Genocide in the Bible?

[Proud_Democratt]

Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I am driving out from before you the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite. Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst. But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images (For you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.)

Exodus, Chapter 34, verses 11-14


You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you. For I will look on you favorably and make you fruitful, multiply you and confirm My covenant with you. You shall eat the old harvest, and clear out the old because of the new.

Leviticus, Chapter 26, verses 7-9


"When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." Deuteronomy 7:1-2, NIV. 1

"...do not leave alive anything that breaths. Completely destroy them...as the Lord your God has commanded you..." Deuteronomy 20:16, NIV. 1

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. The god of Abraham

is a pretty nasty fellow.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. That was then. This is now.

[Proud_Democratt]

11. Does that apply to Creationism or The Ten Commandments?

Are you saying what is applicable for today?

[BrklynLiberal]

14. I am hoping that we have evolved past the point of justifying genocide

by using the Bible. It was written as a justification for things that were done before, and during a time of a belief in a strong, patriarchal, punishing God.
I would hope those times are behind us.

[Proud_Democratt]

15. A fellow DUer stated that God never ordered genocide ,

so that's why I posted this.
Are we past religious genocide? I'd like to say yes, however I would consider the war in Iraq another Crusade though.
What we did to the Native Americans was a genocide.

[BrklynLiberal]

16. I do not believe that God ever ordered genocide. Men wanted land or

money or spices or water or women or whatever, and they justified the genocide needed to attain their goals by saying "God said we had to kill those people". Then those same people wrote the bible and said "God said we had to kill those people."

I personally do not believe the bible is any more verifibale truth than Greek or Roman mythology...or any of the other ancient religious myths.

[unpossibles]

67. well, with the people who think that the Koran creates terrorists..

...I can't see how they could have any other idea: convert or kill.

[Goblinmonger]

22. So how much of the bible can we chuck, then?

Certainly ALL of the bible (old and new) is from a different time.

[Kajsa]

3. In the Old Testament, yes.

I don't remember any of this rhetoric in the
New Testament- professed to be from God.

[William769]

4. Don't try to use reason it won't work!

Some people here never want to quote the New testament for some reason.

[catbert836]

17. You asked for it!

Matthew 10: 24-25:

A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master; it is enough for the disciple to be like the teacher, and the slave like the master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household!

Do mine eyes decieve me? It appears as if your savior just condoned slavery!

[William769]

18. How do you figure?

That is written in English. Do you not understand it?

ON EDIT: That reflects on the fundamental responsibility of the church as stated by our Lord Jesus Christ: "Go ... and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them ... teaching them to observe all that I commanded you" (Matt. 28:19-20, NASB). Matthew 10 contains Jesus' instructions on what it means to be His disciple.

The Greek word translated "disciple" (mathetes) means "learner." Jesus taught a group of twelve disciples. He helped them to mature spiritually so they could teach others and advance the Kingdom.

That is the process we are in. The commission of the church involves more than leading people to Jesus Christ. We're to equip "the saints for the work of the ministry" (Eph. 4:12). The church is to produce mature disciples who can in turn reproduce themselves.

[bluesbassman]

20. "Slave" was a different term than what we use it for.

In the time of Jesus, a slave could have been someone who indebted themselves to another for a variety of reasons and generally for a specific period of time. The basic concept though was that the "slave" was in that position of their own volition and not due to an act of violence or external force. This was the "slave" that Jesus was referring to.

[unpossibles]

55. how do you know?

there were a lot of types of slaves back then - no offense, but Jesus doesn't really try to free any of them or say it is wrong. Why? because at the time, slavery was considered 'natural'.

But if Abe Lincoln cold free the slaves, surely Jesus could too, right?

[bluesbassman]

57. The Jews were not in "bondage" at that time.

I agree with you that there was in fact forced slavery at that time. However, the Jews were not, as a people, in a state of bondage. So, as Jesus was primarily addressing the Jewish people, it is clear that he was referring to a state more aptly described as indentured servitude.

[unpossibles]

58. so Jesus didn't care about the slaves of other races? n/t

[bluesbassman]

59. Go back and read what I previously wrote.

If you still want to ask that question, rephrase it so that it is a legitimate inquiry into the socio-economic structure of the first century. Otherwise I will have to assume that your entire sub thread is merely flame bait and we will have nothing further to discuss.

[unpossibles]

60. I'm not trying to create flame bait

but I would expect that if (a) slavery is wrong and (b) Jesus is the son of God, then (c) He would have said something about it being wrong.

Is my logic totally wrong here? I don't think it matters if the Jewish people were in bondage at the time or not, as I was under the impression that Jesus' message is for all of mankind.

[bluesbassman]

61. Okay, now were getting somewhere.

No, I don't think your logic is wrong, I just think your focusing on the wrong issue.

Jesus did not address every sin or abominable condition that plagues mankind. What he did address was the fact that people cannot master their sinful nature on their own. The "Law" proved that. With the Law, the Jews had a roadmap to lead a life of perfection, yet no man was, or is, capable of observing every aspect. Certainly there are people who live moral, ethical and honest lives, but are they entirely with out sin?

And just what are these sins? That would be hard to say, as I think sin is different for each person. Obviously there are the "biggies" that most everyone would agree upon: Murder, rape, stealing, lying and so forth. But what about fear, envy, intolerance and similar inwardly directed "sins". Perhaps these issues may not have much effect on others, but what do they do to the individual who suffers with them. Aren't they just as capable of hampering or even destroying a life? It was to this aspect of the human condition that Jesus directed His comment that "no slave is greater than his master".

So why didn't Jesus condemn forced slavery. I think He did when He said that we should "love our neighbor as we love ourself". If one truly took that commandment to heart, how could one "enslave" another?

[SPKrazy]

62. There You Have It!

Good explanation

seemed to stop the sub thread

Jesus was just speaking to the audience at hand.

They didn't have CNN, nor did they have much knowledge or concern of what was happening to other cultures.

[bluesbassman]

65. You have to start with the basics.

While many things Jesus said are pretty straightforward, issues like this are a prime example of how one can misinterpret a passage by not understanding the historical or cultural context.

[SPKrazy]

66. But Some Would Say That Takes All The Fun Out Of It

when it can be used so well by either fundies, or some atheists who like to speak out of both sides of their mouths:
they don't believe in God or the bible, but they want to interpret the bible as a fundie would. (out of context, and literally)

I guess if you take the fun out of fun-dies, you just have dies?

[unpossibles]

71. I see what you mean in your last sentence and agree on that

but I still disagree. Which is fine. We can "agree to disagree" as they say.

[bluesbassman]

72. Works for me unpossibles.

Wouldn't be very interesting or educational if it was any other way.:toast:

[unpossibles]

75. exactly! It's what makes the world go around as long as it's kept civil

And for the record, although I am not a Christian, I find the teachings of Jesus to be a very good philosophy and wish more would try to live as he did, instead of using his name to commit atrocities.

Yes, we all make mistakes, and none of us is perfect (hence the need for forgiveness/redemption, if I am not mistaken), but to use that as an excuse to wantonly be a bad person is ridiculous.

Cheers!

[rocktivity]

5. DING DING DING! Kajsa, you're our grand prize winner!

NEVER forget that the Bible is "PROFESSED to be from God." Otherwise, you could find yourself involved in a VERY nasty intellectual property lawsuit!

;)
rocknation

[USA_1]

10. New Testament

"love thy enemies"

"bless them that spitefully use you"

"lay down your life for others"

[Proud_Democratt]

12. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth:

I came not to send peace, but a sword.


Matthew 10:34

[GreenArrow]

48. it's metaphor

.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. Consider your source

and how it was created. The stories from the OT were not written down until centuries, even millenia, after the events supposedly happened. Have you ever read a translation of Egyptian texts? There is talk there of destroying peoples as well, including one tribe called "The Hebrua". In many ways, they sound similar, including attributing victory to a divine source.

The only people I worry about when reading this now are the fundamentalists who might take these passages as excuses for their own behavior. I've noticed it doesn't take much to set them off.

[Proud_Democratt]

8. The Hebrau..ancient Hebrews...before Biblical/Torah times.

Their language was a little different then, though.:)

[Rabrrrrrr]

7. By golly, yep, you're right - there is genocide in the Bible.

There's also rape, murder, wife stealing, wife swapping, swindling, theft, and genocide allowed to happen to the Hebrew people when they didn't commit the full amount of genocide on their enemies.

So fucking what?

There's also love, redemption, beautiful poetry, friends saving friends out of love, people sacrificing themselves out love, reconciliation, confession, forgiveness, calls to righteousness, constant prophetic charges to take care of the orphans, the widows, and the poor; admonitions against cheating; blessings and honor and glory, and a whole lot of love.

[WhiteTara]

9. The first genocide...the killing

of the Goddess.

When I read the old testament that was all I could do was count the numbers they slew. They did a lot of slewing too. I was so horrified that I had to stop counting. They killed as many as 50,000 at a time! Has anyone ever counted the number of the dead in the old testament? I'm sure it would be a grim number

[Proud_Democratt]

23. Probably millions.

But who's counting?

[xchrom]

13. indeed that stuff is in the bible -- and yes it does cause problems.

it's one of the reasons i would support reworking the bible -- throwing some stuff out and adding some other stuff in.

[beam me up scottie]

19. Can you tell me more?

I've said before that I think christianity is morphing into something else among liberal christians who reject the fundamentalist dogma, and I'm curious about your idea.

How would you rework the bible?

[xchrom]

21. well, i certainly have no control over this -- but

i think that editing is the logical place to look first.

the books of leviticus and revelations should come under very close scrutiny.

and the same time i think that dealing with the idea of inerrancy is paramount.
promoting the understanding that metaphor and allegory are the vehicles that carry the faith.

lastly -- it's been two thousand years -- and christian philosophers have written many wonderful things that could go in.

i.e. Isaiah is probably the most important book in western literature because of it's influence on everything else.
in books like daniel you find the very beginnings of important philosophical ideas like existentialism.

lastly -- many liberal christians are now beginning to wrestle with the idea that everything is of god.
and i think much more needs to be done to bring that out.

anyway -- you have the idea -- or an idea.

and as my disclaimer -- i might add -- nobody is going to ask me.

[beam me up scottie]

24. Well, granted it's not much,

but I asked you. :)

And I like your ideas, especially this part " it's been two thousand years -- and christian philosophers have written many wonderful things that could go in."

The Constitution is a living document, why couldn't the bible be as well?

[xchrom]

25. the bible should represent the LIVING word of god.

that in itself indicates that the bible should change and reflect the journey of human kind.

please note -- god in the old testament is a LEARNING god -- god changes in the old testament.

[Brentos]

26. I will respectfully disagree.

God is an unchanging God (The Bible tells us this). His Word and Laws are unchanging, and the voice of God throughout the Bible is extremely consistent. Now, since the Bible is a dialogue between man and God, there are many cases where man edits, updates, and adds to God's word throughout the Bible. In fact, the Bible tells us this:

Jeremiah, chapter 8 states (telling us people have falsely added to the law):
7 Even the stork in the sky knows her appointed seasons, and the dove, the swift and the thrush observe the time of their migration. But my people do not know the requirements of the LORD.
8 How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?
9 The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and trapped. Since they have rejected the word of the LORD, what kind of wisdom do they have?

(one example) And Joshua 24 tells us directly that the law was added to:
25 On that day Joshua made a covenant for the people, and there at Shechem he drew up for them decrees and laws. 26 And Joshua recorded these things in the Book of the Law of God. Then he took a large stone and set it up there under the oak near the holy place of the LORD.

Plus, the pharisees added to the Law as the Jews did from the earliest days to today. The law codes are added to every year, once a year. Now, though, they do not add to the Torah, but they still add law. Law cannot be subtracted, though, so it does cause many of the apparent inconsistencies in the Bible.

Then, if you want the most direct voice of God in the Old Testament, read the prophets. They will tell you straight up what God said.

Then, if that doesn't convince you, Jesus tells us this also (here, from memory):

The old testament law states: An Eye for an Eye. In other words, Hammurabi's code. Jesus tells us this is not his word: "You have heard it said eye for eye, but I tell you this, turn the other cheek" (Paraphrase). BTW: 'Heard it said' also means written', as most people heard the word read from the scrolls. Very few people read the word.

[xchrom]

27. did god or did god not admit to doing wrong in the flood?

did god or did god claim that he was going to eliminate the ''uncleanness'' in mankind before the flood?

did god or did he not do that? is there still the evil in mankind that he said he was going to eliminate?

did he succeed or fail in his mission with the flood?

is the god represented by christ in the new testament a distinctly different face of god than that of god in the old testament.

not only are you wrong -- you make an idol -- a dead thing out of god.

god is not unchanging -- man's claims of god being unchanging is what you support.

[Brentos]

30. Read a little deeper...

I would say God is unchanging because scripture interprets scripture.
God is unchanging: Psalms 33:11; Malachi. 3:6; Romans 11:29; Hebrews 6:17

I would assume that regarding the flood you mean:
The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

He grieved and regrets having made mankind, as, since they have free will, they have chosen to disobey and leave God. This speaks to mankind's fickleness, nothing about God changing. God has feelings, he can love, hurt, be angry, etc. God is consistent in this throughout the bible, prophets, and Jesus. People, too, often have regrets for doing that which they know they must do. People go to war, yet regret it; people may kill in self defense, yet regret it, etc.

He didn't eliminate "evil", he gave mankind yet another chance. His children had rebelled once in the Garden, again with Cain and Abel, etc. The dialogue between God and his children throughout the entire Bible is one of constant rebellion and forgiveness.

So, to answer your question, "Did he succeed or fail with the Flood" he succeeded in providing a lesson to mankind.

The God represented in Christ is the same God represented in the Old Testament. Remember to read through the prophets on the way to Christ. Much of the old testament is man's response to God. Most of what David, Solomon, and the Psalmist wrote is mans POV of the events in the OT. Look at the stories of the early kingdom up to the exile. There are three (and kind of four) accounts of this in the OT. The first is from David's and pre-exilic Point of view (Joshua-Kings), the second is from a post-exilic POV (chronicles), Some of the Davidic era POV is also found in the psalms. But, if you want to know God's point-of-view and what he really said during this period, you have to read the prophets. They are the one's who spoke for God, and there voice is very consistent, as it is God's Voice.

[xchrom]

32. god FAILED and comes to grips with it.

that is the deeper reading.

god changes -- our relationship with god as it is described in the bible is a changing one -- adaptation, the ability to learn, grow and mature -- and that's as it should be.

less than that is childish and immature -- and locks god into a static universe.

[Brentos]

34. Does the Bible show this?

I would ask for references that *God* failed in his plans. What are his plans? His goals? How did they fail? What does the Bible say about this? You could argue that *mankind* has failed many times over and that God keeps giving him more chances. That is pretty much the entire story of the Old Testament.

If a parent has done all that they can to help their child grow up in this world, and the child chooses to turn to drugs, gangs, etc., even after having been taught all of the proper lessons, did the parent fail, or the child?

[xchrom]

36. try reading it.

god says he is going to wipe mankind out except for noah{and his} from the face of the earth.

well, firstly this is a mesopotamian story and the real noah wound up in quatar or bahrain or somewhere working for the rulers there.

second the story has to resolve that when the flood waters recede -- there are people!

god fails.

but -- reading into the metaphor would be that all things are of god -- all things, even the evil god seeks to wipe out -- and that here god is learning along with us.


hence the peace he makes with noah and the animals.

[beam me up scottie]

29. Well, that's something you guys will have to decide yourselves.

Like I said, christianity will be around for a long time, I think it's evolving, and I hope that, as it evolves, fundamentalists finally become extinct.

[xchrom]

33. please understand -- do i think there was a flood -- yes.

do i think god made a big flood to cover the earth and kill everyone -- no.

it's a mesopatamian story that made it into texts that we see now.

it's a story, an allegory, a metaphor.

i don't think god made jericho fall on it's inhabitants heads or blew up sodom and gomorrah.

that these are real places is one thing -- but i don't believe in a badass magic god.

and i think it's profoundly wrong to teach these stories that way.

[Zebedeo]

37. Edit out the Book of Revelation?

I wouldn't recommend it.

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelation 21:18-19

JMHO

[MikeH]

40. Sounds like your god is a touchy, easily offended tyrant

Edit out the Book of Revelation? I wouldn't recommend it.

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelation 21:18-19

Sounds like the use of fear; better not question your god's precious, so-called "holy word", or he is going to zap you and do bad things to you. Sounds like a petty, vindictive tyrant.

JMHO

I strongly disagree with your humble opinion, and do not share it.

[zonmoy]

54. exactly what he is.

"Sounds like the use of fear; better not question your god's precious, so-called "holy word", or he is going to zap you and do bad things to you. Sounds like a petty, vindictive tyrant."

You mean that isn't exactly what he or it is. That at least was the god I was brought up to believe in.

[The Magistrate]

43. That, Sir

Simply sounds like a crotchety old fellow tired of editors....

There is, however, no reason to put any more credence in that statement than in any of the rest of the hallucinatory ramblings of that tract, which was nothing more or less than a political document pitched the congregation in the mid second century C.E.

[Zebedeo]

45. To each his own

That's the beauty of Free Will. We each have a choice. We can accept God's Word or reject it.

[The Magistrate]

46. True Enough, Sir

The problems with that formulation, though, arise from several directions, as a practical matter.

There are, for instance, those convinced that the word they accept requires others who do not accept it nonetheless live according to their view of its precepts. Thus we have the press by fundamentalists in this country for legal discrimination against homosexuals and criminalization of abortion, and even for a view that the state should enforce religious precepts, and all this on the grounds that, if things offensive to their deity are practiced, that deity wilol puinish the whole of the nation.

[Zebedeo]

47. Right you are

and yet my original post in this thread was merely replying to the suggestion that the Book of Revelation should be "edited out" of the Bible. I don't think it should be. That hardly makes me a theocrat.

[The Magistrate]

49. My Comments Are Usually General, Sir

As items call to my mind some larger isue they touch upon.

But the suggestion the thing be dropped is not a bad one, and it would hardly be the first time the canon was editted. There are many writings the early Christians considered inspired and holy writ that were left out of the canon eventually compiled in the days of Constantine. There is no particular reason to believe these choices sprung from anything other than political and social motives of men finding themselves in a postion of power they could only have dreamed of before a sudden turn of events.

The text attributed to John is something of a python's hip-bone in the book itself, a sole and vestigial survival of what earlier had been a flourishing genre. Doom literature had been one of the leading items circulating among early Christians, who placed a great weight on the idea they were in the last days of the earth, and could expect to see in their own life-times the deity's overthrow of Rome in blood and fire. Such texts were, of course, inconvenient on several levels to leaders a couple of centuries on who now held Rome's power in their own hands. They remained popular, of course, among the lower ranks of the congregation, who much enjoyed the dreams of bloody vengeance for the penury and injustice they suffered at the hands of their divine champion they provided, and so, after much debate, this one item of the style was allowed to remain as a sop to popular feeling. In the final analysis, the thing was not too different from the assembling of a party platform, and there are few less sacred or holy endeavors people engage in than that....

[MikeH]

50. You seem to be very satisfied in thinking what you think

To each his own
That's the beauty of Free Will. We each have a choice. We can accept God's Word or reject it.

You seem to be very satisfied and happy in thinking that because I (and others) reject the absolute authority and absolute truth of a book that YOU (along with others, to be sure) just so happen to feel very sure is "God's Word", that God is going to do some bad things to us, especially in the next life.

[Proud_Democratt]

51. I. for one, cannot reject something that

is invisible to the eye and silent to the ear.

[Zebedeo]

56. Not happy about anyone being lost.

But happy to have the free will to accept or reject God. It's what makes us different from the animals.

[ozone_man]

38. The Jefferson Bible.

He was a materialist and didn't believe in Jesus' divinity or any of the platonic mysticism BS. But he looked very highly upon the morals taught by Jesus, throwing out those that he considered to have been misinterpreted or corrupted by the four evangelists. He separated the wheat from the chaff or the "diamonds from the dunghill" as he called it.

The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was an attempt by Thomas Jefferson to glean the teachings of Jesus from the Christian Gospels. Jefferson wished to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

Here is the Jefferson Bible.

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

[Proud_Democratt]

42. Thomas Jefferson was a

very wise man. For the most part, a very logical thinker.

[Strong Atheist]

28. Well, the flood sent by the big cheese himself was supposed to have

killed everything on the planet except a few hundred animals and a handful or two of humans...

that would make him the biggest mass murderer of all time...

[Brentos]

31. True

God is the world's biggest mass murderer. Can't argue that. But, if you believe in God, you also know that life is God's to give and take. Humans don't have that right. If God knows that killing a group of people who will never be saved will save the eternal souls of millions of people who can be saved, then that is his perogative. God isn't looking at life on Earth as the end-all, it is everalsting life in Heaven; with God, that is the true reward. Just like in our society, we may kill someone who is threatening the life of others. We may nuke a country to save the lives of millions more. We humans think we have that perogative, but it is God's.

[Strong Atheist]

35. Anyone who kills everyone in the world is an a**h***. nt.

[MikeH]

41. Sounds very hypothetical

If God knows that killing a group of people who will never be saved will save the eternal souls of millions of people who can be saved, then that is his perogative.

I don't see there is any way of knowing that this hypothetical situation is actually ever the case in practice, unless one accepts the highly questionable assumption that anything in the Bible must be God's actual unquestionable truth.

[ozone_man]

39. Some NT references.

Not sure they qualify as genocidal, but are at least indications of his intolerance toward those of other beliefs. He sounds like a vengeful person here.

Mathew 12:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Mathew 12:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Mathew 12:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

Mathew 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Mathew 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Mathew 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

Mathew 13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Mathew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

[Meshuga]

44. Yeah, so what's the point here?

Here goes a few more...

God wanted to kill people of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham tried to tell God it is f'd up to do that but God went ahead with it anyway because Abraham couldn't find a righteous citizen in Sodom and Gomorrah to make a case for them. Note that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah behaved just like Republicans behave today, including the symbolical butt rape we have to deal with this administration! That's why people of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed and not because of homosessuality like the fundies like to say.

How about the big flood and the Noah's ark story? Wasn't that massive killing too?

And what about the time God told Moses he was angry at the Hebrews and wanted to wipe them out to give Moses a whole new set of more righteous people to lead because of the whole golden calf incident? And Moses talked God out of it pretty much asking God: "WTF?"

The problem, in my opinion, is not the book but the asshole who takes it literally.

People who can't see what is underneath all the stories should not read the book. The same type of fool is that person who reads Three Little Pigs and the only thing he/she gets out of it is to literally build a brick house for protection from the Big Bad Wolf. :-)

[xchrom]

52. i nominate mrwiggles and the magistrate

for something really excellent!

not sure what -- but something!

[okasha]

53. Second the motion.

Because this:

The problem, in my opinion, is not the book but the asshole who takes it literally

is precisely the crux of the difficulty. Fundamentalist Christians believe the Bible is the revealed word of God and is to be taken literally. For some reason, the only other people who seem to treat it this way are those who get their jollies out of bashing Christians.

What both groups are ignoring is that the Bible is not "the history of God." It is the history of a people's perception of their god, from the storm god who appears in the Psalms, to the god who apparently demanded human sacrifices at least periodically, to the just judge, to the champion of the poor and abandoned, to the good shepherd to the loving father and god of peace. Unless you are interpreting the Bible literally, you can't look at it and say "God is this or that." You can only say, if you're honest, "The people who produced the writings in this book perceived God as this or that." Given the history of the Jewish people, it's not surprising to see their conception of divinity change as the rest of their culture changed, from a god of storms and open spaces revered by nomads and semi-settled farmers to the comforter supplicated by a people in exile and captivity.

[SPKrazy]

64. Another Good Post IMO n/t

[SPKrazy]

63. Thank You Mr. Wiggles

Very well stated

I'm sick of people who say on the one hand the bible is bull sh**

and on the other hand bring up "atocities" committed by this God they don't believe in

speaks loudly of their agenda IMO

[trotsky]

68. Here's the rub.

I, as an atheist, don't take anything in the bible literally. Well, I guess maybe a few of the family tree listings, there might be just a couple of literal facts there.

But even the most liberal believer takes at least some parts of the bible literally. For instance, that Jesus was literally the savior and/or son of god. That he literally said "blessed are the poor." Etc.

So it's one thing to smugly sit back and feel comfortable with your religious belief because after all, it's only the "assholes" and fools who take it literally. But it's altogether something else to come up with a mechanism by which everyone can agree WHICH parts are to be taken literally.

[kwassa]

69. Why is it necessary that everyone agree? Also ...

I don't agree that it is necessary to take any part of the Bible literally, due to the interpretive factor involved in writing down the events. The truth might lie in the larger themes, of course, rather than treating any part of it word for word.

[trotsky]

70. Sorry kwassa but even you take at least some of it literally.

You believe in Jesus, right? Well if you don't take some of the basic parts about him literally, what do you base it on?

My point is that it's very easy to just arrogantly sit back and blame the fundies for taking the book "too literally" when you can't even put forth a convincing set of standards as to what should or should not be taken literally. You pick and choose just like they do.

[Meshuga]

73. I don't take any of it literally

I, as a theist, don't take anything in the Bible literally either. I study Torah (the first five books of the bible) and never take anything literally. In fact, most of it is debunked during the studies. You can see commentary in the Talmud, written 1000 years ago, showing the Scripture is not to be taken literally. Actually, the entire Tanach (AKA the Hebrew Bible, AKA Old Testament) is not meant to be taken literally.

Now, I don't know enough about the New Testament to comment or to know what is supposed to be literal or not. But the "fools" and "assholes" comment I made were not meant to be toward the people who believe in the New Testament literally or in part. My comments were meant for the idiots who, for example, use the book of Genesis as the answer for the literal creation of the world and try to impose their beliefs by trying to teach that to our kids in public schools.

[trotsky]

74. Not a thing, eh?

I can understand that, if one also doesn't consider oneself to be a Jew or a Christian. Is that the case with you? You study the bible only as a cultural reference for the beliefs of others?

[Meshuga]

76. Nope...

And I'm a Jew. I don't study the Torah only as a cultural reference for the beliefs of others. I study it for other reasons.

You might not know this but we Jews study Torah for its ethical system and its meaning. It is meant to be read as one read poetry and not to be taken literally.

And, BTW, Judaism and Christianity are two different animals.

We are not dependent on faith like Christianity. Faith is secondary to us. In Judaism faith in God is dynamic. It is not an all-or-nothing static state of being and we find our spirituality in performing good deeds.

Your assessment that we cannot consider a person to be a Jew for not taking any of the Torah or Tanach literally is way incorrect.

The mystical commentary on the Torah, the Zohar (circa 1270), which is the most important book of Kabbalah, says that narratives of the Torah are its garments, the laws are its body, and the meaning is the soul of the Torah and "Woe unto the fools who look no further when they see an elegant robe! More valuable than the garment is the body which carries it, and more valuable even than that is the soul which animates the body. Fools see only the garment of the Torah, the more intelligent see the body, the wise see the soul, its proper being."

Torah is the foundation of Jewish ethics. Through Torah study we are called to perform the ethical laws of Judaism. The Scripture has many levels of intended meaning to the reader and it is the job of who is studying it to dig deep within the text to find what it is actually saying. Every week we have Torah discussion and read commentary to translate its words into the works of our hands.

Here is an example of what is discussed in weekly studies:

http://www.ajws.org/uploaded_documents/Bereishit-Vayera%205766%20FINAL.pdf

[trotsky]

77. No Exodus?

No Passover? I understand what you are saying, but I don't think the reverse is true.

You don't at least take "scripture" literally to mean that there really is a god?

[Meshuga]

78. No exodus.

No passover. Not to me at least. I cannot speak for all Jews but to some Jews, I'm sure, the passages of Exodus recorded in the bible are taken literally. Look at the orthodox Jews (a minority, about 8% of affiliated Jews) believe that the Torah was literally given to Moses by God at Sinai. But to Judaism it really doesn't matter whether the story was fact or fiction. Some of the most important truths in life we learn from reading great fiction. That's what Torah study is all about, for me at least.

But where you find 2 Jews you find 3 different opinions. So I can't speak for other Jews as far as what they believe to be literal text or metaphors.

There are rabbis, Conservative and Reform, who write articles claiming that “The Exodus never happened” or talking about “scriptural myths”.

For example, Rabbi Burton L. Visotsky (Professor of Midrash and Interreligious Studies at the Jewish Theological Seminary, in New York), once claimed that “Nowhere in the ubiquitous hieroglyphic records on Egyptian monuments is there any evidence of Israelites even having been captive in Egypt …(or of) the crossing of the Red Sea.”

My rabbi doesn't agree with Rabbi Visotski. He says that biblical and extra-biblical evidence of the Egyptian names of our Hebrew ancestors should be cited and they show that we were probably there. My rabbi believes Moses' name is the second half of an Egyptian royal god-king name - meaning “son of” or “follower of” or “personification/incarnation of” - acquired in Egypt, disclosing its geographical source, regardless of whether Hebrew in derivation as well. When the Egyptian pharaoh king names are examined, such as Ah-Mose, Thut-Mose, Ra-Meses it can be seen that the name/title of the leader of the Hebrews, -Mose/-Moshe is not coincidental. Perhaps the Moses we know just changed gods. The first half of his name has dropped out and been eliminated. And not to be overlooked is, that archeology has excavated the “store-cities” (for grain storage - story of Joseph in Exodus 1:8) Pithom (House of the god Thom or Tum) and Rameses.

At the same time, my rabbi concedes that the passages should not be taken literally since they are elaborated stories based on other stories and myths. But he likes to argue that there really was an exodus that served as basis to the story in the Bible.

There are discoveries by Immanuel Velikovsky (who was a congregant of my rabbi until his death) with "evidence" that there were mass exodus not only from Egypt but from several places caused by a natural disaster of world proportions (Note: natural disasters and not something caused by a supernatural power or being). Whether true or not, I don't know since these are theories, but quoting an article from my rabbi on Velikovsky's findings:

The re-discovery by Immanuel Velikovsky of the Ipuwer Papyrus supporting and augmenting the biblical narrative may not be ignored by any serious scholar even should that scholar care to debunk the finding. Ipuwer was a survivor of the catastrophe and his testimony parallels the biblical report.

Ipuwer records his eyewitness report on Papyrus. His lament testifies to the immensity of the catastrophes sustained in Egypt. And enormous tidal waves also engulfed entire tribes inhabiting the thousand mile coastal regions, bringing to mind the tsunami devastation of our day and age. Ipuwer speaks for people from all the four corners of the Earth who in different degrees experienced the same catastrophe. The words destruction, disaster, catastrophe, all signify extra-terrestrial, “star-related,” originations. One result of the disaster was the displacement of people everywhere. Furthermore, Ipuwer writes, “The river is blood…plague is throughout the land. Blood is everywhere,” corresponding to Exodus, chapter seven, “there was blood throughout all the land of Egypt.” Ipuwer describes further the all-consuming fire, corresponding to the eighth plague barad, “meteorites,” as “very grievous such as there was none like it in all the land” as in Exodus (9:23), “…and the fire ran along the ground,” which, according to Ipuwer, all but “exterminated mankind.”

In conclusion, there is a search for the origins of the stories in the Bible, and that is part of the Torah discussions as well, but there is no desire to prove that the passages in the Bible literally happened. Reading it literally reduces a great book with so many facets to laughable rubbish.

To answer your last question, I don't see the need to take Scripture literally to mean that there really is a God. I don't even see any passage that can be taken literally to be used as proof of God's existence. God's existence is unprovable. To have doubts about God is, then, normal, permissible, and consistent with being a good Jew.

Take care!

[trotsky]

79. So why do you consider yourself a Jew?

Why not just call yourself "spiritual" or be a Unitarian or something like that? What makes you identify with Judaism?

I don't even see any passage that can be taken literally to be used as proof of God's existence.

Doesn't have to be taken that way, as "proof." Just something on which you base your *belief* that a god, and in particular the Jewish god, exists.

[Rabrrrrrr]

80. I don't take the Bible literally, and I call myself a Christian.

Why not?

The segment of Christians that require a literal belief in all parts of the Bible is pretty damned small. And the segment of Jews who require literal belief in Torah is pretty small. Probably a smaller percentage than the Christians.

The Bible is a guide - not a prooftext, nor a requirement, nor an idol. It is also a book, a book written by human beings, filled with errors intentional and mistaken, filled with unintentional non-truths because of a pre-scientific worldview, and written using metaphor, archetypes, and a lot of embellishment.

[trotsky]

82. Look, this is not about taking the entire book literally.

I've tried to make that clear from the get-go, but that strawman claim keeps getting pushed back at me.

By being a Christian, you acknowledge the existence of Jesus, right? The only book that specifically mentions him is the bible. Therefore, you must at least take the stories of the bible that indicate Jesus existed literally.

That's my point. There's at least SOME of the bible you take literally. Not all.

[Rabrrrrrr]

83. But it's also a matter of definition of "literal" as well as first causes.

Do I believe in Jesus because of the Bible? No.

Do I believe in Jesus because that was the home environment up in which I was raised and because it feels true to me? Yes. And then, because I believe Jesus to be the human incarnation of God, I go to scripture (the Bible) to find out about him, as well as to the Christian writers of the first couple centuries.

BUT - I go to the Bible knowing that the stories are inexact, embellished, and not literally true. True on a metaphorical level; and true on a meta-level, yes. But not literally true.

And you call it a strawman to make this argument, but it's not - because there are groups in Christianity (perhaps within Judaism, though I don't know) that use the word "literal" to mean that everything in the Bible is 100% exactly as it says it is. If it says that the Hebrew people circled Jericho for seven days and blasted the walls down, then that's what happened. If the Bible says that the earth was created in 7 days, that means 7 literal 24 hour days.

I like to put it this way: the Bible is overflowing with truth, but pretty thin on facts.

[trotsky]

84. What makes it a strawman argument

is that I never said it. The existence of some groups that DO take the bible 100% literally does not mean I am saying that all Christians have to.

But you answered your own question incorrectly.

You DO believe in Jesus because of the bible. If it weren't for the bible and people who came before you who took at least some of the parts about Jesus literally, then you wouldn't have been raised in it, and you'd probably be talking today about some other faith that "feels true" to you.

How about this: was Jesus literally crucified on a cross?

[Rabrrrrrr]

85. No, I don't believe in Jesus because of the Bible.

The Bible sits off to the side as a resource, or perhaps even as a source book; but my belief is not conditional on the Bible. It IS, as you say, conditional on the people who have gone before me keeping the tradition. Which is the same thing I said earlier when I said that I believe because I was raised in a Christian environment, and thus heard the stories and the traditions, and, while hearing them, they felt and rang true to my experience. But even if the Bible never existed, and we posit all other points of history remaining the same, I would still believe. And to posit the other side of that coin: if I had never heard of Jesus, and never heard of the Bible, and someone handed me one, I seriously doubt that the book alone would be enough to make me believe in Jesus.

And now to your question: Do I believe that Jesus was literally crucified on a cross? Yes, I do believe that. But do I believe it happened exactly as the Bible portrays it? No, of course not - the gospels have different tellings of that story, so it's impossible to have a literal Biblical belief in the crucifixion. But, as I said the post before this one, on a meta-level I can make the assumption that, however it REALLY happened, Jesus probably was, at least, crucified, somehow, in some manner, and for some real-world reason. And, for the believers, also a theological reason. But I have no idea if he actually was crucified. Hell, I have no idea if he even ever existed.

Now, lest you say this is ridiculous nitpicking on my end, I do believe that the distinction between "literal" and what I call "meta-level" is a radically important distinction.

Do I also literally believe the Bible when it says that Asherbanurpal and Nebuchednezzar and some other people existed? Sure I do, because we have sources outside the Bible showing that they did exist. That doesn't make me a Biblical literalist, nor does it imply that one MUST take at least some parts of the Bible literally in order to be a believer.

As I said in the post before this one: the Bible is full of truth, but very short on fact.

I look for the truth, not for literal fact.

[trotsky]

86. The only place where the "facts" that Jesus...

both existed and was crucified can be found is the bible.

So you take at least those "facts" literally. That's all I'm saying. Now you can introduce your term "meta-level" and swear up and down that it's not the same as taking parts literally, but from what I can tell, it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

[Rabrrrrrr]

87. Just because I believe it, doesn't mean I believe it's a fact.

Facts need at least some outside evidence and corraboration.

Jesus' crucifixion is a truth of my faith, a truth which might very well be factually wrong, and so I would never claim it as a fact.

Like I said before I *am* talking about a rather nuanced definition of "literal", but because "literal" has a specific theological meaning, abiding by the nuance becomes imperative.

And we might very well be talking at cross purposes here, perhaps arguing over something that we aren't arguing over, due to lack of understanding each other, or my assuming that your charge of "taking things literally" is meant insultingly, which perhaps it isn't. The origins of this subthread are now a day out of my memory...

[trotsky]

88. I just find it so terribly convenient...

that folks who don't like certain adherents of their faith think they can simply dismiss or disown them by making such a broad-based claim as "I don't take the bible literally, like they do." When from a 3rd party observer, it's clearly just a matter of selecting which parts of the bible are taken literally, even if you want to give your literal reading another name.

[Rabrrrrrr]

89. I find it terribly convenient that someone insists on using their own

definition of a word to critique a people who use the word in a specific way.

I am not being convenient - in theological terms, "taking the Bible literally" has a specific meaning; a meaning which, though I have explained it in a number of posts, you refuse to believe and insist on using your own definition.

And I am not dismissing or disowning those who take the Bible literally - I am merely and consistently and unendingly trying to point out to you that the use of the term "literal" has a specific and technical meaning beyond the normal, common usage of the word; which meaning you are abusing.

In the field of Biblical understandings, there is a literal camp, a literal inerrant camp, and an interpretative camp, and, I'm sure, one could find rather a few more if one digs deep enough.

This is not an "us vs. them" situation to point this out: even the literalists admit to the existence of other forms of Biblical study. They might say those forms are wrong, or they might not, but they wouldn't deny the existence of it.

[Meshuga]

81. Being Jewish

My reason for having belief or having doubts has nothing to do with the texts. Judaism emphasizes deed over creed so by performing good deeds, as commanded by the Torah, some of us find our spirituality. Some Jews are not comfortable with spirituality component of Judaism but still use Jewish ethics as a way of achieving goodness. We know Judaism is not the best answer for creating moral and ethical human beings but it is a good answer. At least in my opinion. For the reasons that exists so many different good answers, we don't actively look for converts.

There are three components of being Jewish: ethics (Torah), spirituality (God), and peoplehood (Jewish sense of community and belonging). A Jew can live his/her Judaism by living one or two or all of the three components. I know many atheist Jews who follow Jewish ethics and I've met one here in DU who feels that he is part of the Jewish tribe even though he is an atheist.

A person is Jewish either because he/she is born of a Jewish mother or because this person "converted" to Judaism. For example, Proud_Democrat's wife is a convert.

A Christian is Christian because he/she believes in Jesus. Once the Christian ceases to believe in Jesus or in God he/she is no longer a Christian. A Jew is a Jew even if he/she does not believe in God.