt any of my fellow atheists would argue that life is fair. If we can all agree god is capricious, then I can get onboard. However, the Christian god is suppose to be omni-benevolent. This seems illogical. If god created everything and everything is going exactly as he planned it, then he is equally guilty of the bad things as he is of the good things.
Exactly how can I choose to be apart from him when I see absolutely no evidence whatsoever of his existence? Will I likewise be punished for my casual dismissal of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and fairies?
|
|
Yet, somehow, there is an undertone of arrogance in my choice.
If I implied that, I apologise. There's really no arrogance. It's just a choice that we all make in one fashion or another. You at least seem to imply that the verdict isn't completely decided yet for you. There are atheists out there that have made their decision. No arrogance. They have weighed their options and made their decision.
Why have you turned your back on Santa, Moff? He loves you and wants to bring you gifts. All you have to do is believe in magic. Why are you such a naughty boy? A Visit from St. Nicholas says that he loves you and wants you to be good. Yet, you deny him?
|
|
Why have you turned your back on Santa, Moff? He loves you and wants to bring you gifts. All you have to do is believe in magic. Why are you such a naughty boy? A Visit from St. Nicholas says that he loves you and wants you to be good. Yet, you deny him?
Because he's creepy. He's a big fat guy who knows all and is spying on you -- kind of like the CIA. Then he breaks into your home in the dead of night and creeps around your home. I'm surprised he hasn't been arrested for breaking and entering...
So, what do you believe the consequences are for him turning his back?Separation from God.
Essentially, if you choose to be apart from God, then that's what you get.
Given that i have seen no evidence at all, he exists.
That i accept that i will one day die and that i will cease to exists, and that i am not only am okay with that, but actually happen about it. I see little reason why i would need to believe in your vision of god. He overs me nothing that i need or want.
However, are you willing to accept that a great many christians, perhapes even the majority do not accept your perspective on god. That they believe that the punishment for turning away from god is being sent to hell?
So, what do you believe the consiquences are for him turning his back?Oh, and I've been meaning to tell you -- your last few posts (including the one directly from my long rant) have had a much better tone. I appreciate it. (For what it's worth.)
My aim has never been to offend and I have not knowingly changed my tone. *Shrugs.*
|
|
Also, if you read the wording carefully you will notice that being homosexual is not a sin in and of itself. It is the act of homosexual intercourse. It may seem like a small distinction, but really the implications are that someone could be homosexual and not be a sinner, if they lived a celibate life. Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law of Moses and to replace it with a higher law, which is love thy neighbor. That is the problem that I have with many of my fellow Christians today. They claim to follow Christ, but many seem like they would rather have the vengeful God of the Old Testament. Jesus is the Prince of Peace, not a holy SWAT team.That doesn't make it any less arbitrary. Apart from Catholics*, most Christian churches don't urge celibacy for anyone... unless you're gay. I have a hard time with a doctrine that holds one group of people to a different standard than everyone else.
That said, I'm all in favor of Christians who recognize that preaching hate is not very Christian at all, so I applaud you on that point.
I know of several churches that have funky standards. In some Baptist denominations you can not become a deacon in their church if your have been divorced and remarried, for example. However, I was specifically speaking about the Levitical law. It seems to me that Jesus saying that he fulfilled the law and it is no longer in force means we should not stick our nose into other people's lives, just like we should not sacrifice goats, sheep, and cattle. My attitude is that if God has a problem with homosexuals then God can deal with it. I've got enough problems and sins of my own to deal with, I don't need to worry about what everyone else is doing.
|
|
However, are you willing to accept that a great many christians, perhapes even the majority do not accept your perspective on god. That they believe that the punishment for turning away from god is being sent to hell?
There are hints at what "hell" is but it isn't terribly clear. Ultimately it's implied that "hell" is not where you want to end up. Whether or not it's a place of fire with a red dude wielding a pitchfork -- I'll let others debate that in the afterlife. For all I know, "hell" could be the Bill and Ted's version. But eternal separation from God seems pretty bad to me.
But, yeah. I know that there are many Christians out there that feel that the "point" of Christianity is basically "fire insurance".
Yet, somehow, there is an undertone of arrogance in my choice.If I implied that, I apologise. There's really no arrogance. It's just a choice that we all make in one fashion or another. You at least seem to imply that the verdict isn't completely decided yet for you. There are atheists out there that have made their decision. No arrogance. They have weighed their options and made their decision.
It isn't really a choice though.
I am aware of no evidence what so ever that any god exists.
I have naturalistic explinations for the origins of religion and human belief that are consistant with numerous well supported theories related to human psychology.
Those who claim to be connected to even one such god, disagree wildly on his nature, his desires, the form and meaning of his scripture.
The myths associated with him wildly contradict the evidence available on the history of the earth.
And i am aware of entirely made up gods, some of who have myths which are more consistant with the evidence available about history.
In short, i as someone who is looking at the world in as rational a way as i am able, am left in a position where belief in the giant spaggetti monster, seems a more logical choice.
I really don't see a choice here about choosing to believe in your god or not.
|
|
Suggesting that you are one of God's children could be seen as even more insulting. ;)Really? I thought we were all god's children.
I am not only an anti-christ, I am an illegitimate bastard!
No you are a poodle. You are the spawn of Satan herself and you must be burned to cleanse you of your wickedness.
|
|
It isn't really a choice though.
I really don't see a choice here about choosing to believe in your god or not.
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
You have still chosen not to believe in my "imaginary" god. From your point of view, I will warrant that it probably does look little different than the spagghetti monster, santa claus, or dragons. But you've chosen not to believe those things based on the evidence you have and similarly you have chosen not to believe in God based on your evidence. But it's still a choice.
|
ZN,
It is a choice. Well, as much as not having faith can be considered a choice. But God seems to be much like George W Bush (which might be why I don't believe in him ;-) ): "You're either with me or against me" If you don't make the active choice to follow God, you have chosen, even if by neglect, to be against him.
Moff,
I have no problem with the vast majority of Christians (or most religions) because most people want to follow their faith in peace and look after their own salvation. The problem is that the most vocal in any religion tend to be the most extremist. To those outside the faith, Usama Bin Laden represents Islam when in fact he comes nowhere close. Similarly Pat Bucchannan (sp), Jerry Falwell and other hate-mongering refuse represent Christianity. I also accept that the Bible is meant to be taken as true at the time but which has changed over time and the context in which it was taken (a nationalist message of "We are right, our god says so, now go fuilfil his orders") but again, the loudest segment of the religion doesn't accept this and tries to impose the word of God as true now as it was then with no cultural context. The whole imposing is part of the problem as much as the faith is. I have no interest or concern for what other people believe as long as they only apply it to their own lives. Trying to force me to live my life by their faith really pisses me off. You, and most of the Christians who've posted here, haven't done that and I hope you're more typical of Christianity than the other type, but, well, the loudest define reality these days.
HD,
As I mentioned in another thread when we had the discussion of atheism/Christianity and their role in massacres: There are psychotic bastards in every group. However, no one has ever blown up a building in the name of atheism. They have in the name of an awful lot of religions (I concede that most religions would be aghast by this breach of their principles, but it still happens). Communism is not atheism any more that wester democracy is. Both have inspired their share of atrocities.
All,
Can we calm it down a bit? God CANNOT be proved or disproved. Already this thread has managed to piss off Moff and Kirth, neither of whom can be described as thin-skinned, so dialing back on the "(non-)believers are stupid for not agreeing with me" a bit?
Again, I don't know much about Hindus and Buddhists, but I wouldn't be surprised if they have their share of fundamentalists in their midst.I'm not entirely sure what a fundamentalist Buddhist would be like, given the lack of emphasis on scripture, and lack of a god/gods to worship (note: many people in SE Asia who identify as Buddhist also venerate sets of local gods, but those gods are, properly speaking, an addition to their Buddhist faith, not a part of it -- see below). One of the key differences of Buddhism from other religions -- aside from the whole lack of its own gods thing -- is the message that the Buddha's path is ONE road to happiness, but not necessarly the ONLY one. Indeed, many people in Japan identify themselves and Buddhist and Shinto simultaneously, and some as Buddhist/Christian or even Buddhist/Shinto/Christian.
Just for yucks I Googled "fundamentalist Buddhists" and came up with this from 2007:
......The Sri Lankan Government has stepped up its intimidation of the media in recent months by labelling its critics as "media tigers". Posters have appeared in the streets with the ominous warning: "Peace Tigers, Media Tigers, Left Tigers - Recognise Them, Destroy Them, Save our Motherland!"
According to the Bremen-based International Human Rights Association, the posters come from the National Movement Against Terrorism, led by the fundamentalist Buddhist Party which has nine members in parliament, one of them recently appointed to the Cabinet.
It is the "save our motherland" concept that has distinct echoes of the murderous ideology of Cambodia's notorious Pol Pot. For fundamentalist Buddhists, the Sri Lankan motherland was originally entrusted to them by Buddha himself, and should therefore be saved from "demonic" foreigners by their "expulsion".
For the equally fundamentalist Marxist-Leninist People's Liberation Front (JVP) - which has 39 seats and four ministries in the ruling coalition - the motherland must be protected from nationalists so that communism may be established.
Together, in the not-too-distant past, fundamentalist Buddhists and communists have backed their words with revolutionary terror, resulting in the deaths of some 40,000 Sri Lankans. Today, they are both calling for renewed war against Tamil obstruction to the achievement of their respective utopias. Is the prospect of all-out genocide fanciful?.....
Source: http://www.elakiri.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-27544.html
This looks like an example of a religion getting mixed up in temporal political disputes, as one poster noted tends to happen. You've got violent Buddhists going up against violent Marxist-Leninists.
I read it last night. Wow. And thank you. That was quite the post. I have a good friend of mine that's into archeology and wanted to pick her brain a bit about it before I posted much more about it. However, it looks like you (or they) are saying that the Hebrews were there and at some point migrated out, but mostly not during the time they feel the Bible says it happened. Correct?
It's fine to go pick the brains of others. I just didn't want it to go missed because I wasn't clear what I was talking about when I posted it. :)
Close. We have evidence of West Semites living in Egypt. We have evidence for them even running the country for a while. But we have a startling lack of evidence for any kind of Jewish, as opposed to general Canaanite, presence in Egypt in the period. According to the Bible, they were present for quite some time and were rather numerous. Yet in a century of intensive excavation and exploration of Egypt we have revealed not a single piece of pottery to suggest that Jews indeed lived in Egypt at the time. The first evidence we have of any kind of Jewish identity at all is from later than the date the Exodus would have happened during, and places them as a non-national ethnic group in the Canaanite highlands.
So no Jews in Egypt to flee. West Semites yes, but not Jews. Jews are a type of West Semite which did not yet exist, just as Americans are a nationality that did not exist at the time.
Then so far as the flight goes, we have no evidence that any such massive body of people crossed the Sinai at the time. We have no evidence that they camped at the places they say they camped at. We have very good reason to believe that any such flight would have been heavily remarked upon, as the Egyptian border was very closely watched and controlled by the state. Yet no remarks are made. We have a whole library of information about the state of Canaan in the period, and no reference to any Jewish people.
So no massive flight from Egypt attested.
Furthermore, the cities and kingdoms named in the Exodus narrative as obstacles for the Jews to contend with were not inhabited at the time of the Exodus. Some were before and after, but not then. (Which actually does hint at when it was written, since it's likely describing then-present realities instead of those in situ at the time of its supposed events taking place.)
So serious problems with the narrative itself, even aside the absence of every piece of expected evidence for it.
Thus the story doesn't hold up as history.
It was a different time. As I said before, the "legal system" was far different than it is today. That (and the other) entire chapter very specifically talks about what other nations were doing. God wanted his people to be set apart. The chapter(s) spends a lot more time talking about incest than homosexuality or beastiality. A lot of the old law was hygenic in nature (they didn't exactly have condoms back then). I also think that a lot of the old law was simply for purposes of keeping order and to help unify the nation.
Well sure. It was a different time and it's somewhat unfair to judge the past by the standards of the present. However, my experience has been that believers do not suggest that the Bible is a product of its time and should be read as such. You seem to be an exception here, which is I have to say a rather pleasant circumstance considering how these conversations usually go. Rather these believers think it's a timeless, or at least mostly timeless, tome handed down from the omnipotent, transcendent source of all good. Thus it must be binding on us (except for the parts that televangelists find inconvenient like the real sin of Sodom) for all time. To be entirely fair to them, if they're right about it then we should expect such a perfect and eternal code of morality to be entirely acceptable to us. It should be at least as good as we can do. Yet it's not.
Now if you want to take the position that this is a barbaric, disgusting, and unjust old law which should be discarded, then we don't really have much of a quarrel. In fact, we're agreed. But it's just not true that it only applies to cases of rape.
Separately, while I'll agree that a lot of the codes in the Bible seem to be about distinguishing oneself from the others about I don't think that's a very good reason to proscribe death on people for having consensual sex lives. Nationalism can't excuse that kind of behavior. (Or much of anything, really.) Understanding something in context is perfectly good, and in fact a very important part of history. But understanding doesn't mean that we have to condone or make excuses. A Jewish friend has told me that the folklore on most of the Hebrew Bible's death sentences is that the priests commuted them. I don't know if that's true or not, but it certainly suggests that people have had reservations about bringing down the full hammer of the Law for a long time.
|
|
Separately, while I'll agree that a lot of the codes in the Bible seem to be about distinguishing oneself from the others about I don't think that's a very good reason to proscribe death on people for having consensual sex lives.
I don't think that they did. If the Bible is to be believed at all, those chapters especially (and other places in the Bible) seem to indicate that there were people who would have sex with just about anything. Both of those chapters really seem to be pointing to the idea that a man should only really have sex with the person he has vowed to be with. Which means that you shouldn't have sex with your mother, your daughter, another man's wife, another person's daughter, your sister, another man, or an animal.
And regarding what your friend said about actually going through with the punishments -- as I understand it, the actual process with which to convict a person was rather complicated and designed to keep people from finding loopholes and getting people killed who were innocent.
For fundamentalist Buddhists, the Sri Lankan motherland was originally entrusted to them by Buddha himself, and should therefore be saved from "demonic" foreigners by their "expulsion".
Wow. Like I said regarding "gods," some sects of Buddhism accreted some outside stuff that really is separate from the religion. The Buddha, as a religious teacher, had no authority to "entrust" any land to anyone, so their whole basis of ownership seems like complete nonsense to me.
Reading what you found, to me, is like a Christian reading, "Fundamentalist Christians believe that David Bowie is the Son of God, and that he entrusted Antarctica to them permanently, along with the 1812 Overture and all poodles." Then again, it's easy to see from other historical examples that any religion attaining a measure of temporal power is inevitably corrupted into a mockery of itself.
Thanks for posting that. Interesting stuff, indeed.