Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pick and Choose Fundamentalism
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 7 of 384 (430311)
10-24-2007 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by dwise1
10-24-2007 11:59 AM


dwise1 writes:
That was the explanation that had been given by a former fundamentalist (I'm pretty sure he was).
That explanation sounds reasonable, but I think the problem goes deeper than that.
I was raised and grew up fundamentalist. I attended bible studies twice a week. Once a week, I went to a very large church for worship that was intended for youths that lasted usually 2 to 3 hours. This is not to mention the daily reading of the bible and the almost daily lecture about biblical stuff by my parents. This went on for about 15 or so years. And never once did the moral issue of the extermination of the Canaanites came up.
Now, lets look at the following passages.
Joshua 6: 20-21
quote:
20 When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it”men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.
The word extermination doesn't even begin to describe accurately what happenned to the people of Jericho.
In a city, we have to assume that there are both old and young men. We have to assume that there are both old and young women. And we have to assume that there are children, some of them as young as a few months to a few weeks old.
Would an all loving god command a person to brutally murder hundreds of little infants?
I first heard this question when I was about 18 when I finally stepped out into the real world. In all the years that I attended lectures after lectures about the bible, never once did I hear anything to answer this question. So, I did what people like Buzsaw, Nem_Jug, Phat, Gen, etc. are doing right now. I made up excuses for the murder of little infants. I insisted that the people of Jericho were sinners.
But as time went by, I eventually was forced to look closer at the word "sinners". What on earth can a 1 year old do to deserve death? What about those 2 months old? What about those pregnant women? Now, I have always been someone that considers the fetus a fully human being. I still consider the fetus a human being. I couldn't answer those questions without admitting for once that the god described in the bible is anything but an all loving god. In fact, this god seems to lack the most basic of morals.
I guess the point of this post is ignoring certain parts of the bible at will is not just the only problem. It's ignoring the context and the moral/immoral implications of the very god that christianity claims to be an all loving, all moral god.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by dwise1, posted 10-24-2007 11:59 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by bluescat48, posted 10-24-2007 1:57 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 9 by Brian, posted 10-24-2007 2:19 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 10 by dwise1, posted 10-24-2007 3:41 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 22 by ramoss, posted 10-26-2007 9:16 AM Taz has replied
 Message 23 by GDR, posted 10-26-2007 11:23 AM Taz has replied
 Message 27 by iceage, posted 10-26-2007 2:08 PM Taz has replied
 Message 98 by imageinvisible, posted 12-19-2007 4:39 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 24 of 384 (430623)
10-26-2007 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by ramoss
10-26-2007 9:16 AM


ramoss writes:
That explanation made sense to me.
You missed my point.
Whether it was exaggerated or not, the very same story is used today by christians everywhere to teach morals to their children. They don't teach it as an exaggerated myth. They teach it as an actually inerrant word of god. This is why everytime I ask christians on this board to explain to me why the story is moral, instead of saying "it was exaggerated", people like phat, gen, nem_jug, buzsaw, riverrat, etc. always say something like "they were sinful and deserved death". In fact, in chat one time phat actually said straight to my face "the people of jericho were given 40 years to repent..."
It's not the story itself that I have a problem with. I treat it as just another myth like the Illiad or Cortez's version of his conquest of Mexico. What I have a problem with is christians actually read the story literally and teach their children that according to the literal reading of the story god was just and the people of Jericho deserved what was coming to them.
Um, what about those 1 year olds who could barely walk? What about the unborn children and pregnant women? All them pro-life folks out there have been trying to make a case for the human status of a fetus (I believe the fetus IS a fully human being). What about those unborn children?
Here is a prophecy for the buzsaw fans. I prophecize that if any christian who's username I mentioned above responds to me here about this issue, he will use the typical excuses to justify horrendous murderous acts told in the story. Trust me, I went through the same phase. Tried everything I could and gave any excuse I could think of to justfiy mass murder and rape. I still don't know what happenned to my conscience during that period of time.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ramoss, posted 10-26-2007 9:16 AM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by GDR, posted 10-26-2007 2:03 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 25 of 384 (430628)
10-26-2007 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by GDR
10-26-2007 11:23 AM


GDR writes:
If the perpetrators of the crusades or the inquisition were to record their history I'm sure they would say that God justified their actions.
I wonder if the people I mentioned in my previous post would actually try to make excuses for what the crusaders did to ALL the inhabitants of Jerusalem in the first crusade.
It doesn't make the account of what happened incorrect, but then I'm not a literalist.
I'm glad you're not a literalist. In other words, in the end your conscience triumphed over your interpretation of the text. Unfortunately, this is not the case for many, if not most, christians out there.
Coincidently, my ethics professor (Hebrew Scholar) back when I was in college told us once that he thought there must have been some kind of miscommunication between god and the Israelites there. He said this in one of our weekly bible debates. Anyway, this certainly stirred up the christian students (myself included). You wouldn't believe the excuses we made that night just to maintain that all of the bible was literally true and that god was always just. Kind of embarrassing (on my part at least) if you ask me now.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by GDR, posted 10-26-2007 11:23 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by GDR, posted 10-26-2007 2:11 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 29 of 384 (430643)
10-26-2007 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by GDR
10-26-2007 2:03 PM


GDR writes:
I don't see why it is necessary to treat it as a myth though.
Me atheist. Me moral.
As far as being directed by God to kill everyone I would suggest, as I said, that them saying that God endorsed what they were doing justified their actions. It doesn't mean that they actually had God's approval.
Ok, so do you agree with me that people shouldn't teach this story to their children literally and claim it to be a moral example?

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by GDR, posted 10-26-2007 2:03 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by GDR, posted 10-26-2007 2:20 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 30 of 384 (430644)
10-26-2007 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by GDR
10-26-2007 2:11 PM


GDR writes:
Actually, as near as I can tell literalism is a view held by a minority of Christians who are primarily North American.
And yet this supposed minority group is somehow taking over America.
Sorry, I've never bought into this "silent minority" claim. The fact that a literalist like Bush could get into office by getting the fundamentalists to organize whole bus tours to the voting places should tell us something about their numbers.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by GDR, posted 10-26-2007 2:11 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by GDR, posted 10-26-2007 2:34 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 31 of 384 (430645)
10-26-2007 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by iceage
10-26-2007 2:08 PM


Re: God Ordained Killing
Iceage, I'd like to see you talk it out with nem_jug, gen, phat, buzsaw, and riverrat. I'm not the person you should be arguing with. All of these guys have at one point tried to tell me that what happenned to Jericho was just because god was always just and those people deserved what was coming to them.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by iceage, posted 10-26-2007 2:08 PM iceage has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 33 of 384 (430648)
10-26-2007 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by GDR
10-26-2007 2:20 PM


Then it's not me you should be arguing with.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by GDR, posted 10-26-2007 2:20 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by GDR, posted 10-26-2007 3:43 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 35 of 384 (430652)
10-26-2007 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by GDR
10-26-2007 2:34 PM


Then let me ask you this question. How come you never show up when my head explodes from trying to explain to nem_jug or buzsaw or riverrat why reading the story of jericho and trying to say that god was just to kill all those people doesn't make any sense?
I've said this in the past and I'll say it again. Not telling someone he's wrong is another way of agreeing with him. Everytime people like buzsaw and nem_jug go on a rampage with their excuses for the story of jericho, you of all people should be right there telling them not to read it literally and try to rationalize it. Instead, it's always been myself and other atheists who have been the ones to tell these people it's wrong to try to justify genocide and rape.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by GDR, posted 10-26-2007 2:34 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by GDR, posted 10-26-2007 3:39 PM Taz has replied
 Message 139 by Hill Billy, posted 07-05-2009 6:47 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 40 of 384 (430671)
10-26-2007 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by GDR
10-26-2007 3:43 PM


GDR writes:
Except that it seems that you have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Because when you decided, quite rightly in my view, that God did not say that everyone should die you came to the conclusion that it was all a myth. Then it seems that if the Jericho story was a fabrication then so was the whole Bible.
Well, it wasn't really the determining factor for my atheism. It was something else... long story.
But in short, denying the whole deity thing has made me a much better person now. In fact, being an atheist makes me want to be yet a better person. It's really something that I feel religion could never do for me. Instead of caring for my fellow men (and women) because some god supposedly told me so, I've found better reasons to care. If there really is a god and if he really is as all loving as people claim him to be, I highly doubt he'll judge me and condemn me to hell simply because I refuse continue to be the hating bigot I used to be.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by GDR, posted 10-26-2007 3:43 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by GDR, posted 10-26-2007 9:24 PM Taz has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 42 of 384 (430673)
10-26-2007 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by GDR
10-26-2007 3:39 PM


GDR writes:
Frankly I don't read all the threads. I have made this point on some threads but it becomes very time consuming and frankly I don't always have the time.
I guess I should have been more general.
It really seems to me that everytime this issue comes up it's always us atheists who are trying to tell the christian side that it's immoral to run a sword through a 1 year old no matter how you look at it. It's not just that. It's also other issues such as gay rights and whatnot. I rarely ever see professing christians standing up for human rights. This is why I don't believe there is such a thing as a silent majority. The evidence simply doesn't exist for the existence of the silent majority.
But anyway, if next time one of these people decide to go on a rampage and claiming acts of genocide was on god's order, would you come and tell him not to read it literally if I somehow could bring your attention to it?

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by GDR, posted 10-26-2007 3:39 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by GDR, posted 10-26-2007 9:45 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 58 of 384 (430744)
10-27-2007 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by GDR
10-26-2007 9:45 PM


GDR writes:
Any form of racism is anti-Christian. Christians played a leading role in the abolition of slavery. How about Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandella.
While it is true that the people you mentioned were christians and also played a major role in the abolition of slavery and whatnot, I would argue that the concept of human rights did not come from their christian beliefs. In fact, the southern slave owners had the high grounds when it came to biblical support for owning slaves.
The same thing with racism. It was supreme court justice Warren that said the following:
quote:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Again, when the issue of human rights in regard to race wasn't so obvious, the racists had the high grounds in the debate. When it came to women suffrage, the sexists had the high grounds when it came to biblical support.
The same damn thing is happening right now in regard to gay rights. It's bleedingly obvious to us atheists that gay people shouldn't be treated as second class citizens, and yet the christian side is doing everything they can to stop social progress in this sense.
The idea of human rights didn't spawn from religion. It spawned from human reason. Christianity existed for 2,000 years with little progress in regard to human rights. This fact alone should tell you that the very idea of human right isn't part of the christian tradition.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by GDR, posted 10-26-2007 9:45 PM GDR has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 76 of 384 (430862)
10-27-2007 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Elhardt
10-27-2007 11:06 PM


Re: Never condemn others on a charge you do not understand yourself
So, how is this not pick and choose fundamentalism or are you agreeing with the premise?

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Elhardt, posted 10-27-2007 11:06 PM Elhardt has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 79 of 384 (436798)
11-27-2007 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by SGT Snorkel
11-27-2007 3:16 PM


Re: My thoughts on fundamentalism
There's a reason why it is always better to answer someone in a complete sentence rather than one word answers. Every language in the world operates almost entirely on context. Sure, you can find dozens of different meanings to each word if you look at them seperately, but I'm pretty sure you can narrow your choices down to 1 or 2 after you've read the whole sentence or the whole paragraph.
For example, I'm pretty sure Joshua 6:20-21
quote:
20 When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it”men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.
can't be interpreted as...
quote:
And the Israelites invite the people of Jericho, men and women, young and old, out for some icecream.
As a challenge, could you tell us if there is any other possible way we can interpret this little passage in Joshua other than the bleedingly obvious interpretation of it, that every man, woman, and child in the city of Jericho was slaughtered upon the command of the all loving christian god?

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by SGT Snorkel, posted 11-27-2007 3:16 PM SGT Snorkel has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by ringo, posted 11-27-2007 5:11 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 89 of 384 (436894)
11-27-2007 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by ringo
11-27-2007 5:11 PM


Re: My thoughts on fundamentalism
It's pick and choose fundamentalism because even though they argue that those people deserved to be slaughtered they absolutely refuse to be more specific.
I've asked this question many times and have so far gotten absolutely no answer from any fundy. Among the people that got killed in Jericho were infants, toddlers, and pregnant women. Were those 2 year olds sinful and therefore deserved to be slaughtered as well?
How is this not pick and choose fundamentalism when they absolutely refuse to discuss this at a more individual level?

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by ringo, posted 11-27-2007 5:11 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by ringo, posted 11-28-2007 12:32 AM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 93 of 384 (436969)
11-28-2007 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by ringo
11-28-2007 12:32 AM


Re: My thoughts on fundamentalism
You're not listening to what I'm saying.
I agree that they believe slaughtering an entire city is a-ok if god commanded it. It's pick and choose when it comes to talking about the event on an individual level. When a fundies describes the killing of everyone in the city, they always describe it as god commanding the Israelites to kill all the sinners. In fact, the fundies go as far as saying everyone in the city was a sinner.
When we get to a more specific level, were the infants and toddlers sinners and deserved death as well? Picking and choosing came in when the fundies get to pick which victims to talk about and which victims to ignore. It's picking the lighter side of the story/event (the killing of all the sinners) and ignoring the darker side of the story/event (killing of innocent infants and toddlers).
Given that it a different kind of picking and choosing from what the OP intended, but it's still picking and choosing fundamentalism. They get to pick and choose who among the victims to talk about and who to ignore completely.

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by ringo, posted 11-28-2007 12:32 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by ringo, posted 11-28-2007 11:49 AM Taz has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024