The Bible is much like that. It’s whatever you want it to be. It’s a Thneed. So, when Mosse says:

“the Bible effectively describes mans journey out of savagery into civilization”

- let him believe it! The Lorax is a great story and the Bible is a collection of great stories. For all we know, people may well be reading The Lord of the Rings centuries from now, in much the same way as they read the Bible today. There might even be a church of Hobbit, for example. Well? Why on earth not? What about Heaven’s Gate?

Even adults need to believe in fairies, it seems. They surely have a right to believe in and think whatever they want. Don’t go about destroying peoples’ harmless fantasies.

Ian Bennett believes the savagery of the Old Testament, indeed the very early part of it, somehow undermines the compassionate teachings which would follow. The trouble with this view is it assumes that mankind and human understanding is static, undeveloping, the same today as 8,000 years ago. This is obviously false.

Given your poor grasp of my opinions, it’s odd that you are so well-informed on god’s.

It is merely my belief that what we can know about God’s will can be found in carefull study of the Bible.

And what we can know about Christopher Robin’s will can be found in careful study of The House at Pooh Corner.

Seems like a simple young Russian/Jewish girl living in Hebron in 1997 became, perhaps understandably, pissed off at the Arabs/Palestinians bombing and shooting into her home town. As a sign of protest, she drew a cartoon depicting Mohammed as a pig standing on the Koran whilst he wrote in it.

It’s not clear from the post what crime she was believed to have committed, but In 1998 she was apparently given 2 years’ prison sentence for committing what the presiding judge considered to be some kind of racist act or atrocity akin to what the Nazis did during the Holocaust.

The mind boggles that the Jewish authorities and legislature could have been such dhimmis, but there we are – and bugger the principle of “freedom of speech”, I suppose.

I must admit, until I read this, I had always thought the actions of the Israelis demonstrated them to be a pretty hard-headed and rational bunch, with a strong sense of moral integrity/justice, but this one – if true – has me at a complete loss. I wonder, under what circumstances could it be justifiable and make sense?

I certainly do not know the will of God. I do not know very much at all about anything. It is merely my belief that what we can know about God’s will can be found in carefull study of the Bible. Moses knew God face to face. We can only glimpse God through his Word.

I have trouble with any sect which claim to be derived from one primary set of writings, but then goes on to ignore so much of what is presented within them. I see a very clear cohesion between the old and new testaments. Other folks see a cohesion between the Bible and, oh, the book of Mormon or the Koran. I do not, but they are welcome to their perspective.

Just so long as that perspective does not threaten to cut my head off – which is why we are here talking about this.

So that progression complete now, is it? There’s no room for further development? I think the Muslims would disagree; after all, they believe that Jesus was merely one in a long line of prophets, with Mohammad being the last one. That certainly seems consistent (or at least, not inconsistent) with your argument. Are they correct? Or, do you at least allow for the possibility that they might be correct?

And you appear to claim to know precisely what is the will of God. Right. Very impressive.

There’s a reason that hubris is one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

Ian Bennett believes the savagery of the Old Testament, indeed the very early part of it, somehow undermines the compassionate teachings which would follow. The trouble with this view is it assumes that mankind and human understanding is static, undeveloping, the same today as 8,000 years ago. This is obviously false.

To illustrate my point, imagine if Jesus Christ had delivered the Sermon on the Mount in Noah’s time. How well would “blessed are the meek” have worked in a savage world of men barely socially developed above that of animals? It would be many generations before even the Code of Hammurabi, with its primitive notions of justice.

Indeed, if Moses had taught the 600,000 men of Israel to “turn the other cheek” during the retaking of the patriarch Abrahams land from the many pagan savages (and I do not use the term savage lightly – the Ammon worshippers of Molech were children sacrificers, just to name one example of the charming residents of that region), how long would God’s chosen people have lasted?

Even the understanding of God within the Judeo-Christian is dynamic. Abraham is believed to be the first to recieve the monotheistic revelation. This was not because God was slacking before then, it is just because God understood that such a revelation would have been meaningless to earlier generations, who were still pre-occupied by the mysteries of language, fire, and pooping.

In closing, God’s relationship with man was dynamic during mans formative years by necessity. Man couldn’t have fathomed the compassionate teachings of Christ any earlier than God chose to reveal them. A careful front to back reading of the Bible reveals a very logical, cohesive progression into a full understanding of God’s will. God is pretty smart, after all.

“[A] prudent heretic would leave Israel permanently before opening his mouth.” Does god’s law only apply in Israel?

Nuke Gray: Deuteronomy 13, 7 – 10

If that reason is used to justify one action, it can be used to justify any, because obedience to god is a moral necessity.

That greatly depends on the religion in question, but most importantly, it depends on the believer. And here’s the collectivist part: by lumping all believers as sheeple blindly obedient to their deity, you dismiss their inherent rationality and free agency, indeed their humanity. All of us have some kind of irrational beliefs. Ever been in love? Ever been hopeful against all rational odds? Just because someone else’s beliefs may be more irrational than our own, doesn’t justify dismissing their rationality altogether.

The Koran does not say “You must fly 747s into the World Trade Center”, but few of us have any doubt as to the motivation of those who did so. Similarly, the Bible does not say “You must firebomb abortion clinics”, but the same logic applies. Those actions are, according to their perpetrators, mandated by god.

It’s the individuals who committed these crimes, and it’s individuals who put them up to this (and that includes Muhammad, who was an individual). To paraphrase Thatcher: there is no such thing as religion (hope you can see what I mean by that).

It’s not the consequences of someone else’s dietary restrictions that I’m concerned about, it’s the consequences of the common reason for it – “because god said so”. If that reason is used to justify one action, it can be used to justify any, because obedience to god is a moral necessity.

Nuke Gray, I did not say that genital mutilation is mandated in the Koran or the Bible, and am not responsible for the the fact that it sometimes “gets pinned on religion”. It is simply one example of an action unjustifiable by any rational means. The Koran does not say “You must fly 747s into the World Trade Center”, but few of us have any doubt as to the motivation of those who did so. Similarly, the Bible does not say “You must firebomb abortion clinics”, but the same logic applies. Those actions are, according to their perpetrators, mandated by god.

Yes, those dictators did attempt to get rid of religion, by the expedient of killing believers; I’m pretty sure I didn’t suggest that method.

Yes, atheists have caused millions of deaths, not “because god said so”, but for some other irrational reason. Non-religious irrationality is almost as bad as religious irrationality, but religion per se is always irrational as it is grounded in faith – belief without evidence.

The fact that geologists are wrong does not make religionists correct.

Finally, I should point out again that I am not the Ian B who regularly comments here.