God will sort it out...

[thestoat]

Sorry Sue U - I didn't have the whole passage to hand. To me that still sounds awful, and no amount of window dressing helps.

[Sue U]

Yes, it's awful, but war is awful, and to the extent the law limits the awfulness of war and its consequences, it is hardly an endorsement of barbarism.

[thestoat]

Hmm. I have been thinking about this. if a 500 year old bloke came up to me and said "Yes, I used to rape and murder and enslave people. But it was done then. I don't do it these days" I still would not think very much of him. There are many passages in the bible where god does and endorses that.

[Big RR]

Yes, it's awful, but war is awful, and to the extent the law limits the awfulness of war and its consequences, it is hardly an endorsement of barbarism.

One would hope that a supreme being would deal in more absolutes, and not just grant a woman captive a 4 week reprieve from rape; god shouldn't be just another pragmatic politician who says if I can't stop the rape I can get a reprieve.

Of course, if these were merely the words of some pragmatic politician claiming to speak for god, then it is understandable and the reprieve granted may even be commendable.

[thestoat]

And as far as murder of innocents goes, a highly allegorical quote from Isaiah? That's the best you can do? I would have chosen the genocide of Amalek (1 Samuel 15).

I don't know the bible that well, of course, so "best I can do" wouldn't be much I suspect.

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children" Ezekiel 9

He kills all the first borns of Egypt, of course.

"Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children" Isaiah 13

" This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.'" 1 Samuel 15

Of course, he kills almost the entire planet save for Moses and a few others

[Sue U]

Hmm. I have been thinking about this. if a 500 year old bloke came up to me and said "Yes, I used to rape and murder and enslave people. But it was done then. I don't do it these days" I still would not think very much of him. There are many passages in the bible where god does and endorses that.

Really? You don't think there should be any expectation of difference between social organization and behavioral norms across centuries, let alone across cultures?

One would hope that a supreme being would deal in more absolutes, and not just grant a woman captive a 4 week reprieve from rape; god shouldn't be just another pragmatic politician who says if I can't stop the rape I can get a reprieve.

Of course, if these were merely the words of some pragmatic politician claiming to speak for god, then it is understandable and the reprieve granted may even be commendable.

The books of the Pentateuch were written at various times between the 10th and 6th Centuries BCE, among other things describing conditions and prescribing rules for a particular people in a particular location at that particular time. Personally, I wouldn't expect society then and there to be very much like the Western world today.

[thestoat]

Well, Sue, I agree with what you say. Times were very different then and rules and morals were equally different. But surely therefore you cannot use the Bible as a guide to life, containing as it does such out of date morals?

[thestoat]

I guess what you are saying is that god is a new man these days. I say once a psycho, always a psycho

[Sue U]

Well, Sue, I agree with what you say. Times were very different then and rules and morals were equally different. But surely therefore you cannot use the Bible as a guide to life, containing as it does such out of date morals?

Well, although I have a particular ethno-cultural affinity for the Old Testament, I don't use the Bible as a "guide to life" any more than I use the Bhagavad Gita or Homer or Shakespeare. There is much to be derived from each in the understanding of our humanity.

[thestoat]

Well, although I have a particular ethno-cultural affinity for the Old Testament, I don't use the Bible as a "guide to life" any more than I use the Bhagavad Gita or Homer or Shakespeare. There is much to be derived from each in the understanding of our humanity.

Well said!

[Big RR]

I agree the bible in many contexts provides an insight into the conditions and moral beliefs of a group of people at a particular time; but then many purport it to be far more. If it's merely rules set down by pragmatic leaders, then I agree with you, but if it really is supposed to be what some claim, a communication of a supreme being as to what is right and wrong, then I think the criticism is valid; society may well be different, but should that mean that society should dictate to a god what is right or wrong?

[Crackpot]

I suppose it does depend on how you view these things. For me, killing someone who doesn't want to sow his seed in someone else is murder, and the way I read the passage, he wasn't given a say in having sex with her (and her wishes aren't mentioned at all), thus forced upon them, thus rape. But there are others here (you among them) who understand the bible better than I so maybe there are other ways of interpreting it.

If he was being frced why would he pull out? Onans Sin and judgemant is entirely based o9n his deceprion. He could have just as easily said sorry no I'm not going to and wouldv'e lost nothing (aside from what wasn't his in the first place) but instead he chose to play an elaborate Ruse to gain his brothers estate by deception and was judged for that crime. You state that he was forced yet have been unable to show coersion outside of societal expectation which he wasn't forced to obey.

[Sue U]

I agree the bible in many contexts provides an insight into the conditions and moral beliefs of a group of people at a particular time; but then many purport it to be far more. If it's merely rules set down by pragmatic leaders, then I agree with you, but if it really is supposed to be what some claim, a communication of a supreme being as to what is right and wrong, then I think the criticism is valid; society may well be different, but should that mean that society should dictate to a god what is right or wrong?

To my way of thinking, "God" is a metaphor, an abstraction, a shorthand reference for the development of a common understanding of principle; there is no literal god as a supreme being -- or at least, not one whose existence is actually meaningful or providing any useful direction. But there is a godliness, if you will, in humanity's development of consciousness and morality and in the appreciation of the beauties contained in our world.

[thestoat]

Fair point, CP. I still think he should not have been murdered for his deception (if that is what it was - your biblical knowledge is better than mine). Perhaps he was scared not to have sex with her in case he made god angry and got killed that way? God does seem to be in the enviable position of smiting anyone he decides to, though I guess that is what comes from being omnipitant

[Crackpot]

Of course, he kills almost the entire planet save for Moses and a few others

I think you mean Noah.

AS to the accounts of "Barbarism" in the bible. All must be taken seperately. As there is no over arching reason for all. I'll highlight a few of the big ones though:

Most were at least in some fashion "avoidable" such as the Egypian eath of the first born and most of the judgements for diobediance got many many warnings beforehand. Though those are by no means all.

Other exampes are Laws that by todays standards are barbaric but for thier time were amazingly progressive Such as the part Sue Highlighted and like the much derided laws about slavery. (which have very little relation to the institution that comes to mind when the word slavery is brought up)

These seem to be in a group with how Jesus mentioned divorce. That is laqws intended to be a stepping stone twards a Truth that we are not ready to accept at a given time.

And the Big one. The commands to Genocide during the Conquering of "the promised land". (as well as a few other times IIRC) These are just harsh any way you cut it. It's not odd for anyone to question why a "Loving God" would promote such actions.

Here's what I noticed:
They were always conditional (Kill then all or thay will do this to you)
They were largly if not completely unsuccesfully carried out. (there were always some survivors)
They suffered the conditions.

Conclusions:

This reveals a truism: You can't conquer a people that have no desire to aquiesse. (sp?) Something we still haven't learned to this day apparently)
THese commands seem to have been put in place because they would fail and prove God right illustrationg that God has better judgement than man.

[Crackpot]

One would hope that a supreme being would deal in more absolutes, ...

Or it could possibly point to the fact that absolutes aren't all that common and you must take everything into account when judging a situation instead of using a brain dead binary reaction to any given sitmulus.

(It frequently amuses me and bewilders me how people (Gob for example) will go on long tirades at the the simplistic belief systems of some believers and then go on to complain that God should have made it all clear and simple.)

[Scooter]

He could have just as easily said sorry no I'm not going to and wouldv'e lost nothing

Could he really? His father ordered him to take his brother's widow as his wife. Could he have refused without earning his father's wrath and being cast out, completely disinherited?

Let's also not forget that Onan's brother, Er, had been struck dead for being wicked in the eyes of God. Onan might have believed that God did not intend for Er's line to continue and so might have been afraid to impregnate Tamar. Onan might have also had reason to suspect Judah's motives in commanding him to marry Tamar and have children with her. He might have had an insight into Judah's deceitful nature, later demonstrated by the way in which he tricked Tamar to leave his house without marrying his youngest son after Onan died, because he feared his only remaining son would die like his brothers. Onan might have believed that Judah was willing to take chances with his life if God did not really want him to marry his brother's widow and give birth to his heirs. His decision to "spill his seed" might have been made out fear of dying, rather than out of greed for his brother's inheritance.

Deception and intrigue permeated this entire family. Onan deceived Judah and Tamar, Judah deceived Tamar and maybe Onan, Tamar deceived Judah. All of them acted out of selfishness to some degree or another. But Onan paid for it with his life, while Judah and Tamar were rewarded with heirs.

And this story is yet one more example of how the Davidic line (and therefore that of Jesus) is filled with some rather fucked up familial relationships.

[Big RR]

One would hope that a supreme being would deal in more absolutes, ...

Or it could possibly point to the fact that absolutes aren't all that common and you must take everything into account when judging a situation instead of using a brain dead binary reaction to any given sitmulus.

(It frequently amuses me and bewilders me how people (Gob for example) will go on long tirades at the the simplistic belief systems of some believers and then go on to complain that God should have made it all clear and simple.)

Well, if all morality is relative and situational, then nothing is right or wrong. And in that case, what does god exist for? To me god provides something we as humans can strive to emulate; the situation, at least in some cases, does not provide an excuse for immoral behavior, even though it may well be the reason for it. And FWIW, I cannot comprehend a situation where it would be morally defensible to take a woman prisoner, lock her up for a month,and then rape her, can you.

Sue--

To my way of thinking, "God" is a metaphor, an abstraction, a shorthand reference for the development of a common understanding of principle; there is no literal god as a supreme being -- or at least, not one whose existence is actually meaningful or providing any useful direction. But there is a godliness, if you will, in humanity's development of consciousness and morality and in the appreciation of the beauties contained in our world.

And to that extent i agree with you, god provides a moral example we strive for. But let's not get to far. Wasn't it Bohrman who insisted he was doing good because he distributed candy to the children before they were gassed to death on his orders?

[thestoat]

I think you mean Noah.

Ah yes That's the geeza.

Most were at least in some fashion "avoidable" such as the Egypian eath of the first born and most of the judgements for diobediance got many many warnings beforehand.

Well that is no consolation whatsoever for the poor first born babies who died. Babies. Who had no choice in the matter at all.

Other exampes are Laws that by todays standards are barbaric but for thier time were amazingly progressive Such as the part Sue Highlighted and like the much derided laws about slavery. (which have very little relation to the institution that comes to mind when the word slavery is brought up)

Absolutely - no argument there. We are judging them by our standards. So looking back, god was a rapist bully, though at the time he wasn't perceived thus. And, since this is the case, the Bible is not a good book from which to draw our morals.

They were always conditional

I guess the genocide ones were, though not the standard murder. For example
"You should not let a sorceress live." (Exodus 22:17)
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 )
"Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death." (Exodus 21:15)
Etc. I guess you'd put those under capital punishment.

God has better judgement than man

I don't see that, but maybe it is because we have moved so far from his word.

[loCAtek]

Well considering the people of the ancient Middle East, who cut off hands for stealing; stoned to death adulteress; enslaved other tribes for being other tribes, and loved camels a bit too much...

Their God sounds like a merciful and just being, with the proper taste for pretty ladies, of course.