How about a new Council of Nicea?

[Mare Tranquillity]

I said that it was God telling people what would happen and the bible says:
16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
their houses will be looted and their wives ravished. "

Thank you, Who, for making my point for me. God's anger was fierce and if that fierce god was to tell you what was going to happen in YOUR next battle, don't you think that you would feel duty bound to make your god's predictions come true? Obviously these goatherders would. So they raped the wives and dashed the babies to death before their eyes. That's what I said to begin with.

This is one of the places where I think you and I part company, I gather that you would dash babies to death if you thought God predicted that you would do so. I suspect that you think Abraham was being truly righteous when he went up the mountain to sacrifice Isaac. I think that Abraham was a gutless coward who should have told God "NO!" and refused to murder his own son. I could have admired him for that, but being a toadying yes-man deserves no respect. All down through history people have been lead to do things that they knew were wrong, but did them anyway at the supposed behest of some god. Are you going to defend the Inquisitors too just because they believed that they were doing God's work?

People who kill babies before their mother's eyes, rape the mothers and then kill them don't get away with it just because they say "God told me to." The Son of Sam killer got orders from his dog, what's the difference? I know, we discovered that the Son of Sam actually HAD a dog. Nothing so far has shown up to prove that God ever ordered any of the violent cruelty attributed to Him in the Bible.

I am often amazed the intelligent and thoughtful people are willing to accept behavior from God that is obviously heinous, and they are willing to accept that behavior on the thinnest of proof: an old book that even they will admit has been translated, interpeted, edited, and "fine tuned" for a couple of thousand years by people they never met and know nothing about.

Why is there no faith in a good God? You know, a God that actually loves His creation and doesn't have to resort to cruelty and violence to interact with His children. I think that God is not only better THAN we imagine, but better than we CAN imagine--and I can imagine a God who doesn't have to stoop to rape, murder, and baby-killing.

 

[numinus]

Thank you, Who, for making my point for me. God's anger was fierce and if that fierce god was to tell you what was going to happen in YOUR next battle, don't you think that you would feel duty bound to make your god's predictions come true? Obviously these goatherders would. So they raped the wives and dashed the babies to death before their eyes. That's what I said to begin with.

This is one of the places where I think you and I part company, I gather that you would dash babies to death if you thought God predicted that you would do so. I suspect that you think Abraham was being truly righteous when he went up the mountain to sacrifice Isaac. I think that Abraham was a gutless coward who should have told God "NO!" and refused to murder his own son. I could have admired him for that, but being a toadying yes-man deserves no respect. All down through history people have been lead to do things that they knew were wrong, but did them anyway at the supposed behest of some god. Are you going to defend the Inquisitors too just because they believed that they were doing God's work?

People who kill babies before their mother's eyes, rape the mothers and then kill them don't get away with it just because they say "God told me to." The Son of Sam killer got orders from his dog, what's the difference? I know, we discovered that the Son of Sam actually HAD a dog. Nothing so far has shown up to prove that God ever ordered any of the violent cruelty attributed to Him in the Bible.

I am often amazed the intelligent and thoughtful people are willing to accept behavior from God that is obviously heinous, and they are willing to accept that behavior on the thinnest of proof: an old book that even they will admit has been translated, interpeted, edited, and "fine tuned" for a couple of thousand years by people they never met and know nothing about.

Why is there no faith in a good God? You know, a God that actually loves His creation and doesn't have to resort to cruelty and violence to interact with His children. I think that God is not only better THAN we imagine, but better than we CAN imagine--and I can imagine a God who doesn't have to stoop to rape, murder, and baby-killing.

I'm sorry you are completely missing the point.

From the first formulation of the categorical imperative, it is clear that morality requires the subordination of the individual's inclinations to a principle or law that is UNIVERSAL.

It does not state specific actions, only a specific formula. We may not take the life of others but we may offer our lives for others' sake. It is not so much as an arbitrary calculation of what a human life is worth, rather an individual's will, despite its selfish inclinations, choosing to act according to a universal law.

So, however opposed the action of, say, a samurai (inflicting themselves with death on a matter of honor and service) with that of a christian (forbidding suicide) it may seem, it is clear that they are very similar in that human dignity in all actions is a universal law.

In abraham's case, the offering of his son as a sacrifice is no more odd than a parent allowing his child to go to a just war. And if one can concieve of sacrifice in the vague notion of, say, democracy, what more in the express command of god? And in the latter case, the survival of one's child was assured.

 

[Dr.Who]

Thank you, Who, for making my point for me. God's anger was fierce and if that fierce god was to tell you what was going to happen in YOUR next battle, don't you think that you would feel duty bound to make your god's predictions come true? Obviously these goatherders would. So they raped the wives and dashed the babies to death before their eyes. That's what I said to begin with.

Since you did not read the passage let me explain some of the details.

The passage was written to Hebrews and told them what the Medes would do to the Bablyonians.

So, no, I do not think that the Medes felt duty bound to make Hebrew predictions come true. Were the Medes even aware of it?

Did the passage say that the Medes raised goats?

Why, if I do a google search for the term "medes" I come up with 1,730,000 hits. And if I do a google search for the term "Goat" I come up with 23,400,000 hits. But if I do a google search for both "medes" and "goats" I come up with zero hits and in fact it corrects what I typed in and makes it "goats" and "mendes".

I have actually never seen a google search come up with zero hits before. Even if I spell a word wrong and type something like "goo5le" I still get lots of hits.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

In abraham's case, the offering of his son as a sacrifice is no more odd than a parent allowing his child to go to a just war. And if one can concieve of sacrifice in the vague notion of, say, democracy, what more in the express command of god? And in the latter case, the survival of one's child was assured.

Murdering your own child is quite different to me than an adult son deciding to go and fight in a war. And where in the vague notion of democracy are parents required to build altars and sacrifice their children?

The survival of the child was assured? Do you suppose that Isaac knew that when he finally realized what his father intended to do to him? We call that child abuse and put people in prison for it. Can you imagine yourself in court presenting that story? A disembodied voice told you to sacrifice your son, but relented at the last moment when you already had him bound on the altar and had the knife raised to his throat? You would be convicted by any jury anywhere.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Since you did not read the passage let me explain some of the details.

The passage was written to Hebrews and told them what the Medes would do to the Bablyonians.

Which Bible are you quoting? In verse 17 God says that He's going to stir up the Medes and have them do His dirty work. From the beginning of the 13th chapter it is God gathering His forces and announcing what He is going to do:

3 I have commanded my sanctified ones, I have also called my mighty ones for mine anger, even them that rejoice in my highness.

4 The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people; a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: the LORD of hosts mustereth the host of the battle.

5 They come from a far country, from the end of heaven, even the LORD, and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land.

6 Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.

Prediction my ass, God is alledged to have done the whole thing and is given credit for it. "...it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty."

Please not also that the two scriptures:

15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.

16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

Come before any mention is made of the Medes.


If you are going to discuss this, then give quotes or scriptural references please. And just because the internet doesn't know that the Medes had goats doesn't mean that they didn't. Don't let that get your goat though.

 

[numinus]

Murdering your own child is quite different to me than an adult son deciding to go and fight in a war. And where in the vague notion of democracy are parents required to build altars and sacrifice their children?

This is complete nonsense.

Gods commandment is as much an imperative as the requirements of democracy or the rules of bushido (with or without the altar you imagine this discussion is about). They are IDEAS to which one subordinates and binds his whole being to -- hence the STANDARD for a moral action.

The survival of the child was assured? Do you suppose that Isaac knew that when he finally realized what his father intended to do to him? We call that child abuse and put people in prison for it. Can you imagine yourself in court presenting that story? A disembodied voice told you to sacrifice your son, but relented at the last moment when you already had him bound on the altar and had the knife raised to his throat? You would be convicted by any jury anywhere.

Did you really think that the ideas of modern constitutionalism, as interpreted by your supreme court has anything to do with this discussion?

The creator of everything in everything was asking -- someone who knows what you would do even before you can concieve it -- the 'infinitely wise maker' whose pleasure it is that man was created in the first place (to borrow john locke's words). And you suppose that any jury anywhere can supersede such an imperative??!!

And I suppose this story would be deleted entirely from the bible, if you had your way, eh?

Convicted by any jury anywhere, indeed!

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

This is complete nonsense.
Gods commandment is as much an imperative

Democracy or bushido or machindo or even labra are all concepts to which or by which a person may govern their lives, that's a personal choice. But what you are talking about is setting up your own church as the universal concept for everybody and you want to do it with no proof of validity. You can't even give a shred of proof that your Catholic god exists or that your concepts are in anyway derived from Him. I agree with you that a creative force of some sort exists (we are here after all) but nothing links our existence to your personal vision or your church's vision of this force.

as the requirements of democracy or the rules of bushido (with or without the altar you imagine this discussion is about). They are IDEAS to which one subordinates and binds his whole being to -- hence the STANDARD for a moral action.

Our perspectives are so divergent that even discussing with each other is difficult. You talk about universal standards to which a person subordinates their whole being, but I don't know of any standards like that. There are things that I don't think are correct to do and I don't do them, but I've never tried to apply them to everybody, everywhere, for all time--in fact I'm not sure that's possible. You have edicts from an invisible being, you have a church based around the purported thoughts and wishes of that invisible being and you want your beliefs to be seen as universally applicable. I don't buy, my life has led me to a different place and from where I stand murdering or threatening to murder a child on the sayso of a disembodied voice is probably a form of mental illness.

Did you really think that the ideas of modern constitutionalism, as interpreted by your supreme court has anything to do with this discussion?

The creator of everything in everything was asking -- someone who knows what you would do even before you can concieve it -- the 'infinitely wise maker' whose pleasure it is that man was created in the first place (to borrow john locke's words). And you suppose that any jury anywhere can supersede such an imperative??!!

And I suppose this story would be deleted entirely from the bible, if you had your way, eh?

Yes, I suspect you would be convicted because you can't supply even the tiniest shred of proof that the creative force of the universe had ANYTHING to do with you setting out to murder your child. You would be on the same thin ice as the Son of Sam killer who said his dog told him what to do. If he could have proved that, and proved that his dog was some kind of authority, then it might have gone differently. But you and the Son of Sam have nothing to support your assumption that the disembodied voices you hear are coming for this Catholic god. People have been killing at some god's behest for all of human history--what makes you any different?

 

[Dr.Who]

Which Bible are you quoting? In verse 17 God says that He's going to stir up the Medes and have them do His dirty work. From the beginning of the 13th chapter it is God gathering His forces and announcing what He is going to do:

It describes both what God will do and what the Medes will do. which is why the passage sometimes says "I will" and sometimes says "They".

Prediction my ass, God is alledged to have done the whole thing and is given credit for it. "...it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty."

Your quote illustrates very nicely that the destruction would be "From" God. What you did not show is that the killing of the babies would be from God. that was from the Medes.

Your quote also very nicely shows that you think it is not a prediction and think the event already happened but it says right there in the part you bolded "it shall come" which is in the future tense.

15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.

16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

Come before any mention is made of the Medes.

The last time I checked verses 4 and 5 would come before verses 15 and 16.

The LORD Almighty is mustering
an army for war.

5 They come from faraway lands,

The "they" refers to the Medes who are first named in verse 17.


If you are going to discuss this, then give quotes or scriptural references please. And just because the internet doesn't know that the Medes had goats doesn't mean that they didn't. Don't let that get your goat though.[/QUOTE]

I never said that the Medes did not have goats. But I also did not say that they did. You said that they had goats. So where did you learn that? How is it that you know more than any single source on the internet?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It describes both what God will do and what the Medes will do. which is why the passage sometimes says "I will" and sometimes says "They".
Your quote illustrates very nicely that the destruction would be "From" God. What you did not show is that the killing of the babies would be from God. that was from the Medes.
Your quote also very nicely shows that you think it is not a prediction and think the event already happened but it says right there in the part you bolded "it shall come" which is in the future tense.
The last time I checked verses 4 and 5 would come before verses 15 and 16.

The LORD Almighty is mustering
an army for war.
5 They come from faraway lands,
The "they" refers to the Medes who are first named in verse 17.

I never said that the Medes did not have goats. But I also did not say that they did. You said that they had goats. So where did you learn that? How is it that you know more than any single source on the internet?

So, basically, you are admitting that God raised an army, stirred them up, predicted what they would do, and then they did it at His behest (see the stirring up part). This proves my point, either God stirred them up to do what they did (which I think is blasphemy) or it was people behaving as people often do (which I think is reasonable). Blaming God for all the violent and cruel stuff is untenable because it gives people the idea that these things are acceptable behavior.

Are you really going to tell us that you DON'T know anything that isn't on the internet?

 

[Dr.Who]

So, basically, you are admitting that God raised an army, stirred them up, predicted what they would do, and then they did it at His behest (see the stirring up part). This proves my point, either God stirred them up to do what they did (which I think is blasphemy) or it was people behaving as people often do (which I think is reasonable). Blaming God for all the violent and cruel stuff is untenable because it gives people the idea that these things are acceptable behavior.

God raised an army, stirred them up, predicted what they would do, then they did it ( the stirring up), and they also did more that was predicted too. Yep.

War does happen. And God does use it for his own purposes even if the people waging it have their own purposes.

 

[Dr.Who]

Are you really going to tell us that you DON'T know anything that isn't on the internet?

I probably do but I don't just pick them out of a hat.

Do you really KNOW that the Medes raised goats? How do you know it?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

God raised an army, stirred them up, predicted what they would do, then they did it ( the stirring up), and they also did more that was predicted too. Yep.

War does happen. And God does use it for his own purposes even if the people waging it have their own purposes.

Perfect! Too bad it took so long to come to an agreement. The Bible has quite a few instances in which God was a murderous bastard in achieving His ineffable ends, he used genocide, murder, rape, and a host of other things. I think that is all blasphemy, I don't for single second think that a Being capable of creating the Universe has to resort to those kinds of tactics. And by so doing (if He did it) God gives people the same right (in their eyes) to use those same tactics when they feel the cause is just or even if they feel like it.

You can't have it both ways, Who, either there ARE standards of behavior or there are NOT. If God can break the rules when it suits Him, then people will always assume that they too can break the rules when it suits them. It's funny how Christians claim that there are universal truths (the most popular one right now is that it's sinful to be gay), but those Universal truths don't always apply. You can say that God is God and can do as He wishes, perhaps, but He is standing in loco parentis for us and should be setting the example--just like Jesus did.

None of the violent cruelty in the Bible is necessary for the explanation or dissemination of Jesus' message of love, let's rewrite the Bible with the focus being the good things that Jesus said, the commandments that He pronounced, and take out of the Bible all the things that people can use to circumvent His commandments. Let's make Christianity about Christ, not about goatherder culture.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I probably do but I don't just pick them out of a hat.

Do you really KNOW that the Medes raised goats? How do you know it?

Do you own a car or some sort? In American culture it's a rare person who doesn't have and auto of some sort. It was a very rare thing for any group of people in the Middle East NOT to have goats since goats can live on scrub where anything else would starve. Goat milk and meat were staples to many of the people even if they had enough pasture for sheep and cattle.

Are you straining at gnats while swallowing camels?

 

[Dr.Who]

Perfect! Too bad it took so long to come to an agreement. The Bible has quite a few instances in which God was a murderous bastard in achieving His ineffable ends, he used genocide, murder, rape, and a host of other things. I think that is all blasphemy, I don't for single second think that a Being capable of creating the Universe has to resort to those kinds of tactics. And by so doing (if He did it) God gives people the same right (in their eyes) to use those same tactics when they feel the cause is just or even if they feel like it.

You can't have it both ways, Who, either there ARE standards of behavior or there are NOT. If God can break the rules when it suits Him, then people will always assume that they too can break the rules when it suits them. It's funny how Christians claim that there are universal truths (the most popular one right now is that it's sinful to be gay), but those Universal truths don't always apply. You can say that God is God and can do as He wishes, perhaps, but He is standing in loco parentis for us and should be setting the example--just like Jesus did.

None of the violent cruelty in the Bible is necessary for the explanation or dissemination of Jesus' message of love, let's rewrite the Bible with the focus being the good things that Jesus said, the commandments that He pronounced, and take out of the Bible all the things that people can use to circumvent His commandments. Let's make Christianity about Christ, not about goatherder culture.

I have suspected that you can't read the bible with full understanding and now I would have to say that you can't read what I write with full understanding also. We have not agreed that God is a murderous bastard.

 

[Dr.Who]

Do you own a car or some sort? In American culture it's a rare person who doesn't have and auto of some sort. It was a very rare thing for any group of people in the Middle East NOT to have goats since goats can live on scrub where anything else would starve. Goat milk and meat were staples to many of the people even if they had enough pasture for sheep and cattle.

Are you straining at gnats while swallowing camels?

Hey they may have been goatherders. But then again they may not have been. Which is why I have not made a cliam I cannot support.

So the basis if your argument that they had goats is that we all have cars. A lot of people in the middle east raised pigs too but the Jews did not. Cultural differences can be pretty big.

So why are we spending so much time debating something as silly as whether or not Medes had goats? The answer is simple, the debate demonstrates that you jump to conclusions based on your preconceived notions of what ancient people did or did not do.