"So, you acknowledge that SOME TIMES, God literally commanded the
slaughter of women, children and babies AND YET, you also say that God
does not command evil actions.
Does that mean you do NOT think that the wholesale slaughter of women, children and babies is always a evil action???"
This argument has always been a go to for Dan, yet I've always thought that it boils down to his inability to understand tense. He takes a couple of specific, singular, events in the early part of the Israeli Theocracy and extrapolates that this must mean that YHWH will continue to command these sorts of things. The obvious answer is that while YHWH might have commanded certain actions at specific times and for specific purposes, that doesn't mean that those things are commanded beyond those circumstances. It also seems strange to cherry pick YHWH's supposed "evil" actions against a couple of evil pagan cultures, while ignoring His actions "against" Israel.
Some of this attitude we can see in relation to what's happening in Gaza and Haiti today. In both cases we have territory that has been taken over by people who obviously merit being called evil. The terrorists of Hamas and the Gangs in Haiti are the very embodiment of evil and of inflicting massive harm on innocent human beings. There should be no question of the sheer, unadulterated, evil that we are seeing. Many people, perhaps most, would argue that the removal of this evil requires extreme measures. Much like removing a leg to prevent death. Yet the same folx who object to YHWH protecting His "chosen people" by removing the evil cultures around them also object to the eradication of Hamas and the Haitian gangs. Wouldn't it be reasonable to describe a society that worshiped a god that required human sacrifice (babies even) as evil? If you had people you valued incredibly highly wouldn't you take extreme actions to protect them from evil? If you were YHWH and had set Israel apart to be Your representatives on earth, wouldn't you go to extremes to protect than from being influenced by evil?
It's easy to take things out of context, and to use those out of context things to make a social, political, moral, or theological point. It's harder to avoid that temptation, to understand the concept of tense, and not to use exceptions to prove a rule.
But, to deal with the original question. Is it really worse than the women sacrificing their firstborn infants to be burned alive? If these women, children, and babies were all going to die a drawn out, painful, and horrible death wouldn't "slaughtering" them be considered merciful? Is it not always evil to slaughter children who's existence is inconvenient to their parents? Is it evil to "slaughter" these people if it prevents a greater evil?
I'm obviously taking a page from Dan's book of tricks here, by pointing out some possible exceptions to his rule.
91 comments:
Clearly Dan displays his ingrained hypocrisies when he defaults to these "go-to" arguments. What always stands out to me is his insistence that God destroying the whole of an evil population...men, women, children, animals...whatever...is "evil" because clearly an infant can't make any choices to do evil.
But that's not how it works. As a Christian with full faith in God (He IS the Supreme Being after all. He's not totally dim.), I trust that what He does and/or commands serves His Holy Purpose, regardless of my ability to understand or resolve it.
Worse, however, is Dan's inability to separate what God commands we do, as opposed to what we choose to do. Whatever vile and contemptible action one can imagine, it isn't evil if God should choose to command one perpetrate that action. How can it be? God can't commit evil acts, so His reason for such a command must be to serve His Holy Purpose.
I will not withhold my devotion to God because He acts in ways I can't understand or explain. He is nothing like us. What Dan insists justice must be for God is well below his pay grade and he's more than a little presumptuous to suppose he can dictate how God's justice must manifest in order for it to be justice.
I think that Dan misses the multiple times in scripture where it's clear that things revolve around YHWH, not around us. That things happen to bring glory to Him, not to fit our understanding. YHWH is Sovreign, I know Stan and I say this a lot, but it seems clear that the concept isn't understood.
This notion that we should be able to fully comprehend every single reason for YHWH acting as He does, is simply childish and absurd. YHWH doesn't owe us understanding. He doesn't need our agreement or acceptance of His actions.
It's interesting that Dan prates on about justice, yet struggles with the implications of justice on a grand scale. While he whines about "minor" sins and the like, He's never acknowledged that there are some people who are so evil that they deserve the worst descriptions of Hell. His theology of sin and forgiveness is so skewed toward excusing "minor" sins that there is no (at least none that he's ever stated) room for definition of "major" sins, let alone punishment for them. The very notion that Hitler or one of the poster children of the APL don't deserve some un measurable amount of punishment before justice can be considered done doesn't seem to register.
The very notion that we have the ability to pass judgement on YHWH is beyond comprehension. Who are we to announce that YHWH did X which is good, or Y which is bad. If YHWH is "perfectly loving and just" as Dan claims, then by what standard do we as imperfect creations judge Him?
Craig:
Wouldn't it be reasonable to describe a society that worshiped a god that required human sacrifice (babies even) as evil?
Yes.
If you had people you valued incredibly highly wouldn't you take extreme actions to protect them from evil?
Yes... but HERE's the kicker: I WOULD NOT SLAUGHTER BABIES to protect babies.
If you were YHWH and had set Israel apart to be Your representatives on earth, wouldn't you go to extremes to protect than from being influenced by evil?
I WOULD NOT SLAUGHTER BABIES to protect babies.
But I guess YOU think a perfectly loving, perfectly just "god," WOULD do this?
I've answered your questions directly and reasonably. Your turn.
But no, you won't do that. You'll just vaguely defend evil and provide nothing but insults for those who stand against the evil of slaughtering infants.
The Burden of Proof lies with the person making the irrational and unsupported claim.
The phrase “burden of proof” has to do with who it is who needs to back up his claims with evidence; the one who needs to prove what he is saying. The person who has the burden of proof is the one making a controversial claim. If the claim is noncontroversial, no argument, evidence, reasons, or proof, is necessary to have the claim accepted. Where no proof is necessary, there is no burden of proof...
The reason the person making a controversial claim has the burden of proof is that evidence and reasons will need to be presented before anyone has a rational reason for believing him. It is not rational to believe unsubstantiated claims with no evidence.
https://voegelinview.com/the-burden-of-proof/
The claim:
It is ALWAYS awful, wrong, evil to deliberately slaughter innocent children and babies
Is self-evident, obvious, largely undisputed.
The claim:
A perfectly loving God (if we accept the premise) would not command evil actions such as slaughtering babies...
Is likewise self-evident, obvious, largely undisputed.
The claim:
SOMETIMES a perfectly loving and just "god" has/might command people to slaughter children and infants
Is NOT obvious or undisputed. THAT is the irrational claim, the one that needs to be supported.
It is also OBVIOUSLY the claim that can't be supported with objective proof. It is, on the face of it, obscene and irrational.
The Burden of Proof lies with the person making the irrational and unsupported claim.
Your Logic lesson for the day. You're welcome.
Craig:
The very notion that we have the ability to pass judgement on YHWH is beyond comprehension.
Is it truly the case that you don't understand that I am LITERALLY NOT passing judgment on a perfectly loving and just God almighty, the defender of the poor and marginalized? I'm passing judgment on the reasoning of humans who would ACCUSE God almighty of commanding evil actions.
Even if you ultimately disagree with my conclusions, do you not understand that I am in no way at ALL trying to pass judgment on God? I TRULY BELIEVE that a perfectly loving and just God exists and that this God would not command evil, atrocious actions (this is a rational conclusion, IF one accepts the notion of a perfectly loving and just God - WHO commands atrocities??!) Given that I believe in a perfectly loving and just God, then when some read some ancient texts and those humans decide that THOSE TEXTS, IN THEIR ESTIMATION, mean that a perfectly loving and just god will sometimes command humans to commit atrocities... well, I of course, disagree with those humans and their personal interpretations and opinions. Because of course, I do.
But disagreeing with you is NOT the same as disagreeing with God.
You DO understand that, don't you?
If YHWH is "perfectly loving and just" as Dan claims, then by what standard do we as imperfect creations judge Him?
1. We assume that we humans, who are created in God's image, a little lower than God, with the ability and obligation to USE our God-given moral reasoning, can, indeed, use our reasoning. We do not believe that morality is some vague and arcane mystery that is entirely beyond our understanding.
2. We further assume that a perfectly loving and just God would not make morality a thing beyond our understanding.
3. We further assume that justice and morality - while we may not perfectly understand them - are beyond our capacity to understand generally. "ALL of the law is summed up in these commands: Love God, love humans." That's easy enough to understand.
4. We further assume that "loving humans" means that we don't slaughter innocent children and infants. This is a morally reasonable conclusion, right? Of course, it is.
5. Thus, we're NOT "judging God." We're judging humans who might make morally irrational claims and vulgar and unsupported accusations against a perfectly loving and just God.
Do you not understand these distinctions? I'm asking because I'm honestly curious.
I think you just don't get where we think your human reasoning fails and that we're honestly seeking God and God's ways, which we do not believe to be obscure and beyond our understanding, generally speaking. But then, we believe we're created in the image of God, a little lower than God, with God's Word written upon our hearts. You know, like the Bible teaches.
"Yes."
Well, that's something.
"Yes... but HERE's the kicker: I WOULD NOT SLAUGHTER BABIES to protect babies."
But we're not talking about you and what you'd do, are we? What you'd do isn't the standard by which we measure the actions of YHWH, is it?
"I WOULD NOT SLAUGHTER BABIES to protect babies."
But it's not you that's important is it?
"But I guess YOU think a perfectly loving, perfectly just "god," WOULD do this?"
What I think is irrelevant. Me passing judgement on YHWH isn't something I'd normally engage in. But you go right ahead. Judge away. Judge me, Art, Stan, Glenn, and YHWH too. You are clearly willing to judge others, so judge away.
"I've answered your questions directly and reasonably. Your turn."
I seriously doubt that you have, given that this is your first comment in this post, it's highly unlikely. You certainly haven't done it in this comment, and since this is the first it's almost impossible that you've already done so in future comments.
"But no, you won't do that. You'll just vaguely defend evil and provide nothing but insults for those who stand against the evil of slaughtering infants."
Again, why ask the question if you're going to judge me before I have the chance to answer it? why make up a bunch of bullshit, instead of being patient?
"The claim:
It is ALWAYS awful, wrong, evil to deliberately slaughter innocent children and babies
Is self-evident, obvious, largely undisputed.
The claim:
A perfectly loving God (if we accept the premise) would not command evil actions such as slaughtering babies...
Is likewise self-evident, obvious, largely undisputed.
The claim:
SOMETIMES a perfectly loving and just "god" has/might command people to slaughter children and infants
Is NOT obvious or undisputed. THAT is the irrational claim, the one that needs to be supported.
It is also OBVIOUSLY the claim that can't be supported with objective proof. It is, on the face of it, obscene and irrational.
The Burden of Proof lies with the person making the irrational and unsupported claim.
Your Logic lesson for the day. You're welcome."
So, you can't prove your claims, so you'll just announce that your claims are "self evident" and therefore immune from proof, just magically True.
But I appreciate the creativity, and the ability to never need to prove anything again becvause of your burden of proof bullshit.
"burden of proof the obligation to prove one's assertion"
Well, the dictionary disagrees with your bullshit.
"burden of proof
Primary tabs
Generally, burden of proof describes the standard that a party seeking to prove a fact in court must satisfy to have that fact legally established. There are different standards for different circumstances.
For example, in criminal cases, the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt is on the prosecution, and they must establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
In civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proving their case by a preponderance of the evidence, which means the plaintiff merely needs to show that the fact in dispute is more likely than not. A "preponderance of the evidence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" are different standards, requiring different amounts of proof."
Cornell law school disagrees with you.
The term Burden of Proof is a legal term, with specific meaning. You regularity demand that the burden of proof is on me for all sorts of things. You pathetic attempt to weasel out of holding yourself to a standard you demand of others is Truly cowardly.
Just admit that you can't/won't prove your claims and move on.
"Is it truly the case that you don't understand that I am LITERALLY NOT passing judgment on a perfectly loving and just God almighty, the defender of the poor and marginalized? I'm passing judgment on the reasoning of humans who would ACCUSE God almighty of commanding evil actions."
1. You still haven't proven (as of this comment) that your "perfectly loving and just God" claim is True.
2. You further haven't proven that you have a complete grasp on exactly what YHWH must do to be "perfectly loving and just".
3. You are assuming that YHWH is always the "defender of the poor and marginalized", even if "the poor and marginalized" might also be evil.
4. You are assuming that you have some degree of highly accurate knowledge regarding what defending "the poor and marginalized" is, yet haven't proven the accuracy of this knowledge.
5. You haven't proven that the use of the term "poor" always means exclusively materially poor.
6. You haven't provided one instance of "the marginalized" being used in scripture.
7. You have announced that the actions commanded by YHWH is "evil". Yet you haven't proven that YHWH didn't command those actions, or that those actions are objectively "evil".
"Even if you ultimately disagree with my conclusions, do you not understand that I am in no way at ALL trying to pass judgment on God?"
You say this, you continue to insist that you are capable of determining that the actions attributed to YHWH are objectively "evil". What other option do I have?
"I TRULY BELIEVE that a perfectly loving and just God exists and that this God would not command evil, atrocious actions (this is a rational conclusion, IF one accepts the notion of a perfectly loving and just God - WHO commands atrocities??!) Given that I believe in a perfectly loving and just God, then when some read some ancient texts and those humans decide that THOSE TEXTS, IN THEIR ESTIMATION, mean that a perfectly loving and just god will sometimes command humans to commit atrocities... well, I of course, disagree with those humans and their personal interpretations and opinions. Because of course, I do."
Once again, I don't care what subjective nonsense you "believe". If you can't prove your claims, then stop making them as if they were objectively True. If you acknowledge that your claims are subjective, then stop acting like your subjective claims mean anything to anyone else.
"But disagreeing with you is NOT the same as disagreeing with God. You DO understand that, don't you?"
I do, it's something that you should apply to yourself. You don't speak for YHWH.
"1. We assume that we humans, who are created in God's image, a little lower than God, with the ability and obligation to USE our God-given moral reasoning, can, indeed, use our reasoning. We do not believe that morality is some vague and arcane mystery that is entirely beyond our understanding."
Why do "we" (you) "assume" that? Is your assuming something some sort of objective standard? Why do you keep saying "we", when you mean "you". If you can't provide exactly who "we" is, then stop with the royal we. It just makes you look delusional. But if your assumptions, based on your subjective, fallible, imperfect, "moral reasoning" tell you something, then obviously everyone must believe that your assumptions are 100% correct.
"2. We further assume that a perfectly loving and just God would not make morality a thing beyond our understanding."
Yet YHWH tells us exactly that there are things about Him that are beyond our ability to understand. Who should I believe, YHWH or Dan's assumptions?
"3. We further assume that justice and morality - while we may not perfectly understand them - are beyond our capacity to understand generally. "ALL of the law is summed up in these commands: Love God, love humans." That's easy enough to understand."
"4. We further assume that "loving humans" means that we don't slaughter innocent children and infants. This is a morally reasonable conclusion, right? Of course, it is."
"5. Thus, we're NOT "judging God." We're judging humans who might make morally irrational claims and vulgar and unsupported accusations against a perfectly loving and just God."
"Do you not understand these distinctions? I'm asking because I'm honestly curious."
I understand that building a framework where you can pass judgement on YHWH based entirely on your personal, subjective, assumptions is building a house on something less solid than sand. The fact that all you have to offer as "proof" is assumptions, built on assumptions, makes your hubris even more apparent than usual. Masking your personal, subjective, assumptions behind the royal we, just makes your delusions of grandeur more obvious. I also understand that your subjective, personal assumptions based on other subjective personal assumptions, based on things you claim are "given", amounts to less then nothing.
"I think you just don't get where we think your human reasoning fails and that we're honestly seeking God and God's ways, which we do not believe to be obscure and beyond our understanding, generally speaking. But then, we believe we're created in the image of God, a little lower than God, with God's Word written upon our hearts. You know, like the Bible teaches."
I think that you just don't get that your reasoning (assumptions, upon assumptions, upon assumptions, upon unproven "given"s, based on your imperfect/subjective "Reason" literally carry zero weight. I think that you just don't get that your constant demands that others prove virtually everything, while you prove virtually nothing, undermine your hunches even more that their subjective nature. I think that you place a much higher value on belief than is warranted. When you offer "I (because we is bullshit) believe..." instead of proof, it only makes you look even more full of selfish pride.
I honestly don't understand why it is do difficult to accurately state the position of those you are arguing against. Failing to do so, is merely to erect a straw man. It's not that hard, try it sometime.
1. You still haven't proven (as of this comment) that your "perfectly loving and just God" claim is True.
I can't objectively prove it. I believe it. You can't objectively prove it either. No one can. Is it your guess, though, that God is not a perfectly loving and just God?
Not sure what you're getting at there since I have been abundantly clear that none of us can objectively prove our opinions about God.
2. You further haven't proven that you have a complete grasp on exactly what YHWH must do to be "perfectly loving and just".
I don't believe that any imperfect human has a complete grasp on notions of God, perfect love or perfect justice.
I don't believe that, in broad paint brushes, it's impossible to understand ANYTHING about justice or love. We recognize it when we see it. When a person welcomes in a stranger in need of housing and gives them opportunities to be warm, fed, to give back to the household and as much as possible, develop a plan for their independence, that IS love. That IS justice. (If you believe, as many of us do, that for the hungry and unhoused to be fed and have housing as a beginning point of justice, as well as love, then of course, this is reasonable).
On the flip side, if a man is angry at Ralph and that man wipes out Ralph's wife, children and dog, that is an extreme act of INjustice. Because of course it is. Overt violations of human rights are relatively easy to recognize.
Is it the case that, in generalities, you think, to you, it's HARD or even IMPOSSIBLE to understand if something is loving or just?
Again, not sure of your point here, unless you're trying to point to some sort of moral anarchist worldview.
3. You are assuming that YHWH is always the "defender of the poor and marginalized", even if "the poor and marginalized" might also be evil.
1. No, I'm not. You can tell by the way I've never said that.
2. In general, I don't accept the notion that human beings are evil (poor or otherwise). We're not perfect, but EVIL is a pretty wild claim to make about most of humanity. Weren't you one of the ones (at Stan's) complaining about calling everything/everyone "evil," that it dilutes the meaning of the word?
Frankly, I don't know that I've ever met personally anyone who rises to the level of evil. Which begs a question: HOW are you defining evil, personally? Because it does not appear to be what the dictionary says.
Craig:
4. You are assuming that you have some degree of highly accurate knowledge regarding what defending "the poor and marginalized" is, yet haven't proven the accuracy of this knowledge.
I DO have reasonably accurate understanding of what defending the poor and marginalized looks like, again, at least in generalities. Indeed, I and many people I work with do it every day. It begins with NOT harming the poor, for instance... Not maing their life harder, but instead, helping make it easier - WITHOUT setting them up for being dependent or setting them up for failure.
For instance, helping someone with a disability and limited options for employment, helping them to find work that they can do in a respectful manner, given their talents, interests and conditions for success. I don't want to get someone a job where it's a "charity case," where some employer just hires them to be around as a token disabled hire, but where they have no responsibilities. That wouldn't be good or just for anyone. But, IF they're good at working on social media for 4 hours a day, finding them work that puts that skill to use where they're getting paid a FAIR wage for their labors, which in turn, helps them be less reliant upon other people's help and money because they have their own - THAT is justice, it's defending them against injustice and isolation and marginalization.
In general, I don't think it's that hard to recognize what being a decent, just person defending human rights looks like, EVEN IF we can't (none of us, beginning and including you) PERFECTLY understand justice, we can generally recognize it. We are beings created in the image of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God (if you believe that kind of thing, which Christians typically do) with God's Word "written on our hearts" (even if symbolically), why WOULDN'T we generally understand what is good, loving and just?
5. You haven't proven that the use of the term "poor" always means exclusively materially poor.
I haven't said (never, not once) that the use of the term "poor" always means exclusively poor. Look at my words. I HAVE said that in Jesus' many words about poverty and wealth, by and large, they are on the face of them talking about the materially poor and the materially wealthy. TEXTUALLY, that is what is presented and which most reasonable readers would conclude.
Of course, I can't prove it, any more than you can prove something to the contrary, but it does seem rather obvious and people throughout the ages have tended to agree (including John Wesley, Charles Sheldon and other traditionalists, as well as large numbers of non-Christian readers (Gandhi, for instance).
6. You haven't provided one instance of "the marginalized" being used in scripture.
I've never said it was. Read my words.
I've said that the poor, the widows, orphans, immigrants, strangers, the imprisoned, those with chronic/lifelong illnesses, the oppressed, women... etc, etc, ALL of which are talked about throughout the Bible and are central to biblical teaching have in common that they're often marginalized - very often, literally being forced to live at society's margins. So, I use the term "Marginalized" as a shorthand for all these groups. There's nothing textually or rationally wrong with that.
7. You have announced that the actions commanded by YHWH is "evil". Yet you haven't proven that YHWH didn't command those actions, or that those actions are objectively "evil".
We can't objectively PROVE that God commanded anything. YOU can't objectively prove that God commanded (for instance) children and infants to be slaughtered. As an objective and demonstrable fact. That is a textual interpretation of biblical text, written by human authors who were, at least in the OT, often passing on stories that had been handed down to the writers.
And we can't prove that slaughtering infants is objectively evil, but are you wanting to make the case that it's somehow NOT evil (even if you can't objectively prove it)?
I don't get why you fight so hard to defend the notion that MAYBE slaughtering infants is not always evil. Strange, strange, strange.
Why do "we" (you) "assume" that? Is your assuming something some sort of objective standard? Why do you keep saying "we", when you mean "you". If you can't provide exactly who "we" is, then stop with the royal we.
My wife, my family, my church, my extended Christian colleagues of a more progressive nature. My many colleagues who aren't even churchgoers (but who are still God-believers)... There are demonstrably many, many people who believe as I'd describing. Because, of course there are, provably so. Why waste time disputing something so easily demonstrated?
I use We to emphasize the point that it's NOT the case that I'm some lone lunatic out spouting something brand new and incomprehensible to the world.
What I said that brought up this diversion:
1. We assume that we humans, who are created in God's image,
a little lower than God,
with the ability and obligation to USE our God-given moral reasoning,
can, indeed, use our reasoning.
We do not believe that morality is some vague and arcane mystery
that is entirely beyond our understanding.
Not only is it the case that there are many people who would affirm this, we can in the real world OBSERVE this. We can OBSERVE that humans use moral reasoning each and every day, or at least I can in my ordinary circles. Maybe you live in some wild west of moral anarchy... but I doubt it.
Do you not see people get irritated when someone cuts in line at the store - angered at this small transgression that is costing them time. That's a justice issue.
AND not only that, but when they see that the "cutter" has a sick child with them and they're rushing to get them medicine and home to start recovering... that the same person who was morally angered at the minor transgression is able to USE their moral reasoning and recognize: Oh, the circumstances are not what I thought they were. PLEASE dear one, take care of your child!
It happens every single day on every single street and house and location in this whole wide world.
Now, we don't use our moral reasoning perfectly (the person angered at the "cutting" who then can't get past the anger even when they see there was justification, for instance), but of course, we can observe it.
Why would you think we CAN'T and DON'T use our moral reasoning? Or do you agree that it happens every day in every culture all around the world?
Or were you only objecting to the first part about being created in God's image, a little lower than God...? Of course, we can't objectively prove that... it's just something that an old book had in its pages and people who love that book often take it fairly seriously and literally.
The things you protest seem irrational on the face of it, to me.
Yet YHWH tells us exactly that there are things about Him that are beyond our ability to understand. Who should I believe, YHWH or Dan's assumptions?
Where? When? Has God been speaking to you in private?
OR are you referring to this biblical text or that one... If so, where is your objective proof that YOU are the one who is understanding the text aright? Is the text in question being hyperbolic? Poetic? Figurative? Is it using a parable to pass on a truth?
Where is the objective proof that your interpretation of the text AND your opinion about what your interpretation is factually correct as it regards God and God's Ways?
Are you speaking of the human friend of Job's, Elihu, who said "God's ways are beyond our understanding..."? Was the human, Elihu, CORRECT in offering that opinion? Where is the proof? What specifically did Elihu mean in that phrase? That we humans can have NO HOPE of understanding God? IF so, then why should we believe that human, Elihu, who offered that opinion, insofar as its an admission that HE has no hope of understand the God whose ways are beyond ours?
OR, did Elihu merely mean that we can't perfectly understand an everlasting, almighty God? That would, at least, be rationally defensible IF we accept the notion of an almighty God.
But the point being: WE flawed, imperfect humans have to use OUR REASONING to try to sort out biblical texts:
1. Is the human speaker/author factually correct or offering a subjective opinion?
2. Is that human speaking for God or merely offering their thoughts?
3. How do we prove?
4. What of nuances of language and literature? Is the book of Job some kind of factual history of a real man named Job or is it more of a parable? What is the point of the book and the texts within it?
5. How do we prove?
6. Which humans today have the authority and objective facts to say, "This is objectively what Job's texts mean..."? Where is the proof for that?
7. And again, if God is beyond our human understanding, then why would we accept any human's opinion about what God was saying, if anything?
All of these kinds of every day textual understanding comes into play in this passage and any other passage that might cause you to interpret the text that, according to you, God is beyond our understanding.
And again, IF it's the case that God is beyond our understanding, according to you, then WHY would it be rational to take your word for it?
Or, as you noted ("Who should I believe, YHWH or Dan's assumptions?"): WHO should I believe, MY understanding of the texts in question or CRAIG's assumptions and presumptions? And if Craig is saying HIS understanding, well, why?
You're begging the question in assuming that YOUR understanding is the same as God's, even while you appear to say that we can't understand God!
You say this, you continue to insist that you are capable of determining that the actions attributed to YHWH are objectively "evil". What other option do I have?
You have at least three related options:
1. Agree that, of course, slaughtering infants is a grotesque evil. Always. GIVEN THAT, then you could ask: what do we do with texts like these?
2. You can acknowledge that, after all, you have texts that YOU don't take literally, either... but not taking them literally is not the same as standing in judgment of God...
3. Simply acknowledge that I disagree with YOUR INTERPRETATION of those passages and that, therefore, I'm disagreeing with your opinions, not with God. You can rightly and factually conclude:
"Well, Dan genuinely believes that a perfect God will not command evil
AND Dan genuinely believes that slaughtering infants is always evil and
that's NOT a crazy opinion to hold
AND indeed, humans CAN at least at times, recognize how awful/evil it is to simply slaughter infants - even non-believers are capable of understanding that!
AND, even while I ultimately disagree with Dan's interpretation of such texts, I prefer my human interpretations of such texts...
BUT I can't say factually that Dan is literally standing in judgment of God, he's just factually disagreeing with the human presumption that those texts taken literally accurately reflect God's opinion about slaughtering infants... and I think Dan is MISTAKEN and God MIGHT sometimes command slaughtering infants... but Dan is in good-faith believing and arguing that this is a morally irrational claim.
Do you think people like Marshal who say that God is NOT speaking of the materially poor when Jesus said he'd come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized... that Marshal is standing in judgment of God? Or do you think he just in good faith disagrees with a literal interpretation?
Craig:
3. You are assuming that YHWH is always the "defender of the poor and marginalized", even if "the poor and marginalized" might also be evil.
Also Craig:
I've said for a while that when "hate", "evil", NAZI", "extremist", and words like those to describe fairly ordinary disagreement that the effect is to devalue those words.
Generally speaking and in my experience, I don't consider the poor to be evil, or even humans at large, to be evil.
Evil definition: morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked
The biblical definition of the Greek word for evil:
"The word translated here as “evil” or “wicked” is the Greek word πονηρός (poneros), which is not the standard Greek opposite of agathos. The root concept of poneros is “being oppressed by toils” and takes a negative connotation that suggests being useless or worthless."
https://turningtogodsword.com/evil/
and...
"Poneros, suggesting active, rebellious evil, as in the kind Satan does."
So, to say that ALL of humanity is ACTIVELY, rebelliously evil, like Satan... is that NOT a bit likely to have the effect, as you said, "the effect is to devalue those words."
I know some people who do and have done bad things. But I don't know a single person personally who is actively, rebelliously EVIL, like Satan!! Do you?
Explain this apparent contradiction?
IF all of humanity is evil and people like Stan (and me, in the past) who use mocking terms to abuse traditionally literally oppressed people ("LGBT alphabet soup" and "gay mirage...") is he engaging in even just merely hateful language (which I say, given the harm that such language literally causes, observably) or is he, along with the rest of humanity, actually rising to the level of "evil," in your opinion?
Note again how he'll cite Scripture when it serves his agenda, while insisting we can't be sure of what Scripture means when we do, and thus our citation of Scripture is insufficient to prove our positions. Pretty damned convenient.
"I DO have reasonably accurate understanding of what defending the poor and marginalized looks like, again, at least in generalities. Indeed, I and many people I work with do it every day. It begins with NOT harming the poor, for instance... Not maing their life harder, but instead, helping make it easier - WITHOUT setting them up for being dependent or setting them up for failure."
That's quite the demonstration of pride there. But at least you admit that you don't have the knowledge you pretend that you have.
"For instance, helping someone with a disability and limited options for employment, helping them to find work that they can do in a respectful manner, given their talents, interests and conditions for success. I don't want to get someone a job where it's a "charity case," where some employer just hires them to be around as a token disabled hire, but where they have no responsibilities. That wouldn't be good or just for anyone. But, IF they're good at working on social media for 4 hours a day, finding them work that puts that skill to use where they're getting paid a FAIR wage for their labors, which in turn, helps them be less reliant upon other people's help and money because they have their own - THAT is justice, it's defending them against injustice and isolation and marginalization."
Irrelevant, off topic, prideful boasting.
"In general, I don't think it's that hard to recognize what being a decent, just person defending human rights looks like, EVEN IF we can't (none of us, beginning and including you) PERFECTLY understand justice, we can generally recognize it. We are beings created in the image of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God (if you believe that kind of thing, which Christians typically do) with God's Word "written on our hearts" (even if symbolically), why WOULDN'T we generally understand what is good, loving and just?"
More irrelevant, off topic, prideful, boasting. The problem is that you are insisting that you have some sort of specific understanding, not just a vague, general, imperfect, biased, hunch.
I haven't said (never, not once) that the use of the term "poor" always means exclusively poor."Look at my words. I HAVE said that in Jesus' many words about poverty and wealth, by and large, they are on the face of them talking about the materially poor and the materially wealthy. TEXTUALLY, that is what is presented and which most reasonable readers would conclude."
It's always amusing when you make this firm declarative statements, then quickly proceed to undermine them.
"Of course, I can't prove it, any more than you can prove something to the contrary, but it does seem rather obvious and people throughout the ages have tended to agree (including John Wesley, Charles Sheldon and other traditionalists, as well as large numbers of non-Christian readers (Gandhi, for instance)."
The key is that you "can't prove it" (not "if") and you name dropping some random people doesn't help you either.
More irrelevant, off topic, prideful, boasting. The problem is that you are insisting that you have some sort of specific understanding, not just a vague, general, imperfect, biased, hunch.
So, when I demonstrate a rational understanding of helping the poor and marginalized - WHILE acknowledging the reality that NONE of us has an objectively perfect understanding of it - you find it "irrelevant, prideful, boasting." I DO have some specific understanding, as I'm sure you do. It's not perfect because NONE of us are perfect, but it is specific and it's reasonable.
But praytell, o wise one: What IS THE ONE RIGHT ANSWER (or ONE SET OF RIGHT ANSWERS) for justice for the poor and marginalized?
Or is it the case that you're a moral anarchist and have no perfect understanding (none of us do) AND you therefore throw your hands up in the air and say, "it's hopeless to try to help/be better..."?
What in the name of all that is holy and good are you suggesting we use in place of our God-given common sense and moral reasoning?
What IS YOUR POSITION on approaches to ally with the poor and marginalized as Jesus taught we should do, both in his words and example, AND as common decency demand that we do?
Give specifics of YOUR answers to any of these questions.
But no. You find it easier to bitch and give vague nothings that SUGGEST that you're advocating some sort of moral anarchy, where we have no reason to do anything and if we DID want to do anything, since we don't have perfect knowledge about how to help, it's pointless.
If that is NOT your position, what is?
That's quite the demonstration of pride there. But at least you admit that you don't have the knowledge you pretend that you have.
It's "prideful" to note the reality that ALL humans have the ability to use their moral reasoning? How so? And I've NEVER said I have perfect knowledge or a perfect understanding of justice and how to ally with the poor and marginalized PERFECTLY. But no one does. Given that (or do you think in your little head that YOU have some kind of perfect knowledge on these points??), what are you suggesting we do?
More...
Just to clarify, YOU had asked a reasonable question/made a reasonable point that deserved an answer:
4. You are assuming that you have some degree of highly accurate knowledge regarding what defending "the poor and marginalized" is, yet haven't proven the accuracy of this knowledge.
Let me answer, by way of clarification:
A. NONE of us has perfect knowledge about anything, and certainly not about something as complex as how to ally with the poor and marginalized.
B. NONETHELESS, we do have best practices, trials, experiments... good faith efforts at helping the poor and marginalized that have been and can be measured and assessed.
C. It is MY belief - a morally rational one - that we should LOOK at our best efforts with the best measured results and engage in more of that.
D. It is a given that these efforts will be flawed and imperfect, but we don't have to give up hope and do nothing. Do you disagree?
E. OR, do you have some perfect answer, objectively proven and demonstrated and THAT's what we should do? Please, do tell.
Again, I don't know what you're complaining about.
Given that we are not perfect, given that we want to ally with the poor and marginalized and help them, it seems reasonable that we should make our best efforts and when we fail, learn from those mistakes and strive to minimize any damage to innocent bystanders.
In my experience (and probably yours as well), people are genuinely grateful for rational, good faith efforts. I know the people who are housed thanks to my social worker friends' work, people who are educated thanks to my teacher friends' work, people who have homes and jobs thanks to our agency's efforts... they will tell you they're in a better place now, in spite of our lack of perfection.
It's always amusing when you make this firm declarative statements, then quickly proceed to undermine them
That you fail to understand words and communication is part of the problem. Probably part of the problem with your understanding of the Bible (or lack, thereof).
I clearly stated the FACT that
I haven't said (never, not once) that the use of the term "poor" always means exclusively poor."
Because it doesn't. OF COURSE, some texts and comments and words may be speaking about a spiritual poverty, for instance (or a "spiritual wealth..."??? Well, that doesn't make much sense in terms of biblical texts, but maybe other texts. Or, it may be talking about both a spiritual poverty and a literal poverty.
But OTHER texts are clearly speaking of material poverty and oppression. Jesus, in the Sheep and Goats, is clearly speaking of what people literally did for the literally poor, hungry, imprisoned, etc. In what possible sense does it make sense to suggest Jesus was speaking figuratively there? Do you think it's POSSIBLE at all that he's speaking figuratively and NOT literally?
In his beginning pronouncement, there's no indication in the text that he means he'd come to preach good news to the [spiritually] poor, the [spiritually] imprisoned, the [spiritually] blind. Indeed, the Isaiah passage which Jesus is citing, we have God being referred to who says, speaking to the Israelites who'd been LITERALLY impoverished and oppressed:
the Lord will be your everlasting light,
and your days of sorrow will end.
Then all your people will be righteous
and they will possess the land forever...
The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me,
because the Lord has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor
and the day of vengeance of our God,
to comfort all who mourn...
Do you think Isaiah and/or God were NOT speaking to the oppressed, impoverished Israelites about their LITERAL oppression and poverty? Why? Based on what?
Now, we can GUESS that maybe there are figurative applications of these sorts of literal texts, but there's literally nothing in the text that suggests it's not primarily speaking of the literal poor and oppressed.
Same for Mary speaking of God tearing down the powerful and lifting up the lowly.
Same of John the Baptist who said that he was preaching good news to the poor and healing the sick.
Same of most of the other passages of Jesus where he's speaking of poverty and wealth. Hell, Luke's beatitudes become nonsensical if you try to make them figurative!
Same of James and his warnings to the literally rich oppressors. The warnings would be nonsensical if he was speaking of the "spiritually wealthy..." "Is it not the spiritually wealthy who are oppressing you??"!!!
Do you truly think it's reasonable to suggest that most of the places where Jesus is speaking of poverty and oppression that he's primarily NOT speaking of actual poverty?
If so, do you have some source of someone - anyone! - trying to even make that case?
"I've said that the poor, the widows, orphans, immigrants, strangers, the imprisoned, those with chronic/lifelong illnesses, the oppressed, women... etc, etc, ALL of which are talked about throughout the Bible and are central to biblical teaching have in common that they're often marginalized - very often, literally being forced to live at society's margins. So, I use the term "Marginalized" as a shorthand for all these groups. There's nothing textually or rationally wrong with that."
That's what I thought. You imposed your terminology on scripture and expect others to simply accept.
"We can't objectively PROVE that God commanded anything. YOU can't objectively prove that God commanded (for instance) children and infants to be slaughtered. As an objective and demonstrable fact. That is a textual interpretation of biblical text, written by human authors who were, at least in the OT, often passing on stories that had been handed down to the writers."
Given that admission, then your constant complaint of YHWH commanding evil seems to overstate things a bit. But as long as your subjective hunches don't have to meet any standard of proof or accuracy, you're good with that.
"And we can't prove that slaughtering infants is objectively evil, but are you wanting to make the case that it's somehow NOT evil (even if you can't objectively prove it)?"
No, I'm wanting you to make the case that your hunch (slaughtering "infants" is objectively evil in all possible circumstances) is objectively True. That's how things work, you make claims, you prove them.
"I don't get why you fight so hard to defend the notion that MAYBE slaughtering infants is not always evil. Strange, strange, strange."
That's because you've chosen to misrepresent what I'm doing. You've constructed a straw man, than bitch when I don't defend the straw man you've constructed.
Hypothetically, if thousands of infants had been in the path of the lava flow from an erupting volcano and were horribly burned over 90% of their bodies, would it be objectively evil to "slaughter" them?
Hypothetically, if millions of parents were inconvenienced by the very existence of their children, would it be objectively evil for those parents to slaughter their children?
Now I've spent a good bit of time answering your questions/dealing with your misunderstandings. Why not be a good chap and answer the questions put to you? You know, give and take, adult conversation and all that?
"My wife, my family, my church, my extended Christian colleagues of a more progressive nature. My many colleagues who aren't even churchgoers (but who are still God-believers)... There are demonstrably many, many people who believe as I'd describing. Because, of course there are, provably so. Why waste time disputing something so easily demonstrated?"
Have all of those people specifically and individually endorsed every response you've written? Did they specifically empower you to speak for them in all instances of blog comments?
"I use We to emphasize the point that it's NOT the case that I'm some lone lunatic out spouting something brand new and incomprehensible to the world."
it's still a logical fallacy and makes you look stupid.
"What I said that brought up this diversion:"
well, you keep using the royal we, it's annoying, so I addressed it. You offered excuses, and wouldn't stop no matter how nicely I would ask.
"1. We assume that we humans, who are created in God's image,
a little lower than God,
with the ability and obligation to USE our God-given moral reasoning,
can, indeed, use our reasoning.
We do not believe that morality is some vague and arcane mystery
that is entirely beyond our understanding."
What objective proof leads you to assume that? What objective proof leads you to assume that your assumptions are objectively True? What objective proof leads you to assume that your assumptions should be accepted beyond your little echo chamber?
"Not only is it the case that there are many people who would affirm this, we can in the real world OBSERVE this. We can OBSERVE that humans use moral reasoning each and every day, or at least I can in my ordinary circles. Maybe you live in some wild west of moral anarchy... but I doubt it."
The fact that you make this subjective claim as if consensus is somehow an objective standard, demonstrates why no one should take your assumptions, hunches, and subjective claims seriously.
"Do you not see people get irritated when someone cuts in line at the store - angered at this small transgression that is costing them time. That's a justice issue."
So, this is supposed to prove your assumptions objectively True?
"Why would you think we CAN'T and DON'T use our moral reasoning? Or do you agree that it happens every day in every culture all around the world?"
Well done, wholesale changing of the topic. I fail to see how anecdotes prove anything. I could simply point to the billions who don't adhere to your subjective moral hunches, as simply pointing out reality. In any case, none of this makes the subjective, anything but subjective. As you point out, your subjective moral code is incredibly inconsistent even in your one example. What if the person who was cut in front of had two children and her husband at home at serious risk, and her husband didn't get paid when he wasn't working? Would that make your "cutter" the unjust one?
"Or were you only objecting to the first part about being created in God's image, a little lower than God...? Of course, we can't objectively prove that... it's just something that an old book had in its pages and people who love that book often take it fairly seriously and literally."
Really, what book are you talking about, and where in that book is that exact quote found?
"The things you protest seem irrational on the face of it, to me."
that's probably because you have an excessive amount of faith in your personal, subjective, fallible, "Reason".
Again, you SERIOUSLY have a problem with referring to the poor, widows, orphans, immigrants, etc as "marginalized..."? Do you think that I made up the use of that word in a moment of wild recklessness?
Would it suprise you to learn that I gained the practice of using that word from places/groups/people like the (VERY conservative) Nazarene and Southern Baptist churches I grew up in/around? Methodist stalwarts like John and Charles Wesley? Compassion International? The Gospel Coalition (they're a more modern version of the conservatives I read/listened to as a youth)?
The people at Billy Graham's organization?!!
Because we serve a God of justice, seeing someone mistreated or marginalized should prompt us to act.
https://billygraham.org/story/the-strength-and-satisfaction-in-serving-others/
http://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/poor.htm
Throughout the Old Testament, there are numerous teachings that emphasize the importance of caring for the poor and marginalized in society as a means for building God’s kingdom here on earth as it is in heaven.
https://www.compassion.com/stories/caring-for-the-poor-a-biblical-perspective-on-child-sponsorship.htm
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-gospel-and-the-poor/
https://www.hearttohandministries.com/blog/files/e10dbc8701f7ece990de2a99def87bdb-59.html
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1131gc3
I could go on and on. The points being:
1. I didn't originate the use of the term marginalized to describe, well, the marginalized spoken of in the Bible
2. Many conservative and traditional Christians for a long time have used the term. It's apt. There's nothing misleading or "wrong" about describing people who are marginalized with the term "marginalized."
3. Again, do you truly have a rational problem with the word used by traditional Christians for decades if not centuries or is this just some nothingburger nonsense?
Do you also have a problem with people using the terms "inerrancy" or "sole source" even though they're not in the Bible - not even as a SUGGESTION, much less, literally?
"that's probably because you have an excessive amount of faith in your personal, subjective, fallible, "Reason"."
By all means. Show me where my reasoning is mistaken - even if only subjectively.
Regarding biblical texts like the ones where "God" allegedly commands the people of Israel to invade a city and kill, slaughter, wipe out ALL the human, right down to the children and infants.
Conventional moral reasoning says, It's always an atrocity to stab and spear to death children and infants. It's nothing morally or rationally outlandish to say such behavior is not only wrong... it's a great and atrocious evil.
Further, Conventional moral reasoning would also say it's a great and perverted evil to FORCE someone to kill children and babies.
Presumably, you can agree with that.
Now, make your rational case that somehow, it's morally rational to command people to slaughter actually innocent children and babies.
If that's the case you want to make, make it. Show me where my reasoning is flawed or out of synch with moral reasoning.
I'll wait.
Dan
"Where? When? Has God been speaking to you in private?"
The Holy Spirit just told me yesterday that I must try to teach you this important teaching that it taught me.
"OR are you referring to this biblical text or that one... If so, where is your objective proof that YOU are the one who is understanding the text aright? Is the text in question being hyperbolic? Poetic? Figurative? Is it using a parable to pass on a truth?"
Well, there are plenty of Biblical texts that tell us that we do have the same level of understanding that YHWH does. It's interesting that you're using this rhetorical gimmick to divert attention that your appear to be claiming that the gap in understanding between us and YHWH is not particularly large. It's always cute when you use scripture to "make" your point in one comment, then immediately take the opposite approach in the next comment.
"Where is the objective proof that your interpretation of the text AND your opinion about what your interpretation is factually correct as it regards God and God's Ways?"
I'm not the one making objective claims, you are. Although, it should be self evident and go without saying that we are not on the same level of YHWH.
"Are you speaking of the human friend of Job's, Elihu, who said "God's ways are beyond our understanding..."? Was the human, Elihu, CORRECT in offering that opinion? Where is the proof? What specifically did Elihu mean in that phrase? That we humans can have NO HOPE of understanding God? IF so, then why should we believe that human, Elihu, who offered that opinion, insofar as its an admission that HE has no hope of understand the God whose ways are beyond ours?"
Not specifically. But I wouldn't argue with his conclusion. Are you saying that he's objectively wrong? Yes, humans have no hope of fully understanding YHWH and all of His ways while we are in this time space continuum. It's likely that we'd understand more when in His presence, but I doubt that you understand half of what you think you do, half as well as you think you do. But going on the offensive, instead of proving your claims is a bold tactic.
I'm not wasting time with Dan's bullshit, diversionary questions. He'll most likely twist or falsely represent anything I say anyway.
"And again, IF it's the case that God is beyond our understanding, according to you, then WHY would it be rational to take your word for it?"
Well, since I'm not doing so... Yet somehow you expect others to take your word for your crap.
"Or, as you noted ("Who should I believe, YHWH or Dan's assumptions?"): WHO should I believe, MY understanding of the texts in question or CRAIG's assumptions and presumptions? And if Craig is saying HIS understanding, well, why?"
Well, because you've set up something false there, and I see no reason to waste time with bullshit.
"You're begging the question in assuming that YOUR understanding is the same as God's, even while you appear to say that we can't understand God!"
OK, well if you say so then you must be correct. Because constructing a giant straw man, by making shit up and pretending that it came from me is much easier than simply proving the claims you made.
You have at least three related options:
1. Agree with Dan's unproven, subjective. hunch without expecting him to hod himself to the standards he demands of others.
2. I can acknowledge that Dan just made some shit up and that his made up shit is exactly what I've said, even though it's not.
3. Simply do whatever Dan demands with no expectation that Dan be accurate or able to prove his claims.
Or, instead of doing what you demand, I can do what I've been doing and ask that you prove your claims, or stop stating your subjective, personal, hunches as if they are fact.
"Do you think people like Marshal who say that God is NOT speaking of the materially poor when Jesus said he'd come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized... that Marshal is standing in judgment of God? Or do you think he just in good faith disagrees with a literal interpretation?"
Well, in the absence of proof that Art actually said that, along with a fair amount of experience with what Art has said, I see no reason to accept your false characterization as accurate. Nor do I see any reason to accept your judgement of YHWH as commanding "evil" to be accurate.
I'll post the comments, but when they get so blatantly off topic and intend to divert, I won't waste time with them.
"So, when I demonstrate a rational understanding of helping the poor and marginalized - WHILE acknowledging the reality that NONE of us has an objectively perfect understanding of it - you find it "irrelevant, prideful, boasting." I DO have some specific understanding, as I'm sure you do. It's not perfect because NONE of us are perfect, but it is specific and it's reasonable."
When you prate on about all of the things that you personally do in your role as the white liberal savior as if those are the only possible, correct, options to help people, the pridefulnees leaks through.
"But praytell, o wise one: What IS THE ONE RIGHT ANSWER (or ONE SET OF RIGHT ANSWERS) for justice for the poor and marginalized?"
I'm sorry, did I claim to possess this knowledge? Was my comment about Dan's prideful list of his good works misinterpreted? Apparently.
"If that is NOT your position, what is?"
No, the made up bunch of bullshit that you just spewed out is not my position, it couldn't be because you made it up.
This isn't about the best form of welfare whatever, it's about you trying to place yourself in the role of the white, liberal, christian, savior, doing what Jesus secretly told him, without being able to demonstrate the objective truth of any of your claims.
No, it's prideful to boast of your good works as if they provide you salvation or salvation to anyone else.
"Just to clarify, YOU had asked a reasonable question/made a reasonable point that deserved an answer:"
I look forward to that answer as soon as it shows up.
I've given up trying to parse Dan's comments. He's gone so far off track, that I just don't have the bandwidth to deal with the mounting bullshit. I've posted them all, and may waste some time later.
I'm not wasting time with Dan's bullshit, diversionary questions.
That is, Dan is answering my questions (even though they're either questions with obvious answers or they're premised on bad/unproven presumptions), but I'm not going to answer his, even though they're pertinent to the discussion.
Some of Craig's original questions - also with obvious answers:
Is it really worse [for "god" to command humans go in and slaughter a whole city including the children and infants!] than the women sacrificing their firstborn infants to be burned alive?
Yes, of course, it is. It's bad. Both scenarios are bad/awful/evil. But the human theory YOU are defending creates a monster out of your notion of "god," and makes the Bible's full testimony irrational and ghastly, frankly.
That some bad things might happen (a presumption you haven't proven) to SOME babies and children in these places if nothing is done does not make it all right for an outside party to go in and slaughter ALL the children. Because, of course, it's not! For one thing: People who are commanded to commit atrocities are deeply, gravely wounded themselves when they do the unthinkable. This is scientifically, objectively provable and on the face of it, obvious!
As my conservative mother used to say: Two wrongs don't make a right. Because of course, it doesn't.
Are you suggesting that if 1 in 4 children in a city are going to be killed by their parents (let's accept that your premise is possibly true), that it is morally BETTER to go in and kill ALL the children in that town?
??!!
You can't seriously be making that suggestion. You DO recognize that this is just sick and deviant and evil, on the face of it, right?
If these women, children, and babies were all going to die a drawn out, painful, and horrible death wouldn't "slaughtering" them be considered merciful?
No. And you haven't proven your "IF." And you're speaking of killing ALL the children deliberately just because SOME of the children might be killed, is that right? Do you seriously think that's a RATIONALLY better option, using your moral reasoning?
Is it not always evil to slaughter children who's existence is inconvenient to their parents? Is it evil to "slaughter" these people if it prevents a greater evil?
It's evil/wrong/hideous/cowardly/f'd up to deliberately slaughter children and infants. Period.
Do you SERIOUSLY disagree?
Do you see how it APPEARS that you're bending WAY over backwards to try to accommodate a rather literal reading of the text when you have no rational reason to?
WHERE did God tell you that you need to take ancient stories of ancient people as a rather literal history? God has NOT told you that, has God?
WHERE did the Bible "tell" you that you need to take ancient stories of ancient people as a rather literal history? The Bible has NOT "told" you that, has it?
WHY advocate something that is, on the face of it, obviously a great moral atrocity just to try to argue for a rather literal history in ancient texts? Are you afraid that if you admit that these ancient texts may not perfectly represent God's actions (EVEN THOUGH neither God nor those ancient texts have TOLD you to take them as literal history!!), that you'll have nothing on which to stand?
What is scaring you so that you are tying yourself in moral knots to defend morally atrocious behavior?
Not sure if I've answered these little questions, so, just to be sure...
Craig:
Wouldn't it be reasonable to describe a society that worshiped a god that required human sacrifice (babies even) as evil?
Yes.
If you had people you valued incredibly highly wouldn't you take extreme actions to protect them from evil?
Yes. But I wouldn't kill innocent people, children or babies to "protect" them from evil. Do you think those are morally rational options?
If you were YHWH and had set Israel apart to be Your representatives on earth, wouldn't you go to extremes to protect than from being influenced by evil?
Yes. But I wouldn't kill innocent people, children or babies to "protect" them from evil. Do you think those are morally rational options? Do you think that GOD literally has sometimes commanded Israelites to slaughter children and babies (along with the adults of a town/area)? Why?
Because you find a line in the Bible where some human said that was the case?
Why do you think that line represents a literally exact and factual telling of history? Has God told you to take it that way? Does the text tell you to take it that way?
I'm going out of my way to take the time to answer your questions. Do you see that these ARE reasonable questions I'm asking, given that you appear to be defending the notion of a god who would literally, historically command something that, on the face of it, seems quite evil - the destruction of a WHOLE people, including the children and infants.
Do you see how it's fair, rational, not a game or disrespectful or anything but morally reasonable to ask people who defend that... REALLY?
Is it not always evil to slaughter children who's existence is inconvenient to their parents?
Different scenario (by a great chasm) than a gov't (or "god") wiping out a city of children wholesale, if you're talking about abortion. I certainly don't think abortions "because it's inconvenient" is not a good reason for ME to choose that route, but I'm not the woman who is pregnant. That would be her call, wouldn't it? I mean, it's not like she's slaughtering a whole nation of living children and infants.
BUT, if you think there ARE some exceptions to people killing actual living children and babies, then perhaps you shouldn't be so legalistic about your persona ideas about unborn fetuses and the many varied reasons why women go that route.
Beyond that, are you thinking that you should decide what is and isn't "convenient" for women or that you should just dictate that ALL pregnancies must be carried to term because YOU think it's best?
Is it evil to "slaughter" these people if it prevents a greater evil?
It's evil to kill children, infants and innocent people. Do you seriously think it's NOT?
I mean, I guess you DO literally think that there are times when it's acceptable to target people for destruction, even when you know there will be mass slaughter of children and infants and other innocents. Given that you support Israel's mass killing of innocent bystanders and the US actions in times of war like with Japan/Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
Me? EVEN IF I personally had the opinion that, "IF I don't choose to deliberately kill these 10,000 children and infants, THEN, there's a chance that 100,000 children and infants will be killed..." and you chose to deliberately slaughter those 10,000 children, I'd say it would still be an evil action. The lesser of two evils must never be misunderstood as a moral good. The lesser of two evils is STILL an evil.
Reasonably speaking.
""Do you think people like Marshal who say that God is NOT speaking of the materially poor when Jesus said he'd come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized... that Marshal is standing in judgment of God? Or do you think he just in good faith disagrees with a literal interpretation?""
First, I've provided Dan with scholarly understanding of the passage Dan continually abuses. He deleted it and would guarantee to refrain from doing so again if tried to resubmit it. As such, my position on this in not only inferred from the text itself (even considering the English translation), but from explanations from those far more expert in Scripture than myself, and clearly more so than Dan is.
Second, if in a passage a character calls another man a dog, one can say the first literally called the second a dog. But a literal understanding of the passage cannot intelligently be understood that the first believed the second to be a literal dog. This is how Dan plays games with the word "literal" in pushing his preferred understanding over a literal understanding of the text. Was Jesus referring to the materially poor in the passage of concern? No. Does that mean Jesus was unconcerned with the materially poor and how His followers should care for them? No. Two different issues. Two different understandings of the word "poor" as it is used by Jesus at any given time. Dan makes no effort to distinguish one from the other, preferring to believe only one is ever possible.
In a post about whether or not it's always wrong/evil/atrocious to kill children, I've gone off track by talking about the reasoning why it's rightly considered wrong - always - to kill innocent people, including and especially children and infants?
How?
For instance, I (and almost certainly the majority of the right-thinking world) consider it a great evil to specifically kill children and infants (EVEN IF the target is the adults around them, if you know infants and children are nearby, that's a game stopper).
Do you think I'm mistaken that most of the world considers it wrong to engage in actions - and for simplicity's sake and because it's at the heart of the biblical passages in question, let's say specifically police or military actions - that will kill children?
If so, based on what?
How is asking that question "off track" (much less FAR off track)?
Along those lines, I had said:
"Is it truly the case that you don't understand that I am LITERALLY NOT passing judgment on a perfectly loving and just God almighty, the defender of the poor and marginalized? I'm passing judgment on the reasoning of humans who would ACCUSE God almighty of commanding evil actions."
To which you responded by saying (among other things)
4. You are assuming that you have some degree of highly accurate knowledge regarding what defending "the poor and marginalized" is, yet haven't proven the accuracy of this knowledge.
I responded that I didn't think that, in general, it was difficult to recognize what helping/allying with/defending the poor and marginalized looks like - YOU HELP them. YOU AREN'T CRUEL TO THEM. You give them the means to fend for themselves and empower themselves.
Do you disagree?
You pooh-poohed all that and so, I asked you a reasonable and on-topic question in response to YOUR comments:
"But praytell, o wise one: What IS THE ONE RIGHT ANSWER (or ONE SET OF RIGHT ANSWERS) for justice for the poor and marginalized?" (in which group children and infants would be included, of course)
And you responded:
I'm sorry, did I claim to possess this knowledge? Was my comment about Dan's prideful list of his good works misinterpreted? Apparently.
1. In a world where the poor and marginalized ARE often threatened and harmed, it is reasonable, I would suggest, to find ways to be good and faithful allies to/with them.
Do you disagree?
2. I believe that people have an obligation to look out for one another.
Do you disagree?
3. And so, EVEN IF we don't know how to help perfectly, I believe we have an obligation to do our best to help.
Do you disagree?
4. And so, I find your cavalier response ("I'm sorry, did I claim to possess this knowledge") to be rationally inconsistent and morally unacceptable. I GET that it's easy for the well-off white people of the world to just shrug their shoulders and say, "not my problem!" or, "Well, I don't know what to do to help, so I'm going to do nothing."
Do you believe it is acceptable or moral to just say, "I don't have perfect knowledge of what to do, so I won't try to make the effort to do anything or take any position..."?
5. You're constantly criticizing my moral positions on helping the poor and marginalized, so I'm asking you the reasonable question: WHAT do YOU propose we do?
Do you see how, IF YOU don't have any ideas or can't respond, then others will say, "Fine, then get out of the way and don't be a hindrance to those who ARE trying to help..."?
Craig:
Was my comment about Dan's prideful list of his good works misinterpreted?
I've listed ways that research has shown to be helpful and effective in assisting the poor and marginalized. What's prideful about that?
I've noted that I and the many helpers in my circles strive to listen to expert witness and best practices (of course, often/generally including best practices advocated for by the black, disabled, LGBTQ, poor folks we're allying with) and then implement those practices.
Are you suggesting it's prideful or some sort of "white savior" thing to listen to experts and the people themselves to implement these best practices?
How so?
If you don't mind my saying, that sounds irrational on the face of it. Which is why I'm asking you: IF you don't think looking at research-based, data-driven best practices IS a good or effective way of assisting, what do you suggest instead? Casting lots? Speaking in tongues? Handling snakes until we get an answer? I'm being facetious, of course, but it's a legitimate question.
DO you think we have an obligation as humans to be decent to one another? Yes or No?
Do you think that's especially true for the poor and marginalized, the "least of these" that Jesus spoke of? Yes or no?
If you agree we are our siblings' keepers, then HOW do you think we should determine how to help improve things?
IF you truly don't know, then why are you complaining about those who ARE taking action? IF you truly don't know, THEN you also don't know that what we're doing is helpful or not, right?
Unless I've misunderstood you over the years, you have regularly tried to be a helper in Haiti, so it appears you think it IS a good idea to be a helper. Why not, then, consider what it takes to be a good helper?
Why dost thou kick at the goads?
"In a post about whether or not it's always wrong/evil/atrocious to kill children, I've gone off track by talking about the reasoning why it's rightly considered wrong - always - to kill innocent people, including and especially children and infants? How?"
Because the post is about your grounding for acting as if your subjective claims on the topic, and your insistence that YHWH commanded "evil", are subjective hunches or objective Truth.
"For instance, I (and almost certainly the majority of the right-thinking world) consider it a great evil to specifically kill children and infants (EVEN IF the target is the adults around them, if you know infants and children are nearby, that's a game stopper)."
What you "consider" and when you claim to speak for the "majority of the right-thinking world" are claims that have no grounding in objective truth, and are worthless. You have yet to prove that your claim is True. The fact that you contradict yourself, doesn't help. It's impossible to "specifically kill children" if the "target is the adults around them".
"Do you think I'm mistaken that most of the world considers it wrong to engage in actions - and for simplicity's sake and because it's at the heart of the biblical passages in question, let's say specifically police or military actions - that will kill children? If so, based on what?"
I think that anytime you claim to speak for "most of the world", and to use your individual, subjective hunches about cherry picked "biblical passages", that you are likely to be wrong. Based on probability, and lack of proof.
"Is it truly the case that you don't understand that I am LITERALLY NOT passing judgment on a perfectly loving and just God almighty, the defender of the poor and marginalized? I'm passing judgment on the reasoning of humans who would ACCUSE God almighty of commanding evil actions."
The problem with your hunch, is that it assumes (without proof) that the humans misinterpreted what YHWH told them to do. Prove your underlying premise before you make these sorts of claims.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes, I disagree with your subjective, unproven hunches.
1. "Do you disagree?"
You can suggest all you want. Once you start going beyond suggesting (and not attacking those who don't follow your suggestion), then you have a problem.
2. What you "believe" is irrelevant absent proof that your belief is objectively True. Therefore I disagree with your subjective hunches and beliefs. Further, where does this obligation come from? Who told you that there is an objective "obligation"? Who obligates us?
3. What you "believe" is irrelevant absent proof that your belief is objectively True. Therefore I disagree with your subjective hunches and beliefs. Further, where does this obligation come from? Who told you that there is an objective "obligation"? Who obligates us?
4. I don't care how you "find" my response to you false claim.
"Do you believe it is acceptable or moral to just say, "I don't have perfect knowledge of what to do, so I won't try to make the effort to do anything or take any position..."?"
Given that you haven't provided an objective standard of "acceptable or moral", this question is impossible to answer. It's further based on you misrepresenting what I actually said.
5.No, I'm merely asking you to provide objective proof that your subjective "moral" hunches are to be imposed on everyone. I'm not complaining about what you individually choose to do, I'm pointing out the inconsistency of presuming that your individual, subjective choices are the standard for others, or are objectively required. I'm trying to get to the underlying claims behind your actions, and for objective proof that those claims are True.
"Do you see how, IF YOU don't have any ideas or can't respond, then others will say, "Fine, then get out of the way and don't be a hindrance to those who ARE trying to help..."?"
You can say whatever you want.
"That is, Dan is answering my questions (even though they're either questions with obvious answers or they're premised on bad/unproven presumptions), but I'm not going to answer his, even though they're pertinent to the discussion."
Ohhhhhhhh, the Dan always answers every question perfectly and Craig never answers any questions ever trope. An oldie but a goodie.
"Yes, of course, it is. It's bad. Both scenarios are bad/awful/evil. But the human theory YOU are defending creates a monster out of your notion of "god," and makes the Bible's full testimony irrational and ghastly, frankly."
Based on what objective standard do you make this claim of fact?
"That some bad things might happen (a presumption you haven't proven) to SOME babies and children in these places if nothing is done does not make it all right for an outside party to go in and slaughter ALL the children. Because, of course, it's not! For one thing: People who are commanded to commit atrocities are deeply, gravely wounded themselves when they do the unthinkable. This is scientifically, objectively provable and on the face of it, obvious!"
Ohhhhhhhhh the "it's scientifically proven" (without proof) trope, and the "it's obvious" (so I don't have to prove my "obvious" claims trope. Are you really suggesting that the Amekalites (and others) did not sacrifice their firstborn children to Molech?
"Are you suggesting that if 1 in 4 children in a city are going to be killed by their parents (let's accept that your premise is possibly true), that it is morally BETTER to go in and kill ALL the children in that town?"
No. I'm suggesting that the God who created everything has the knowledge and wisdom to decide that in certain cases, evil must be totally eradicated. I'm suggesting that you have no grounds to prove that you are correct.
"You can't seriously be making that suggestion. You DO recognize that this is just sick and deviant and evil, on the face of it, right?"
Really, you have proclaimed that my suggestion that YHWH is Sovereign is "sick, deviant, and evil", based on what objective standard? You probably don't even realize the straw man you created here.
"No. And you haven't proven your "IF." And you're speaking of killing ALL the children deliberately just because SOME of the children might be killed, is that right? Do you seriously think that's a RATIONALLY better option, using your moral reasoning?"
Interesting, your "moral" hunches would say that it's better for children to suffer terribly before they die, than to die without suffering. I do appreciate how you cling to your hypotheticals as is they're perfect, yet don't do so with others.
"It's evil/wrong/hideous/cowardly/f'd up to deliberately slaughter children and infants. Period."
1. Are you claiming that this statement is objectively True?
2. If so, by what objective standard.
"Do you SERIOUSLY disagree?"
My agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. I'm asking you these questions to attempt to understand YOUR position. My position is not relevant to my understanding of your position.
For the record, I do not believe that I can impose my subjective conclusions on others so I would never make the kinds of claims you make.
"Yes. But I wouldn't kill innocent people, children or babies to "protect" them from evil. Do you think those are morally rational options?"
Interesting notion. That you would allow suffering on a massive scale because to eliminate it without harming children would violate your subjective moral code. Not only do I, but so does every country that has ratified the Geneva Conventions. We all recognize that there might be situations where the elimination of a greater evil, might result in "collateral damage".
"Yes. But I wouldn't kill innocent people, children or babies to "protect" them from evil. Do you think those are morally rational options? Do you think that GOD literally has sometimes commanded Israelites to slaughter children and babies (along with the adults of a town/area)? Why?"
So, your real answer seems to be no. Or at least that you would impose your definition of what extreme measures were appropriate on YHWH. Not by your subjective moral code, no. But I', not aware that your subjective moral code applies to me of YHWH. Asked and answered.
"Because you find a line in the Bible where some human said that was the case?"
No. Although, the assumption behind this question is that the "line in the Bible" is somehow not factually accurate. Yet, as you admit, the best you can do is apply your subjective interpretation to that line. Which means that you have no objective basis to cavalierly dismiss a :line in the Bible".
"Why do you think that line represents a literally exact and factual telling of history? Has God told you to take it that way? Does the text tell you to take it that way?"
Why do you think that it objectively does not, and could not be accurate? I'm willing to trust that YHWH is able to superintend the writing of Scripture and to work through the human authors to make sure that His message is accurately communicated. I could note that I have not yet seen one archeological find that explicitly disproves scripture either. No, but the Holy Spirit does.
"I'm going out of my way to take the time to answer your questions. Do you see that these ARE reasonable questions I'm asking, given that you appear to be defending the notion of a god who would literally, historically command something that, on the face of it, seems quite evil - the destruction of a WHOLE people, including the children and infants."
Reasonable by your subjective definition of reasonable. I too have taken large amounts of time dealing with your diversions and straw men, and answering the same question multiple times. The fact that you are imposing your subjective hunch about morality, good, and evil as if your hunch was objectively True isn't my problem. Nor is how things "seem" to you.
"Do you see how it's fair, rational, not a game or disrespectful or anything but morally reasonable to ask people who defend that... REALLY?"
Again with pretending that your subjective hunches represent objective reality. I don't need to defend YHWH, it's not my place to defend Him. I fail to see why Him demonstrating His sovereignty for His purposes, is yours to criticize.
"Different scenario (by a great chasm) than a gov't (or "god") wiping out a city of children wholesale, if you're talking about abortion. I certainly don't think abortions "because it's inconvenient" is not a good reason for ME to choose that route, but I'm not the woman who is pregnant. That would be her call, wouldn't it? I mean, it's not like she's slaughtering a whole nation of living children and infants."
Per Guttmacher, 73 million children are killed yearly by abortion. While we know infanticide exists and is gaining support in the West, I doubt we have accurate numbers. But we could probably conclude that the number of born children killed by their parents is in the thousands. So you're all worked up about a slaughter of an evil city state thousands of years ago, but blase about the slaughter of millions on the alter of convenience (and govern met policy). That's what's handy about a subjective moral code, it's flexible enough for you to adamantly claim that killing children in any circumstance is wrong, then carve out a huge exception to your own claim.
"BUT, if you think there ARE some exceptions to people killing actual living children and babies, then perhaps you shouldn't be so legalistic about your persona ideas about unborn fetuses and the many varied reasons why women go that route."
Why should I waste time with your straw men?
"Beyond that, are you thinking that you should decide what is and isn't "convenient" for women or that you should just dictate that ALL pregnancies must be carried to term because YOU think it's best?"
No. I'm merely pointing out the statistical reality that the vast majority of abortions in the West are because it's inconvenient for one of the parents. Obviously, the abortion and infanticide mandated by places like China is for the convenience of the State.
"It's evil to kill children, infants and innocent people. Do you seriously think it's NOT?"
It's strange how you can so easily shift from carving out a massive exception to your above claim, then pretend that you actually didn't do so. You haven't established an objective standard of evil. The fact that it is sometimes unavoidable to kill children while trying to eradicate a larger evil is something that virtually all international law recognizes. Your inability to accurately represent what other say is both problematic, and frustrating. You are the only one here arguing in favor of the killing of millions as a good thing.
"I mean, I guess you DO literally think that there are times when it's acceptable to target people for destruction, even when you know there will be mass slaughter of children and infants and other innocents. Given that you support Israel's mass killing of innocent bystanders and the US actions in times of war like with Japan/Hiroshima/Nagasaki."
Yes, I do think that it is sometimes necessary to remove evil people from the world. Unfortunately, evil people rarely accommodate their own removal and sometimes need some encouragement. Sometimes "innocent" people support those that would do evil and suffer the consequences of that support.
But let's look at some actual numbers. Imperial Japan has a long history of violent attempts at conquest and of killing civilians. But, in the period between 1930-1945, Japan killed AT LEAST 30,0000,000 innocent people. They did so in horrible and brutal ways. This doesn't include the number of allied military casualties that wouldn't have happened had Japan not been an oppressor. Let's contrast the 30,000,000 plus casualties inflicted on innocent civilians with the @300,000 casualties inflicted on Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Then lets consider that every single one of those 300,000 could have been prevented by the Japanese government. Let's also consider the casualties that would have been had the Japanese been allowed to conquer everyplace they invaded. You seem to be arguing for a posture that would have increased the innocent civilian casualties inflicted by Japan, in favor of limiting the "innocent civilian" casualties suffered by Japan. It's a strange moral code that shows more compassion to the oppressed, than to the oppressor, more concern for the attacker than the attacked.
"Me? EVEN IF I personally had the opinion that, "IF I don't choose to deliberately kill these 10,000 children and infants, THEN, there's a chance that 100,000 children and infants will be killed..." and you chose to deliberately slaughter those 10,000 children, I'd say it would still be an evil action. The lesser of two evils must never be misunderstood as a moral good. The lesser of two evils is STILL an evil."
No one is arguing that the elimination of evil does not carry with it some necessary "evils". Certainly no one is arguing that those things are "good", although good may come from those actions. The problem with your position, is that you've added "deliberately" to your formulation.
Hamas had the power to prevent one single civilian death, including that thousands of civilians they kill regularly". Hamas (an evil, terrorist group that has committed/is committing atrocities as we speak) had the ability to prevent every single bit of death and destruction happening in Gaza. They chose this, they sought this, they revel in this.
I see no problem with advocating for the eradication of the evil.
Reasonably speaking.
I don't think you're understanding where your problems on this theory you have are and no matter how many times I try to correct your misunderstandings and raise reasonable questions which you do not answer directly or seriously (mocking me for ASKING the question is not a direct or serious, good faith answer), you don't seem to be even understanding the questions I'm asking. Indeed, when I ASK you if you're understanding my point/position I'm raising, you tend not to answer that question, most often either ignoring it or answering a distantly related question that I'm NOT asking.
For instance, when I asked you
"It's evil to kill children, infants and innocent people. Do you seriously think it's NOT?"
...I mean, I guess you DO literally think that there are times when it's acceptable to target people for destruction, even when you know there will be mass slaughter of children and infants and other innocents. Given that you support Israel's mass killing of innocent bystanders and the US actions in times of war like with Japan/Hiroshima/Nagasaki."
You answer indirectly,
Yes, I do think that it is sometimes necessary to remove evil people from the world. Unfortunately, evil people rarely accommodate their own removal and sometimes need some encouragement. Sometimes "innocent" people support those that would do evil and suffer the consequences of that support.
I didn't ask you if you thought it sometimes necessary to "remove evil people," I asked you about the innocent people, including children and even infants.
The DIRECT answer then (tell me if I'm wrong - but if you answered directly in the first place, I wouldn't need to seek clarity), given your response, would be:
"YES. I Craig, DO think that in the pursuit of 'evil people,' it is morally acceptable to slaughter innocent bystanders - even in the hundreds and thousands. EVEN when they're children and babies... I, Craig, DO think that is a moral option."
I think the more rationally moral answer (IF you want to allow the notion of pursuing "bad guys" to that extreme) is:
Sometimes, in the imperfect world, when we have bad guys committing evil actions and we're afraid that they'll just keep killing more and more people, that SOMETIMES, we may find ourselves in the morally impossible place of having to kill what we guess might be hundreds of thousands, including tens of thousands of children and infants, to save, we're guessing, one million. But it should not be sugar coated: The killing of those innocent people IS a moral wrong... an evil. It's just what we truly believe to be the lesser evil.
BUT, we ought never call a "lesser evil," a moral good. That would be an abuse of language and morality and decency.
"I don't think you're understanding where your problems on this theory you have are and no matter how many times I try to correct your misunderstandings and raise reasonable questions which you do not answer directly or seriously (mocking me for ASKING the question is not a direct or serious, good faith answer), you don't seem to be even understanding the questions I'm asking. Indeed, when I ASK you if you're understanding my point/position I'm raising, you tend not to answer that question, most often either ignoring it or answering a distantly related question that I'm NOT asking."
I don't think that I'm trying to explore your position, not state my position. The fact that you end up trying to assign all sorts of made up, bullshit, straw men positions to me and demand that I support your made up bullshit, seems like the bigger issue. The fact that you drag threads all over the place might be a problem as well.
But as long as you can so easily contradict your self, I don't think it matters what you say or how you answer questions. You'll just add loopholes, contradict yourself, or add exceptions based on your subjective, flexible, individual, moral code.
"I didn't ask you if you thought it sometimes necessary to "remove evil people," I asked you about the innocent people, including children and even infants."
Well, you see, there's your problem. You chose to only pay attention to the first line or so of my answer and then act as if that was all that I said. So, try again, read everything, and think about it before you go off half cocked.
"The DIRECT answer then (tell me if I'm wrong - but if you answered directly in the first place, I wouldn't need to seek clarity), given your response, would be:"
So, in your mind, the only acceptable "direct" answer is one that simply agrees with the bullshit fantasy you've tried to pass off as my position, or one that meets your approval.
Well, you certainly like to put words in my mouth that I didn't say, I'll give you that. But I se no reason to indulge your fantastical bullshit, straw men.
"I think the more rationally moral answer (IF you want to allow the notion of pursuing "bad guys" to that extreme) is:"
You see, when you start a sentence with "I think" I immediately ignore it because I know that nothing you say will be supported by facts, evidence, or proof. You just expect what you "think" to be given a weight that your thoughts don't deserve.
"BUT, we ought never call a "lesser evil," a moral good. That would be an abuse of language and morality and decency."
Where exactly have I used the term "moral good" to describe collateral damage?
Craig:
Although, the assumption behind this question is that the "line in the Bible" is somehow not factually accurate. Yet, as you admit, the best you can do is apply your subjective interpretation to that line. Which means that you have no objective basis to cavalierly dismiss a :line in the Bible".
Your largest problem is that you continue to point out the reality that I can't objectively prove God's opinion on these OT texts or moral ideas, ANY MORE than YOU can prove your interpretations are objectively correct. You do this as if it means anything. It literally means nothing.
The problem is when you believe that YOU PERSONALLY DO hold the objective truth, THEN it's okay to mock those who only have reasonable but subjective opinions. You don't. You continue to hide behind your "But I didn't SAY I have objective proof or the objectively correct plan..." even while it's abundantly clear that I didn't say I have objective proof either. No one does.
Look, if someone is mocking another person because they don't have wings and can't fly, saying, "You want to suggest it's helpful for humans to be able to cross great distances, but YOU don't even have wings that would let you fly there!" Ignoring that they, themselves, also don't have wings. No human does. It's a moot point in the discussion.
Now, if SOME people had wings or objectively proven interpretations of God's Word and others didn't, THEN it makes sense to object to someone having subjective (if reasonable) opinions on important matters. But when NO ONE has the objectively proven interpretations to these texts that are morally problematic for the "literalists," then the complaint is meaningless.
The questions are not: WHO holds the objectively proven notion of OT mass slaughter? WHO holds the objectively proven idea of what God objectively thinks about gay folks getting married or adopting? WHO holds the objectively proven notion of how or if to engage in war where innocent people will be targeted and killed?
NONE of us have that objective proof.
cont'd...
The questions are: From a moral and human rights perspective, is it morally/rationally reasonable to deliberately target a place where you KNOW you'll slaughter children*?
From a moral and human rights perspective, is it morally/rationally reasonable to deliberately to command a person/army to slaughter men, women, children and babies*? IF SO, where is the proof for it? Who says and based on what?
From a moral and human rights and simple literary perspective, is it morally/rationally reasonable to insist that an OT text (or any other ancient text) that describes an apparent historic action, MUST be considered as a trustworthy literal history (or something more like history than a legend or myth)? Why?
That's one of your largest fallacies you're dealing with: You're continually begging the question: "Where is the biblical support that makes the case that these were NOT literal historic events depicted exactly as they happen? If you don't have that, then why should we consider an alternative explanation?"
Within that presumption, there is the presumption that it SHOULD be considered historically accurate down to the details of God's words/commands. But why? Says who?
The question is: DO these texts depict the exact actions and words and commands of God?
To respond with: WHERE IS THE PROOF that it WASN'T exactly as it happened? is jumping the gun, begging the question, presuming the answer before it's established.
Do you see? I just don't think you do.
* As an aside, the instance of Israel allegedly being commanded to slaughter a whole town is significantly distinct than the horrible atomic bomb slaughter or the slaughter happening in Gaza right now. In these modern instances, at least they can argue, "we're not TRYING to kill children at all... but we ARE targeting places where we KNOW children will be killed in large numbers."
But in the biblical instances, they were not using WMD, they were going in and deliberately, one by one, slaughter the men, women, children and babies. Run a sword or a spear through them, ONE BY ONE. Bash their heads in with a rock. Deliberately, one on one killing of specifically men, women, children and babes. Where is the rational moral justification for THAT?
Do you have any? If not, would it not be best to just say, "I have no moral or rational support (let alone objective proof) to insist that the idea is correct. It's just my opinion based upon how I was raised..."?
See this is what Dan excels at.
He states his firm, unassailable position as if it is objectively True.
He then offers extenuating circumstances, exceptions, excuses, or contradictory claims.
Then he goes where we are now. He's called the use of nukes on Japan a horrible, evil, thing because it killed a lot of "innocent civilians". A position that no one, including those who decided disagreed with. The problem he has is that he's offered no alternative. He's offered no acknowledgement of the 30,000,000 plus deaths that can only be attributed to the Japanese. He ignores the fact that the Japanese were oppressive conquerors. He takes the position that the only acceptable recourse to deal with Japan must include an absolute exception to harming children. I admit I find his naive ignorance kind of charming. This notion that until we can eradicate the evil people who have killed more than 30,000,000 innocent people and enslaved/oppressed millions more, is to do so without harming any children.
Theoretically it's possible to do so, although it will almost always result in more deaths, more destruction, and take longer.
It's like the pro Hamas idiots who insist that Israel must feed the people who are trying to exterminate.
It's impossible to take events out of their context. Had Truman simply dropped nukes on Hiroshima/Nagasaki for no reason, that would be one thing. But in the context of Japan's evil actions, oppressive conquests, total disregard for the value of any non Japanese lives, and their disregarding of the warnings they got, the decision makes a lot more sense. Likewise, if you remove all of the pre 10/8 context from what's happening in Gaza, you paint an entirely different picture. FAFO is a real thing, effects have causes, If you don't want to be attacked, don't attack other people.
Dan's concern for the children of those who attack others without provocation, who kill/rape/torture/kidnap/enslave those they conquer, would be more touching is he showed the same concern for the children of the victims of the aggression of Japan, Hamas, and others who engage in evil.
Where exactly have I used the term "moral good" to describe collateral damage?
My apologies:
BUT, we ought never call a "lesser evil," NOT an evil. A lesser evil remains an evil. That would be an abuse of language and morality and decency. You appear to be unwilling to describe the deliberate, one-by-one, one-on-one slaughter of children a clear and indisputable evil.
I guess you're saying, it's NOT a moral good to go through a city and kill children one by one, AND that it's a shame, but that it's not a moral evil...? Is that your take on it?
And you hold that take primarily because there are lines in the Bible that you want to treat as something like literal history with those facts being literally (you suppose, but can't prove) what God said to Israel in those instances... Is that correct?
And you want to treat these texts as something like literal history because you're worried that treating it like a myth or legend or otherwise, not literal history is to, what? - diminish? tarnish? the Biblical authors? To call them "liars..."? Is that your theory/presumption you hold as to why you're reluctant to treat it as not literal history?
This, even though "the Bible" never tells us to take these ancient stories as literal history? Even though God has never told you to take these stories literally? Even though the authors never told you to take those stories literally?
How about the Creation story? Do you hold the position that to take that as less than historically accurate - at least to SOME degree (maybe that there was a literal Adam and Eve and talking serpent?) - is to disrespect the authors, the bible, God?
If so, why?
"Your largest problem is that you continue to point out the reality that I can't objectively prove God's opinion on these OT texts or moral ideas, ANY MORE than YOU can prove your interpretations are objectively correct. You do this as if it means anything. It literally means nothing."
You are correct, yet you continue to act as if your subjective hunches are somehow to be applied to everyone. The problem is that you appeal to "Reason" and consensus as justification for treating your subjective hunches as objective.
"The problem is when you believe that YOU PERSONALLY DO hold the objective truth, THEN it's okay to mock those who only have reasonable but subjective opinions. You don't. You continue to hide behind your "But I didn't SAY I have objective proof or the objectively correct plan..." even while it's abundantly clear that I didn't say I have objective proof either. No one does."
If this confusing pile of shit is True, then you literally just admitted that nothing you say has any value or application beyond yourself.
"The questions are not: WHO holds the objectively proven notion of OT mass slaughter? WHO holds the objectively proven idea of what God objectively thinks about gay folks getting married or adopting? WHO holds the objectively proven notion of how or if to engage in war where innocent people will be targeted and killed?"
Yet you keep acting as if you do. You continue to call YHWH evil, yet if you have no objective standard to do so, why would you? Again, the problem is you acting as if your subjective hunches are objectively True.
"NONE of us have that objective proof."
The stop making objective claims. Come to think of it, you just said that "NONE of us have objective proof" that "NONE of us have objective proof". The amount of self refutation packed into that 7 word sentence is impressive.
ome to think of it, you just said that "NONE of us have objective proof" that "NONE of us have objective proof". The amount of self refutation packed into that 7 word sentence is impressive.
Here is where you just don't seem to understand reality or reason. But we've already gone down this road before.
I can OBJECTIVELY SAY that, as an OBJECTIVE and DEMONSTRATED FACT obvious to ALL that there are ZERO purple unicorns on the moon planning to take over the earth.
I can say that because there is ZERO data to support such a conclusion as an objective fact. That's how reasoning/data/reality work.
Now, IF you want to prove that, as an objective fact, that there ARE purple unicorns on the moon, then ALL you have to do is present objective data to support it.
People can correctly say, "There is NO data to objectively prove..." something where there is no data to objectively prove it. That's logic. That's reason. That's reality.
But, we've covered all this before.
"The questions are: From a moral and human rights perspective, is it morally/rationally reasonable to deliberately target a place where you KNOW you'll slaughter children*?"
That question is addressed in the Geneva Conventions, which you earlier offered as the final word on "international law". They addressed this as though it is a given in modern warfare. It's why the Geneva Convention forbids the use of "human shields" or taking hostages. If one looks to the standards set out in the Geneva Convention, Israel has conducted an exemplary campaign in Gaza (I've posted the evidence elsewhere). SO according to the signatories of the Geneva Convention it is rationally and legally reasonable to target someplace where there is a likelihood of children being injured. Given that you advocate a subjective moral code, the moral component is trickier. Clearly Hamas, and the Japanese placed very little value on the lives of their own subjects and intentionally used them in ways that guaranteed their harm. Further in the cases of both Gaza and Hiroshima?Nagasaki, multiple offers were made and rejected that would have eliminated the casualties you seem concerned over. So, what's the alternative? How do you rid the world of the undeniable evil of both Hamas, and Imperial japan, while harming precisely zero children? How does you plan account for allowing the evil to persist, and to cause (likely) more casualties?
"From a moral and human rights perspective, is it morally/rationally reasonable to deliberately to command a person/army to slaughter men, women, children and babies*? IF SO, where is the proof for it? Who says and based on what?"
See above, it's addressed reasonably well.
"From a moral and human rights and simple literary perspective, is it morally/rationally reasonable to insist that an OT text (or any other ancient text) that describes an apparent historic action, MUST be considered as a trustworthy literal history (or something more like history than a legend or myth)? Why?"
It's interesting. I'm not insisting one way or the other. The only one insisting is you, yet you won't hold yourself to the same standard you hold others to. I would suggest that if the entirety of the text was found to be accurate (where it had been possible) that I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the rest. I'd also suggest that IF scripture was "God breathed" and that YHWH guided the writers, that perhaps it would be held to a differnt standard.
"That's one of your largest fallacies you're dealing with: You're continually begging the question: "Where is the biblical support that makes the case that these were NOT literal historic events depicted exactly as they happen? If you don't have that, then why should we consider an alternative explanation?""
I'm confused. Are you really suggesting that I accept your alternate reality without expecting any proof, evidence, or data? That my asking you for what you demand of me, is somehow wrong?
"Within that presumption, there is the presumption that it SHOULD be considered historically accurate down to the details of God's words/commands. But why? Says who?"
The Holy Spirit.
"The question is: DO these texts depict the exact actions and words and commands of God?"
That is one question, yes.
"To respond with: WHERE IS THE PROOF that it WASN'T exactly as it happened? is jumping the gun, begging the question, presuming the answer before it's established."
Yet merely announcing that the entire OT is ahistorical "myth" with nothing but your hunch isn't hanging your entire position on your unsupported, unproven presumption?
"Do you see? I just don't think you do."
I do see. I don't think you see the inherent self contradiction in your "position", and I don't think you can get past your made up, preconceptions of what you think my position should be based on your biases.
* As an aside, the instance of Israel allegedly being commanded to slaughter a whole town is significantly distinct than the horrible atomic bomb slaughter or the slaughter happening in Gaza right now. In these modern instances, at least they can argue, "we're not TRYING to kill children at all... but we ARE targeting places where we KNOW children will be killed in large numbers."
But in the biblical instances, they were not using WMD, they were going in and deliberately, one by one, slaughter the men, women, children and babies. Run a sword or a spear through them, ONE BY ONE. Bash their heads in with a rock. Deliberately, one on one killing of specifically men, women, children and babes. Where is the rational moral justification for THAT?
Do you have any? If not, would it not be best to just say, "I have no moral or rational support (let alone objective proof) to insist that the idea is correct. It's just my opinion based upon how I was raised..."?
You use the phrase "moral and human standpoint" several times. Yet as we've established you have no grounds to assert a universal "moral and human standpoint" on literally anything. That seems like a problem. I'm sure you'll posit some vague, unsupported human consensus around something equally vague, and then act as if that is functionally equal to anything objective.
"My apologies:"
From someone who continuously harps on reading, I expect better.
BUT, we ought never call a "lesser evil," NOT an evil. A lesser evil remains an evil. That would be an abuse of language and morality and decency. You appear to be unwilling to describe the deliberate, one-by-one, one-on-one slaughter of children a clear and indisputable evil."
"I guess you're saying, it's NOT a moral good to go through a city and kill children one by one, AND that it's a shame, but that it's not a moral evil...? Is that your take on it?"
Given your ability to use quotation marks properly I'm not sure if any of that was actually a quote of something I actually said or not. No.
"And you hold that take primarily because there are lines in the Bible that you want to treat as something like literal history with those facts being literally (you suppose, but can't prove) what God said to Israel in those instances... Is that correct?"
No.
"And you want to treat these texts as something like literal history because you're worried that treating it like a myth or legend or otherwise, not literal history is to, what? - diminish? tarnish? the Biblical authors? To call them "liars..."? Is that your theory/presumption you hold as to why you're reluctant to treat it as not literal history?"
No.
"This, even though "the Bible" never tells us to take these ancient stories as literal history? Even though God has never told you to take these stories literally? Even though the authors never told you to take those stories literally?"
No.
"How about the Creation story? Do you hold the position that to take that as less than historically accurate - at least to SOME degree (maybe that there was a literal Adam and Eve and talking serpent?) - is to disrespect the authors, the bible, God?"
No.
"If so, why?"
No.
"Here is where you just don't seem to understand reality or reason. But we've already gone down this road before."
Well, I understand that you are conflating subjective "Reason" with objective "reality" right at the start.
"I can OBJECTIVELY SAY that, as an OBJECTIVE and DEMONSTRATED FACT obvious to ALL that there are ZERO purple unicorns on the moon planning to take over the earth."
You can do that, but only if your goal is to draw attention away from your self refuting claim from earlier. Any further reference to made up, fairy tale, bullshit, will be ignored.
"People can correctly say, "There is NO data to objectively prove..." something where there is no data to objectively prove it. That's logic. That's reason. That's reality."
You can say wherever you want. The problem remains that for your claim to actually be True (or "reality", you would have to demonstrate that you have evaluate all possible "data" for your claim to be objectively True.
Now you could say something like: "I've looked at a lot of data, and I personally have never seen data that confirms that claim.". Something like that would be reasonable. But to claim that in the entire history of the universe that this "data" objectively does not exist is simply a claim beyond your means to prove. Maybe your vaunted "Reason" isn't quite what you think it is.
"But, we've covered all this before."
We have, and you've never been able to make the leap from subjective to objective. You want to make objective claims of fact, but only have subjective hunches to support them, therefore they fail to pass the test that you so often demand of others yet rarely put to yourself.
"Yet merely announcing that the entire OT is ahistorical "myth" with nothing but your hunch isn't hanging your entire position on your unsupported, unproven presumption?"
.
Do you really think THAT is what I'm saying?
Do you think that is an honest representation of what I've said and what I'm saying?
Do you think I'm saying
"that the entire OT is ahistorical "myth".."?
Even though I've never said anything like that? Ever?
Do you think it's merely an empty hunch, based on nothing of substance?
Why make false claims... do you not take, Thou shalt not bear false witness as a reliable truism?
Do you think that I, being raised as an ultra orthodox conservative Christian who believed fully in a literally historical, inerrant Bible just, one day, for NO reason just flipped my position and said, "Even though it's nothing more than a wild and unsupported hunch, I'm now declaring that EVERYTHING in all the OT is myth and lies?
Do you think that's a plausible, reasonable explanation of what I'm saying and what I believe?
Dan
"Yet merely announcing that the entire OT is ahistorical "myth" with nothing but your hunch isn't hanging your entire position on your unsupported, unproven presumption?"
1. I do not believe the OT is nothing but a myth. Of course. You can tell, by the way I've never made the claim.
2. I think it is reasonable to note:
A. That the earliest OT stories come from a time where telling literal, linear history in the manner we've evolved over the ages is an important historically and literary thing to note.
B. That ALL the ancient texts from humanity's earliest storytelling years were mythic or legendary in nature ( with the exception of those writings that were done in more of a List fashion.)
C. That not one thing in the text of the Bible demands that we consider the most ancient stories as something like factual, linear history.
C. That, on the face of it, just looking at the language used, many of the oldest stories are written in what appears to be a mythic (in some cases) or legendary (in other cases) style.
D. That modern objective, measurable observations (ie, science) demonstrate that some of the creation myth can't be taken as literally factual. The data disabuses the notion of a 6,000 year old universe or a six day creation, or a flood with waters that cover the whole earth, or a boat large enough to hold two of ALL the land animals, etc.
E. That ALL other ancient literature with similar sounding stories, conservative christians would not consider for a second to be literally factual history.
3. And in noting this, along with the reality that we ALL recognize at least parts of the Bible as figurative, is sufficient to say, If I don't consider Genesis to be something like factually historic is not "nothing."
It is supported by reasonable observation.
Dan
"Do you really think THAT is what I'm saying?"
I am convinced that that is a reasonable representation of what you have said many times.
"Do you think that is an honest representation of what I've said and what I'm saying?"
It might be a bit exaggerated, for comic effect, but it's a pretty good summary.
"that the entire OT is ahistorical "myth".."?"
I think that you're saying that the vast majority of the OT is ahistorical myth. I think that you could probably cherry pick a few sections that you'd admit are accurate. I think that (obviously) you wouldn't say that the poetic books, or the prophets are 100% historical. But as a two word summary, I'd say it was reasonably accurate.
"Even though I've never said anything like that? Ever?"
Really? That's quite a claim. It'd be amusing to go back and search through older posts to find some quotes. But, you'll just make up some bullshit about anything I find, so why bother.
"Do you think it's merely an empty hunch, based on nothing of substance?"
Yes, pretty much. I can't recall you ever providing any actual evidence (beyond yourself) to support your claims.
"Why make false claims... do you not take, Thou shalt not bear false witness as a reliable truism?"
It's always hilarious when you pull a line out of scripture, and pretend like it's some gotcha and like you'd actually take it seriously in any other context. (You'd argue that you don't need scripture not to lie, but your actions suggest otherwise) The fact that you have to make a false claim to make your point is also amusing. But prove me wrong, I'll wait.
"Do you think that I, being raised as an ultra orthodox conservative Christian who believed fully in a literally historical, inerrant Bible just, one day, for NO reason just flipped my position and said, "Even though it's nothing more than a wild and unsupported hunch, I'm now declaring that EVERYTHING in all the OT is myth and lies?"
No, I think you had a reason. I just think it's a reason divorced from anything beyond yourself, your "Reason", your hunches, and your feelings.
"Do you think that's a plausible, reasonable explanation of what I'm saying and what I believe?"
Do I think "what" is a "plausible, reasonable explanation of what I'm saying and what I believe?"?
When you ask these idiotic questions with no indication of what specific "plausible, reasonable explanation" you are talking about, don't be shocked when you don't get an answer.
But, with the caveat that my summary was not intended to be an exhaustive, deep dive, into every nook and cranny of your hunches about the OT, I think that it was a reasonably accurate, two word summary.
1. Blah, blah, blah. I addressed this earlier. FWIW, you've never been able to provide any sort of metric to demonstrate how you divide the "myth" from the "history".
2. Who cares what you think is "reasonable"?
A. Which doesn't mean that it is not a reasonably accurate recording of events. Just a different style of relating those events.
B. Which again doesn't preclude the accurate recording of information. BTW, where is your proof that "ALL" ancient writing were "mythic or legendary"? Where is the proof that the OT history is inaccurately recorded?
C. Yet there is also nothing that demands the we preclude that position.
C. What makes you think that using "C." twice and merely repeating point "A." in a slightly different manner helps your "case"? See above.
D. First, that's not how science works. The role of science isn't to definitively prove or disprove things. Second, the very best current "science" tells us the the universe had a singular beginning that does line up with the explanation in Genesis. Further that habitability argument aligns with a created earth designed for life as we know it. Third, please show me this definitive proof your speak of. Fourth, please show me where the YEC model is the only explanation consistent with Genesis?
E. What specific works that purport to be historical are your referring to, specifically? These vague, broad, unproven claims only serve to make you look like you're pulling this out of your ass.
3. This self serving gibberish doesn't make any sense.
"It is supported by reasonable observation."
"It is supported by (Dan's subjective, personalized, biased, imperfect,) reasonable observation."
There, I fixed it. You do realize that your subjective, personalized, biased, imperfect, reasonable observation isn't really any actual "support". don't you? It's like when the Pharisees scolded Jesus because He was testifying on His own behalf. Jesus had a reasonable answer, you don't. Saying that you find something "reasonable" is like saying nothing at all.
"I am convinced that that is a reasonable representation of what you have said many times..."
Does the fact that I'm telling you, "Craig, that is literally not what I'm saying... literally not what I believe..." make a difference to you? Or does it suffice, for you, that IF YOU have decided what the author (me, in this case), believes, then that's all I need to know?
That would explain a lot.
Dan
"Does the fact that I'm telling you, "Craig, that is literally not what I'm saying... literally not what I believe..." make a difference to you? Or does it suffice, for you, that IF YOU have decided what the author (me, in this case), believes, then that's all I need to know?"
The problem with you simply "telling" me something is that it doesn't take into account what you've said over a period of years. It doesn't take into account that you might craft this version of your subjective truth in such a way as to fit this specific situation. In all honesty tell me or not, I don't care. If recent history is any guide, it's likely that you'll make some grand, definitive claim. Then immediately start offering excuses, exceptions and caveats, to nullify whatever you say.
You do you. Or you could conclusively demonstrate that my short, tongue-in-cheek, general characterization of your previously expressed contentions is objectively wrong. What makes more sense is not that you come up with some new way to say what you've (sorta) said in the past, but that you provide your past quotes and links to demonstrate what I've based my two word summary on communicates something substantially different.
"That would explain a lot."
It's good to see one more instance where you bitch about the fact that my two word summary of your frequently expressed position on the OT, and my further clarification of that two word (slightly sarcastic, summary), yet are blind to the fact that you regularly do the very thing you bitch about.
Craig...
"you've never been able to provide any sort of metric to demonstrate how you divide the "myth" from the "history"."
https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/myth-myth-and-history
Dan
OK, Dan managed to find some random website that he thinks fits his narrative. However, what I asked was how does Dan personally and specifically determine which sections of the OT are "myth" and, which are not. I didn't see that rubric in the link.
"I am convinced that that is a reasonable representation of what you have said many times."
1. Israel is a literally factual people and nation that came to be in Biblical times.
2. Likewise, Egypt and some of the other nations mentioned in the Bible are/were objectively factual and historic peoples, nations and places that actually existed.
3. These nations likely interacted with Israel and biblical stories almost certainly have some basis in those real interactions. Some are proven, others are not.
OT stories ARE historical insofar as they're telling stories of actual interactions between actual places.
4. But there is small to no data to support that the facts and exact details were recorded in an historical manner as we consider factual, linear history .
5. Noting that stories were passed on in a more mythic or legendary is NOT saying that anyone lied or deliberately deceived. It was just the manner of storytelling.
Dan
After digging deeper into Dan's piece of "proof", I can't help but note that there was very little time spent on discussing whether or not the Hebrew history accurately presented things as they happened. Lot's of talk about literary genre (as if events can't be recorded accurately in more than one genre), very little to address the basic issues. Are historical events presented in a relatively accurate way, not so much. I didn't see any evidence of whether or not the dealt with archeological support for the OT or not, but it seems relevant to the topic.
Ultimately, this is destined to go back where this discussion always goes. Dan obsessing over literary genres, and not addressing the fundamental question.
1. Had you not stated this, I would never have known.
2. See #1.
3. See #1.
"OT stories ARE historical insofar as they're telling stories of actual interactions between actual places."
Thanks for saying nothing. I appreciate the deep dive you've taken into the details. It's very helpful. Oh, and I appreciate the equivocation, I'd be lost without it.
4. You keep saying "linear factual history" as if that is the only possible way to accurately record actual events.
5. If this is the case, then nothing you have conjured up precludes the conclusion that the stories in the OT were accurate recollections of actual events.
I understand, it's difficult to turn something that is so subjective into a rubric that can be applied outside of your preconceptions.
If I wasn't clear, my point is NOT which literary genre a story is told in, my concern is whether of not the events related (regardless of genre) reflect reality in a reasonably accurate manner.
If I wasn't clear, my point is NOT which literary genre a story is told in, my concern is whether of not the events related (regardless of genre) reflect reality in a reasonably accurate manner.
I love historical fiction and historical fantasy.
I am currently reading a story about Thoreau's early life and his early connections with the Transcendentalists. It's so much fun, so informative and just cool, if you appreciate Thoreau. And I say "informative," insofar as helping me imagine what Thoreau's relationship with Emerson might have been like.
BUT, since it's historical fiction, that means I do not assume that the conversations taking place LITERALLY took place and those words were LITERALLY what was said. It's lovely, informative and a delight, BUT, it's not passing on literally factual history, not precisely and certainly not when it comes to the conversations that took place.
Historical fiction (which, as a genre, didn't exist back then) and myths and legends can all be delightful and helpful, but we just can't assume that the texts represent a literally perfectly factual representation of the story or the conversations that occur.
For that reason, understanding the genre is important to understanding a text.
As a point of reality, SOME historical fiction MIGHT depict literal scenes that literally happened as described, or mostly as described. Sometimes, even the text of a conversation in HF could be representative of a real conversation. But we can't assume that, if the genre is HF. Nor can we assume that if the genre was myth or legend.
Right?
So, I am sure that we agree that understanding the genre is important - vital, even - for understand any given text, right? And surely we can agree that if something was written in a more legendary or mythic style common to ancient stories, that we just can't assume that the conversations happened just as described, right?
I think at that point, you're thinking, "but we haven't established that parts of Genesis and the most ancient stories WERE written in a mythic or legendary style..." and that's right, we haven't. But nor have we established they were written/passed on as a literally factual history.
And given the reality of storytelling at the time and the language fitting in with the styles of myth and legend, and that there is no data supporting a literally factual historic interpretation, why would we? IS the only reason you're kicking back on this is because it's the tradition you were raised in? Or because you fear you will be unrooted if you allow that MAYBE it was not a literally factual telling of the story?
First, that's not how science works. The role of science isn't to definitively prove or disprove things. Second, the very best current "science" tells us the the universe had a singular beginning that does line up with the explanation in Genesis. Further that habitability argument aligns with a created earth designed for life as we know it. Third, please show me this definitive proof your speak of. Fourth, please show me where the YEC model is the only explanation consistent with Genesis?
A. The "role of science" (one definition/understanding):
Science generates knowledge and understanding
by attempting to eliminate potential sources of bias,
often through controlled experiments.
FYI.
B. I agree with the best and latest science and Genesis (understood this way) that the universe had a single beginning point.
C. I agree with science and disagree with a literal interpretation of Genesis that the Earth did not have "dry land and plants" on the second day of creation. Same for the third, etc days.
D. Genesis literally offers us Adam as "the first man." The Bible, in other places, shows us that the storytellers in the Bible have something like 74 generations between Adam and Jesus, or something like 2,000 to 4,000 years. The literalists argue that humans showed up (given these generations and taken as a literal timeline back to "the first man") means that humans have been around for ~6,000 years.
Is that what you think?
E. If not, why do you not take that timeline literally?
F. Also, since Adam was created on the "6th day," do you think this 6,000 year timeline from Adam to us is roughly accurate, but the other five days of creation were, what? figurative days? That prior to man's "creation," that the days were millenia longer than they are now?
G. Why do you take the 6th day literally (sort of, maybe) but not the other five?
H. Do you agree that we have no textual demand from the Bible that we treat the creation story as something like history? Do you agree that we have no textual demand from "the Bible" to insist upon a literal Mr Adam and Ms Eve? That they could (of course) be figurative and mythic in style?
I. Scientists generally agree that Homo Sapiens has been around for over 200,000 years. Do you think that homo sapiens started with a literal Mr. Adam and Ms Eve? If so, how can there be only 74 generations between Adam and Jesus?
Craig...
1. Had you not stated this, I would never have known. [That I believe that Israel and Egypt and other biblical places existed in history]
You see, this is part of the problem with your stubborn partisanship. You apparently thought for NO reason that I didn't believe in an ancient Israel and Egypt? WHY wouldn't I? Further, there's nothing I've ever said that suggests I didn't believe in an ancient Israel, because of course, I do.
You appear to be hearing me say:
Genesis 1 is written in what appears to be a clearly mythic style, as are other early parts of Genesis.
Other stories are written in such a way that sounds like legend, rather than literal history.
...and from that, you assumed with no other data, that I thought Israel and Egypt didn't even exist, didn't potentially interact? One doesn't follow the other.
The data (and really, just the physics of water and reality) does not support the notion a flood that "covered the surface of the earth with water..." But does that mean I think there was not SOME sort of great flood that happened in antiquity? No. Recognizing the limitations of attempts at taking ancient texts as literally history does not require that we don't believe there was NO basis in historic events.
Because, of course, not.
However, what I asked was how does Dan personally and specifically determine which sections of the OT are "myth" and, which are not. I didn't see that rubric in the link.
I've said all this before, Craig. While I'm not an antiquities history expert any more than you are, I've certainly had plenty of history classes as well as classes on understanding literature.
1. Take into consideration the time period. Is it modern history? Pre-history? It matters.
2. Take into consideration what was being written in the time of the text.
3. Is it sourced? Do we KNOW objectively who the author was? What their source was? Did Moses actually write the Pentateuch, including those days before he was around? HOW did he know what Day 1 of Creation looked like? What was his source? God? The text does not say so. Indeed, the text does not say that Moses passed on the stories of Creation/was the author of Genesis (I don't believe).
4. Are the sources credible? Is there extemporary, established data to support the claims?
5. Does it READ like myth? Like legend? Like literal history?
For starters. These are all just secondary school basics for understanding texts.
Here's the starting definition they gave at encyclopedia.com:
myth is a narrative of origins,
taking place in a primordial time,
a time other than that of everyday reality;
history is a narrative of recent events,
extending progressively to include events that are further in the past but that are, nonetheless, situated in human time.
Are you supposing that Adam, Methusaleh, et al, lived to be hundreds of years old as the texts literally say? OR, do you think it's reasonable to think that maybe the texts should not be taken literally? That maybe their time-keeping was different or just not reliable?
Do you think saying, "Well, Adam probably/definitely was not likely to have lived to be 900, it was some other way of counting..." is to say "The author LIED and it's therefore unreliable!"?
If you think it's acceptable to use your reasoning to weigh the likelihood of a literally 900 year old Adam, do you think it's also acceptable and reasonable to weigh the likelihood of a literal Creation story or that Adam was even a literal person? ...that it's acceptable and reasonable to question if these stories could possibly be something other than literal history with literally accurate depictions of the conversations that took place (where "God," for instance, commands Israel to put to sword the men, women, children and goats of Amalek - or wherever)?
If you accept as reasonable that Genesis 1 (and the rest of the Bible) may not be a literal history with only ~4,000 years between the "first man" and Jesus, why is it not also reasonable and fair to question whether those stories were perhaps closer to myth and legend, rather than literal history?
"I love historical fiction and historical fantasy."
Don't care.
"I am currently reading a story about Thoreau's early life and his early connections with the Transcendentalists. It's so much fun, so informative and just cool, if you appreciate Thoreau. And I say "informative," insofar as helping me imagine what Thoreau's relationship with Emerson might have been like."
Still don't care.
"BUT, since it's historical fiction, that means I do not assume that the conversations taking place LITERALLY took place and those words were LITERALLY what was said. It's lovely, informative and a delight, BUT, it's not passing on literally factual history, not precisely and certainly not when it comes to the conversations that took place."
Still don't care, don't see the relevance. Unless this book is considered "God breathed" or something similar, it's apples and wart hogs.
"Historical fiction (which, as a genre, didn't exist back then) and myths and legends can all be delightful and helpful, but we just can't assume that the texts represent a literally perfectly factual representation of the story or the conversations that occur."
There we go!!!!!! Dan does the first goal post move, or straw man, or misrepresentation.
"For that reason, understanding the genre is important to understanding a text."
Thanks, corporal obvious.
"Right?"
That conclusion presumes that the events recorded as history in the OT are either "myth", "legend" or a combination of both. Absent proof of this assumption, you have no grounds to state that your hunch is objectively "Right".
"So, I am sure that we agree that understanding the genre is important - vital, even - for understand any given text, right? And surely we can agree that if something was written in a more legendary or mythic style common to ancient stories, that we just can't assume that the conversations happened just as described, right?"
The second goal post move, straw man, misrepresentation in one comment. Since I haven't suggested that "conversations happened just as recorded" is what I expect, or what I'd expect your to be able to prove, the question is meaningless and doesn't deserve an answer.
"I think at that point, you're thinking, "but we haven't established that parts of Genesis and the most ancient stories WERE written in a mythic or legendary style..." and that's right, we haven't. But nor have we established they were written/passed on as a literally factual history."
No, I'm thinking that you have assumed facts not in evidence and are acting as if your assumptions should be treated as objective fact. Well, "we" haven't "established" that, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't passed down as such. Jesus sure referred to it quite frequently, He must have been confused. Maybe His reference to the Isiah passage was Him being confused about the genre of Isiah and not knowing what He was actually quoting.
"And given the reality of storytelling at the time and the language fitting in with the styles of myth and legend, and that there is no data supporting a literally factual historic interpretation, why would we?"
Because you speculating isn't enough proof to even move the needle. Although the third goal post move, misrepresentation, straw man, in one comment is impressive. When you are ready to stop making up these standards I haven't mentioned, I can start to take you a tiny bit seriously.
"IS the only reason you're kicking back on this is because it's the tradition you were raised in?"
No. My primary reasons all have to do with you.
1. You making up some bullshit claim without proof, based on unproven assumptions isn't going to do it.
2. Your constant misrepresentation of what I've said shows that you aren't serious.
3. I worship and serve a God big enough, powerful enough, and Sovereign enough not to be bound by your hunches about literary genres.
"Or because you fear you will be unrooted if you allow that MAYBE it was not a literally factual telling of the story?"
Nope. Although to do so casts serious doubt on Jesus for perpetrating these myths when He said He came to bring The Truth. Heck, he claimed He was The Truth, I guess He was just mistaken.
I do appreciate the condescension, on top of the goal post moves, the failure to provide evidence for your claims, and your ability to waste this much time over a two word offhand, sarcastic remark.
It's amusing that so much of Dan's arguments boil down to, "We really, really, can't know this for sure, therefore this is reality.".
"Science generates knowledge and understanding
by attempting to eliminate potential sources of bias,
often through controlled experiments."
So, what "controlled experiments" have conclusively proven (and been replicated) you claims about Genesis?
B. Well, at least you agree with something.
C. Where specifically does "science" make this claim? Please share the repeatable experiments that demonstrate that your claim is unequivocally correct?
D. In essentials, unity. In non essentials, liberty. In all things charity. It's hard to be charitable when you keep arguing against straw men.
"Is that what you think?"
No, but that won't stop you from acting as if it is, and arguing against that straw man.
E. Because I've seen some good evidence for both of the major theories about creation. Both seem to fit within the scriptural evidence. It seems strange to argue for a God that can create everything that exists in an instant, raise people from the dead, but just isn't quite God enough to do creation the way He wanted. Just too inconsiderate to lay a dated cornerstone. My hill to die on are creation ex-nihlo and the habitability issue. The literal days thing is something I'm content to trust that I'll find out when I meet YHWH face to face.
F. See above.
G. Why do you make up stupid assumptions that act as if they represent anything I've said.
H. "Do you agree that we have no textual demand from the Bible that we treat the creation story as something like history?"
Yes, to the extent that YHWH created everything that exists in one singular moment, and ordered His creation in ways that both support human life, and are consistent with discoverable "laws".
"Do you agree that we have no textual demand from "the Bible" to insist upon a literal Mr Adam and Ms Eve?"
The text seems to strongly suggest that there was a first of every type of creature, therefore it would be reasonable to conclude that there was a first male and first female. As to names and stuff, who cares.
"That they could (of course) be figurative and mythic in style?"
To draw that conclusion, you'd have to be able prove several assumptions, but it's theoretically possible that they were some sort of composite or something.
"I. See above. Don't care. Don't see why you care. Don't see why you are so obsessed with turning Genesis into myth, or allegory, or legend or whatever. Is the God you claim to worship and love so deeply incapable of doing what He's credited with? Is He incapable of preventing false information to be passed down and end up in scripture? Is He bound by the limitations you choose to allow him?
"You see, this is part of the problem with your stubborn partisanship. You apparently thought for NO reason that I didn't believe in an ancient Israel and Egypt? WHY wouldn't I? Further, there's nothing I've ever said that suggests I didn't believe in an ancient Israel, because of course, I do."
You see, this is part of the problem with your stubborn stupidity and condescension. The comment was sarcastic due to your ridiculous and condescending manner.
"You appear to be hearing me say:
Genesis 1 is written in what appears to be a clearly mythic style, as are other early parts of Genesis.
Other stories are written in such a way that sounds like legend, rather than literal history."
Well,, that's pretty much what you've been saying for years.
"...and from that, you assumed with no other data, that I thought Israel and Egypt didn't even exist, didn't potentially interact? One doesn't follow the other."
No, I was pointing out the obvious ridiculousness of your condescending manner using sarcasm.
I'll not parse, just not that no actual proof was offered.
"1. Take into consideration the time period. Is it modern history? Pre-history? It matters.
2. Take into consideration what was being written in the time of the text.
3. Is it sourced? Do we KNOW objectively who the author was? What their source was? Did Moses actually write the Pentateuch, including those days before he was around? HOW did he know what Day 1 of Creation looked like? What was his source? God? The text does not say so. Indeed, the text does not say that Moses passed on the stories of Creation/was the author of Genesis (I don't believe).
4. Are the sources credible? Is there extemporary, established data to support the claims?
5. Does it READ like myth? Like legend? Like literal history?"
1. OK, seems reasonable.
2. Seems based on assumptions that every culture in a given time period operated and recorded history in exactly the same way. Assumes facts not in evidence.
3. This clearly eliminates literally every single "historical document" up until the 1800's. You obviously can't prove exactly who wrote the Lewis and Clark diaries for example. Certainly not to 100% certainty. But if definitely excludes all ancient writings. Especially as so much of what we have of them were written hundreds or thousands of years after the alleged author died.
4. Possibly. If something was held to be unique, then would it's uniqueness automatically disprove it's legitimacy?
5. Ahhhhhh, the subjective, Dan centered, way to ignore anything else. As long as it "reads" to Dan and myth then it absolutely must be myth.
"For starters. These are all just secondary school basics for understanding texts."
Not one single example of one single text where you can definitively tell me whether it is myth or history. I guess that says almost everything, that and the subjective "reads like" ace in the hole.
"myth is a narrative of origins,
taking place in a primordial time,
a time other than that of everyday reality;"
Well, that doesn't sound much like the bulk of Genesis at all. The creation narrative, maybe, but that doesn't preclude the narrative being reasonably accurate.
"history is a narrative of recent events,
extending progressively to include events that are further in the past but that are, nonetheless, situated in human time."
Sounds like the bulk of Genesis, the rest of the Pentateuch, and parts of the rest of the OT.
Still no definitive rulings on where in Genesis these breaks come.
"Are you supposing that Adam, Methusaleh, et al, lived to be hundreds of years old as the texts literally say? OR, do you think it's reasonable to think that maybe the texts should not be taken literally? That maybe their time-keeping was different or just not reliable?"
I see no reason why I would apply limits on things that I didn't observe. Are you going to claim that "Science" disproves those stories? That they were impossible? That they were too stupid to have a calendar? That YHWH encouraged lies? That Jesus lied about those He referenced?
"Do you think saying, "Well, Adam probably/definitely was not likely to have lived to be 900, it was some other way of counting..." is to say "The author LIED and it's therefore unreliable!"?"
No, I think it's imposing 21st century progressive theology on the text, and imposing limits on what is possible for YHWH.
"If you think it's acceptable to use your reasoning to weigh the likelihood of a literally 900 year old Adam, do you think it's also acceptable and reasonable to weigh the likelihood of a literal Creation story or that Adam was even a literal person? ...that it's acceptable and reasonable to question if these stories could possibly be something other than literal history with literally accurate depictions of the conversations that took place (where "God," for instance, commands Israel to put to sword the men, women, children and goats of Amalek - or wherever)?"
You use your omnipotent "Reason" to come up with any myths you want to believe. You can't prove any of this, you aren't even trying. Just asking stupid questions
"If you accept as reasonable that Genesis 1 (and the rest of the Bible) may not be a literal history with only ~4,000 years between the "first man" and Jesus, why is it not also reasonable and fair to question whether those stories were perhaps closer to myth and legend, rather than literal history?"
The problem is that I am not trying to suggest that what you "accept" is an acceptable standard to judge Truth.
Answering your questions, by way of example...
"Are you going to claim that "Science" disproves those stories?"
I'm saying there is NO DATA to support the notion of a 200... 600... 900 year old human. Science looks to data, not legends. This is why it's important to understand genre.
"That they were impossible?"
Yes. Again, GIVEN THE KNOWN DATA, it is scientifically preposterous to suggest, based solely on a legend, that 900 YO humans are a possibility. And again, WHY presume something preposterous is a possible option, when the more likely explanation is that this is not an actual historically accurate story? Occams Razor, bud.
"That they were too stupid to have a calendar?"
Nope. Noting that the genre is just not likely history and instead, something more typical for the time like mth or legend, is literally not the same as saying they were stupid or liars. That's like saying they were stupid to travel on foot when a car would be easier. They weren't stupid or liars, it's just that storytelling in a modern historic manner wasn't a thing.
Suggesting they SHOULD have written in a modern style is just cultural chauvinism.
"That YHWH encouraged lies?"
Nope. It's not a lie.
"That Jesus lied about those He referenced?"
Nope. It's not a lie and Jesus did not report that Adam was 900.
Speaking of imposing modern values and expectations on ancient people is just poor logic and poor literary interpretation.
Middle school mistakes, friend.
Dan
2. Seems based on assumptions that every culture in a given time period operated and recorded history in exactly the same way. Assumes facts not in evidence.
The facts are that there were no cultures passing on stories in an historically factual manner in this time period, they told stories in a more figurative mythic or legendary manner.
Is it POSSIBLE that there existed stories passed on in a literally factual/historic manner? It's possible, but there's no evidence for it.
Is it POSSIBLE that the ancient Hebrew stories were told in a literally historic manner? Well, some of it clearly isn't (early Genesis, for instance). But there's no evidence suggesting we should presume this.
Do you have ANY evidence that the ancient Hebrew storytellers were trying to tell literally factual/historic style stories? WHERE is the data?
There is no assumption that all cultures told stories in the same way. I'm just noting there is no data of any telling historically factual literal histories.
And, once again and hopefully for the final time: JUST because they may have told stories in a figurative, mythic manner is NOT evidence that they were lying or making stuff up about God. If I read a myth or even write one for my children, I'm not lying, I'm telling a story.
There's no need to repeat that non-starter nonsense.
Is it the case that YOU can't imagine someone telling a fanciful story/myth/legend without intentionally lying? Why do you all repeat that same nonsensical non-claim over and over again?
I think it's imposing 21st century progressive theology on the text, and imposing limits on what is possible for YHWH
1. Isn't saying, "EVEN THOUGH all the other ancient texts are not told in a factual historic manner, I THINK that Genesis, etc probably are because I think, as a modern conservative, that this is how God would want it... if it were told in a figurative or mythic style, they would be lying about God..." is that NOT imposing a 21st century conservative ideology (not even a theology, really, just an ideology) on the text? How not?
2. Isn't YOU saying that they would have told it in a historic manner that you, as a modern conservative find more believable ALSO imposing limits on God.
And I'm not imposing limits on God. You're begging the question. Again.
(The question being: Were ancient stories told in an historic manner representing actual dialog between God and humans? And you're assuming they were and anyone who disagrees is imposing limits on God, because God would not have wanted it that way... WHAT limits am I imposing on God?
COULD God create a universe and humans in six days about 74 generations ago... and make it appear that the earth/universe are MUCH older than that... COULD God magically enable some humans to have superhuman life spans? Well, sure. But why would we ASSUME or PRESUME that? Isn't the simplest explanation that, no, the texts were just passed on in a figurative manner... That there was no intent to lie and pretend as a trick that Adam was a real person - THE FIRST homo sapiens about 6,000 years - who lived to be 900. It was just how stories were told back then.
How do we know? Because ALL the other stories back then were told in this mythic and legendary styles. Why would we assume something magic when there's a simpler explanation? Occam's Razor, again.
"I'm saying there is NO DATA to support the notion of a 200... 600... 900 year old human. Science looks to data, not legends. This is why it's important to understand genre."
Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. Or really evidence of anything. You're "There's no data, therefore X must be false is just bad logic, "Reason", and science.
"Yes. Again, GIVEN THE KNOWN DATA, it is scientifically preposterous to suggest, based solely on a legend, that 900 YO humans are a possibility. And again, WHY presume something preposterous is a possible option, when the more likely explanation is that this is not an actual historically accurate story? Occams Razor, bud."
"Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. Or really evidence of anything. You're "There's no data, therefore X must be false" is just bad logic, "Reason", and science.".
Because YHWH, the Creator of all that exists is bound by your hunches about what's possible or not. As a believer, wouldn't the "Occam's Razor" answer in this case be YHEH? I know, I know, we must exclude any possibility of anything that Dan can't find enough "data" for from even being considered. Dan's god doesn't do the supernatural.
"Nope. Noting that the genre is just not likely history and instead, something more typical for the time like mth or legend, is literally not the same as saying they were stupid or liars. That's like saying they were stupid to travel on foot when a car would be easier. They weren't stupid or liars, it's just that storytelling in a modern historic manner wasn't a thing."
If you say so.
"Suggesting they SHOULD have written in a modern style is just cultural chauvinism."
The above (suggesting that I suggested that they "SHOULD have written in a modern style") falsely represents what I have actually said, and is you attempting to put "words in my mouth" that don't align with what I've said earlier.
"Nope. It's not a lie."
Really, leading people to believe that things existed or happened that never happened is NOT a lie? How can this be? Do you now have a secret definition of lie?
"Nope. It's not a lie and Jesus did not report that Adam was 900."
Ohhhhhhhhhhh. well done. Take one isolated OT thing that Jesus didn't specifically reference (Adam's age), as a way to divert attention from the fact that Jesus did refer to Adam as having existed, did refer to those the OT reports as having never died, Jonah, Noah, and multiple other OT references. Really slick move there, bud.
"Speaking of imposing modern values and expectations on ancient people is just poor logic and poor literary interpretation."
Excellent, make up something for which you have zero evidence as a way to counter/divert attention from the fact that you do the very thing in question. Instead of proving me wrong, you simply project your action to me and attack the straw man. Brave.
"Middle school mistakes, friend."
I do so love the condescending attacks from you. Cheap personal attacks are always so much better than simply proving that you claims are True, easier too.
"The facts are that there were no cultures passing on stories in an historically factual manner in this time period, they told stories in a more figurative mythic or legendary manner."
Simply asserting something to be a ""fact" doesn't make it a fact. Your seeming claim of expertise in every single culture "in this time period" is impressive. The problem is, as I pointed out yeas ago, that the Chinese (at least) seem to be the exception to your grand pronouncement. (https://pepchina.com/how-was-history-recorded-in-ancient-china/) This is why making absolute pronouncements rarely doesn't go well for you.
"Is it POSSIBLE that there existed stories passed on in a literally factual/historic manner? It's possible, but there's no evidence for it."
So, right after you insist that something never happened, you then quickly add the caveat to nullify the earlier claim. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's strange that the god you claim to follow so closely is incapable of figuring out a way for His "chosen people" to record their history in a way that might have been unique at the time. That your god was limited by the literary conventions of the rest of His creation, and just couldn't figure out how to escape.
"Is it POSSIBLE that the ancient Hebrew stories were told in a literally historic manner? Well, some of it clearly isn't (early Genesis, for instance). But there's no evidence suggesting we should presume this."
Well, as long as you impose your notions on the text, then of course it'll never be anything beyond what your limitations demand. Again, your god who couldn't (or didn't) create the world however He chose to do so and then told His "chosen people" a false myth. I'm not sure that's a god worth following.
"Do you have ANY evidence that the ancient Hebrew storytellers were trying to tell literally factual/historic style stories? WHERE is the data?"
Define what "data' would be acceptable to your and that would cause you to change your hunch? Where is the "data" that they were not?
"There is no assumption that all cultures told stories in the same way. I'm just noting there is no data of any telling historically factual literal histories."
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You are drawing a conclusion, and presenting it as fact on the basis of "no evidence". Is that how "Science" works? I could be argued that there is "data" but that you've chosen to exclude it because it doesn't fit your narrative, but who cares.
"And, once again and hopefully for the final time: JUST because they may have told stories in a figurative, mythic manner is NOT evidence that they were lying or making stuff up about God. If I read a myth or even write one for my children, I'm not lying, I'm telling a story."
If you can rationalize giving people false information, and not telling them that it's false, that's all you. Claiming to be "The Truth" and pointing to a God who will lead us to "all Truth" seems inconsistent with a God who intentionally makes stuff up.
"There's no need to repeat that non-starter nonsense."
Yet you'll continue to repeat the same nonsense you always do, becasue you have nothing else, none of the "data" you seem to prize so highly, nothing but your subjective hunches.
"Is it the case that YOU can't imagine someone telling a fanciful story/myth/legend without intentionally lying? Why do you all repeat that same nonsensical non-claim over and over again?"
No, once again you get things wrong.
"Isn't saying, "EVEN THOUGH all the other ancient texts are not told in a factual historic manner, I THINK that Genesis, etc probably are because I think, as a modern conservative, that this is how God would want it... if it were told in a figurative or mythic style, they would be lying about God..." is that NOT imposing a 21st century conservative ideology (not even a theology, really, just an ideology) on the text?"
1. Because there is no "data" to support your claim that "all the other ancient texts are not told in a factual historic manner". Therefore, the very premise of your question is false, or at least unproven, and as such pointless.
2. No. Unless you are claiming that the notion of an OT that records history in a reasonably accurate manner is somehow unique to the 20th-21st century.
"How not?"
Because the notion of the OT history as being a reasonably accurate portrayal of reality predates the 20th century.
"Isn't YOU saying that they would have told it in a historic manner that you, as a modern conservative find more believable ALSO imposing limits on God."
Not at all. My suggesting that it is possible, maybe even likely, that the God who created all that exists was able to have His "chosen people" record their history and His interactions with them in a uniquely accurate way is clearly not limiting YHWH to some artificially imposed 20th century progressive limit. Of course, I would suggest that a Creator God, has the ability to act outside of His Creation in ways that reveal His power, but are not limited by creation.
"And I'm not imposing limits on God. You're begging the question. Again."
If you say so, despite your insistence that YHWH and His "chosen people" were only able to record their history within the limits of other cultures literary genres.
"(The question being: Were ancient stories told in an historic manner representing actual dialog between God and humans?"
No, that's your made up bullshit question designed to divert attention from the fact that I've never demanded this level of accuracy.
However, IF it was impossible for Israel to report "actual dialogue between God and humans", how could it possibly be argued that your pet Isiah passage accurately reflects a "dialogue between God and" Isiah?
And you're assuming they were and anyone who disagrees is imposing limits on God, because God would not have wanted it that way... WHAT limits am I imposing on God?"
when you announce what I'm assuming, you're almost always wrong. You have decreed that since your personally have not seen any data of any ancient culture NOT limiting their histories to "myth and legend", that the Hebrews and YHWH were also similarly limited. Of course, if you're arguing that YHWH never spoke to or interacted with the Hebrews, that's an entirely different argument. However, since your entire "system" and "Way" of your gospel rests on one specific instance where YHWH communicated with a specific person, that the communication was recorded accurately, and that Jesus verified the accuracy by using this monologue as the foundation for His ministry, you obviously can't believe that your claim is 100% True. Once you make one exception, to fit your narrative, why limit the exceptions to one?
"COULD God create a universe and humans in six days about 74 generations ago... and make it appear that the earth/universe are MUCH older than that... COULD God magically enable some humans to have superhuman life spans? Well, sure."
How generous of you to acknowledge that you could possibly be wrong about something.
"But why would we ASSUME or PRESUME that?"
I'm not presuming that.
"Isn't the simplest explanation that, no, the texts were just passed on in a figurative manner... That there was no intent to lie and pretend as a trick that Adam was a real person - THE FIRST homo sapiens about 6,000 years - who lived to be 900. It was just how stories were told back then."
That's not a simple as concluding that YHWH (the God who created everything that exists, and who claims that one of His attributes is Truth (perfect Truth?), did what was recorded because he's God and you're not. Your hunch requires significantly more faith, faith in yourself, that simply believing that YHWH told Abraham what happened, and the Abraham recorded it reasonably accurately. If you need to believe in a god who's limited by what you can see, you go right ahead, don't let me stop you.
"How do we know? Because ALL the other stories back then were told in this mythic and legendary styles. Why would we assume something magic when there's a simpler explanation? Occam's Razor, again."
You repeat this unproven claim (which you present as established fact even though it isn't) over and over as if repetition somehow gives it more Truth or something.
You yourself admit, cling to, that we have (your words) "no data", yet from "no data" you manage to draw a conclusion which you present as fact (despite acknowledging that you have "no data"). That conclusion just coincidentally happens to align with your 21st century progressive christisn, political liberal, worldview almost perfectly. But, as you note, it's based on "no data". For someone who put so much faith in "data" and "Science" it's strange to see you be so dogmatic over a claim supported by "no data".
But, you do you.
Post a Comment