#maklelan2020 (In no way whatsoever should this be understood as an endorsement of the antisemitic notion that the God of the OT is violent & the God of the NT is loving. No such dichotomy exists between the two corpora.)
The Muslim scholars can give you those. Although They have also used the Bible for stories from the prophets but then twisted them In non accordasnce with the Bible scholarts.
@@JopJio The Muslim scholars use the same authors to write their Quran stories from. And then they say the Bible is corrypted. But then all Muslim scholars are in contradictionj to use the story of Jesus and others. Why then use the stories if they are corrupted ?. why not only using the Quran or hadiths ?.And why say that All Bible scholars are wrong and going to hell ?.
In 2024, with almost world-wide communication, a good understanding of empathy, and a well-studied bible, it's really sad to see apologists holding on so dearly to the "genocide isn't that bad" narrative instead of "let's do better"....
Just think of it this way.. by that same logic, the Holocaust was just another case of God punishing his chosen people. But no reasonable person would accept that. The only reason they can dismiss those references to a possible genocide (s) is because it happened a long long time ago. These apologists need to think about what they are espousing.
In fairness, the worldwide communication is helping people leave Christianity in droves. The ones still there are increasingly the most ignorant, emotionally desperate, or hateful. Which makes more people leave. They’re in a doom spiral and apologists like this guy aren’t helping.
Some things about the Bible can’t be reconciled. The Biblical authors believed a lot of things that we consider to be unacceptable today. It’s inevitable that cognitive dissonance would come from this.
Or maybe some things were just intended to be stories and their authors would be appalled some people take their writing as a lesson or moral instruction.
@@revilo178 I’m implying humanity will never be without slavery. And no, slavery isn’t inherently wrong. We have modern slavery but people just don’t recognize it for what it is. We’ve put a new label on slavery. Also, if you own a phone that you as a battery in it than you’re supporting slavery in African Cobalt mines.
@@brycesakal3717Only 15 - 30% of Africa's cobalt production is informal from artesian mines. The same could be said about eating African Cocoa derived chocolate, etc. Where are the parents? You use the term slavery too loosely. It makes you appear intellectually dishonest.
I’ve always been troubled about that hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. It’s such a blatant hand of the author. He really needs this to happen for the plot.
To be fair, the first time it says that the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart was with the plague of boils which was more than half-way through and only after ignoring clear evidence to him that this wasn't just the work of a magician trying to usurp his authority but rather "the finger of the gods".
Seeing how uncompassionately, foolishly, and easily apologists dehumanize and make up lies to justify atrocities shows how dangerous these beliefs can be.
The text was also clear that Pharaoh Nameless the Whateverth was about to concede to Moses' requests at least one of the times before Yahweh hardened his heart.
probably one of the two Ramesses, who reigned successively, owing to the fact that the Hebrews are described as building the city of Raamses under the reign of "Pharaoh Nameless the Whateverth" (Exodus 1:11)
@@BlockyBookworm The problem is that, assuming that the story actually happened (which it almost certainly did not), then it can't be either of the two Ramses because there are sufficient records of them to know that they never lost all of their livestock, firstborn, army, and pharaoh in under a fortnight. Not to mention that the Bible loves to name people all over the place, but the Pharaoh of Exodus is just "Pharaoh," despite him being pivotal to the entirety of Judaism and also Moses' adopted brother.
And don't forget it was God who handed the Israelites over to the Egyptians for enslavement as punishment and waited 400 years to "liberate" his people. None of the Bible adds up. Not one letter
Blu - so, you're claiming that you as a non-believer or Buddhist, are perfect and NEVER blatant with your own dishonesty??? How about continuing to prove you ARE dishonest, and answer something like: I have never stretched the truth nor been dishonest in any way! We'll call you Saint Blu Star! It's disgusting how evo-illusionists are so dishonest!
@V_George We know for a fact that the Bible is a false holy text and that the god yahweh is man-made and that jesus was a false prophet. Do you find it embarrassing that you can't tell the difference between truth and falsehoods?
Por Ole Blu Star - Believes he/she is honest, when those like him/her, consistently claim that others do they themselves habitually do. How bout telling us what one blatantly lied about, oh lying wonder!? What you do is project, you ole dishonest projector you. haa
@@V_George - Do you even know what blatant means? Obviously, English is not your first language. You should get together with ole Blue Star, who lies for a living apparently, and projects his lies onto others instead of admits his/her error/lies
The bear verse is so much more harrowing learning it was contextually small children. Most Christians are usually taught they were teenagers, like 13-16, which is bad enough given they're killed simply for mocking someone, but to learn the wording describes actual children is disheartening to say the least.
They were a product of their time and culture. While we can morally judge their actions with our modern views, it is best to consider their words and actions in their time and culture. Some day we will be judged harshly for our current standards.
@@Chomper750The fact that the authors and redactors of the OT considered the enslavement and conquest of their people, the Hebrews, was wrong, but yet the enslavement, conquest and genocide of other people was not only OK, but commanded and condoned by God, reveals a serious proclivity towards moral hypocrisy and Double-standards. Just as some leaders, advocates and followers do today. Guess it's true that, the more things change, the more they stay the same. 🤔🤨
@@Chomper750 Ok, they were a bunch of priestly elites glorifying state violence. They seem to have a problem with it when they are on the receiving end of said violence. But when it comes to justifying the divine right of their own rulers, they are effusive in declaring the goodness and necessity of those actions. So, they're hypocrites by their own standard. It's good when it happens to those people, it's bad when it happens to us. Since they do in fact recognize the problem of being slaughtered, when it applies to them, we can say that their words and actions are morally inconsistent at best. Or, to put it another way, they were really bad dudes.
@@Chomper750 And we have no excuses, either. Merely explanations. If we do not treat all humans humanely, we are not justified by our supposed ignorance. And the future might see our time as when humanity started to turn that ship of evil around. Claiming we'll be spoken of as harshly as the Victorians on certain matters is excusing us with zero evidence we even get to have that explanation.
And thus we have the frequent complaint of non-believers that the OT God is a lot more bloodthirsty than the NT God. At least until you get to the final book of the New Testament. Then, then, we see the OT God in full regalia, where the cavalry horses slosh in blood up to their bridles. "God is love" is a hard sell after that, I suspect.
So a general killing his daughter to get military success sounds like Agamemnon in the Trojan War ( His wife killing him back is the start of a whole literary cycle )
My evangelical pastor friend frames disasters as "God calling us to repent," non-believer setbacks are God's justice being poured out upon them, and does little to help others because that would interrupt what God is doing. Beliefs have consequences.
I have seen many interviews with disaster survivors who say God protected them. I want to shout at them "You mean those who didn't survive were unworthy of God's grace?" The usual response is something along the lines of 'God wanted them with him." 🤦♂Heads they win, tails you lose.
What I don’t understand, is why apologists have to suspend reason and lie to defend their God and the bible. I respect apologists a lot more who are honest and say “God did order genocide. I don’t understand it. But I know that’s not what God wants me and other Christians today to do.” That’s fine. I know Christians who do have this approach. I’m an atheist so I don’t believe in God anyway and obviously I disagree with that sentiment, but at least it’s not being dishonest.
Totally with you guys that this is better, but to answer your question, I think it's about how many followers they garner. Saying "I don't know" has never been a great way to get followers. Instead, the ones who are sure get more followers, no matter how bass-ackward their logic. It may not even be something they themselves realize -- we just only hear about the ones that are more "successful".
They are in a cult that tells them "god is love", has a wonderful plan for their lives, will provide for all their needs, that they are sinners and wretched, have no purpose without god, and will grant them eternal life if they believe and trust in the god of the Bible, otherwise they will burn in hell for eternity. So they are living in fear of their abuser and having to cover for god, Stockholm Syndrome.
It is because they retconned a story of a brutal warrior Nation god who only cared about his tribe and was more than willing to kill anyone outside of his tribe. This was a problem even as the Bible was being curated, which is why Marcion tried to establish Dualism with Jesus being the opposing force to Yahweh.
@@Reignspike This. And doubly so in the case of religion. Religion is designed to provide as much certainty as possible. Leaders who lack certainty don't last in that environment.
As a former Evangelical Christian, Bible College student and Bible teacher for many years. I came hear to see what all the so called believers were going to say, in order to justify the actions of a narcissist tyrannical god. It's exactly what a person does in an abusive relationship, Stockholm Syndrome. Unfortunately, it took way too many years to get out of the abusive relationship with Christianity and the god of the bible.
I too am a former evangelical. Spent 30 years regurgitating a lot of these talking points with people. Delving deep into apologetics brought me to a single question…”Is this the best plan a “perfect” god could come up with?” It took some therapy but I am finally free of the Stockholm syndrome. How could anyone worship a god who condones slavery and genocide; yet at the same time gets bent out of shape because people touch themselves at night?
Yay! It’s always good to hear when someone throws off the heavy chains of dogma. My life is so much more interesting and compassionate and curiosity abounds.
Funny how apologists are more than willing to bring (supposed) historical social context into the discussion to absolve god of some things that are now socially unacceptable (genocide), but not for other things (homosexuality).
I don't know, is there really anything in the bible that indicates that there is such a thing as "free will" and, if so, that there is any virtue in it? As far as I can tell, the only argument that we have free will is that if we didn't have free will, then God is responsible for all the bad stuff that happens. And since God can't be responsible for the bad stuff, that means we must have free will.
@@flowingafterglow629that's presupposing god can't do bad things. But the God of the bible has done bad things like killing people even if the ends justify the actions. It's still an evil act. Unless you hold the presidential defense? Since it's God, the laws to not kill do not apply to him?
@@MidlifeCrisis82Or God never did or said those things. Even from the Bible itself, at some points it communicates that bad things happen to bad people as divine punishment. Israel’s war accounts are little different from those of their neighbors. Battles won were attributed to blessings from their gods. Battles lost were attributed to someone offending their gods.
@@MidlifeCrisis82 "that's presupposing god can't do bad things." Yep, that's the whole point "But the God of the bible has done bad things like killing people even if the ends justify the actions. " But that's not evil since God did it. By definition, God cannot do anything bad. That's Bill Craig's Divine Command Theory. "Since it's God, the laws to not kill do not apply to him?" Nope. See your first sentence. As I said, as far as I can see, the argument that we have free will is just based on the presumption that God is all good, by definition. But that is a distraction, think. Does the bible say there is free will? Or that it is a good thing?
@flowingafterglow629 it's hard to tell. In the new testament, presumably at the garden of Gethsemane, jesus doesn't want to be arrested then crucified but relents to follow God's will. I guess he freely chose to do God's bidding?
When I was a Christian I held apologists in high regard and for a while I wanted to be one, but as I was deconverting and now since, I find Mr. Diety's new name for them apt. Excusigists.
@@MidlifeCrisis82 I get it's probably a joke, but it comes from the same root as the word apology but that root meant something more like "to make a defense" Iirc. So it means one who defends the faith
@@MidlifeCrisis82 the English word apologist comes from the Greek "ἀπολογία," which means "speaking in defense." Christian apologists are thusly those who attempt to defend their version of faith from any perceived attacks, and have been a thing since at least the second century (Justin Martyr is one famous example).
For the algorithm - thanks Dan for all the information you have given us. It has liberated me from viewing the bible with the lens of fundamentalist ideology. This information has liberated the bible to stand on its own so that it can be interpreted in the legitimate contexts in which they were written. Instead of fearing what it says, it can be a fascinating exploration of the evolution of people’s thinking and beliefs both in the bible and how others have negotiated meaning from the bible.
Dr Gavin Ortlund over at Truth Unites has very recently put out apologetical videos excusing slavery, destruction of the Canaanites, and the taking of captive women as forced wives. These videos are becoming viral and cry out for scholarly responses. I would love to see videos dealing with this apologetical propaganda. Please :)
Kipp Davis and Josh Bowen had a back and forth with him about doing something together a few days ago. I'm not sure Ortlund is serious about participating. We'll see.
Trying to reconcile the things God did in the bible was one of many reasons I stopped believing. I was tired of making excuses for this God. And ultimately, I asked myself -why was I trying to fit this square god into a round hole. Well-that reason was fear. Fear of going to hell-god's magical torture chamber in which this all-loving god holds no responsibility for any of the eternal suffering inflicted. But hell was this god's baggage-not mine. So I got rid of hell...and-surprise- death is simply non-existence. And I didn't seem to mind before I didn't exist. So now, I no longer fear death. There is nothing to be afraid of. And when you take that power away from god-that god holds no power over you. I look back now....and the whole thing is just so silly. Not just this god-but all of them. The whole concept of a god. It is hardly an effort to create a better god out of whole cloth...but even more....why create a god at all? You don't need one. Accept reality for what it is-and its pretty amazing all by itself. You don't need anything magical to make it better.
There is no such thing as non existence, that is a reification, like a square circle. Yes, christianity and Islam are false, but you have gone to the opposite extreme of philosophical materialism by arguing non existence is a possibility... look up quantum experiments for consciousness. You can't cease to exist because non existence is a reification. That is as absurd as Christianity...
I appreciate the work you do with your content Dan! I’ve watched nearly every video you have produced. I’ve even quoted you in my own videos. I noticed in this video that you defended the literal translation around the story of God hardening Pharoahs heart and had a question- do you believe that translation is the correct one or do you believe that it might be a mistranslation or misunderstanding of the scribes that worded it that way?
I never questioned Israel fighting other nations, but war stories are often framed in such a matter. Ancient Israel was really no different from other nations at the time.
Genocide, misogyny, sex slavery, filicide, infanticide, all conveniantly explained away as being something else. It would surely be more productive to recognise that most of this is mythology reflecting the social mores of the individuals who recorded it at the time, and that as morality has evolved so too can the search for meaning and purpose.
Exactly. Every single verse of the bible sounds like a man of those times expressing his opinion on morality, warfare, family relationships, and any other topic. EVERY single verse.
Yep. And we can see a trajectory in the Bible. Especially with the arrival of Jesus on the scene. That trajectory we can carry forward in our time beyond even where the New Testament writers were at.
There's a guy named Gavin Ortlund at a site called Truth Unites who does these videos explaining away slavery, rape, genocide, and all kinds of reprehensible conduct. He's got about 62K subs and his commenters seem to love his excuses. Scary that people think that way.
@@k98killerHe is basic. A Wal-mart fleece throw and plain warm milk for believers who need a valid challenge to their group think reconciled. He doesn't ever make any thoughtful, educated, nuanced answers. He is a Sunday school teacher explaining things to people with the critical thinking skills of a 4 year old. He is a fanboy with just enough skill and insight to impress his own grandmother.
Hey Dan, I really appreciate you sharing this, video, I have been constantly looking for reading material on this subject to actually understand OT violence in and through the hands of God, the reasoning behind it etc, do can you suggest any books written on it please??
I have a question about God hardening Pharaoh's heart. There are instances where this is said, but there are instances where it says Pharaoh hardened his own heart. (See Exod. 8:15, 32; 9:34.) So what's going on here? I personally thought maybe God has influence on Pharaoh, but he's not coercing Pharaoh to be obstinate. This is probably an attempt at harmonizing verses that might very well be written by two, different individuals. I would appreciate an answer, if you so choose. Thank you for the videos you make.
Sometimes God is the one doing the hardening, sometimes Pharaoh is doing the hardening himself. They could be editorial changes or distinct literary layers, or the authors could just be attributing the influence to God in one place and to Pharaoh in another.
King James version:1 Samuel 15:3, Numbers 5:11-29, Numbers 31:17, Hosea 13:16, Psalms 137:9, Leviticus 20:9, Judges 11:30-40, Exodus 9:12, 2nd Kings 22:23-24. Are any of these verses softened in other translations?
It seems like there is a problem when apologists have to twist and contort and outright lie to explain so many times that their god was a genocidal, homicidal, violent bastard. Over and over and over and over and over the bible, the perfect word of god, shows, by a plain reading, that god is a hateful, uber-violent, murderous thug. You'd think, with a perfectly loving god, there would be, at least, less than dozens of times when god's violence has to be magically explained away.
"Ah, but you see, it is not bad if God commands it or is OK with it. Then it's good. Obviously." These people are frightening. (Also, there are 666 likes right now. Which means this comment is obviously written under the influence of Satan. Or Nero. Some dude. Whatever.) (Thank you.)
At the point around 3:50, if a woman was pregnant (either showing or not) and the man did suspect adultery, would the bitter waters ritual still be used, or would a different law/ritual come into play? And if the bitter waters ritual was what would be used, what would be the outcome?
The Bible is no argument either for or against atheism. We err by giving it that much authority. The Bible could be absolute and utter trash and that would be no argument at all against Zeus or Odin or the Unknown Athenian god or even the Flying Spaghetti monster. It would only be at most an argument against the omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity many assume is revealed in the biblical writings.
Unfortunately not often enough, by itself. Indoctrination and assumption are powerful tools. But sometimes, for some people, yes, just reading the Bible is enough to do it.
More examples that the god of the old testament is just the god of the Israelites and not all humanity. How he becomes the god of everyone in current Christianity still confuses me.
I don't have a good answer since I'm not a scholar, but my best guess would be cultural changes. And especially Paul, Paul had a big hand in it since he believed he was supposed to spread the word to the gentiles. And adding onto this, we see in psalm 82 that at one point, Israelites saw Adonai becoming the God over the whole world, no longer just Israel. I think this was because of the Babylonians invasion? But yeah, the most I can say is history and culture are complex and are constantly changing. So too does God throughout the bible as different beliefs and the broader culture affect how he's presented.
It seems to me that many “apologists”, don’t actually study these things. They read what others say and when it makes sense to them, (regardless of what the text says) they run with that answer. IMO - without verifying all things they’ve read.
Do they ever get tired of bare-faced lying?! I truly wonder what the motivation is. If you have to lie to defend an all-powerful being, what do you really think of that being? If you want to be known as an expert, you're undermining that by lying. I guess the answer is always power. If I can convince people I speak for god, then everything I say becomes god's word. The ultimate power trip. (Sorry, my pronouns are all over the place!) Thank you Dan for pointing out the lies, as you always do!
*Spirit of Yahweh in Jephthah* I keep pointing this out and how the sacrifice was rewarded (and confirmed in the Christian Bible). Dan is the first RU-vid presenter I’ve seen that has acknowledged Yahweh’s role. Judges 11:29-12:3
There are many atheists on RU-vid who established Yahweh's role in this agreement. But Dan is the first theist I've personally seen to admit this. Which is why so many atheists respect him. Regardless of his personal views, he, as the tagline states, presents data over dogma.
Could you elaborate on why you don't think a fetus is involved the "sota", I think you called it? Specifically to address the possibility that the reason a husband would suspect his wife here is "hey, you're pregnant... And I didn't think it's my child?" Pregnancy isn't a necessary component of the suspension of cheating, but it's certainly not unreasonable to have it be what causes the suspicion. And, assuming at least some occurrences of the practices of this ritual involved a pregnant woman, having were "thigh"/womb rot would amount to a miscarriage. To emphasize, I'm not assuming the woman either is or isn't pregnant here. It's an issue of the application of the ritual, recognizing the possibility that an unexpected pregnancy is what would cause the suspicion.
I think Dan was more saying that a pregnancy is not explicitly involved and said to be terminated. Essentially that that is not the series of events that the author appears to be trying to convey. We obviously can imagine situations in which a pregnancy could occur and cause suspicion and then wonder what the effect of this ritual would be on the pregnant woman. But that does not appear to be the explicit situation being thought of and described by the author of the text, so we can't say what exactly the author of the text thought would happen in that case, or what they thought should happen in that case.
Agree 100%. If it was ONLY to make the woman infertile, then one would think the marriage itself would also dissolve as the woman could no longer "fulfill" her duty. But if it is explicitly to miscarry an unwanted fetus, then the family could be spared some "shame" and continue to have offspring. Perhaps the text doesn't support this explicitly, but it makes logical sense.
Perhaps one day these apologists will sense the truth of the bible, that people of Israel recorded and wrote down their experiences and belief and whatever myths they came up to explain how things are. Almost all people who figured out writing do this - and we have many of these other societies' writings. We call these things myths, and we do not consider them to be true as most are quite fantastic. David, and others, pulls a sneaky move to explain away his bloodlust as legit and this too gets written down and becomes the new truth. See the DoubleSpeak there. This too our modern politicians do all the time. Remind me again why the bible needs to be singled out as extraordinarily true?
As a biblical scholar I read some time ago pointed out, David was a terrible person, and an even more terrible king. But for the biblical authors, he backed the right god. So he was semi-deified, and his copious crimes and bad acts were minimized, ignored, rationalized or justified. Sounds like any current US presidential candidate...? 🤔🤨
9:00 Regarding the bears mauling the children, the guy claims that "Scholars agree that...." and then goes on with the apologetic. One thing you haven't addressed here, Dan, is what scholars are actually saying that? Are they actually biblical scholars? Or are they professional apologists that he calls "biblical scholars"? I was recently looking up some random apologist (one that Bill Craig loves for some reason) and he went to school and got a Doctor of Ministry degree. So hey, he's got a doctorate, right? He's a biblical scholar, right? Interestingly, the same school actually has a PhD program, and it's a legitimate PhD program. If you look at the topics of the PhD theses (which are legitimate PhD theses deposited in Dissertation Abstracts, for example), they are legit scholarly topics. They AREN'T apologetics. The Doctor of Ministry degree is not where they do their scholarly study of the bible. It's professional apologetics.
@@christasimon9716 There's a difference there, though. Hovind's PhD is from a complete diploma mill, and it's not even a question. That's not even worth talking about. The Doctor of Ministry is not a diploma mill degree, it just...doesn't mean the same thing as a PhD (as opposed to the Dr of Ed)
I have heard all of these excuses for the abominations in the biblical text and, as you point out, none of the excuses are supported anywhere in the text.
So the basic problem here is that we have people trying to explain the Deuteronomistic text but they really don’t understand these three text Judges, 1&2 Samuel. Dan has really made and effort to bring some understanding within the text. Which is fine, but we need to look beyond the text, because it makes a difference. The first rule of looking beyond the text is don’t judge your ancestors. And some here might say they aren’t my ancestors. But alas they are, what we call civil it all begins in the East, not London. Whatever crazy stuff you think they were doing, they were doing crazier things BUT they created writing, accounting, governance, administration, diplomacy, geometry, early algebra, civil engineering, monumental engineering. We have rectilinear buildings 7000 years old. They made the desert come alive with food. And then it all came crashing down. In and around 1120- 1130 BCE the Egyptians found it too difficult to administer the Levant and left. We don’t know why this crisis occurred, but the beginning of the crisis is associated with the grass roots migration of peoples that appears to begin just south of the Carpatian Mtns and moves in the general direction of the SSE over about 100+ years. This collapse marks the beginning of a very violent period of the Iron Age. In the context of what is going on, almost like images emerging from the embers of a fire we have the Judges emerging from the foundational stories of the Bible. The stage however needs to be set, there war a ecclesia of people who took up the banner of the old Canaanite/Mesopotamian god ‘El (which just means god, but in this case ‘El, a most high god -Elyon is not being disputed by scholars so . .). The high god guys tangled and lost to the Egyptians a century earlier and now the Egyptians are gone. As the Egyptians are retracting the canaanites are running to the hills. In the East, Pandora’s box is wide open. Aram/Damas had in the prior century a bandit problem, ‘Apiru, and about this time the entire Aramean society seems to have decentralized into tribes that spread into Assyria, Babylon, S. Levant, Arabia. Assyria barely survives beating these guys back, with this warfare has changed, total annihilation is now on the menu. And from this chaos Isra’el has emerged. But what is Israel. When you have a situation like the LBAC, humans essentially become subsistence at all levels of society and civil administration ceases. People wonder why there is no Written Hebrew from the 10th and 11th century, but without scribes, who actually is going to right anything significant. The S. Levant wealth comes from trade and they need to get these routes open, and in order to do that you need agreements between trade points in the local geography. They are using ‘El, which when we say this we should immediately think of a priesthood that is assuming some sort of civil framework maintenance. So how does this work, the guys who make dyes on the coast can sell their products in Damas. The guys who graze on west Arabia and move their flocks to Tyre, or Askelon. So the wool can be spun and dyed. The guys who raise olives can make oil and sell it in Gaza or Damas, they guys who make wine can sell it before it turns to vinegar. The larger the network the higher the internal flow rate, the faster products move to market, the more wealth. This was about survival. What happens if a bunch of bad guys clamp down on trade, or plunder the traders. Then wealth is destroyed. People who wanted to have children, then have not the means to support them. Are you going to raise an army and kill others and steal their goods, are you going to sacrifice your children? So before you open Judges people need to imagine themselves at the late Bronze Age collapse, and then enter a polytheist world with survivors desperately struggling to organize around the priesthood of ‘El and trying to restore their own local temples, and just have families.
Good comment. You'll quickly run into issues when looking at these stories with a modern eye. I also generally think people haven't meditated enough on what a god would be like IF there was such a thing as a creater who is the governing force of the world. Some of the "brutality" in the bible, becomes a lot easier to understand when you look at the "brutality" of nature in and of itself.
If we don't judge our ancestors, we won't be able to improve our moral systems. It is because we judge our ancestors that we no longer consider it just and/or moral for men to own their wives as property, to keep human beings as slaves, to execute those who don't conform to your flavour of religious beliefs, to beat children as a form of discipline etc. We judge our ancestors . We learn from their mistakes and inferior moral systems. We improve and create a better society.
@@jaclo3112 We are all judged and damned, or not judged all. Think about this, I want you to imagine this your the first guy to start building you village in Eridu. There you are 1000 years later building a temple in gratitude to the swamp, you are now building a temple to the sky god in Uruk, a blessing for the trade routes that come in and out of your city, and then a while later the first smiths in Bad Tibera to make bronze, and there 600 years later you looking over the first scribe, and then the first geometrician, and then a while later you see the first traders to bring lapis lazuli, and then you are watching the trade go to Egypt, to Hattusi, then to Greece and Even India. And then one day you watched the entire system collapse, a wave , inexplicable that came from a far off place and barbarians roamed the land. The way we learn is by doing and making mistakes. If we fail to do, then no mistakes are made, we remain the lone man sitting next to his thatch hut, waiting for the season to end and returning to Samarrah. You and I would not be here, btw, discussing the morality of the past because that past never occurred. To get even to the point we can discuss legality and piety, 1,000,000s of things needed to transpire, misdeeds, primitive attitudes go along side the advancements. You cannot correct the sins of the fathers, only yours.
@Darisiabgal7573 we also learn by making a judgement on the sons of the fathers....and correcting it so we can do better. We have no option but to judge out ancestors if we want to improve society. Otherwise we would still be behaving like the traditional, uncivilised, barbaric christians and treating women as property, genociding indigenous people and keeping slaves.
I recognise that most Christians do not read their Old Testament often or thoroughly and do not care what it says. But those that do, like this apologist, consistently lie about the text. They excuse every bad thing and tbhey invent prophecies of Jesus by remving passages from context, mistranslation or both. Of what use is a religion which must be based upon and supported by lies?
Regarding Psalm 137, I love the whiplash when biblical inerrantists suddenly do a 180 and say that a psalm or passage from Ecclesiastes is just some person's opinion and not infallible Scripture.
I'm a bit conflicted with your reasoning to suggest that Numbers 5:11-21 refers to making a woman infertile. The euphemism of "thigh" is pretty clear throughout the texts to refer to reproductive organs, which I can see would lead to your conclusion, but if the woman IS pregnant, this would certainly abort the fetus, if the effects are as claimed. I also would imagine that it would be more egregious for a woman to carry another man's child, than for her to have committed adultery without the result of pregnancy. In addition, what is to become of the husband and wife? Of the family? If this is to spare the woman's life, one would think that would mean the husband considers his wife of still having value. That value would likely to include producing offspring to further the lineage.
These people will do any kind of mental gymnastics to hold onto the OT as something worthy to apply to your life! I broke up with the OT a few years ago.
Crazy that we’re still arguing over the justifications of horrific deeds done by ancient Jews. I think the Bible is great for many reasons, but making a life and religion out of defending its…goodness? righteousness? factuality? You name it, it’s all equally absurd when taken for what it plainly is.
My question is in regards to the enslavement "problem" in the Exodus story: Why did the biblical deity not intervene as Joseph used the famine to exploit the common Egyptians to the point that they lost everything and became slaves? While at the same time his people obtained the best of the land with property in it.
Still waiting for that god that is supposed to care about people and sparrows……..still waiting…….still waiting……oh well. This guy in the green T-shirt has also given up so just makes stuff up about a nasty god.
