Benazir Bhutto down

let me get this straight. you're saying that attacking people you believe
are going to steal your food indicates that you don't have a moral code?

 

No. And I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth..

He was talking in context of feral children who didn't see anything
wrong with bashing someone over the head (with a rock) if they looked
like they were going to steal their food. It's not a 'normal' human
response (normal would be saying 'no' at the first instance) but very
much the normal (minus the rock of course - but wolves attack each
other with equally deadly weapons) for the society that they were
raised in.

*He* was trying to equate 'feral upbringing' with lack of *human* morals
(and those children had *wolf* morals until taught otherwise which was
his point - to them they were being entirely moral according to their
code. But it wasn't *human* morality they were following).
He partly suceeded and partly failed (this was over 20 years ago so
my memory is also failing a little) - where he failed was that he
equated 'no human moral code' with 'no moral code at all'.

Phil.

 

If you wish to be intellectually accurate, you should probably refrain from
using (relatively) meaningless terms like 'normal'...

D.
--
des
French Biking Vocabulary: http://minilien.fr/a0kg0p

'Kaiser: "Can you prove to me the existence of G-d?"
Bismarck: "The Jews, your Majesty. The Jews"'

 

Oh, I completely agree with you.

--
Marina Mayes - Reading, UK. To email me remove XX from my address
SR250 - gone. BOTAFOT12, BOD#2, BOTAFOS#2
KotLBOD#s, KotLBOTAFOS#s,IMC#2, Tart#10-19, SR#3
I never give in to fear or blackmail; I always give in to temptation.
"You're a national treasure" - porl, 18.1.03

 

in genesis 19, lot is put forward as a moral and holy man. god sends angels
to rescue him and his family from the sodomites. the sodomites want to
bugger the angels, so lot offers his daughters for gang rape instead,
claiming they are virgins. he later fucks both his daughters for good measure
(presumably he was a little frustrated trying to shag a pillar of salt).

human sacrifice: e.g. jepthah, abraham and isaac, etc.

anyway, i'm sure you're well aware of all this, it's not news.

 

He is also held up as an example of a sinner.. As opposed to Abraham
who didn't go to live in Sodom. Held up as an example of 'bad company
ruins good morals' in fact. And not mentioned with the other patriarchs
as examples of faith.

You are aware that there is considerable debate about Jephahs daughter
- especially as human sacrifice is utterly anathema to the Law. The
phrase 'giving over' is generally referred to as 'dedicating to God'
and can quite easily be done by making her the equivalent of a
Nazarite.
Abraham & Isaac was a test of faith that God stopped before Isaac could
be killed and was a foreshadow of the work of Christ (and provided the
phrase 'the lamb of Gods own providing'). Read Hebrews 11.

Indeed I am - and aware that people without in-depth knowledge can use
examples that actually don't mean anything like they think they do.

Phil.

 

revisionism in the context of the morals of another era? great stuff.

 

Nope. It's a little thing called 'scholarship'. And seeing as the Law
specifically prohibits human sacrifice I fail to see how it's
'revisionism'.

But then I'm not trying to prove a negative point.

Phil.

 

I'm not trying to pick an argument here, but it was a "test of faith"
for Abraham, whether he believed in the God with whom he was in direct
communication?

"Do you believe in me, Abraham?"
"I'm not sure, Lord. I'll get back to you in the morning"

That sort of thing?

 

Nope. The sort of thing that says "God has made me a promise that my
descendants will be numerous and posess the gates of my enemies[1].
However he has just asked me to kill my son. Therefore if his promise
is accurate then he will raise Isaac from the dead and I have faith
that his promise will be realised"

The point of the test was to see whether Abraham had sufficient faith
that God would fulfill his promise come what may - even to the extent
of raising Isaac from the dead if needs be. The fact that God stopped
the process just before Isaac was about to be killed (and provided a
ram for the sacrifice instead) is the other point of the test.

As explained in Hebrews 11..

Phil.

[1] Plus others - but they all have a requirement that the line passes
through Isaac.

 

I'm not surprised at someone trying to kill his son because he's heard
God telling him to do it. We read every so often about this sort of
thing - parents murdering the rest of their family and then killing
themselves, presumably before God's stepped in with a change of heart.
But for this to be seen as some kind of good example by Christians,
Jews and Muslims - that is scary.

 

Congratulations - you've managed to miss the point completely..

Phil.

 

Really? I thought Abraham was quite well thought of by them.

 

This was covered by the Chief Rabbi on Radio 4 the other day
in an interview with John Humphrys:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/misc/insearchofgod.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/realmedia/misc/humphrys_sacks.ram
I was surprised to find that he is a polytheist.

 

That wasn't the point you missed.

Phil

 

I read the interview with the Chief Rabbi - nothing there to
contradict what I said above.

 

Good.

 

Modern misconception, courtesy of Washington Irving, apparently.

 

Really? These Irvin[eg]s, eh? Historical revisionists, the lot of 'em.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (b.rogers at ifrance.com)
\`\ | /`/ DS#8 BOTAFOT#3 SbS#2 UKRMMA#13 DFV#8 SKA#2 IBB#10
`\\ | //'
`\|/`
`

 

Watch it. There's several on ukrm for starters.