|
Replies: 97
| visibility 501
|
Oculus Spirit [94306]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Fordtunate Son,...
1
Apr 3, 2024, 5:06 AM
|
|
do any of the nations Israel claims to have conquered record their losses?
Fordtunate Son
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
2
Apr 3, 2024, 9:49 AM
|
|
Whoof. 88 Tossing out some tough ones today.
That's an awesome question and I'm ashamed to say you caught me a bit flat-footed. With my love of military history, I thought I could answer this one off the cuff. But not so. So, I did some research.
The two things that complicate the question are 1) what is a nation, and 2) what is conquered.
Most of Israel's victories came early, but I'm not sure one could describe them as conquering nations. For instance, the victory over the Amalekites in 17:8 feels like a tribal battle, not a national conquering. And the Amalekites come back, so they couldn't have been totally destroyed, yet. The come back in Numbers, Judges, and Samuel, and are finally finished off in 1 Chronicles 4:43:
"they destroyed the remnant of the Amalekites that had escaped, and they have lived there to this day."
To my knowledge, there's no Amalekite record of any of kind on anything, including those battles.
In Deut 7:1 we get this, and they are actually called nations here.
“When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations – the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—seven nations larger and stronger than you- and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy….”
But nation is a pretty nebulous word. For instance, the Hittites were a huge, regional power based up in Turkey. A real superpower of its day. A nation that could take on the likes of Egypt and Assyria, and occasionally win. And there are quite a few Hittite records. So Israel might have bumped into a Hittite outpost or two, but I doubt they butted heads beyond that. Hittites in orange. You can see they got down as far as Damascus and Tyre. Needless to say, despite his marching orders, Joshua didn’t defeat the Hittites, “totally.”
The Jebusites, on the other hand, were a pretty small tribe...maybe only a few towns, if even that, around Jerusalem. The Hivites, Girgashites and Perizzites also seem to have been pretty small in number.
That can be a clue as to the size of Joshua's fledgling nation. Even the Jebusites, who were presumably just a town and some suburbs, were described as among "seven nations larger and stronger than you."
The City of Jebus (aka, Jerusalem)
The Amorites are a bit of a mystery, too. They seem to be more like an ethnic or language group than a nation. They were apparently spread up the Levant and over to the Fertile Crescent, and may have consisted of multiple nations. Sort of like saying, "Go slay the guys with the drawl." Well, that could mean Texas, Oklahoma, even into Alabama and the Carolinas. Very vague.
Possible Amorite nations, or rather, nations who share Amorite language similarities. See how they touch northern Israel, right to the Sea of Galilee.
The Canaanites are of course pretty well known, and while there are Canaanite records, I’m not sure if any of them address military losses. Same with the later Philistines (Gaza and the surrounding towns) and Phoenicians (Lebanon).
After that, Israel didn’t have too many military victories to speak of. They may have won some battles, but they never grew much beyond their current size today, and were surrounded by military giants in the north and the south.
So the short answer to your question is “I couldn’t find any ☹”
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
2
Apr 3, 2024, 10:07 AM
|
|
As an add on to that, the land that was promised to the Jews was enormous. Much larger than what they actually settled on. Here's Genesis 15:18
18 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates— 19 the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, 20 Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, 21 Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.”
Depending on how expansively one interprets that, the map of Israel could reach from the Nile to the Euphrates, and, if one throws in the Hittites, add Turkey in as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3779]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6120
Joined: 10/20/00
|
Holy Jebus
1
Apr 3, 2024, 10:21 AM
|
|
(ites) that was interesting, thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2186]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 2602
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
1
Apr 3, 2024, 12:59 PM
[ in reply to Re: Fordtunate Son,... ] |
|
So what do you do with this? Is it a mistake? Failed prophecy? Mistranslation?
A quick google search reveals that a lot of people disagree that the passage says this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1022]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1485
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
1
Apr 3, 2024, 1:02 PM
|
|
The formula is simple:
- Does it align with my current beliefs?
-> Yes: Cool, it says what it says.
-> No: It doesn't actually say that, it probably means something logical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
1
Apr 3, 2024, 4:06 PM
[ in reply to Re: Fordtunate Son,... ] |
|
>So what do you do with this? Is it a mistake? Failed prophecy? Mistranslation?
Well, that's an interesting question. Let's take a close look at the text. It's Moses talking, but he's relaying the words of God.
Deut 7:1
"When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess"
Ok, that happened, via Joshua crossing the Jordan. It says "God brings you", but the Jews often see God working through men. So let's say Joshua was 'inspired', or whatever.
"and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzit, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you—
That makes it sound like God is going to do the heavy lifting. He will do the "driving out." That doesn't say that he will destroy the 7 nations, only that he will somehow drive them out. Perhaps through Joshua's army, or by some other means. I think an argument can be made that that did happen...those nations are there no more. The toughest interpretation would be with the Hittites and Amorites, but if that's read as just "pushing out," like along a border, then I think that could work.
"2 and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally."
Again, God is doing the prep work, "delivering them," but the Jews have to do the dirty work. The actual "defeating." And, I read the last part as "once you've defeated their military, go in and finish off the civilian population"..."destroy them totally."
I'd say that verse cuts it close to the wire, but with a little latitude in interpretation, I think it works. It requires interpreting the Amorite and Hittite parts as 1) a border situations and 2) the smaller, more traditional view of Israel's current boundaries, as opposed to the boundaries granted in Genesis. It's important to note that in Genesis the land is only 'granted.' There's no idication as to how it might be taken, with our without God's help, which is not promised in that case.Clearly, the Hebrews never marched down the Euphrates to the Persian Gulf or across Turkey to the Dardanelles. That interpretation would be a bust.
But there are other complicating factors. One is that even though God sent the message, Moses is doing the message delivery. Did he get it right? And two, do we, today, understand what the terms Hittites and Amorites, as nations, meant to them, back then?
I think there's a path, so if this were Snopes, I'd give it a "Conditionally True" rating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2186]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 2602
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
1
Apr 3, 2024, 5:54 PM
|
|
Well I can’t really find a good argument against, just that the Bible doesn’t describe it that way.
Side note, what are the moral implications of the Israelites driving people out of their land and destroying them?
I know this has been discussed ad nauseam, but that doesn’t sound like the loving god that the New Testament described.
Maybe Marcion was on to something…
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
Apr 3, 2024, 6:27 PM
|
|
>Side note, what are the moral implications of the Israelites driving people out of their land and destroying them?
>Maybe Marcion was on to something…
I plan on getting to Gnosticism after my End Times series. It's a trip. I think he even had a TV show...
My Favorite Marcion
I can get Marcion's views. Punishment for disobedience is one thing. People may not always agree with, but can at least understand, a stern dad. But punishment for being where God placed you on the planet is another thing all together. I guess the argument could be "Well, they were worshipping other gods. But, if there is only one God, wouldn't he know that he's the only God? That's like picking on the ignorant, not the disobedient. It's just an unapologetic, fundamental tenet of the Judeo-Christian religions. There's no getting around the violence of God. It's documented time after time, and just baked into the belief system.
I think Marcion's theology is a nice way of reconciling that. But, the 'powers that be' in Heaven or on Earth, weren't receptive to that interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2186]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 2602
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
2
Apr 3, 2024, 6:45 PM
|
|
Marcion wasn’t a gnostic though was he?
Just wiped out all the Jewish stuff?
What’s interesting though is he may have had access to material earlier than the canonical gospels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
1
Apr 3, 2024, 7:01 PM
|
|
I think he falls in the grey area between. He's undeniably considered an early church father...he was the son of a bishop, after all. But his belief in the Demiurge, or the "Bad Creator" is right in line with core Gnostic beliefs. So he straddles the line I think.
It's one of the cool things about Gnosticism. It was so close to early Christianity that it has some serious credibility. That's why I said in another post that Gnosticism and Arianism were probably the two greatest challenges to what ultimately became orthodox Christianity. Because a lot of those believers probably sat at Jesus's sermons, and maybe even walked around with him. They just heard what he said in a different way than was ultimately passed on to us.
>What’s interesting though is he may have had access to material earlier than the canonical gospels.
That's certainly possible too. Definitely oral interpretations, and possibly written documentation as well. It's wild that he was a follower of Paul, too. Just so many things about the early Christians turn today's orthodoxy on its head. As someone who appreciates the range of human thought, and how and why people understand and interpret things the way they do, I love it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94306]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Due to the history of Israel leaving Egypt and the battles won the people...
1
Apr 3, 2024, 7:09 PM
[ in reply to Re: Fordtunate Son,... ] |
|
in the region knew about the LORD God but they hoped not to meet Him. Man has always had false gods. Back then it was carving of wood, maybe covered with gold and jews, like the calf of Exodus, or stone shaped to something familiar to them.
They were idols not beings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Due to the history of Israel leaving Egypt and the battles won the people...
1
Apr 3, 2024, 8:10 PM
|
|
This is something I've been wondering about lately. I mentioned it in another post somewhere. I'm not entirely sure the early Hebrews were interpreting pagan idols correctly. I'm not sure about Canaan, but I know in Egypt, when they prayed to a statue, they were praying to the God who was inhabiting the statue.
Idols may have been viewed as "homes" for gods, just like altars are today. So whether the altar was shaped like a box, or like a man, either way it was understood to simply house the spirit of the god and not 'be' the god. So to them, there may have been no difference between this:
and this:
It's just a hypothesis, and there's more evidence that the Egyptians saw it that way than the Canaanites, but it does make me wonder if the Hebrews just misunderstood what the Canaanites were doing. They were definitely praying to different gods, but maybe not just praying to a "block of wood"
Isaiah 44:19
Shall I bow down to a block of wood?”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94306]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I can't look down on the pagans of those days.
1
Apr 4, 2024, 5:00 AM
|
|
I've served many false gods in my lifetime and probably have a few left for the Lord to weed out. Fact is, if there's a choice between self worship and idol worship it doesn't matter to God which side of that coin is up when it lands. He views them equal.
As far as a secular man is concerned I'd guess worship of God and worship of other gods, including life, body, wealth...is all the same.
I reckon you're onto something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24529]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14000
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
2
Apr 3, 2024, 8:31 PM
[ in reply to Re: Fordtunate Son,... ] |
|
> "But punishment for being where God placed you on the planet is another thing all together. I guess the argument could be "Well, they were worshipping other gods." But, if there is only one God, wouldn't he know that he's the only God? That's like picking on the ignorant, not the disobedient. It's just an unapologetic, fundamental tenet of the Judeo-Christian religions. There's no getting around the violence of God. It's documented time after time, and just baked into the belief system."
That seems to be the comment of a person who has decided what he thinks of God and Christians. It reads as derisive of both. A person has a right to that opinion, and every right to defend it. Knowing that you believe those things does not cause any negative feelings. But that passage is not the comment of a skeptic.
I do not know where the line is between the skeptic and cynic, but I do know that the criminal investigator is a skeptic, while the prosecutor is a cynic. As this relates to the above passage:
- Ur, God left alone. Ethiopia, he left alone. Whoever was living in Charleston at the time. Everywhere people lived, he left them alone. People who got in the way of the Sons Of Abraham found themselves in conflict.
- Recorded conflict is therefore not about any people, except the descendants of Abraham.
The Christian: has decided that the execution/resurrection of the devine Messiah explains what all that is about.
The skeptic: sees the record of conflict as not about violence but about Abraham, though does not yet see that as rational.
The cynic: sees everything as supporting the conclusion that God is violent and that Christians have simply "baked it in" to their beliefs.
Only the middle one is still open minded about who God is. The last one is deciding what terms to use.
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
1
Apr 3, 2024, 9:40 PM
|
|
>There's no getting around the violence of God. It's documented time after time, and just baked into the belief system."
I don't really see that as a believer/skeptic/cynic issue.
In fact, I thought that was a rather neutral and objective statement based on the available evidence in the Bible. You would agree that many have died not as a result of their own disobedience or actions, but through the actions of others? For instance, by direction from God to the Hebrews? Or, by actions independent of the Hebrews all together, like the Great Flood?
That doesn't mean that God kills every person every time. People in Ethiopia and Charleston do survive the disobedience of the Hebrews. But killing, and the threat of destruction, does seem to be a very common tool of God.
And that is independent of whether the death is justified or not, by whatever metric one choses to use. It's simply the mechanism God frequently uses to enforce his will, over and over again. I could pull up scores of examples in the Bible.
That's why I say that it's simply baked in the system. It's a fundamental characteristic of the Judeo-Christian understanding of God. Even if every death he has ever inflicted is completely and entirely justified and righteous, death is still the method he uses.
>That seems to be the comment of a person who has decided what he thinks of God and Christians.
Not at all. That's just pointing out available evidence we have as to the nature of God, as presented in the Bible.
Gen 6:17
I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens
Lev 26:22
I will send wild animals against you, and destroy your cattle
Numbers 21:2
...we will totally destroy their cities.”
Those are just 3 of 504 instances of destroy in the Bible, along with another 181 of wrath, etc.
We can disagree on many aspects of God, but I don't see how we can disagree on him being violent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
1
Apr 3, 2024, 9:49 PM
|
|
>The skeptic: sees the record of conflict as not about violence but about Abraham, though does not yet see that as rational.
What I'm getting at here is that even if one sees that it is all about Abraham, the mechanism is still violence. I don't see any way around that. It's just too fundamental to God's nature.
One might say a non-believer sees all the violence as irrational, and the believer sees all the violence as rational, and a skeptic sees some rational and some irrational, but they all see violence. It's undeniable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24529]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14000
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
1
Apr 4, 2024, 1:20 AM
|
|
It is not a matter of even if: It is about Abraham.
Except the flood. When there is one case that predates Abraham, that alone means it should be examined for purpose, and how it relates to Abraham, so that is a discussion itself.
Are those actions violent? Yes. Does that mean one can assign that word to God's character in the degrading way the cynics on this forum claim? Is Barrett Carter violent?
It is the bible being discussed here, so it the biblical story, whether the cynic believes it or not, that interprets those actions. In that story, God created and owns everything. He created it perfectly, and us perfectly in it. We decided that wasnt good enough, wanting to also rule right from wrong. Our first act was to kill one of our own out of jealousy. Now we call Him names for playing by our own rules.
Except He doesn't even do that. He instead plays by our rules in one very narrow circumstance, related to one very small group of people, for the purpose of leading us to accept His own sacrificial redemption, applying to Himself the same violence we introduced. And now gets to listen to some of us call Him violent.
Is He capable of violence? Obviously so. Does that mean He can rationally be called violent? Only by exiting the biblical story. But that's the one being quoted. So, how much of it do you choose to believe to make such an assessment?
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
2
Apr 4, 2024, 5:14 AM
|
|
A good discussion. It's been a while since we’ve had an exchange of views so I'm kind of excited about it, because I think it can shape a couple of different ideas about God. I think we will come down to a matter of degrees rather than blacks and whites, and I’ll give you examples of why I see it the way I do.
Let me go to this first, and then I'll get to my major point.
>assign that word to God's character in the degrading way
I don't mean violence as degrading, I mean it simply as an operating method. I'm just observing it (or rather, reading about it), and trying to draw conclusions. And what I see, through the over-arching Bible story, are repeated examples of violence as a consequence, and repeated examples of violence as a seemingly collateral effect. That's why I made a distinction:
“Punishment for disobedience is one thing. But punishment for being where God placed you on the planet is another thing all together.”
The first case is rational. One may agree with the morality of it, or not, but it is a cause-and-effect event. Misbehave, or disobey, and get punished. Action and Reaction.
But the second case is not rational. Or if it is, it is not revealed to me as such. The people in Sodom and Gomorrah got blasted. Babies and all. Again, not a question of morality in this discussion. If God wants to take babies, he takes babies. He has his reasons. But comparing the two cases of punishing the sinners of Gomorrah, and God taking babies at his discretion, I don't see any causality in the second case, and that makes it irrational to me. Yet I see violence in both responses. Violence in the rational response, and violence in the irrational response.
God has a full range of options available to him. He could have plucked the sinners out of Gomorrah. He could have struck the sinners down individually, he could have erased them from existence by teleporting them away. But I only see one response, over and over.
And again, it’s not a critique by me ON the method, it’s an observation by me OF the method. He choses violence, on both sinners and non-sinners, so how am I supposed to interpret that except to conclude he is violent? Should I conclude that he is not violent when he blows cities up? Particularly when every case, rational or irrational, seems to lead to the same response?
I agree with you, one case does not make up a person's (or God’s) character. Carter, I presume, is only violent a few hours a week when he is on the football field. But what evidence do we have of God dealing with disobedience that doesn't include violence?
Does he ever say I will stand you all in a corner if you disobey?
Does he ever say I will sit you all in time-out if you disobey?
Does he ever say I will send you to bed without supper?
Time and time again, his threat, and his M.O., is destruction. There are 3000 years of examples in the Bible. That's not degradation. That's just observation.
I can partially buy your point that he only punishes when the rules are broken. Fair enough. Even nice guys get pushed to their limits. But he's dealing with imperfect men. Who stray again and again. And his response, again and again, is destruction. If one’s primary response is violence, isn’t it logical to conclude they are violent?
God is perfect. Man is imperfect. Who has more control over the situation? Is man responsible for the violence because he strayed, or is God responsible for the violence because that’s how he frequently choses to respond? Sure man could chose to obey, but couldn’t God also chose to react differently?
Consider even the End of the World. And this doesn’t have anything to do with Abraham, or obedience. Even if every single person on the planet was a devout Christian, and a gentile, these promises are still the same:
Rev 9:15
“And the four angels who had been kept ready for this very hour and day and month and year were released to kill a third of mankind.”
Rev 9:18
“A third of mankind was killed by the three plagues of fire, smoke and sulfur that came out of their mouths.”
That’s just a blanket 2/3. Believers, non-believers, whatever. How many devout, faithful Christians have to die, and for what? That only leaves 1/3 of the population alive. It doesn’t matter if one person, or if every person, obeys God, or has faith in God, or loves God, the world will still be destroyed by violence, as a promise, not as a consequence. It’s not reactive, it’s proactive. And it’s not conditional, it’s guaranteed.
So I do see the Jewish and Christian God as violent. But I don’t see that as bad, or derogatory. I simply see it as ‘is.’ Every interpretation of God has its characteristics…Zeus was a womanizer, Odin was a warrior, and Yahweh, to me, is violent; by his own descriptions, actions, and promises. He may not be ALL violent, but he surely is SOME violent. And in no way is he NON-violent.
If I get different evidence, I may draw a different conclusion, but that’s where I’m at with what I’ve got in the Bible right now. As I said at start, to go black and white and call God all-this or all-that would be unrealistic and unfair, but how many times does a God have to destroy the whole world, including potentially those who have done nothing other than have faith in him, before he’s seen as violent? And if that's not violent, then what is? What would it take for God to be considered violent?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24529]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14000
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
2
Apr 4, 2024, 10:23 AM
|
|
> I don't mean violence as degrading, I mean it simply as an operating method.
The first phrase I do not believe, because the discussion you were in was about that. That is the modern chant, "God is about violence, is evil, is not love", and I am sure you know that. The second phrase cannot be true any more than Barrett Carter uses violence as an operating method, unless they both do. How one makes either claim is what we are discussing.
> But what evidence do we have of God dealing with disobedience that doesn't include violence?
This is exactly what I addressed, and you seem to have posted a new response to say the same things again. Again, the answer to your question is, which I have already point out: Everywhere except as regarding Abraham. Me, for instance. I am an example. Everyone alive in that time, through today. Only to Abraham and those who got in their way, did he routinely use violence for disobedience. And even then, not in the face of repentance.
So, to your point about Sodom and Gomorrah, he had left them completely alone, since from the beginning of time, until ... well, go look at what happened with Abraham and Lot.
Rather than see this - recognizing the life independent of him you are living, as has everyone in history except Abraham and those interacting with them - you asked me to provide evidence of him dealing with disobedience without violence. As you sit in your nice home in a nice place, typing those words. And you want me to believe you are not applying the word violence as a negative assessment of character?
Between creation and now we have one exception I am aware of, the flood. And on the other bookend, the end times. Which may be missiles we launch.
I am not saying you shouldn't believe that God has never "dealt with disobedience that doesn't include violence." Even if you sit as peacefully as the Mesopotamians while you say it. I am saying I am recognizing that you have reached your conclusion, and write to promote it. I freely admit that I have concluded that the Messianic story is true and that the rest of the bible has to be assessed on that basis, and that I defend that view. I know you are on the opposite side of that. That is totally fine: most people are, which means most of my best friends and golf buddies are.
But that is where we both are. I do not see how it is possible for a person sitting in the USA, while considering the lives of people in 500 BC Persia, to say God does not deal with disobedience without violence, without having the goal of back-dooring the case that He doesn't exist, or that the biblical record is wrong. Just make that case instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2186]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 2602
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
2
Apr 4, 2024, 1:49 PM
|
|
This is getting a little snippy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1022]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1485
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
2
Apr 4, 2024, 1:58 PM
|
|
Pointing out what the Bible plainly states is a problem to some
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
2
Apr 4, 2024, 2:01 PM
[ in reply to Re: Fordtunate Son,... ] |
|
This is good. I can feel your passion. It's an unexpected difference in views, at least to me, and so it really has my attention now.
I just always assumed that most people would see God as violent based on the examples in the Bible. So when they don't, that's different to me, and takes me a while to get my head around. And makes me even more curious as to why we see things differently. So let me recalibrate and throw out a few comments, questions and answers. We might be headed for a deep thread here.
>because the discussion you were in was about that.
That was a pretty long discussion ranging from the Promised Land to the Gnostic Marcion, so if you could help me focus in what you're speaking of that would be helpful.
>That is the modern chant, "God is about violence, is evil, is not love"
I actually don't know that phrase. When I grew up and was in church, God was all about love. It surprised me when I became old enough to begin reading the Bible and saw examples that struck me as counter to that.
I don't consider violence and evil to be the same thing. One is a method, one is an attitude, or a state. A football player can be violent, but he's not evil. Are we seeing our terms in different ways?
>Everywhere except as regarding Abraham.
Ok, maybe I didn't comprehend your words clearly. So you are saying that every act of disobedience, around the world for all time, has been dealt with by God non-violently, except where Abraham is involved, with whom he was sometimes violent?
But obedience is no longer a factor since Jesus and faith, so no one would in the last 2000 years would be punished for lack of obedience anyway, correct? I take it that the implication of that is that since Jesus was resurrected, God has not been violent with anyone?
But even if he only used violence with Abraham and only back then, he still used violence, and thus was violent, correct?
>As you sit in your nice home in a nice place, typing those words. And you want me to believe you are not applying the word violence as a negative assessment of character?
You'll just have to trust me  ">">">. I'm not sure what my opinion has to do with my home, but I don't necessarily see violence as a negative adjective. Do you think I see Carter in a negative light because I consider him to be a violent football player?
I think this is a difference in opinion on terminology, perhaps. Would a more palatable characterization be "A loving God who uses violence?" or perhaps, "A loving God who has used, and plans on using destruction again, at the end of the world." I'm trying to determine it the word 'violence' is the issue.
>I am saying I am recognizing that you have reached your conclusion, and write to promote it.
I don't see how anyone could make any other conclusion, at least regarding that aspect of God. But that's why I find this a fascinating discussion. I don't have any problem with God being violent, it's literally his world and I'm just living in it. I'm just having difficulty seeing how others don't see his actions in that way.
>Even if you sit as peacefully as the Mesopotamians while you say it
I'm not sure I understand the connection with homes and peaceful Mesopotamians with my view of violence. Can you elaborate on this?
>I know you are on the opposite side of that.
This feels like a conflation. You do agree that I could both believe in God, and believe he is violent, correct? That is possible. Why do you assume I am denying God's existence if I see him as violent?
>without having the goal of back-dooring the case that He doesn't exist, or that the biblical record is wrong. Just make that case instead.
That feels like quite a jump, and quite an assumption. Again, I'll phrase the point again as a simple question. Can I both believe in God, and believe he is violent?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2186]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 2602
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
2
Apr 4, 2024, 3:46 PM
|
|
"I'm not sure I understand the connection with homes and peaceful Mesopotamians with my view of violence. Can you elaborate on this?"
I think he's pointing out that god hasn't destroyed you...yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1022]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1485
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
1
Apr 4, 2024, 4:01 PM
|
|
>I think he's pointing out that god hasn't destroyed you...yet.
Ever noticed how god used to do things, and he will in the future, but you are SOL if you want any evidence of his actions in the present?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
Apr 4, 2024, 5:14 PM
[ in reply to Re: Fordtunate Son,... ] |
|
I mean, there is this:
Isaiah 45:7
"I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.
Some people might consider disaster to be a form of violence; Tornadoes, economic depression, car crashes, war. I can't understand the disconnect between God and violence. They seem intimately entwined to me in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24529]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14000
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
1
Apr 4, 2024, 8:45 PM
[ in reply to Re: Fordtunate Son,... ] |
|
Let's hope for the best, and see if we have a miscommunication. I have a question that should clear it up.
You seem to me to be going between two points of view. On one hand you asked me this:
"But what evidence do we have of God dealing with disobedience that doesn't include violence?" Like, He never does. "Operating method" was the phrase later used.
On the other you say this:
"He did use violence, so he is violent."
Those are of course not at all the same view of what God did and didn't do, or of His character. But I heard them both, though I responded mostly to the first view. So, while I like an argument better than most, I hate unnecessary ones, so I will ask this: Which of the two best represents the point you have been trying to make?
If the latter, there is no issue. I said in this thread he has used violence. He might again, though it has been a long, long time. "Who said anything about safe? Of course Aslan isnt safe."
If the former, I think you could not be more wrong, not theologically but just historically. He has left everyone in history alone. He has not punished me for anything. Or you. Or the Persians. Or American indians. He didnt punish Cain. All of human history is God not punishing people for disobedience. Except for descendants of Abraham, and those who conflicted with them. That's it. And the flood. A skeptic asks why that would be: What did Abraham do that was so bad, or good? A cynic doesn't doesn't want to deal with the answer, so just says God is violent as a matter of course. Usually they sit in air conditioning, sometimes with $7 coffee, while they say it.
But you might not even like Starbucks, so I'm asking which of those two views you believe. You said them both, but I dont think you can hold them both.
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1022]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1485
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
Apr 4, 2024, 9:45 PM
|
|
> Usually they sit in air conditioning, sometimes with $7 coffee, while they say it.
Man the irony of an argument stating god isn’t violent being filled with undertones that you don’t deserve the lack of violence you are currently enjoying.
Christianity always has violence sitting right there in the background.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
1
Apr 4, 2024, 11:19 PM
[ in reply to Re: Fordtunate Son,... ] |
|
Ok, that's very helpful. I understand your position much better now. This what I think is happening.
You are viewing the understanding of Yahweh as God of the World, I am viewing the understanding of Yahweh as only the God of the Jews, and perhaps parts of the Middle East - more along the lines of Micah's "they can have their gods, and we will have ours."
So your sample size, one might say, is much larger than mine. And thus proportionally, a few lightning bolts tossed in an ocean is almost nothing. But the same number of lightning bolts tossed in a small bucket would fill it to the brim.
From your context, I can see how God never used violence on most of the world. You're saying he never messed with ancient Native-Americans, ancient Chinese, Japanese, Europeans, etc. And from that context, yes, I would agree that his only using violence on Abraham's clan was an extremely low percentage of all the people on the earth.
My context, with the smaller sample, size puts Yahweh mostly with the Jews. So what is .0001 percent of the affected population in your view, is 99% of the population in my view. That's who the stories are about in the Bible, the Jews. There are no stories of Yahweh talking to the Comanche, or the Chinese.
In my view, Quetzalcoatl was lording over the Aztecs, Osiris was lording over the Egyptians, Odin was lording the Norse. And whatever other gods were relevant at that time. So none of those populations were included in my view of Yahweh's "people", thus a smaller sample size.
That means that from my perspective, Yahweh was punishing most his people, the Jews, with repeated violence. And from your view, he was punishing only a fraction of his people, excluding the rest of the world.
And when I say "But what evidence do we have of God dealing with disobedience that doesn't include violence?", I'm talking about the Jews, in stories in the Bible, like with Uzzah, and the Amalekites, and Sodom. And you are talking about with the rest of the world.
And when I say "He did use violence, so he is violent" I mean it in the sense of "If I kill someone with violence, I'm a killer." It only takes one time to earn that moniker.
>You said them both, but I don't think you can hold them both.
Both my comments hold up in my context, and your comments hold up in your context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24529]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14000
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
1
Apr 5, 2024, 10:48 AM
|
|
See? It was all a giant misunderstanding. Group hug. Except I was sort of kidding when I said that was 'hoping for the best'. Woulda been okay if we had something to argue about. Lets see if I can find something ...
Okay, I got one. It's a puny one as far as arguments go, more of an ancillary point. 'Ancillary' was used a lot by a prof in one of my major courses, and now I can't stop. Actually, it still is a word. But was used a lot. Many times.
Anyway, tangent point: You have said you haven't heard some form of the refrain "God is violent, God isn't love, God is mean". I take you at your word. But it is said often, on this page, maybe in this thread, let alone the forum. It is a favorite among the cynics nowadays (I am not saying you have said it; you haven't heard it). And they point to the OT to 'prove' it.
That is an irrational conclusion, even if looking only at the OT. There is no such thing in the OT as a "God of the OT". The story begins before the universe, and contemplates the end of it. It speaks of people in Egypt, Ur, Ethiopia, Arabia, Greece, and others. God is presented as God of the universe, of everyone on earth, not just of a group of nomads who settled in Israel. And of course if God exists, He would be that. So, to see how God dealt uniquely with Abraham, and then make a universal character judgement about God, rather than asking "why Abraham" - especially while sitting in a Starbucks, a luxury by any measure - is beyond irrational. It is a comment on a story not even being told, the ultimate answer to a question no one is asking.
No wait ... that means God is unfair, because not everyone can afford Starbucks. That has also been said in this forum. And a person sits in Starbucks while saying it, which, by that person's definition of 'fair', should result in punishment. Which doesn't come. The Starbucks theologian isn't bothered by the idea that if all his biases were correct they would apply to him, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
Apr 5, 2024, 12:25 PM
|
|
Let's get the whole board in here!
>There is no such thing in the OT as a "God of the OT".
Right. I'd agree with you there. To the people of the OT, God was as you said: "God is presented as God of the universe, of everyone on earth, not just of a group of nomads who settled in Israel."
The dilemma I face, as I try to work out my own theology, is, "How does everyone else see God, through time and across the globe?" The OT Jewish description of God is exactly, and precisely, what you said it is - the Jewish description. Based on their history, their prophets, and their understandings. Right or wrong, it's 'theirs.' It's all they knew.
I remember back in the early nineties, before the famous 29-28 Louis Solomon game vs Virginia, someone asked Hatfield why he was going to run the wishbone in that game. He said "because it's what I know." And at the time, as a younger man, I said W TF? Miami is beating opponents by 30 points a game running a spread offense, and you are going back to 1970's Oklahoma? Why on earth would you not run a modern, winning, offense?
But he was very forthright. He ran what he knew. That was his limitation, and he said it plainly. It's just like the Jews. They didn't live in China, so how could they right about what was happening in China? They wrote about what was happening to them, in their own place and time, and surmised what was happening elsewhere.
As I said in another post, God didn't have a scribe sitting next to him on day Zero to record what happened on day One. So someone far in the future had to surmise what happened on day One, without being there.
And every case is like that. The Chinese could only write about what they knew about. The (red dot) Indians the same. Now, I could pick any one of those accounts and say, this is right and this is wrong. But how do I know? Short of God whispering in my ear "Go with the Jews," I have very little reason to pick any of those three, or any other views, over another on. I've never lived in ancient Israel, or China, or India, so how do I know which one is more accurate? My grandmother essentially whispered in my ear "Go with Jesus." But that was all she knew. She was basically in Hatfield's boat. She never lived in Israel or China or India either.
But one has to draw a line somewhere in their theology. I'm trying not to, and work with the premise that God just spoke to different people differently, but I recognize my views come with dilemmas that need to be resolved just like anyone else's views. But I'm trying.
Where I'm headed with all this is cynicism. I don't necessarily see cynicism as bad, as long as it's educated, and considered, and thoughtful cynicism. What I'm getting at is that it's Ok not to believe something, or at least be uninclined to believe it.
I mean, if one is a Christian, they are automatically cynical of Buddhism. And if one is a declared Muslim, then they are by default a cynic of Hinduism. And most of the world is that way. People are mostly cynical on religions. Because they reject of every other belief system other than the one they follow. Only a crackpot would think all religions might be true in some way.
So getting to your Starbuck point, I do agree that dismissing something out of hand is rash. I personally want to hear other positions. In just this conversation we have had you gave me another way to see things. I might agree with it or not as I ponder it, but it's something that I now have to consider, in a good way, that I didn't before. And that's a good thing.
In my personal quest, I've tried Christianity, and it didn't quite fit. And I've tried Atheism, and it didn't quite fit. And I've tinkered in Buddhism, with the same result. But there's still hope as long as we've got love, and hugs, and Chuck Woolery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1022]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1485
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
2
Apr 5, 2024, 1:03 PM
|
|
>I mean, if one is a Christian, they are automatically cynical of Buddhism. And if one is a declared Muslim, then they are by default a cynic of Hinduism. And most of the world is that way. People are mostly cynical on religions. Because they reject of every other belief system other than the one they follow. Only a crackpot would think all religions might be true in some way.
This is what I find so fascinating, I'll get called a "cynic" for not believing one religion when they do that for literally every other religion out there lol.
I don't accept one religion by the exact same methods I don't accept any of the others.
but sure, i'm a "cynic" lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24529]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14000
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
1
Apr 5, 2024, 10:34 PM
[ in reply to Re: Fordtunate Son,... ] |
|
Agree with all, except your use of 'cynic'. A skeptic may not believe a thing, but will turn over all the rocks and accept the resulting answers. A cynic makes irrational comments, emotionally motivated by bias. Dont have to take my word on it: Webster: "a faultfinding captious critic". Shoot, now we have to look up captious. "Marked by a disposition to find and point out trivial faults. Intended to entrap or confuse, as in an argument."
Now that we know what a cynic is, how does it apply to this discussion about God and violence in the OT? A skeptic looks at God's unique use of violence in the OT and asks, "Why Abraham". A cynic sits in entitled luxury and says God isnt fair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
1
Apr 6, 2024, 1:21 AM
|
|
I was going with Oxford definition of cynic: "a person who does not believe that something good will happen or that something is important." Which is sort of a passive, neutral disbelief.
Like, "I was still skeptical about Buddhism, but my friend had become cynical about it." Meaning, "I still think it might have value, but my friend has mostly made up his mind that it has no value."
Which is why I said "I don't necessarily see cynicism as bad, as long as it's educated, and considered, and thoughtful cynicism." Ie, it's ok to disagree as long as one has thought it through.
But Webster's definition, and its inclusion of the word "captious," implies an active, aggressive, unfounded rejection, which I would consider 'bad.' So yes, using Webster's definition I definitely agree with you.
Once again, the words and the definitions mean so much. Which is why it's always good to ask "can you explain that just a little bit further, so I'm sure I understand you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24529]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14000
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
1
Apr 6, 2024, 3:42 AM
|
|
To clarify:
When I referred to people assessing God as unfair or capricious, while living carefree and affluent, I was not talking about you. You didnt say such a thing, that I am aware of. I did take issue with you seeming to universally apply to God's character something He did in one unique circumstance, and for a purpose, but we discussed that misunderstanding. And even if it wasn't a misunderstanding, it was a specific thing.
As to accusing God of x or y, somewhere in the thread I referred to the common practice of doing so. Anything I then said about that - skepticism vs cynicism, for instance - was about that practice, not about you. If you had said something like that, I would have responded directly.
I apologize if in the length of the thread it began to sound like it was directed at you. If so, I should have perceived that possibility. No defense, except it wasnt intentional.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
1
Apr 6, 2024, 3:57 AM
|
|
All good. As I said, I actually like it when we disagree, even if it's sometimes unintentional. It helps highlight the differences in thought, which I consider a good thing. We wouldn't need a chat board if we agreed on everything. I mean, what would we talk about? ">
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1022]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1485
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
1
Apr 4, 2024, 2:11 PM
[ in reply to Re: Fordtunate Son,... ] |
|
>I freely admit that I have concluded that the Messianic story is true and that the rest of the bible has to be assessed on that basis, and that I defend that view. I know you are on the opposite side of that. That is totally fine: most people are, which means most of my best friends and golf buddies are.
>But that is where we both are. I do not see how it is possible for a person sitting in the USA, while considering the lives of people in 500 BC Persia, to say God does not deal with disobedience without violence, without having the goal of back-dooring the case that He doesn't exist, or that the biblical record is wrong. Just make that case instead.
Alright everyone, you heard the moderator, he is free to admit his own biases and views but you must make your case in a specific way to appease him.
You are not allowed to state facts that may offend the moderator.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2186]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 2602
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Fordtunate Son,...
Apr 4, 2024, 6:10 PM
[ in reply to Re: Fordtunate Son,... ] |
|
"Our first act was to kill one of our own out of jealousy."
You could kind of blame god for that.
I couldn't imagine shunning one of my children for not getting me as good of a gift as the other.
"Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. 4 And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. "
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94306]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
The most violent thing God ever did was to kill...
2
Apr 4, 2024, 5:18 AM
[ in reply to Re: Fordtunate Son,... ] |
|
Himself to exonerate you and me from guilt worthy of eternal death. I judge Him just.
IMO, man's perspective of life and death is perverted. Mankind worships physical life so much that spiritual life is worthless. I judge spiritual life so valuable that physical life is but vanity. We have nice homes for our body and claim God blessed us. However, my concern about a spiritual home is my blessing.
It's called, 'Can't see past the end of your nose syndrome.' We both have it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: The most violent thing God ever did was to kill...
1
Apr 4, 2024, 5:49 AM
|
|
>I judge spiritual life so valuable that physical life is but vanity.
That's actually very Eastern Philosphy-y, 88.
I suppose violence could be definitional as well. If I simply say "God cannot, by definition, do violence," then nothing he does, by my own definition, would be violent.
I don't see it that way but I could. It's akin to saying the President cannot commit a crime, because he's president.
The same thing happens in science as well. When Ptolemy laid out his celestial spheres and declared the Sun to be the center of the universe, there was of course no way he could know that. Because he had not traveled to the limits of the universe. He simply declared it as his immutable 'fixed point' in space, and built everything around that.
Einstein did the same thing 1500 years later when he said light was the speed limit of the universe. He never went to the limits of the universe either, so how could he know? He simply declared it as an 'immutable truth,' and constructed a reality around that definition. Both understandings of the universe work. One a little better than the other, but both are functional, and predictive, and worked for their time. And I suppose, at some point in the future, another scientist will come and do the same thing, in a slightly differnet way. Because he too will never be able to fully experience the universe.
In a way, we can create our own reality that way, or at least our own perception of reality. It certainly blurs the line a bit. Is one perceiving reality, or creating it, and how does one know?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: The most violent thing God ever did was to kill...
1
Apr 4, 2024, 6:10 AM
|
|
That's actually an oddly terrifying thought...
How can I tell if I'm perceiving reality, or creating it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94306]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Trust in God.
2
Apr 4, 2024, 7:07 AM
|
|
When a man trust in God all those questions lie at rest. Trusting God is a true escape from all doubt and wonder becomes wonderful.
I know, that's the epitome of simple but it's the foundation of what God required of Israel from Abraham and even through Jesus to us.
Be the labor cleanup guy. You get a seat at the table even though all you did was sweep the floor and empty the trashcans. Stop trying to be the architect and the engineer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1022]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1485
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Trust in God.
Apr 4, 2024, 2:34 PM
|
|
I think you funadmentally misunderstood the question.
You say "trust in God", ok, how do you know you aren't creating that reality in your head. All you have to offer is your word and when pressed you point to someone else's word. Where is god saying anything at all?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94306]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
The same way you know God is not real.
Apr 5, 2024, 3:25 AM
|
|
I consider this a thread jack for it has nothing to do with the OP and quickly became intellectual tomfoolery. Such are the arguments of 13 yr olds who just discovered the wonders of thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1022]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1485
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: The same way you know God is not real.
Apr 5, 2024, 6:45 AM
|
|
Calling things tomfoolery of 13 year olds when your ontology includes talking snakes is something else.
You are unable to identify obvious myth and call other discussions foolish? Hilarious.
I’ve literally seen you argue that it didn’t start raining until a mythical global flood happened…
You must be trolling at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94306]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I didn't mean to argue that God is less than violent.
1
Apr 4, 2024, 7:02 AM
[ in reply to Re: The most violent thing God ever did was to kill... ] |
|
I simply believe He is justified. Just as a cop is justified in a shooting God upholds His standard(s). A man is justified in shooting someone who invades his home even if it's just to eliminate the threat of danger to his family or simply himself.
We are man. We can not impose upon a righteous God that which we do not bear ourselves. Who here among us would not take a life to save his child or perhaps himself?
Imo, to judge God unrighteous in His wrath we are imposing upon Him something we don't demand of ourselves and others. We are not, therefore, faithful to ourselves when we do so.
I protest those who condemn God for being faithful to Himself though I know they do such of ignorance. Just don't say 'God is violent,' like it's a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1022]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1485
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: I didn't mean to argue that God is less than violent.
Apr 4, 2024, 2:03 PM
|
|
>Who here among us would not take a life to save his child or perhaps himself?
No one. But you leave out the other part, the bible says that god killed children. He had bears maul them, he drowned them, he commanded them to be killed and he allowed child sacrifice (heck he'll even kill his own) to appease himself.
No sane person would do any of the above.
How you call those justified, I do not know.
>I protest those who condemn God for being faithful to Himself though I know they do such of ignorance. Just don't say 'God is violent,' like it's a bad thing.
Nah, that's a nut case view. The Biblical god IS violent and it is a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1022]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1485
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: I didn't mean to argue that God is less than violent.
Apr 4, 2024, 2:05 PM
|
|
oh and for the millionth time, I do not condemn god, I condemn the morons who wrote the bible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94306]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1022]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1485
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: That is a personal attack. It is forbidden and probably why you're on your...
Apr 5, 2024, 6:53 AM
|
|
now don't go thinking too much, that tomfoolery will get you a bad case of reality
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1022]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1485
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: I didn't mean to argue that God is less than violent.
1
Apr 4, 2024, 2:46 PM
|
|
You don't think drowning the whole world is bad? Or allowing someone like Jephthah to offer his own daughter as a sacrifice?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: I didn't mean to argue that God is less than violent.
Apr 4, 2024, 3:07 PM
|
|
Not necessarily. It's all context based.
If there is a God, and there is an unknown plan, then perhaps his actions have some meaning beyond our understanding. And if God's intentions were known to be good, then those actions might not be 'bad.' Still violent, but not bad.
Cutting off a child's arm might be considered horrific in one context, unless one is in the Civil War, and cutting off their arm, with gangrene, will save their life. So context does matter. The child might not even understand they have gangrene, so from their perspective, cutting off their arm might be viewed as having been done with evil intent, when in fact it was not. Cutting off their arm is definitely violent, but it's not necessarily evil.
If there is no God, and no greater plan, and no greater reason, then I think I'd consider it evil. Still violent, but in this context evil, rather than the earlier context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1022]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1485
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: I didn't mean to argue that God is less than violent.
1
Apr 4, 2024, 3:24 PM
|
|
>If there is a God, and there is an unknown plan, then perhaps his actions have some meaning beyond our understanding.
But that's just it, it's only considered good if we throw away our understanding. If we read it plainly, using the only thing we have (our understanding) then it is clearly evil.
>Cutting off a child's arm might be considered horrific in one context, unless one is in the Civil War, and cutting off their arm, with gangrene, will save their life.
Sure, but we have the context there: cutting off the child's arm will save it's life.
In the case of the Bible, why would god create a child only to die of horrific cancel or why would he drown said child? What possible good could that be? The only answer i'm hearing is "throw away my understanding" and then it might make sense.
I mean... okay, but imagine applying that logic in daily life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: I didn't mean to argue that God is less than violent.
Apr 4, 2024, 5:22 PM
|
|
I agree, it takes some work to try and understand cases like that. The funny thing to me is that I feel like I'm giving examples like these every benefit of the doubt I can...thinking out loud about how they might be interpreted in the most flexible possible manner.
Yet I'm accused of having some hidden agenda to subvert Christianity. If I wanted to come at Christianity, I'd come at it. I've already been an Atheist. I don't need to be one again, or I would be. And I surely wouldn't spend my time trying to understand complicated issues like this, if I had an ulterior motive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1022]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1485
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: I didn't mean to argue that God is less than violent.
1
Apr 4, 2024, 6:35 PM
|
|
>Yet I'm accused of having some hidden agenda to subvert Christianity. If I wanted to come at Christianity, I'd come at it.
Welcome to the P&R board, where you aren't allowed to say the text says what it plainly says 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24529]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14000
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: I didn't mean to argue that God is less than violent.
1
Apr 6, 2024, 3:12 AM
[ in reply to Re: I didn't mean to argue that God is less than violent. ] |
|
Fordtunate Son
That is a disappointing thing to read.
First, whatever was said about you was said directly to you: you didn't have to read it being said to someone else. But what I actually said was that you seem to have a purpose of presenting all religious thought as having sociological origin. You answered, and we moved on. I still believe what I said, but we discussed it and moved on. I havent mentioned it again, to you or anyone else, and I respond to your posts on your terms, even when I disagree, your previous answer to me taken at face value.
I am pretty sure that nowhere in my comments did I use the words, or imply, 'subvert Christianity'. No accusations of any kind were made. I know I didnt say it, because I happen to know that it cannot be subverted, certainly not by you or anyone on this board, or any other board.
I do not think you are as important as you seem to think I do. But I did think you were above this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: I didn't mean to argue that God is less than violent.
1
Apr 6, 2024, 10:50 AM
|
|
It seems we may have run into our old nemeses, 'miscommunication and definition', again.
>But what I actually said was that you seem to have a purpose of presenting all religious thought as having sociological origin.
I'll clarify. I do have the belief that the kernel of belief in God transcends culture. But I also do believe that culture is as inseparable from the descriptions of God as our own internal biases are. That is, most of the world believes in God, but most also describe him differently. The Chinese believe this, the Native Americans believe that, etc.
That is my opinion.
So when you say, "you seem to have a purpose of presenting all religious thought as having sociological origin", that implies an agenda to me. A purpose - "to have as one's intention or objective", is different than an opinion. One is simply saying what one believes. The other implies trying to influence others.
>I am pretty sure that nowhere in my comments did I use the words, or imply, 'subvert Christianity'.
No, you didn't say 'subvert,' that's my word. And perhaps it was too strong, and in the moment. But my feeling of being accused of subversion, with or without the actual word, came as a result of exchanges such as this...
"But that is where we both are. I do not see how it is possible for a person sitting in the USA, while considering the lives of people in 500 BC Persia, to say God does not deal with disobedience without violence,
without having the goal of back-dooring the case that He doesn't exist, or that the biblical record is wrong. Just make that case instead."
Since the conversation was with me, in the context of "that's where we are," and I was making the case that God was violent, and in conjunction with "you seem to have a purpose", I assumed you were talking about me. And that you think I have a back-door goal.
It would be helpful if you could clarify your position on this. Do you think I have a back door goal?
>I do not think you are as important as you seem to think I do. But I did think you were above this.
I don't understand this either. Can you elaborate on this as well?
If I'm mistaken about all this then I apologize. We both know how tricky definition and intention can be to sort out, especially across a chat board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24529]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14000
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: I didn't mean to argue that God is less than violent.
1
Apr 7, 2024, 12:11 AM
|
|
Ah, got it. Yes, when I saw your question (when has God ever dealt with disobedience without violence), i couldn't believe I was seeing it worded that way by you. From others, yes, we see that all the time, so I spent a few seconds wondering if you had momentarily forgotten which scok you were writing under. No, of course I dont believe you use those, but I took the question as meaning exactly what it said, so yes, I did say what you quoted. IE, if that is what you really think the biblical story is, stop playing this game and just say what the forum atheists do, that "it is all nonsense".
But we uncovered where the miscommunication was. Matter settled. I think I communicated a "no worries". If not, I do now. It happens in electronic written communication. But sure, if I knew you meant that question as written in our conversation, I would again say what you quoted. I understand why it would make you feel as you said it did. I would feel that way if said to me. But I know you didnt mean it that way. Had I known it, we likely would not have even had the conversation at all.
Your questions to me, which are fair:
- Do I think you have a back door goal?
That was said about that question (when has God ever dealt ...), and we have settled my reading of it as a miscommunication, so no, I dont.
- Do I think you intend to present all religious thought has having sociological origin?
I lean to 'yes'. When I originally said that months ago, and then again yesterday, it was not as an accusation or pronouncement, not as strong as 'back door'. I said it as "this is what I am reading as your perspective and intent", as people often say face to face. You might respond with, "no, I dont", and I might reply, "I think you do", and in five minutes we'd have it worked out, a fun conversation.
- If so, do I think you should just make that case, as I suggested you should?
(You didn't ask that, but if I was your lawyer, I would have.) Yes. The resulting discussion would uncover what aspect, if any, of belief in God is NOT sociological, and from that starting point other great questions come. This board is often circularly cynical, and it would be nice to contemplate what follows from God's existence without being hijacked by "which one". I dont think we can do that on this board.
- Do I think you think you are important?
That was a regrettably snippy response to the idea that I would accuse someone of subverting Christianity, even on a small message board. I apologize for that. The reason I would not make that accusation is as I said. Revelation 'reveals' who Jesus is, and He is beyond being subverted by the likes of us. I knew you didn't mean the words as suggesting maybe you could, but I took the opportunity to literally apply them that way, to make a snippy response. That, btw, is a cynical rather than sincere response by me, making those words say something you didn't intend. No, I do not think you were thinking highly of yourself. I have not seen you appear to do so. I sincerely apologize.
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: I didn't mean to argue that God is less than violent.
Apr 7, 2024, 1:24 AM
|
|
Thanks for your forthright answers. I do respect that very much. I felt like I was misreading you, which is why I asked specifically. It was good advice to me from an old boss whose mantra was "Just ask, it's easy."
As I've said many times before, I appreciate that we see things differently and can simply discuss those differences in depth and at face value. It saddens me to see the board sometimes devolve in the way that it does.
I think we all might gain greater insight if everyone simply kept it to discussing and exchanging opinions and ideas. And you are excellent at discussion, in both the amount and the quality of contributions, with a lot of insight to give in my opinion. I think sometimes other folks that might contribute just get intimidated or turned-off, which is unfortunate.
>This board is often circularly cynical, and it would be nice to contemplate what follows from God's existence without being hijacked by "which one".
I agree completely. It seems that the board spends a lot of time off that track, when there is so much to be learned on it. I'm trying to do that in my longer posts by investigating Christianity in depth, like the End Time, but it takes time, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2186]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 2602
Joined: 6/4/22
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1022]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1485
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: I didn't mean to argue that God is less than violent.
1
Apr 4, 2024, 7:36 PM
|
|
Obviously, I can't assume that but let's run with that logic:
Even hypothetically, why is the suffering part "justified". God could have simply skipped the suffering part and put the child directly in heaven, we have millions of cases of children suffering.
Give me a hypothetical, what is the justification for the suffering bit? What could it possibly add?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2186]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 2602
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: I didn't mean to argue that God is less than violent.
1
Apr 4, 2024, 7:54 PM
|
|
Well just specifically looking at the children the Israelites killed when conquering these nations, I could see someone viewing it as god taking them out of the life they were going to live. From I understand they were some sick people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1022]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1485
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: I didn't mean to argue that God is less than violent.
1
Apr 4, 2024, 7:58 PM
|
|
btw, not trying to be argumentative, so I hope it doesn't read that way, but just saying:
In my opinion, the only time "well it's probably beyond our understanding" only comes up when we would otherwise call a spade a spade. The god of the bible is afforded a lot of leeway that we don't for others.
For example, the crusade example fortunate gave. Everyone on all sides said that was evil, including ct88. How do we know god didn't command that one? Nobody asks that question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2186]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 2602
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: I didn't mean to argue that God is less than violent.
2
Apr 4, 2024, 8:20 PM
|
|
No I agree I just think that if you add that layer (that the children went to heaven) I guess that’s a way to maybe wiggle out of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1022]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1485
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: The most violent thing God ever did was to kill...
Apr 4, 2024, 1:00 PM
[ in reply to The most violent thing God ever did was to kill... ] |
|
>The most violent thing God ever did was to kill Himself to exonerate you and me from guilt worthy of eternal death. I judge Him just.
This violent God, killed himself to exonerate you (from himself).
But he's loving and all good.
What a man-made crock of chit.
>I judge spiritual life so valuable that physical life is but vanity.
Yeah and that's what is so scary about you mofos. That's EXACTLY the mentality that islamic extremist have.
You so strongly believe in made up nonsense that you devalue the only life that actually exists.
>It's called, 'Can't see past the end of your nose syndrome.' We both have it.
I agree that you have that yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94306]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I'd never harm another man who wasn't trying to harm me.***
1
Apr 4, 2024, 1:06 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1022]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1485
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: I'd never harm another man who wasn't trying to harm me.***
Apr 4, 2024, 1:26 PM
|
|
That's easy to say when we are in a currently peaceful state. People get riled up and crap like above happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94306]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
No, that's not about the conditions around me it's about God in me.***
Apr 5, 2024, 3:34 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1022]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1485
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: No, that's not about the conditions around me it's about God in me.***
Apr 5, 2024, 6:52 AM
|
|
right, christians are so consistent based on conditions. Shall we point to more instances of their violence?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94306]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I have never attack you by lumping you into a group of violent atheist.
Apr 6, 2024, 6:17 AM
|
|
I am well aware I'm not as humble as a child but I've never considered killing others because they don't believe. I never rejoiced when a crime is committed in the name of Christ. I wasn't like this before Jesus saved me.
That accusation was completely rude and out of order.
Pardon me for raising my voice. Shame on you for losing control over your emotions and turning to insult and personal attack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1022]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1485
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: I have never attack you by lumping you into a group of violent atheist.
Apr 6, 2024, 7:58 AM
|
|
I didn't "attack" you, good lord. You said, and I quote:
>I judge spiritual life so valuable that physical life is but vanity.
And I said
>Yeah and that's what is so scary about you mofos. That's EXACTLY the mentality that islamic extremist have.
I didn't say you were violent, killed anyone or rejoice when a crime is committed. However, when you are so far into a belief system that you are calling life itself a vanity, that is EXACTLY the mentality extremists have that get them to commit atrocities in the name of their god.
Sure, you are peaceful now, but imagine something like the crusades happening. People with your beliefs will be the first to sign up for the violence.
>That accusation was completely rude and out of order.
It's really not. History shows it happens over and over again.
>Pardon me for raising my voice. Shame on you for losing control over your emotions and turning to insult and personal attack.
Again with this? I'm sorry it makes you so emotional, but disagreeing with you has nothing to do with emotions. AGain, this is an accusation and it only seems to come up in the P&R board.. strange.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94306]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Ole Josh might have been what stumped Israel's growth.
1
Apr 3, 2024, 6:10 PM
[ in reply to Re: Fordtunate Son,... ] |
|
Three kings dressed in rags, carried split water and wine flask and picked shoes which were far past their lifespan. They pretend to be from far away and had heard about the wrath and power of Israel's God and sought a peace treaty. They fooled Joshua and he swore an oath to God to remain at peace with them. I believe that might interest you and it probably won't be difficult to find.
As you said, God said, 'Kill 'em all and I'll sort 'em out!"
Josh got in hot water over that and it led to dire events with the fine women in populations ruled by those three kings. I don't recall which kings pulled the Kansas City shuffle on Josh but Israel paid for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1022]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1485
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Ole Josh might have been what stumped Israel's growth.
1
Apr 3, 2024, 6:14 PM
|
|
>As you said, God said, 'Kill 'em all and I'll sort 'em out!"
gross
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Ole Josh might have been what stumped Israel's growth.
1
Apr 3, 2024, 8:46 PM
|
|
I paraphrased that, and it gets even worse when you find out the guy that said it was an abbot, and the Pope's representative. Folks usually think of Crusades as being against Muslims, but this one was in FRANCE. Lol.
In 1200 AD, about 100 years after the more famous crusades in the Middle East, the Catholic church decided it needed to stomp out some Gnostic heretics hanging out in Southern France. Those Gnostics die hard, apparently.
Those Gnostics, known as Cathars, were worshipping at this church near Toulouse, France. They do believe in and follow Jesus, after all.
Since there were Catholics in the town, as well as Gnostics, no one could tell who was who. So the Crusade leader just surrounded the whole town and killed everyone.
"When they [the soldiers] discovered, from the admissions of some of them, that there were Catholics mingled with the heretics they said to the abbot "Sir, what shall we do, for we cannot distinguish between the faithful and the heretics." The abbot, like the others, was afraid that many, in fear of death, would pretend to be Catholics, and after their departure, would return to their heresy, and is said to have replied "Kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His"
That's taken in part from 2 Timothy 2:19
“The Lord knows those who are his”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94306]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
'The church,' has been horriblly evil...
1
Apr 4, 2024, 7:17 AM
|
|
in behaving as if political power was the right of anyone who claimed to serve our Creator. People still do that today. They believe they are required to set the world right in their service to God. They ignore the scripture which completely ignores political positions and focuses solely on Christ. What the Bible ignore is significant.
We have the perfect examples on how we should behave set before us, Christ first, the Apostles and then finally the early churches. The contempt of Rome did not fall upon the early Christians because the Church intended to challenge Rome's authority.
It happened because Rome, itself, had used religion to manipulate the Hebrews into submission and assumed that as the church grew it would be as they and rise against the empire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1022]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1485
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: 'The church,' has been horriblly evil...
Apr 4, 2024, 1:17 PM
|
|
Here's the thing, you even admit that these acts are "horribly evil", however, the god of the Bible completely embarrasses them in this realm.
If you are going to call this "horribly evil", what about you know... drowning the whole world? Or all the cities he commanded to be plundered?
In terms of experience, what is the difference to the children involved? I point them out specifically because surely they are innocent.
Do you think they care if a crusader or God burned them alive? Also, a crusader won't burn them forever... that's infinitely worse.
Seems like you have some wires crossed in your morality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94306]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
No, our different opinions are founded on our beliefs.
Apr 5, 2024, 3:38 AM
|
|
You believe you are God and therefore you have the say about what's right and what's wrong. I believe you are wrong.
You foolishly misunderstand yourself. With no God to worship, you worship yourself. Satan is not more satisfied with a legion of demons than with you right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1022]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1485
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: No, our different opinions are founded on our beliefs.
Apr 5, 2024, 6:51 AM
|
|
>You believe you are God
Right and I actually believe I am a globe when I argue with flat earthers. What a silly argument.
>I believe you are wrong.
"I believe" is all you've got, how about some hard evidence for once?
>You foolishly misunderstand yourself. With no God to worship, you worship yourself.
No, this is just something religious people say, it's ridiculous. I don't worship anything. I get that you can't understand not worshiping something a religious person (heck, I saw you saw earlier that you previously worshiped false gods, seems to be in your nature to worship stuff), congrats but I don't.
>Satan is not more satisfied with a legion of demons than with you right now.
oh no, not the mythical characters!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1022]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1485
Joined: 11/15/23
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Ole Josh might have been what stumped Israel's growth.
1
Apr 3, 2024, 6:40 PM
[ in reply to Ole Josh might have been what stumped Israel's growth. ] |
|
Yes, the Gibeonites. Nice recall. I had forgotten about them. From Joshua 9:
3 However, when the people of Gibeon heard what Joshua had done to Jericho and Ai, 4 they resorted to a ruse: 6 Then they went to Joshua in the camp at Gilgal and said to him and the Israelites, “We have come from a distant country; make a treaty with us.” 15 Then Joshua made a treaty of peace with them to let them live, and the leaders of the assembly ratified it by oath.
22 Then Joshua summoned the Gibeonites and said, “Why did you deceive us by saying, ‘We live a long way from you,’ while actually you live near us? 23 You are now under a curse: You will never be released from service as woodcutters and water carriers for the house of my God.” 27 That day he made the Gibeonites woodcutters and water carriers for the assembly, to provide for the needs of the altar of the Lord at the place the Lord would choose. And that is what they are to this day.
That certainly violated the "not treaties" mandate. But I wonder how trickery was accounted for? It must have gotten Joshua off the hook, because I don't believe he suffered any penalty for the treaty.
An interesting side to that verse is that it reinforces that at that point God, or David, had not yet chosen Jerusalem to be the Holy City. It's referred to as "at the place the Lord would choose." In today's context, and with 3000 years of history, it's odd to think that at one time, Jerusalem was as non-descript as Central. Just a dot on the map.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94306]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
If you think Joshua screwed up too bad to be forgiven and reconciled to God...
1
Apr 3, 2024, 6:52 PM
|
|
then I don't want you prying into my personal history. My school records alone would keep you busy until your grandchildren went to be with the Lord.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94306]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I wonder if they got in God's love shack way before they grew to.
1
Apr 3, 2024, 5:59 PM
[ in reply to Re: Fordtunate Son,... ] |
|
be a nation which could occupy that much land.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: I wonder if they got in God's love shack way before they grew to.
1
Apr 3, 2024, 6:48 PM
|
|
They were in the dog house the moment they crossed the Red Sea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94306]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
It was just one golden calf.
1
Apr 3, 2024, 6:53 PM
|
|
It wasn't like they build a full grown cow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94306]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
That is fantastic. Two thumbs up if I could.
1
Apr 3, 2024, 5:57 PM
[ in reply to Re: Fordtunate Son,... ] |
|
However, I know what the Bible says.
I was specifically asking if any of those nations kept records of losses to Israel. Surely there's one or two. I was trying to tap your knowledge of ancient history for which record have been found. I went to sleep in Western Civ then dropped out.
They say the victor writes the history yet Israel certainly didn't back away from saying who kicked their butts and when it happened according to their calendar.
Message was edited by: ClemsonTiger1988®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: That is fantastic. Two thumbs up if I could.
1
Apr 3, 2024, 10:38 PM
|
|
I'll keep looking but I haven't found anything yet. Israel is kind of an outlier in that sense. The big nations at the time, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Egypt, etc., all left lots of records in part because they were big. Lots of wealth, lots of palaces, lots of libraries, lots of scribes, etc.
Smaller nations just left less behind, typically. Sometimes nothing. Many of those nations I listed earlier. like the Perizzites, or whatever, are only found in the Bible.
One of the things that may have saved Israel from that same anonymous fate is the fact that they were exiled in Babylonia. That's as close as they came to be wiped away from history - when they lived as captives in Babylon. But at the same time, they were also protected. Sort of a two-edged sword.
The thought is that when that happened, they started writing everything down, frantically. They had no home anymore, so whatever history they intended to keep, they had to make it portable, in books. So that wherever they ended up, they could take it with them.
As fate, or God, would have it, 50 years after their captivity, their captors were captured. And Cyrus of Persia didn't really want them. So he sent them home. That saved them as a nomad nation, but also created other problems. Like, who actually owned the land they once occupied? And Cyrus installed a governor, but not a king. That tipped the domestic power see-saw in favor of the priests, and away from secular government. So that gave the priesthood enormous, if not virtually complete, control over the people.
But, back to the military aspect. I think the reason Israel's records remain is just that...because they actually had the luxury of living as captives, and writing even their losses down, as opposed to being killed outright.
There is an old Canaanite tablet, maybe 1300 BCE or so, that references the 'Habiru' attempting to take Jerusalem. Which they did ultimately. I wouldn't consider that a definitive 'loss' to Israel, though it might have been. What I mean is that Jerusalem may have held out at that time and fallen later. Here's a look at it.
And this is an equally old Egyptian tablet, from 1200ish BCE, with first mention of Israel:
Somewhere in all those hieroglyphics is:
Yanoam is made non-existent;
Israel is laid waste—its seed is no more;
Kharru has become a widow because of Egypt.
Again, not a loss to Israel, but a mention of a victory over them. So that's not much, but it's the two earliest examples that I know of of Israel being involved in combat. Once as a possible victor, once as a probable loser. I'll let you know if I find more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94306]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Kind sir, if you would grant us a post on the origin of Islam...
1
Apr 3, 2024, 6:49 PM
[ in reply to Re: Fordtunate Son,... ] |
|
I'm sure it would be a hit. However, please do not interrupt what you're working on and plan to produce which is already filling your plate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Kind sir, if you would grant us a post on the origin of Islam...
1
Apr 3, 2024, 10:38 PM
|
|
It's on the list! I think it'll be an exciting and different look at things when we get there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94306]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Re: Kind sir, if you would grant us a post on the origin of Islam...
1
Apr 4, 2024, 7:21 AM
|
|
So the first problem is that when Israel wiped a people out completely they left none, other than themselves, to report the event. I'll give you that one but there are several which weren't annihilated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Kind sir, if you would grant us a post on the origin of Islam...
1
Apr 4, 2024, 9:53 PM
|
|
ClemsonTiger1988®
I'm still looking for those battle records, but they may not exist. There's some Canaanite records, but mostly administrative or correspondence between kings, etc.
Sadly, there may be no records because it may not have happened the way it's recorded in Joshua. Here's a snippet from the Encylopedia Britannica:
"A careful reading of relevant biblical texts, stimulated by the study of external resources, has led scholars to a general agreement that Israel did not take Canaan by means of a single, comprehensive, calculated plan of conquest. It happened more gradually and more naturally, through progressive infiltration and acculturation. This relatively peaceful development, which went on for a couple of centuries, reached its fulfillment in the rise of David.
Until then, for the most part, walled cities remained in Canaanite hands. Even if these cities were razed, as in the case of Hazor (Joshua 11), Israel does not seem to have made military use of them; David’s occupation of Jerusalem was a first in this respect. The accounts of Joshua’s campaigns (Joshua 10–11) seem to fit these realities; they are accounts of forays by a mobile community, moving ever westward, that increasingly constituted a force to be reckoned with in the open spaces between the walled cities."
So there may have been less fighting, and more marriage and mating.
Joshua's "conquests" may have been as much about women as towns. ">">
I've attached a link to letters between Egyptian Pharaohs and Canaanite towns, during the time of Joshua, called the Amarna Letters. They were found in the town of Amarna, Egypt, about half-way up the Nile. It's all administrative stuff, and nothing military, but it does give an example of what was going on at the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Amarna_letters_by_size
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94306]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I imagine Israel kept the records to perserve history to teach the...
1
Apr 5, 2024, 5:07 AM
|
|
next generations about God's faithfulness. As discussed many times here, God is faithful to reward and to chasten. He kept the promises for safety, bounty filled harvest, many children and a homeland equally to seeing those disappear when Israel failed to keep its promises to Him. A deal is a deal. Fair to both is fair.
I was just reading Nehemiah 7 which records the generation enslaved by Nebuchadnezzar. It's really good stuff. I'm excited to see you find others who recorded losses. I think a search for ' historical strategic withdrawals,' is a phrase to search.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: I imagine Israel kept the records to perserve history to teach the...
1
Apr 5, 2024, 9:09 AM
|
|
Nehemiah is a good one. The return of the Exiles is an interesting story. Not everyone got hauled off to Babylon, only the educated and skilled...anyone who had any use to Babylonia beyond farming.
So that split the surviving Jews into two groups. The white-collar class were captives in Babylon, and the blue-collar class were still living in the ruins of Jerusalem and Judah.
Naturally, the blue collars took what land was available to them and worked it to survive. And, they worshipped Yahweh in the 'country way', without Temple, for about 50 years.
Meanwhile, the white collars (including scribes) were busy in Babylon, writing down the Jewish history so that it wouldn't be erased forever when they died. And, refining their beliefs in Yahweh, and how to live without a Temple for the first time in 500 years.
So when Cyrus released the white-collars and they went home, you can imagine it was a bit of an awkward reunion. The first issue was "who owns the land?" Jew A might have said 'well, this was my plot and you took it while I was a captive,' and Jew B might have said "well, yeah, so?" So that was a problem.
And the second issue was that the white-collars show up with all these books they've just written, and say "this is the history, as we remember it. Sorry you weren't with us to add your perspective. But we wrote it all down so you wouldn't forget.' Which probably raised a few blue-collar eyebrows.
On top of that, Nehemiah had to reconstruct the walls, so they all wouldn't be terrorized, again, by their neighbors.
And finally, Cyrus sent a governor to watch over things, but not a King. His job was just to keep the peace, but rule was probably similar to the Romans in that it was pretty hands off as long as folks weren't fighting each other.
So that left the white-collar priests as the authority on almost everything, setting up a theocracy, essentially. There was no king to challenge or balance them with secular rule. And their power only grew over time till you get the priest class of Jesus's day, who essentially ruled the roost, without opposition.
It's an amazing history.
>I think a search for ' historical strategic withdrawals,' is a phrase to search.
I'll check that out. I've got a good English friend who insists that the British Army has never lost a battle, and they instead they just choose to "strategically withdraw." Talk about creating one's own reality. Haha.
I said "Like at Yorktown?" He said "Exactly." We had a good laugh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94306]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
You've posted some valuable information in your last two post on this subthread.
1
Apr 6, 2024, 2:48 PM
|
|
Thank you so much, Fordtunate Son.
Looking back at the one previous to this one I to which responded, I gleaned most of that information from reading the Bible. I was extremely glad to see the Hebrews' reports were included in secular research. Any harmony is icing on the cake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: You've posted some valuable information in your last two post on this subthread.
1
Apr 6, 2024, 3:01 PM
|
|
Happy to do it 88. Glad you are enjoying them.
Here's something else you might enjoy. It's amazing that we even have it. It's a cylinder of Cyrus freeing 'other' peoples. So it's not quite dead-on evidence of the Edict of Cyrus as described in Ezra, but it's dang close. It shows that was Cyrus's policy with many other captured peoples. He apparently just didn't want the headache, lol.
"The Cylinder's text has traditionally been seen by biblical scholars as corroborative evidence of Cyrus' policy of the repatriation of the Jewish people following their Babylonian captivity an act that the Book of Ezra attributes to Cyrus"
Here's the much, much longer read if you like...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_Cylinder
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8883
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: You've posted some valuable information in your last two post on this subthread.
1
Apr 6, 2024, 3:01 PM
|
|
In case the above post got lost in the thread
ClemsonTiger1988®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94306]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94306]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95551
Joined: 12/25/09
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 97
| visibility 501
|
|
|
50
