Flann 5, will you be joining this book discussion?

I tried watching the clip, Flann 5, but my time and patience were in short supply. Does Williams ever get to passages such as occur in Deuteronomy and Samuel, in which God orders the killing of every man, woman, and child? Those are the passages I'm thinking of. I agree that the Abraham story is more susceptible of explanation even if only through theology. But totally destroying foreign peoples? I just don't see how this can be distinguished from the type of acts present-day jihadists commit. Sure, you could say there are differences, but are these meaningful, and are not the two cases of the same species? Because other people have different beliefs and worship different gods, they must be eliminated. This is the same very primitive motive that drives jihadists and other religious extremists. The answer that devout Christians often give for God's commands is that we cannot possibly know why God wanted this done, but that we must trust that he did it for the holiest of reasons.

I don't get overly exercised by what God said, because I believe the evidence for such acts being carried out is pretty slender. God in the Bible is presented as saying, "Destroy the Canaanites," but was there ever really a wholesale invasion and butchering by the Israelites? More likely, the Israelites infiltrated Canaan, becoming over times a group within that culture. The Canaan thing is probably just heroic wish-fulfillment.

Chris OConnor wrote:Flann 5, will you be joining this book discussion?

I don't think so Chris,no. I'll pass on this book.
I got involved in the whole evolution debate though I'm not actually a science oriented person. It's instructive but for me quite hard work. Ethics are important too and I'm sure the discussions here will be good.
If I'm looking at history say,for me the literary expression is as important so I enjoy people like Schama for this reason just in terms of being engaging and very well written as well having accuracy and insight.
I haven't read the book here of course so don't know how it fares in these terms.
I found Richard Carrier quite heavy going as far as his writing style and being repetitious goes,though that's not to say he wasn't looking at important ideas.
Anyway I'll skip class here I think.
To Dwill, Maybe sometime when you have time you will hear Williams out. I think he addresses a lot of the points you raise though even that is less than comprehensive.

geo wrote:If you do own a Kindle, you can download the introduction for free. It's subtitled: Questioning Everything.

Kindles can be both fun and aggravating to work with. With mine it's that way, though I own an older model so that may have something to do with it.

I've got a pretty old Kindle too but even the older ones are wonderful. What I love about my Kindle is that it allows me to read in bed with ease. Print books require two hands to hold with a clip-on light for illumination. Reading on my Kindle only takes a single hand and the light is built right into the device. Additionally my Kindle weighs less than just about any book.

1.You shall have no other gods before Me.
2.You shall not make idols.
3.You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4.Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5.Honor your father and your mother.
6.You shall not murder.
7.You shall not commit adultery.
8.You shall not steal.
9.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10.You shall not covet.

I voted to leave the commandments alone. They are perfect just the way they are, within the context of an historical piece of literature as DWill pointed out. I also liked what Movie Nerd said about extracting a truth from a work of fiction. This can happen, however, fiction can be interpreted in many ways. I could interpret commandment 5 as, "Damn that kid, I need to beat, starve and cruelly abuse some honor out of him". I see that commandment as a free pass for sadistic parents who can proudly attend church every Sunday.

As far as re writing the ten commandments, I have a problem with this. I have a problem with the word commandment. Who, whom, or what has the authority to command me to behave morally? Eight of the ten commandments are based on morality. I am very interested in reading how the authors address this problem, because the words commandments/modern times don't work in the same sentence.

Suzanne wrote:1.You shall have no other gods before Me.
2.You shall not make idols.
3.You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4.Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5.Honor your father and your mother.
6.You shall not murder.
7.You shall not commit adultery.
8.You shall not steal.
9.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10.You shall not covet.

I voted to leave the commandments alone. They are perfect just the way they are, within the context of an historical piece of literature as DWill pointed out. I also liked what Movie Nerd said about extracting a truth from a work of fiction. This can happen, however, fiction can be interpreted in many ways. I could interpret commandment 5 as, "Damn that kid, I need to beat, starve and cruelly abuse some honor out of him". I see that commandment as a free pass for sadistic parents who can proudly attend church every Sunday.

As far as re writing the ten commandments, I have a problem with this. I have a problem with the word commandment. Who, whom, or what has the authority to command me to behave morally? Eight of the ten commandments are based on morality. I am very interested in reading how the authors address this problem, because the words commandments/modern times don't work in the same sentence.

There does need to be a discussion about the historical and literary context of the Commandments. The comment you made about Commandment 5 and some saidstic using it as a free pass was spot on. Only parents worthy of respect--parents who treat their kids right and don't abuse them--should be respected by their kids.

This thread/discussion was moved into the Atheist Mind forum.

Chris OConnor wrote:This thread/discussion was moved into the Atheist Mind forum.

That's fine. There honestly was some necessity in moving threads around as of late, so it's all good.