Well, the consequences are pretty apparent, if I chop off both of my legs I would have a slight problem to walk. But where exactly does god forbid mutilating/maltreating our bodies?
With A Heavy Heart, I Say This to Atheists and Christians
- Thread starter §outh§tar
- Start date
David F. said:
1) In other words your population figures are contrived to fit your interpretation.
2) You have no population figures to back your claim.
3) Your analogy is painfully naieve, akin to saying if I go to Jamestown and it is heavily populated, that must mean it was heavily populated 400 years ago. It is rather foolish to say because it is a small town today, it was a small town over 2000 years ago. A perfect example is the settlement of Megiddo which is no more today, but thrived during the Persian empire.
4) It is shamefully dishonest to insist that not even Josephus knew of this atrocity if it ever happened when you can't even provide any figures whatsoever to corroborate your tale.
Next time you want to make such dishonest claims, at LEAST have the courtesy to put some numbers on the table. You have only convinced me that you are prepared to twist historical information to fit your eisegesis without the least bit of factual support. I'll get to your other post on the weekend.
mis-t-highs said:
I STRONGLY doubt he himself has read those books he is listing instead of simplying doing a copy and paste. Ironic that he should accuse someone else of being too lazy to go the library..
I visited some of his listed sites and found NO relevance to his original claim that these peoples had "venereal diseases". The rest of the sites were apologetics sites where circularities were the rule of the day. It's a shame he couldn't even give us direct quotes but simply pasted a bunch of information down and said "it's not my fault if you're too lazy to look it up yourself".
Cop-out...
SouthStar your on your way to becoming a "militant atheist" !! next you will be going to church and high-lighting all contradictions on their bibles!. "don't". But I've allways delighted reading your posts, when you were fighting for your faith, and now when you are defending your new position. Good show mate.
Godless.
!! next you will be going to church and high-lighting all contradictions on their bibles!. "don't". But I've allways delighted reading your posts, when you were fighting for your faith, and now when you are defending your new position. Good show mate. Godless.
Oh, so you are calling me a liar? Ok, prove it.§outh§tar said:
I did find some estimates that Jerusalem (the big city about 5 miles away) had a population of around 25,000 in the first century. Jerusalem was a big, walled city and we know Bethlehem was not. How many people do <i>you </i> think Bethlehem had at the time of Herod?
Are you trying to say that since Josephus did not mention the masacre that it didn't happen? Remember that Josephus wrote about 70 years later.
If you are going to accuse me of lying or misrepresenting the facts THEN PROVE IT. I never said I knew the population - I always represented my numbers as approximations/guesses. If you don't like mine, then come up with some of your own and give reasons why. This is how theories are formed.
I doubt that Jerusalem had 25,000 inhabitants, not at that time... it was estimated that Jerusalem had about 20,000 inhabitants in the 16th century. And at that time it was much bigger than the ancient Jerusalem (which was repeatedly devastated by wars and completely destroyed in 70 AD...)
And if there is no proof of the massacre then it is quite possible that it never took place...
And if there is no proof of the massacre then it is quite possible that it never took place...
david f: you clearly dont understand, it's not for southstar to prove, but you.
I say again,This is a forum for intelligent and scientific discussion, when people make claims and try to assert them as true, they are expected to support their claims with evidence, otherwise their claims will be dismissed, making it pointless to have even posted these claims in the first place.
the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Meaning that you are responsible for supporting your claims with evidence.
however, if you want to appear, a right twit, keep doing, what your doing.
I say again,This is a forum for intelligent and scientific discussion, when people make claims and try to assert them as true, they are expected to support their claims with evidence, otherwise their claims will be dismissed, making it pointless to have even posted these claims in the first place.
the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Meaning that you are responsible for supporting your claims with evidence.
however, if you want to appear, a right twit, keep doing, what your doing.
During the passover the Jews from surounding areas would pack into Jerusalem.
Now back to David's scenario. With the stipulation of certain conditions, cuting off our limbs is ethically wrong, if not illegal. In this case, stipulating conditions is no more a disqualification than the self-defence clause of our murder laws.
Bells, I think we've already had this discusion. In certain rare situations, when all preventive measures have been tried, a doctor may perform an abortion. But as far as ethics goes, the doctor performs an operation that saves the mother's life, with the consequence that another's life is killed. Only then is there proportinate justification for abortion.
Now back to David's scenario. With the stipulation of certain conditions, cuting off our limbs is ethically wrong, if not illegal. In this case, stipulating conditions is no more a disqualification than the self-defence clause of our murder laws.
Exactly how can anything be proved on the Internet - especially with attitudes like - I'm not going to believe anything on a religous website. It's not like I can show you any evidence or present you with a book (I can suggest a title but I can't make you read it).mis-t-highs said:
The book which seems to get hundreds of quotes is:
Philo of Byblos: Phoenician History
Introduction, Critical Text, Translation, Notes
Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series - CBQMS 9
by Harold W. Attridge and Robert A. Oden
Catholic Biblical Association, 1981
x+110 pages, English and Greek
Paper
ISBN: 0915170086
but it doesn't do any good for me to go to the library and get it and I can't find it online. How exactly do you propose that I "prove" what I am telling you? Besides, this is just cooberation to the biblical text anyway.Introduction, Critical Text, Translation, Notes
Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series - CBQMS 9
by Harold W. Attridge and Robert A. Oden
Catholic Biblical Association, 1981
x+110 pages, English and Greek
Paper
ISBN: 0915170086
I am looking at a translation of some of the Ugarit scripts ("Ugarit and Minoan Crete" by Cyrus H. Gordon). There's lots of explicit sex (between man and woman, between man and beast - much more than I really want to read - grabbing of vaginas and testicles), There's lots of talk of sacrifice (especially infant sacrifice), lots of writings about wars and war deeds (being covered in the blood and gore of enemy soldiers) and lots of women who "lay down and honor the king". This is the actual translation of the Canaanite library scripts (I consider this porn). How do I convey that to you? Even though I have the translation in my hand at this moment (actually I put the book down to type), how is that proof to you?
Apart from what Dreamwalker said..
David F. do you realize that you utterly failed to address any of my concerns in your response and that your attempt to deviate attention from my points was equally miserable. Please go back and do so.
-- My point is, if you are going to make such conclusions, at least have the courtesy to show some corroborating evidence. Your failure to do so and constant attempts to change the subject only makes me suspicious of your integrity.
David F. do you realize that you utterly failed to address any of my concerns in your response and that your attempt to deviate attention from my points was equally miserable. Please go back and do so.
-- My point is, if you are going to make such conclusions, at least have the courtesy to show some corroborating evidence. Your failure to do so and constant attempts to change the subject only makes me suspicious of your integrity.
There are no official population records - everything is an estimate that far back. However, Josephus records that all the Jews fled from the Romans to Jerusalem in 70 AD (except for the Christians?) and the population of the city swelled to something like 300,000 (Josephus was no doubt guessing since there would certainly be no way to know for sure). Most of the Jews in Jerusalem died of starvation and plauge so that there was no room to walk except on top of the dead bodies.Dreamwalker said:
If, as you say, Jerusalem was smaller than 20,000, then Bethlehem would have certainly been much smaller than that.
We have a conundrum here. SouthStar wants to simultaneously berate God for killing the baby boys of Jerusalem, while also denying that any such masacare occured due to the lack of records. God, of course, did not kill the babies nor wish the babies to die - He simply foretold the event, Herod killed the babies. I am simply trying to show how it could have occured while not finding a place in non-biblical records (it was simply too small an occurance to rate mention). SouthStar can't have it both ways.
Edit: The baby boys of Bethlehem, not Jerusalem
Last edited:
WHAT POINTS? You asked for actual population figures for the year 5BC???? HOW RIDCULOUS ARE YOU. There are NO POPULATION FIGURES for 2000 years ago.§outh§tar said:
It is you who are diverting the issue. You want to blame God for an event that you now won't even admit happened? And you divert attention by questioning my integrity? You are really warped.
Tell me EXACTLY what you want and why. And don't ask for something ridiculous like 2000 year old birth and death certificates (there actually were Jewish birth records kept in the Temple but they were all burned by the Romans in 70AD).
David F. said:
Thank you for insulting my intelligence..
I don't believe I mentioned anything about Canaanites. What is your reliable historical source for this tale? By your reasoning, the Israelittes kept the virgins in order to "control the plague". Please corroborate this from contextual information within the Bible.
How again do we know Moses faced an "outbreak on an entire regional scale"? Also noteworthy for anyone following this conversation to understand that an omnipotent God in infinite wisdom resorted to genocide to contain a plague.
According to your site, your "historian":
"Philo apparently constructed his materials from various traditions available to him, adapted them to suit his purpose, and conjured with the venerable-sounding name to gain credit for his narrative."
Either you are trying to be deceptive purposely or you are awesomely stupid.
According to the information in your first link:
---
Philo, in Eusebius' hands, claimed to have discovered secret mythological writings of the ancient Phoenicians assembled by an apparently fictitious ""Sanchuniathon" who had transcribed...
---
You have just given me "historical" information utterly irrelevant to the current discussion. As you can clearly see that this source of Philo's opus is understood to be fictional. If you will make a fool of yourself and argue he is not, note the use of the phrase "who lived at a very remote age", to indicate the source was purported to have lived for hundreds (possibly thousands) of years. If you persist in stubborness, I can only refer you to the dictionary to look up "remote". And so we see that this piece of information is again extraneous and totally unrelated to our topic of Midianities and their supposed "venereal diseases". What a "historian" who adapted materials to suit his purpose and his certainly fictitious character have to do with a discussion is certainly beyond me and any intelligent reader.
Tell me, have you actually READ this book? According to the synopsis, it deals with mythology and therefore whether or not Philo's recordings of Phoenician mythology are accurate have no bearing whatsoever on our discussion. Again, extraneous information copied and pasted only digs a deeper hole for you..
And now you have the audacity to waste my time. If you don't "vouch" for the veracity of the information therein why do you even bother presenting it? However I have given you the benefit of the doubt and proceeded to review the material:
First link:
Why have you listed an apologetics site? Again, this has NOTHING to do with Midianities and their alledged "venereal diseases".
Second link:
Another apologetics site? This time I will illustrate a point from this excerpt which the apologist attempts to reconcile with a loving God:
---
This is what the LORD Almighty says: `I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'" (I Sam 15.2f)
---
Dt. 24:16
Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.
Jer. 31:29-31
"In those days people will no longer say, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.' Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes--his own teeth will be set on edge. "The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah."
Ezekiel 18:20
The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
Now I ask you, is your "unchanging" God so schizophrenic and arbitrary that one moment He promises to not punish descendants for the iniquities of their ancestors and then TOTALLY contradicts Himself by ordering the massacre of the Amalekites for the actions of their ancestors?
3) Third Link
By now I have lost all respect for you. Another pointless apologetics site that has NOTHING to do with our discussion on the historicity of your claim that Midianities had "venereal diseases" and had an orgy with Israelitte men. Moreover, your disappointing inability to actually present any coherent or relevant information to the thread shows that you have NOT thoroughly checked the sites you copied and pasted from a search engine.
---
"By 1400 B.C. the Canaanite civilization and religion had become one of the weakest, most decadent, and most immoral cultures of the civilized world. Many of its repulsive practices were prohibited to Israel in Leviticus 18. In view of the sexual perversions listed, it is more than likely that venereal diseases ravaged a large part of the population. Hence stern measures were required to prevent decimation of the Israelites by the spread of these and other diseases such as malaria and smallpox. Contagion would be possible by sudden fraternization before immunity could develop. (ZPEB: s.v. "Joshua", p. 707).
---
Notice: It says "LIKELY". Especially since this is coming from a subjective source I am disinclined to take it seriously. However, I again give you the benefit of the doubt. BUT: Our discussion is on the historicity of your claims, saying something is LIKELY does NOT at all go to show that the is sound historical basis for it. Therefore any such information, we throw out with the bath water because it is based on wishful thinking posited to further a theological perspective. Sadly enough, there is not a shred of OBJECTIVE information in it all to support your allegations.
There is not a SINGLE THING in all of your information that has to do with our discussion on the historicity of your claims. If anyone reading this is in disbelief, they may feel free to glance through the "evidence" David F. has copied and pasted thoughtlessly.
Last edited:
David F. said:
Well at least you are coming to your senses. You have finally admitted that there is NO historical evidence to corroborate any of the figures you have posited and therefore we must discount your claims until further evidence is presented.
Just as you don't want me to ask you for something "ridiculous" that doesn't exist, don't feed me "ridiculous" information that doesn't exist.
You just don't get it do you? Archeologists make these kinds of "estimates" all the time. Do you discount all arheological evidence because they make estimates? If you don't like my estimates then make some of your own and give reasons for your estimates. Until then - you are just pouting.§outh§tar said:
Well at least you are coming to your senses. You have finally admitted that there is NO historical evidence to corroborate any of the figures you have posited and therefore we must discount your claims until further evidence is presented.
Just as you don't want me to ask you for something "ridiculous" that doesn't exist, don't feed me "ridiculous" information that doesn't exist.
I never said there is no historical evidence. We can go to the first century part of the town of Bethlehem and count the houses to get an estimate. We can look at surrounding towns of various sizes and estimate the probable population. This is called investigation and interpolation. History has very few actual facts (shall we say it has none). All the evidence is circumstantial and even writings and records ALL come from unknown (I didn't say unnamed) sources. There is nothing sure about history and the further back we go the less sure we are. The bible is actually a collection of the very best sources we have. There is a continuous string of witnesses (admittedly of unknown reliability) which absolutely does not exist for any other kind of historical evidence. The problem, of course, is that the bible is mostly a series of letters, written to contemporaries of the author, with little or no explaination of the surroundings or cultures of the events portrayed. This causes frequent misinterpretations (such as the erroneous identification of Rameses II as the Pharoah of the Exodus). This does not make the bible wrong, since ALL OTHER SOURCES ARE WORSE, not better.
But, then again, you don't really want to find any answers, do you. You just want an excuse to blame God - for something you won't even admit He actually did. SouthStar, you lost your faith because you wanted to, not because of any evidence, or lack of it. You simply dismiss anything which is not convinient. Perhaps you did something which is too painful to face, and rather than face God, you try to dismiss Him? That's it isn't it? Is this about Guilt?
Let's not try to change the subject or divert attention. This part of this thread started because YOU blamed God for killing innocents. Let's get back to that and stop diverting attention to supposed lack of historical evidence and personal attackes on other's integrity. Just because you don't like my suggested reasons for the lack of extra-biblical evidence, doesn't make me wrong, or you right. Let's get back to what YOU WROTE to start this discussion.
LOL Yes southstar that was a law given to the jews by God to follow.
Now let me ask you this question.
What Makes You Think That God is Restricted in his actions by the laws He gives to Humans to follow???????????????????????
Those Laws where given By God to His people to restrict THEIR ACTIONS, NOT HIS ACTIONS. He did not give those laws to Himself did HE?
God has perfect judgement and wisdom so there is no law that he must follow and who would vainly try to judge God? to give Him laws and restrictions to follow? YOU?All Praise The Ancient Of Days
ok.
I know this will not look upon my character in good favor. And I cannot say how much this will make whatever I say in here completely irrelevant...but it should not matter since most...not all.. seem to ignore any real questions and keep on blathering about shit they cannot support.
I moon you all.
Pants down. In yer face...pressedupagainstthecarwindow full moon. This conversation isn't even worth it.
This has turned into a ludicrous thread simply because some people are so infernally pig-headed.
Whether you are a christian of some sort of decent or denomination or not, there has to be somewhere when you decide what is important. I can see that understanding is not important anymore. What is right...whoever is perceiving that right is apparently what is important now. How stupid. How completely vapid.
If you are not a person who is willing to give and take then what the hell are you doing in the freaking gene pool.
I would excuse my behavior and say it's all for the fact that I have been drinking this evening...but I think I would say the same otherwise.
This reminds me of a thread where women are being cunts toward each other and picking on...of all things, motivations....silly silly monkeys.
I have been a silly monkey myself. But this is probably the end of it in this thread. It is terrible how a thread that could educate people turns out to be a battle of ego.
I know this will not look upon my character in good favor. And I cannot say how much this will make whatever I say in here completely irrelevant...but it should not matter since most...not all.. seem to ignore any real questions and keep on blathering about shit they cannot support.
I moon you all.
Pants down. In yer face...pressedupagainstthecarwindow full moon. This conversation isn't even worth it.
This has turned into a ludicrous thread simply because some people are so infernally pig-headed.
Whether you are a christian of some sort of decent or denomination or not, there has to be somewhere when you decide what is important. I can see that understanding is not important anymore. What is right...whoever is perceiving that right is apparently what is important now. How stupid. How completely vapid.
If you are not a person who is willing to give and take then what the hell are you doing in the freaking gene pool.
I would excuse my behavior and say it's all for the fact that I have been drinking this evening...but I think I would say the same otherwise.
This reminds me of a thread where women are being cunts toward each other and picking on...of all things, motivations....silly silly monkeys.
I have been a silly monkey myself. But this is probably the end of it in this thread. It is terrible how a thread that could educate people turns out to be a battle of ego.
As you very well know, there is no such thing as a reliable historical source. all we have is old manuscripts and wall paintings for which the reliability of the author is absolutely unknown. The best evidence is biblical, but of course you are looking for something else. Once again, the only other evidence we have is the Ugarit libraries (northern Syria) and the translation of Phonecian manuscripts by Philo of Byblos (Phonecia is eastern Canaanite). These are separate documents from separate millinia which cooberate each other and some of the bible stories. (Why do I keep writing the same thing - you keep asking for sources and I keep giving them to you but then you ask again as if I didn't already answer you?) These sources tell us of an incredibly corrupt society which regularly sacrifices babies and engage in every kind of perverted sex you can imagine (well at least that I can imagine). We also have records indicating massive problems with venereal disease (or at least some kind of infectious, sexually transmitted disease which the bible says attacks the liver - sounds like venereal disease). This is in accord with scripture. (I read on the net today that female virgins were highly prized as slaves because the Egyptian doctors thought that sex with a virgin would cure venereal disease.)§outh§tar said:
Yes, God did. The bible is telling us about the "regional scale". Did you ever watch the movie Outbreak where Dustin Hoffman was trying to find a cure for some disease because if he couldn't the government was going to fire-bomb a remote town to contain an outbreak of some disease (wasn't there a Steven Segal movie like that too)? It sounds like others might choose the same cure that God did.
Yes it does say that, and it also says that he was highly discredited for many years - until the libraries at Ugarit were found which supported much of his writings. I believe I said exactly this in my initial post on this matter. In any case, Philo and Ugarit are only supporting evidence of the bible story and an explaination of why God might have done as it is written that He did.
No one knows if Sanchuniathon was real or not, but Philo's writtings have been verified through other sources. I am not willing to argue the truth or authenticity of Philo's writings. I am arguing the truth of the biblical writings. You make your own judgements about others. This is just the caliber of EVERYTHING IN ARCHEOLOGY.
Midianites? I was talking about Canaanites. Why are you changing the subject?
Are you listening at all? I originally wrote that Philo's writings were considered mythology and false, but other evidence has been uncovered to make archeologists reevaluate. I have, in my hands right now, a book containing translations of some of the Ugarit manuscripts. Do you know nothing about Archeology? Studying a people's myths tells Archeologists about their culture and their beliefs. If they think their gods are corrupt and promiscuous, then guess what, that's what the people will be like.
Are you blind to your own typing. The LIKELY is just around the venereal diseases. The other words like "decadent, immoral" are NOT under LIKELY. We know that venereal disease (or some other sexually transmitted disease which attacks the liver) was common in the ancient world. As I said, I was reading about an Egyptian doctor's "cures" just today.
What exactly do you want? We have ancient records talking about rampent sexuallity and promiscuity and beastiality. We have ancient records talking about problems with venereal disease and we have the bible account of a sexually started plauge. What more do you need? Are you willing to look the evidence in the face? Of course we can't PROVE anything, but then we can't PROVE anything at all about the remote past. This case is as good as it gets. Why don't you go ask an Egyptian expert about Egyptian sexuallity and venereal disease (ask M.W. since she keeps coming up with references to Pharoahs who mate with their own daughters - I don't see anyone asking her to come up with Proof). Do you know what a Lotus Plant is for? Best estimates is that it is ancient VIAGRA. Do you know what an Oblisk is (you see them on top of Christian Churches all the time)? It is a phallix symbol! Are you actually accusing me of making up evidence about infant sacrifice, or sex with animals (the Canaanite god Baal is said to have had sex with a cow and actually had offspring - mythology of course). Are you actually suggesting that there wasn't venereal disease in the ancient world? What exactly is it you are accusing me of? Perhaps you actually do believe all these things but you think it couldn't have been all that bad - certainly not bad enough for God to order the destruction of the Canaanites (which didn't actually happen in total - God actually scolded Joshua for not doing enough). If you think all these things I am telling you are actually true in the 2nd millenium BC but they are not as bad as I am portraying them, then say that. You seem to be arguing against what all historians know to be the environment of the ancient Middle East - human sacrifice, ubiquitous slavery, rampant sex, constant tribal warfare and serious disease problems.
Last edited:
David. I cannot even take you remotely serious anymoe. This is stupid. If you can even put your own thoughts together you might as well be a brain controlled nazi.
If, everytime in your own words, you substitute government...you'd almolst be spot on.
It is so tragic that you cannot see past all the crap you have been fed. You silly monkeys....as long as you cannot all finally realize all religion is based on man's desire, his needs...you will go on like this forever.
As it has been....as it will be....
o. maybe I am a prophet in the silicon world.....
You are all arguing over shit that does not matter. Semantics and justifications... is that all you have to offer this world?
If, everytime in your own words, you substitute government...you'd almolst be spot on.
It is so tragic that you cannot see past all the crap you have been fed. You silly monkeys....as long as you cannot all finally realize all religion is based on man's desire, his needs...you will go on like this forever.
As it has been....as it will be....
o. maybe I am a prophet in the silicon world.....
You are all arguing over shit that does not matter. Semantics and justifications... is that all you have to offer this world?