Eminem

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:23 pm

Eminem writes:
I would not go to scholars who are strongly biased to one side of an issue for a non-partisan view.

Which leaves one wondering why you went to Elwell for information about Mesopotamian gods.

An article in the Encyclopedia Brittanica (whose editors are hardly bias towards Christianity) states there is no doubt that human sacrifice was practiced in Canaanite religion, as well as temple prostition by both male and female adherents. (Syrian and Palestinian Religions, page 969).

Never denied on either count. You specifically charged the adherents of Bhaal with human sacrifice, which the article in question doesn't deal with, because Bhaal worship in the Mesopotamian basin didn't include human sacrifice. And temple "prostitution," I repeat, was not prostitution as Judeo-Christian culture has come to understand the term.

The bibliography is quite extensive, but I'll post it if you wish. Suffice it to say, your above contention is not supported by the archaelogical research.

No thanks. None of it is relevant to the matter under discussion--specifically, statements you made concerning Bhaal worship. Again:

Bestiality. Idol-worshipping. Sorcery and divination, differing in type and intent from that practiced by the Jews. Ritual sacrifice. Temple prostitution.

None of this is factually accurate. As I stated above, going to Elwell or any other prejudiced provider for information about the perceived "enemy," even if that enemy has been gone for three thousand years or more, is rife with error, because these providers merely repeat or expand upon the hatred of previous generations who take their cue from the bible.

[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Mon Aug 13, 2001 8:01 pm

It is what is known as "Generational Rascism" It has been found in many books. Too name a few, The bible, History Books, some Encyclopedias, and many scriptures passed down through highly religious families. It is almost impossible to gain unbiased truth of religion these days, as such, it is unfair to judge what happend, and how it happened by reading from one source, in your case, Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Regardless of where your information is gathered, there is always some biased reasoning behind it. The Christians always say what they did was "The way of God". The Jews depict themselves as being the victim in every case. The Islamic people have a paranoid self indulgence, thinking every one is out to get there land, which cause them to Fight viciously to keep it, even if no threat exists. Lastly, The Atheist belief always find fault in other religions, yet dey it (Aside for a few people). So, it doesn't matter of your source. The only true way to find unbiased opinions and history is too consult those not involved in the belief structure.

Nippy · Post by **Nippy** » Tue Aug 14, 2001 2:12 am

Eminem, I have two quotes for you, written by YOU.

Now this is where Christianity and Atheism irrevocably part company. A true Christian would never approve of murder or genocide because such crimes contradict the core principles of the New Testament, whereas a true atheist is bereft of any sense of right or wrong, good and evil, and can only shrug his shoulders at the holocaust, and pronounce it the triumph of the strong over the weak.

"You shall annihilate them as the Lord your God commanded you, so that they may not teach you to imitate all the abominable things they have done for their gods and so cause you to sin against the Lord you God."

You yourself have said that Hitlers cruisade to destroy the Jews would be totally against Christian ethics? Then how can you explain Gods 'orders' to annihilate a whole group of people. In my humble opinion these two quotes belie your viewpoint on the whole issue of ethics of a Christian. Can you explain how the 'compassionate' God ordered the destruction of these people? This, IMO is against the morality of humans and completely destroys your argument that atheists are morally 'wrong'. Granted that is a quote from an outside source, however, I still consider it to have come from the horses mouth as it were.

I await your counterpoint Eminem...

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Tue Aug 14, 2001 8:14 am

I was just wondering, fable, what you think about the Bible. Secondary sources aside, I think our discussion is heading towards respective beliefs concerning the historical reliability of the Old Testament (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Nippy · Post by **Nippy** » Tue Aug 14, 2001 8:43 am

@ Eminem, I apologise for seeming pushy and rude but would you answer my point to you? Have you read it? Please do.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Aug 14, 2001 9:07 am

Originally posted by EMINEM:
I was just wondering, fable, what you think about the Bible. Secondary sources aside, I think our discussion is heading towards respective beliefs concerning the historical reliability of the Old Testament (please correct me if I'm wrong).

I don't regard the OT as presenting an historical factual account, no. It *is* historical in the sense that it provides the edited (by latterday rabbis, unfortunately) archive of a culture's own ancient beliefs and wisdom.

Surely my opinion on this was obvious, @Eminem? If I held that everything in the OT was accurate as stated (even to the biblical error that rabbits were cloven-hooved animals), I would simply repeat it verbatim, and never consider whether other societies were truly stupid enough to worship the figures they themselves made out stone, wood, or metal--among other matters.

Should I assume you believe the bible (any translation) to be the inspired Word of God in every detail? And if so, to what sources do you go for the interpretation of any given passages that might be problematic when treated literally?

[ 08-14-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Tue Aug 14, 2001 9:43 am

Heres what Fable is asking...

Are you Fundimentilist, or Literalist?

That could sway the conversation either way. But, by the way you going, it's sounds like your Fundimentalist, studying OT, which is odd, because the OT is what the Literalists study...

Hmm...

Contradictions, anyone?

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Tue Aug 14, 2001 11:24 am

Nippy, I did read your post and have considered a response, but please continue to be patient as I'm occupied on three fronts right now.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Tue Aug 14, 2001 1:41 pm

Three? I count one. Fables.

Alienbob · Post by **Alienbob** » Tue Aug 14, 2001 1:51 pm

well, well, well....this looks interesting.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Tue Aug 14, 2001 1:58 pm

I don't think you want to get involved. It's rather messy... Well, I guess thats why Fable's cleaning the floor...

Alienbob · Post by **Alienbob** » Tue Aug 14, 2001 2:01 pm

yes, i think for now i shall declare neutrality in this matter.

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Tue Aug 14, 2001 2:08 pm

Aegis -

I don't think you want to get involved. It's rather messy... Well, I guess thats why Fable's cleaning the floor...

Actually, you may find, that since Fables bar of 3d Pancakes and Spam has now been closed by the environmental health authority, he now has a job in Gwally's cosmic bar. It is currently closing time and Fable is earning his coins...

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Tue Aug 14, 2001 2:11 pm

Not quite what I was getting at, Yshaina. I meant cleaning the floor with Eminem.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Tue Aug 14, 2001 4:03 pm

Originally posted by Aegis:
Three? I count one. Fables.

There's fable with his questions regarding Bhaalism, youself with Atheism, and Nippy with contradictions concerning the love and justice of God. That makes three fronts, not one. Please learn how to count.

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Tue Aug 14, 2001 7:43 pm

Please learn to read. I dropped my front, because debateing with you is like debating with a brick wall. So fine, two fronts.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Tue Aug 14, 2001 9:44 pm

Originally posted by fable:

Surely my opinion on this was obvious, @Eminem? If I held that everything in the OT was accurate as stated (even to the biblical error that rabbits were cloven-hooved animals), I would simply repeat it verbatim, and never consider whether other societies were truly stupid enough to worship the figures they themselves made out stone, wood, or metal--among other matters.

Should I assume you believe the bible (any translation) to be the inspired Word of God in every detail? And if so, to what sources do you go for the interpretation of any given passages that might be problematic when treated literally?

[ 08-14-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Do I believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God? Absolutely. Do I believe the Bible to be literally true in every detail? That depends on the context. The Bible is an amalgam of historical narrative, poetry, parable, and prophecy, rules and regulations, law and doctrine. Some parts are meant to be taken literally, others are not. The challenge is in knowing the difference, but I don't think Biblical interpretation should come down to the either/or polemic of literalism versus non-literalism. Its more complicated than that.
Let me give you an example. When Jesus taught that you should gouge out your eyeball when tempted to lust after a woman (Matthew 5:28), I understand he was using hyperbole to get his point across that sin must be dealt with drastically. To interpret this literally would mean he was advocating self-mutilation, which I serious doubt since it violates 1 Corinthians 6:19. In Psalm 51, after confessing his adulterous affair with Bathsheba to Nathan, David wrote that he "was sinful from the time my mother conceived me." Now I don't take this to be an exposition on original sin (as some Catholic do), but simply his way of expressing the depth of his unrighteousness and guilt using the same figure of speech.
On the other hand, when Scripture teaches that when Joshua's army blew the rams horns and gave a loud shout, the walls of Jericho collapsed and the Israelites charged in and destroyed every living thing in the city (Joshua 6:20), I don't interpret this event figuratively. I believe it actually happened through the intervention of God in human affairs. Also, when Scripture teaches that a man who curses his father or mother must be put to death, I take this commandment literally because it is found in Leviticus, a book of laws and regulations, not poetry. The fact that it is repeated in four other books tells me that God was serious about this commandment, and wanted to make it abundantly clear to his people.

Now about those passages that are difficult to interpret literally... I don't remember encountering any. If you would provide some examples, I'll do my best to clarify them. The "error" you raised above regarding rabbits, however, is in itself an error. Nowhere in the Bible are rabbits described as cloven-hooved. On the contrary, "The rabbit... does not have a split hoof; therefore it is unclean for you." (Leviticus 11:6 and Deuteronomy 14:7)

[ 08-14-2001: Message edited by: EMINEM ]

[ 08-14-2001: Message edited by: EMINEM ]

average joe · Post by **average joe** » Tue Aug 14, 2001 10:35 pm

Hm...better judgment warns me to not poke my nose in this raging hornets nest (or seemingly soon to be raging). But, unfortunately, i play the fool more often than not. Seeing as i've only read this last page, and therefore have no right to get involved in this discussion (if you can call it that), i'll just say one thing. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of the one God. I believe that He died faultless on a cross for my sins, and that He rose back to life on the third day. And He IS my Savior and the Love of my life. Do i believe this because some infallible old book has proven this to me...no. Do i believe this because it has been pushed on my by family or friends...if you knew me you'd know that is ridiculous. Do i believe this because i need to know there is something bigger out there so i can feel secure...no. I believe and place my faith in Christ because i feel His presence in my life. I'll make mistakes, but trusting in Him is the one thing i've done right in my life. Sorry, if you think this has nothing to do with the topic and shouldn't have been posted. At least i'm kinda sorry.

By the way** I've learned (maybe should say "am learning") to respect other people for who and what they are. Since beliefs are part of what make up who you are, i'll do my best to respect the beliefs of others, though i might not agree. But am i biased towards my belief? You bet. I'd die for my faith.

[ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: average joe ]

Alienbob · Post by **Alienbob** » Wed Aug 15, 2001 1:36 am

i know i said i would stay neutral but after reading this thread i have decide to reconsider. this whole argument or most of it anyway has been about whether or not worshipers of baal were right or wrong. i do not think that was the initial point of the discusion. so to get things back on track i thought i would ask a question: if i believe that there is no god and that when i die there will be no afterlife, i will just decompose and cease to exist, than what is the reason for ever living at all? what was the point of my short meaningless life?

@joe- right on.

Nippy · Post by **Nippy** » Wed Aug 15, 2001 1:47 am

Originally posted by Alienbob:
If I believe that there is no god and that when I die there will be no afterlife, I will just decompose and cease to exist, than what is the reason for ever living at all? what was the point of my short meaningless life?

My answer to this (and I know it is simple but it is to further discussion) is that human beings were 'placed' on the Earth, created, evolved to copulate and produce offspring. The main point of a species is not for one persons to survive but the species to survive.