Did God really shout to his son?

[marco]

Matthew tells us:

" And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.�


Billions of babies get baptized but the Voice doesn't express delight. I've checked to see if this Voice was heard by any Roman writer of the time but apparently it was a local phenomenon for Christ's pointless ceremony. Sadly nothing concrete was dropped from what is called heaven but I suppose that could have ended in tragedy, for it's one thing for a pigeon to descend on the jubilant Jesus, quite another for a ton of gold to hit him. So all we have is the testimony of unstable Matthew to let us know about this fantastic piece of history.


Can we take the tale as a symbolic tribute to Christ, rather than fact?
Does the Bible lose credibility through Matthew's indulgence in such stories?

[JehovahsWitness]

Where does the scripture say a captive slave can be abused? Or condone violence against girls?

...1 Samuel 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and destroy utterly all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass

this is technically not abusing babies taken prisoner....

No it's not; It's not talking about prisoners at all is it. So I suppose we agree that you cannot "technically" produce anything that "technically" supports your claim.

Pointing out that one doesnt see the punishments as sufficiently severe does not equates to mandating or excusing abuse. The mosaic law strictly prohibited mistreatment and abuse of anyone and foreigners enjoyed the same protection as the natural Jew in this regard. No one was given the right to beat, shackle, confine, imprison, abuse or rape anyone male or female, slave or freeman undern the Mosaic law. Punishments depended in the circumstances and regardless of how one personally feels about that it is a matter of pure fiction to suggest that the Mosaic law endorsed rape or abuse of girls.



Well, let us get back to the OP which was something about God committing the heinous crime of ..shouting?


JW

[1213]

…If one argues simplistically one can justify anything or overlook murder. There is no command that says we must not murder - …

Why make things unnecessarily complex?

Also, Bible tells:

You shall not murder.
Ex. 20:13

So, I think you were wrong. But maybe you have some nice excuse to ignore truth.

OT says also:

…you shall love your neighbor as yourself…
Lev. 19:18

If one obeys that, he doesn’t rape.

[marco]

this is technically not abusing babies taken prisoner....

No it's not; It's not talking about prisoners at all is it.

What are these babies if not prisoners? Are they guests of honour? They were not combatants - I should imagine. They have been taken captive, momentarily maybe, and are to be slaughtered. You asked for instances of violence. This is one. I was being ironic in my concessions. I gave you an example of violence; you don't accept murdering children is violent and that being so, with violence redefined, there may be nothing in the bible we could be allowed to call violent under your criteria.

The mosaic law strictly prohibited mistreatment and abuse of anyone and foreigners enjoyed the same protection as the natural Jew in this regard.

Was this passage advocating the slaughter of babies an aberration, then?

Well, let us get back to the OP which was something about God committing the heinous crime of ..shouting?

The point here is that "God" is placed somewhere above the clouds which is where people of that time erroneously thought heaven to be. This misconception continued when God changed his name from Jehovah to Allah and the new "prophet" mounted a horse with wings. But we mustn't laugh- the Bible contains similar absurdities which are swallowed with breakfast and morning prayers.

I think there is a preference for figurative speech when we meet with embarrassment, as here, so perhaps the good feeling everyone had seeing Jesus splashed with water is represented as a "voice" from the sky offering some mysterious approval. It is miraculous that today a group of people endorse this as reality, albeit 2000 year old reality.

[Mithrae]

A fine of 50 shekels of silver (~$20,000) for "violating" her and also - at her father's discretion - being required to marry and provide for her as long as he lived doesn't sound like it's okay to me. Perhaps it would have been better to kill the rapist?

Yes I suppose compared to the limited duration of the girl's ordeal the man has suffered a great deal. Perhaps having to marry the girl is worse than the monetary fine.

The point I was making is that there seems to be a difference if one rapes a betrothed woman. If she's just a wandering virgin who is raped then a fine is sufficient. Note it is her father who decides if the girl marries her rapist. There is little consideration for the lady; in fact if she was incapable of being heard, she might even die. Did Jesus say: Blessed are the virgins in heaven, for they shall not be raped?

It seems that many critics of the bible begin with the assumption that the Jews were a different species: That they did not love their mothers, sisters, wives and daughters as humans tend to, but viewed them as mere furniture or property.

Obviously these are relatively unsophisticated laws from a primitive and brutal era - hardly what we would expect from a just and loving deity - but what I would expect is that most loving fathers would take their daughters' interests and desires into consideration, both specifically and generally in formulating/accepting these laws. I'm pretty sure they did the best they could, and the best they could manage was not nearly so bad as some folk sitting comfortably atop a further thirty centuries of social and technological development often seem to scornfully propose. In the post which originally started this whole tangent, I don't know where the unsourced claim that fifty shekels was worth the equivalent of $14 came from, but I can't imagine that even a second of actual critical thought went into it.

Killing the rapist of an unbetrothed girl (as you seem to favour?) wouldn't do much good for anyone as far as I can see; her life and prospects of finding a good marriage would still be largely ruined. A hefty fine or debt, and her father's discretion as to whether he should provide for her for the rest of her life seems a relatively sensible solution, for that time and culture. Those are provisions for her wellbeing which would not be so pressing in the case that she already had a husband or betrothed, in which circumstance judges would be free to mete out the full disapprobation of their law... a man raping a Hebrew woman being an act just as abominable as if he'd made love to his male friend!

[marco]

It seems that many critics of the bible begin with the assumption that the Jews were a different species: That they did not love their mothers, sisters, wives and daughters as humans tend to, but viewed them as mere furniture or property.

I don't see what purpose is served by making assumptions about posters and their views of ancient Jews. I have no problem admiring ancient civilisations; we are here discussing God's involvement in the daily lives of ancient Jews, an involvement that seems to occupy present day minds and even govern behaviour. If the Bible is called "good" then it has to be criticised for those passages that seem to cheapen women. It may well be that a man was devoured with love for his daughter or mother or even some of his many wives and concubines, but we are told that a naughty girl should be taken by her dad and given to the "good men" of the town to be stoned; we are told that the "good man" Lot offered his virgin daughters to be raped rather than mischief be done to the men he was entertaining. We get an idea of how a wife was viewed in one of the lost commandments, scratched on stone: "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass." She is seen in the same sentence as servant and donkey. You want to view things from a modern perspective and read kindness and modern morality into old plays; that doesn't work. We must take the old brutes as we find them, and if we find them murdering women and babies, we must not attribute fault to the finder.

I'm pretty sure they did the best they could, and the best they could manage was not nearly so bad as some folk sitting comfortably atop a further thirty centuries of social and technological development often seem to scornfully propose.

Modernity has its own faults and crimes; but we are examining a book that purports to be God's recommended reading, not dealing with perhaps a Margaret Mead study of some native tribe. It's nice to see savage Abraham as a loving dad and ignore what's written. However it is also useful to try to trace the roots of modern superstitions in the doings of him and violent Jehovah.

Killing the rapist of an unbetrothed girl (as you seem to favour?) wouldn't do much good for anyone as far as I can see;

I wasn't advocating killing the rapist. I was providing what was asked: examples of
bible brutality. If we are to treat the bible simply as a record of how old races conducted their business and remove notions of a present-day God, then this is anthropologically fine. However we are in the field of religion. Many people today endorse what was written thousand of years ago and try to live by it. That is the problem.

[marco]

…If one argues simplistically one can justify anything or overlook murder. There is no command that says we must not murder - …

Why make things unnecessarily complex?

Also, Bible tells:

You shall not murder.
Ex. 20:13

So, I think you were wrong. But maybe you have some nice excuse to ignore truth.

I am not responsible, 1213, for your misunderstanding. You claim to be able to read the Bible as it is meant to be read, with no need for interpretation. Unfortunately you have to be able to understand and interpret what I have said. I was actually saying that when we change the word KILL to another word that might not be used in the Bible we are still saying the same thing. In other words, you AGREE with this. You have simply failed to understand the words being used.

OT says also:

…you shall love your neighbor as yourself…
Lev. 19:18

If one obeys that, he doesn’t rape.

Yes, we know this, 1213. In other words we interpret. We can read that we are forbidden to rape in the words "love your neighbour." That was my point. I was answering the statement that I would not find this or that word in the bible. One deduces, as you have done. We accept synonymous statements.

So here you are saying exactly what I was saying, but because of your wrong interpretation, you are arguing against me. It is good, however, that you make no mistakes when you read the various translations of the Bible.

[Mithrae]

If we are to treat the bible simply as a record of how old races conducted their business and remove notions of a present-day God, then this is anthropologically fine. However we are in the field of religion. Many people today endorse what was written thousand of years ago and try to live by it. That is the problem.

Even in that case I think it's better not to hand an easy 'win' to those people by exaggeration and hyperbole regarding the books' shortcomings. Saying about this law that "the rape is not condemned," "Marrying the girl who was raped makes the violence ok" and "There is little consideration for the lady" are claims which are quite simply and fairly obviously false (in the latter case, if we are generous enough to allow that the Reubenites love their children too). If and when bible-believers can see that a critic seems not to be even trying to give their Book a fair go, when the discussion becomes simply a matter of point-scoring, I would guess that they're likely to become even more unreceptive than normal. Aren't they?

Perhaps a similar concept applies in the case of habitually turning their stories into gross caricatures

[pleinmont]

The Biblical authors had very vivid imaginations.

[marco]

If we are to treat the bible simply as a record of how old races conducted their business and remove notions of a present-day God, then this is anthropologically fine. However we are in the field of religion. Many people today endorse what was written thousand of years ago and try to live by it. That is the problem.

Even in that case I think it's better not to hand an easy 'win' to those people by exaggeration and hyperbole regarding the books' shortcomings. Saying about this law that "the rape is not condemned," "Marrying the girl who was raped makes the violence ok" and "There is little consideration for the lady" are claims which are quite simply and fairly obviously false (in the latter case, if we are generous enough to allow that the Reubenites love their children too). If and when bible-believers can see that a critic seems not to be even trying to give their Book a fair go, when the discussion becomes simply a matter of point-scoring, I would guess that they're likely to become even more unreceptive than normal. Aren't they?

Perhaps a similar concept applies in the case of habitually turning their stories into gross caricatures

Thank you for your tuition, Mithrae. I could argue the points you think are imperfectly put but we might as well argue that God didn't shout; he spoke in a normal voice. It seems obvious to me, perhaps in my innocence, that women are not particularly respected as thinking humans in the holy book; they may be loved as mothers and decorated with beads as wives, but I think they are seen as weak and perhaps as temptresses.

As for "gross caricatures", as you put it, we have already considered the thesis that the bible is best seen though laughter. I haven't discarded that view. And to be clear, I am not maligning civilisations that supplied us with the Book of the Dead, or the Odyssey or the Aeneid, or perhaps Euclid's geometry; I am questioning the correctness of people in the 21st century taking moral advice from superstitious nomads who thought, like Jesus, that heaven was reached by vertical take-off.

[Muffinmayne]

[Replying to marco in post #1]

Yes God spoke aloud to Jesus at his baptism. It’s not a normal occurrence, but that’s the point.