SarahB and Psalm 137:8-9

[lilpixieofterror]

Seriously?

Yeah, anybody can do a google search, but did you actually read the links because I wasn't aware that merely citing verses actually means you think everything in those verses applies to everybody, for all times.

[Otter]

Yeah, anybody can do a google search, but did you actually read the links because I wasn't aware that merely citing verses actually means you think everything in those verses applies to everybody, for all times.

I've done literally years of study on this stuff. Since you denied that the Shema serves as a Jewish creed, I thought we'd start simply.

Would you like me to give you a few pages of references? I'm up for it.

[showmeproof]

Referencing wikipedia is generally seen as not being engaged in serious research here.

Speaking of research, do you care to address my question/challenge in post 82?

[lilpixieofterror]

I understand. But as I stated, I offered it not knowing how deeply she'd like to go: so far she's been really vague about her sources for claims about the ancient world. Is the Jewish Encyclopedia allowed to stand as engaged research on a question of Jewish creeds?

And that therefore means they believe that the verses you cited should be taken to their woodlen literal extreme and apply to everybody to wage war upon this group of people, for all times because...

[lilpixieofterror]

I've done literally years of study on this stuff.

And yet you seem to want to take the wooden literal approach to the Bible. Which usually means that the person(s) involved don't have a clue what they are talking about and never actually researched it.

Since you denied that the Shema serves as a Jewish creed, I thought we'd start simply.

You really have a hard time with reading comprehension, don't you? I didn't say that at all, but it seems strawmen is another one of your tricks, here is what I really said:

That's nice and that still doesn't prove that the verses you quoted are to be taken to wooden literal extreme and are valid today.

If you are not going to read what I said, then don't bother to respond back, ok?

Would you like me to give you a few pages of references? I'm up for it.

I'm sorry, but how does that imply that a war should be engaged against those people, for all times?

[Otter]

And that therefore means they believe that the verses you cited should be taken to their woodlen literal extreme and apply to everybody to wage war upon this group of people, for all times because...

I think you misunderstand what I've been arguing: I'm not a Christian (thank God, if any). It's Christians who have canonized the Bible and who have applied phrases to it like, "God's word," and described it in terms like "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but God's word abides forever." As I've said repeatedly, I am perfectly capable of reading the verses in an ancient context (where, as I have argued, they were not merely rhetorical tropes but had a strong meaning). We may disagree whether the commands in Deuteronomy are immoral or not: I think they are, and you seem to disagree with me.

If you canonize an ancient text, and
If that text is immoral, you therefore
have canonized an immoral text.

It's not rocket science.

I'm merely defending my point of view on that.

[lilpixieofterror]

I think you misunderstand what I've been arguing:

I understand it just fine, the problem is, your arguments are not very strong and show that oh so typical black/white, either/or thinking style I find oh so common among fundies all breeds.

I'm not a Christian (thank God, if any). It's Christians who have canonized the Bible and who have applied phrases to it like, "God's word," and described it in terms like "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but God's word abides forever." As I've said repeatedly, I am perfectly capable of reading the verses in an ancient context (where, as I have argued, they were not merely rhetorical tropes but had a strong meaning). We may disagree whether the commands in Deuteronomy are immoral or not: I think they are, and you seem to disagree with me.

And again, that means that everything in the Bible should be taken to wooden literal extreme and that every word of the Bible applies to all people, for all time because of what? Oh that's right, you don't have an answer to that question, you just repeat yourself again without addressing a word I said. See what I mean about your wooden literalism? Ouch, the Bible says that God's word doesn't pass away, so what? That means that every word of the Bible applies to me living, in the 21st century because of what? Do you have an answer to this question yet or do you think spitting up random Bible verses, without thinking or without context (this includes concepts such as ancient exaggeration) works? I know lots of fundies do that, but no reasonable person does that.

If you canonize an ancient text, and
If that text is immoral, you therefore
have canonized an immoral text.

You are assuming that it is immoral to wage war against an enemy that wants to kill you and does things to further this goal. I have told you this answer before, but you seem to ignore it, yet again, and just go on merry little way, repeating yourself without addressing points brought up.

It's not rocket science.

For you it seems to be. You have not proved that it is immoral, you have asserted it. You have not proved that the verse you cited applies to all people, for all times, even things living 3,000 years ago. You have not even understood what the most likely point of the Jewish prayers are to start with. I somehow doubt that they are reminding themselves to wage a war with a group that hasn't been in existence for thousands of years, but rather, reminding themselves of their roots and where they came from. Really, do you take other books and sayings to this sort of wooden literal extreme?

I'm merely defending my point of view on that.

And I have refuted your point of view and brought forth evidence that you can't seem to refute. Why do you think repeating yourself is an argument? Why is the cited text immoral? Why is it immoral to wage war on a group that wishes you dead and does things to further along this goal? Why do those verses apply to people living 3,000 years later? How does the Jews citing those verses (among many other verses, I might add) somehow prove it should be a command, for all times, that applies to everybody? Can you answer these questions yet?

[Otter]

I

And again, that means that everything in the Bible should be taken to wooden literal extreme and that every word of the Bible applies to all people, for all time because of what? Oh that's right, you don't have an answer to that question, you just repeat yourself again without addressing a word I said.

I addressed that above.

I argued that insofar as Christians accept such a text as the Word of God, I would want to know that in fact they do NOT take it as binding in some way.

[showmeproof]

[QUOTE=lilpixieofterror;3375497]

So you seriously do not think that the Canninates and the other people in that area practiced child surfaces? Pretty funny SMP

.

No, I absolutely think that it was part of the religious repertoire. But the context of when/how it was performed is relevant...from our archaeological sources at that time period (not later Phoencian Carthage) it was performed much like it is depicted in 2 Kings 3:27; i.e. under siege. In support of this there are reliefs in Egypt depicting children being sacrificed while under siege, and also the Ugaritic text where Baal is called upon for protection and a first born is offered.

Which you and I both know SMP, was condemned and is often cited as one of the reasons that they were invaded and conquered... but you already know this, don't you?

When was this practiced and when was it condemned? It is certainly condemned early on in the chapters that make up the bible as we have it today, but these texts are late. You have late texts condemning a practice that was a relevant part of Israelite ritual up to the end of the monarchy. You can use special pleading that the practice 'must have been condemned earlier', but you cannot support it.

In Jewish tradition Abraham is blessed because "he did not withhold his son." OT scholars argue that the Law of the Firstborn didn't originally have clause that firstborn sons are to be redeemed. Plus you have Ezekiel 20:25 "Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live. I defiled them through their very gifts, in their offering up all their firstborn, in order that I might horrify them, so that they might know that I am the Lord." Not to mention Isaiah 30 where Yahweh is the recipient and stoker of the fire of the Topeth (for the King of Assyria) where the Israelites "shall have a song as in the night when a holy festival is kept; and gladness of heart, as when one sets out to the sound of flute to go to the mountain of the Lord." Topeth is a very specific cultic term for the mlk sacrifice (what you know as child sacrifice).

don't dear heart, but hey, you and I both know that one of the common reasons that Israel was cited as being invaded and conquered was, among other things, their practices of child sacrifice. I guess you haven't read Isaiah and Jeremiah? Very cute SMP, but try again and thus time, I want to see your support for your assertion that the Bible 'condones child sacrifice'.

Yes, the practice became condemned and fell out of favor. You can hide behind special pleading that the condemnation was early. You do recall that Jesus is the supposed son of God and he was sacrificed...correct? The whole premise of salvation is predicated upon human sacrifice.

[Otter]

And I have refuted your point of view and brought forth evidence that you can't seem to refute.

I haven't seen one particle of evidence except your assertion that the text isn't to be taken as binding on you now. You've generalized (in some cases falsely, and never citing any authorities) about the ANE context. You've misspoken on both the texts and contexts of the Old Testament.

No, I'm not wearing that hair-shirt you weave so endlessly.

[lilpixieofterror]

No, I absolutely think that it was part of the religious repertoire. But the context of when/how it was performed is relevant...from our archaeological sources at that time period (not later Phoencian Carthage) it was performed much like it is depicted in 2 Kings 3:27; i.e. under siege. In support of this there are reliefs in Egypt depicting children being sacrificed while under siege, and also the Ugaritic text where Baal is called upon for protection and a first born is offered.

So we have established that sacrificing your children was indeed a practice of the era. Do you deny that?

When was this practiced and when was it condemned? It is certainly condemned early on in the chapters that make up the bible as we have it today, but these texts are late. You have late texts condemning a practice that was a relevant part of Israelite ritual up to the end of the monarchy. You can use special pleading that the practice 'must have been condemned earlier', but you cannot support it.

In Jewish tradition Abraham is blessed because "he did not withhold his son." OT scholars argue that the Law of the Firstborn didn't originally have clause that firstborn sons are to be redeemed. Plus you have Ezekiel 20:25 "Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live. I defiled them through their very gifts, in their offering up all their firstborn, in order that I might horrify them, so that they might know that I am the Lord."

So the answer is that you can't prove your assertion, but it must be in there and you'll do any sort of reaching you can come up with to make your argument work. Nice, but you said it was in the Bible. Can't find it eh? It's ok, I know you couldn't and now you're trying to make your assertions stick. Sorry SMP, but it is your job to show that it wasn't and it seems you really can't beyond saying that it was 'added in' later.

Yes, the practice became condemned and fell out of favor. You can hide behind special pleading that the condemnation was early. You do recall that Jesus is the supposed son of God and he was sacrificed...correct? The whole premise of salvation is predicated upon human sacrifice.

First off, you have asserted it, but thus far... can't really show it, can you? Second, you really might want to educate yourself on the doctrine of salvation because:

1. Jesus wasn't a child.
2. Jesus was also God, in the flesh.
3. Jesus willing died, on the cross, for the sins of humanity.
4. Jesus rose again.

One is killing other for your sake, the other one is laying your life down for the sake of others. Night and day, my friend.

[lilpixieofterror]

I haven't seen one particle of evidence except your assertion that the text isn't to be taken as binding on you now.

An assertion Otter? So you really think that Christians have believed that every verse in the Bible... should be taken to wooden literal extreme and applies to everybody? Wow... I don't even think most fundies are that extreme.

You've generalized (in some cases falsely, and never citing any authorities) about the ANE context.

Sure it's 'falsely' because you can't refute it. What, you were unaware of this stuff? Funny how other people went and told you the same thing I said, I guess they are just making up stuff too?

You've misspoken on both the texts and contexts of the Old Testament.

Show it, bet you can't.

No, I'm not wearing that hair-shirt you weave so endlessly.

Anything to help out your self esteem, eh? Well, when you can show these assertions of yours are true, come back and try again, ok?

[Otter]

Sure it's 'falsely' because you can't refute it. What, you were unaware of this stuff? Funny how other people went and told you the same thing I said, I guess they are just making up stuff too?

Who?

[Otter]

Show it, bet you can't.

Here, in a discussion of the Shema:

Your point is what? Deuteronomy is more of a summery book/historical book and the laws of the Jewish religion is mostly covered in Exodus and Leviticus. So you're argument is that since it says X, in Y book it is a 'creed of Judaism'? Wow... if that is it, you are even dumber than I thought because you are aware that shifts in style and how literal the text should be taken were not as well defined as they are in modern times, right?

Just a recent example...

[lilpixieofterror]

I addressed that above.

If you mean, "WAAA!!! I'm right and you're wrong!" I guess you have 'addressed the above' in your own mind, but not in anybody else’s...

I argued that insofar as Christians accept such a text as the Word of God, I would want to know that in fact they do NOT take it as binding in some way.

So you need Christians telling you that not every word of the Bible should be taken to wooden literal extremes that you want to take it to? Wow, you're a riot and I thought Jorge was bad and I guess the fact I'm a Christian telling you that I don't take the Bible to a wooden literal extreme you do is not enough? Perhaps you can talk to Jim, Rogue, JP Holding, Dee Dee Warren, Raphael, or APNick so they can tell you the same thing I am telling you right now? In fact, I think a better challenge would be for you to produce Christians that seriously believe that utterances of a war against people that are no longer around apply to them today or that every single word of the Bible, applies to use today. I know of no serious Christian scholar that says that.