Were Canaanites really that wicked or did we all fell from ancient Israeli propaganda?
>>18005418No, because Romans and Greeks wrote similar of them as the Jews did. Romans and Jews criticizing their brutality is ironic though. Or disturbing on how bad the Carthaginians are.
So genocide is allowed if we morally judge an entire race as wicked? Hmm this puts the Holocaust in an entirely different light. Were the Tutsis people wicked in Rwanda? Armenians were heckin' bad?
Solomon's Temple was built in the image and likeness of the Temple of Melqart-Heracles.Herodotus spoke of two enormous columns inscribed with unknown symbols (he claimed it was not Egyptian and was seeing such symbols for the first time. Possibly antediluvian symbols).Pillars of Hercules-Melqart = Boaz and Jachin (Masonic pillars).Heracles stood at the head of all pantheons.He is the original husband of Hera; 90% of myths associated with Zeus are associated with Heracles.Because Heracles and his ilk burn themselves at the stake, pagans began sacrificing people, offering them to him as if they were in his service.In India, he was called Indra, the Slavs Perun, the Iranians Vahagn, and the Scandinavians Thor.Nergal, Marduk, Ninanzu etcPerhaps Jesus is associated with him because he says he wants to bring fire to Earth, and he is also associated with the defeat of the dragon (the same as Typhon, Vritra, Lotan, etc.). Leviathan, etc.)Jesus the king is written as Moloch Yehshua in hebrew Only one god was called king.
>>18005418Basically Jewish propaganda, of the same kind as the Holocaust.
>>18005448Why were Canaanites so fucked in the head compared to the rest of the ancient world?
>>18005448Carthaginians aren't Cananites and the myth that they practiced child sacrifices has been debunked. Greco-Romans were self admitted pedophiles who whored out their sons tho. Skeletal remains from Punic Carthage do not support systematic sacrifice of infants> Most of the sample fell within the period prenatal to 5-to-6 postnatal months, with a significant presence of prenates. Rather than indicating sacrifice as the agent of death, this age distribution is consistent with modern-day data on perinatal mortality, which at Carthage would also have been exacerbated by numerous diseases common in other major cities, such as Rome and Pompeii. Our diverse approaches to analyzing the cremated human remains from Carthage strongly support the conclusion that Tophets were cemeteries for those who died shortly before or after birth, regardless of the cause.>All bones were inspected for evidence of cut marks and other signs of trauma but none was discovered.
They found jars filled with the remains of children who were decapitated, burned, and then buried with a copper snake staff.Hard to say if they are as wicked as the Bible said, but it is definitely not a land of virtueBabylon had bad propaganda, too, but plenty of Israelites ended up enjoying the place after their captivityEven their relationship with Rome had good stuff in it.Heck, even Egypt, which enslaved them for 400 years, ended up something that they felt like wanting to go back to because they had melons and breadBut never Canaanites. They never wrote anything good about them
>>18005804Did the Nazis write anything good about Jews? Generally you want to make people you genocide look as evil as possible.
>>18005773This is interesting. I don't know Jack diddly about Carthage but had guessed maybe they had a limited supply of arable land. So if they traded lots of slaves they may have had some form of population control.
>>18005773Ragebaiting or just retarded?
>>18005984No ragebaiting here. Only facts.
>>18005978uh, Hitler was saved by a Jew during WW1he had him protected and labeled an honorary Aryan
>>18005773>looking for evidence of cut marks>when the manner of execution is by fireWow you're really smart mister
>>18006015Absolutely hillarious. You're not even aware of the allegations that were being leveraged at Carthaginians while trying to peddle said allegations. > With full knowledge and understanding they themselves offered up their own children, and those who had no children would buy little ones from poor people and cut their throats as if they were so many lambs or young birds; -Plutarch
The wicked Canaanite image is literary and theological, not objective history. I say this as someone who believes in God.
>>18006247Do you believe in the Bible? Is the entire Old Testament/Hebrew Bible allegory? No history at all?Why would the Hebrews brag about genocide that never happened? I think it DID happen, and they justified it by attacking the character of their victims and claiming that "God told us to do it."
>>18005453Yep. A few bad apples spoils the bushel.This was the rule until World War II.Slavery is also allowed in some situations too.Neither is preferable, but both are allowed.If you disagree, explain without getting mad.
>>18005762The best and the worst of the world came from the same area. But the ancient world was an order of magnitude off from ours, morally. You didn't have to be a Canaanite to witness evil on another level.Even today, just go to a place like brazil where they film the snuff porn or mexico when the drug lords don't get their pesos.
>>18005453'We' didn't judge them, God did. If God commands it, then it is a good thing.
>>18006917Read your Euthyphro.
>>18006920God's word or man's word. Wow that sure is a hard choice. I think I'll stay on the rock.
Sacrifices to Moloch/Baal Hammon were a cremation ceremony for already deceased children. Child mortality rates were catastrophically high in antiquity and this is well documented.
>>18006952You have the faith of a child, an unexamined faith that would lead you to commit atrocities if you could be convinced "God" wanted you to, say, put babies into blenders.To spoonfeed you a little, the Euthyphro Dilemma is>Does God only command what is good?>Or, whatsoever God commands is good?If the former, we have a set of ethics OUTSIDE God whereby to judge even the Jewish God, the Greek Gods, etc. Where does this standard come from? The latter is divine command theory and leads to atrocities like the topic of this thread even arguably stuff like the Iraq War since Bush II claimed God wanted him to do it.
>>18006961The only reason you know this is that it is well documented.
>>18006970Yes.Without the documentation I would probably just assume that entire civilizations were just murdering babies for no reason other than to placate an oven.
>>18006966God cannot commit evil, that is not His nature. Everything that is good comes from God. Divine command is absolutely the truth. This, obviously, does not stop people from lying about being commanded by God in order to do something evil.How would you know if it's really God giving a divine command, and not just a hallucination or the voice of a demon? John 10:14 and John 10:27
>>18006966That putting babies into blenders is evil because it sounds nuts is a similar "low faith" argumentIt's emotional, and your emotions will eventually tell you to put a baby in a blender.
>>18006990So putting innocent babies into blenders is... le good? Wow real pro-choice guy we have here! Not only after-birth infanticide, but making smoothies out of them if his god so much as asks for it as a libation.That is extremely evil. But according to divine command theory, the ends justify the means, much like communism.>>18006985God frequently does evil in the Old Testament. If you accept those books you must also accept that YHWH does evil. The commandment of genocide, destroying entire cities, flooding the earth, confusing the languages of humans because he was scared their tower would reach heaven, letting Satan torture Job for a bet...
>>18007004Evil according to who exactly?
>>18007006>who's to say? Me, I am the one who says.
>>18007004Literally all I'm saying is that emotional arguments aren't enough.And you're doubling down with an emotional argument. You're next in line to use the baby blender.
>>18007012And what good is your word, a fellow sinner like myself? We are not ultimate authorities on anything. I'll refer back to my original response. I'll stay on the rock.
>>18007031Oh yes moral judgements and knowing good from evil are just emotional sobbing... I think you need another argument because this is not the first thread I've seen you use this...>NOOOOOO YOU MUST TALK LIKE SPOCK FROM STAR TREK>EMOTIONS ARE LE BADReddit debate tactics. >>18007034Enjoy worship of a God who would be evil if he wasn't a Jewish invention. You're so far in the sand building your house it's doomed to sink.
>>18005418>Were Canaanites really that wicked or did we all fell from ancient Israeli propaganda?The Hebrews were Canaanites. The Exodus never happened. The Heebs were there from the beginning, along with all the other Canaanite groups. The Heebs practiced sacrifices and polytheism just like all the other Canaanites. What you see in most of the Bible is the ancient equivalent of pro football rivalries.>My god (El) is better than your god (some other Canaan deity)The Hebrew culture slowly started to distance themselves from Canaan, so they invented this fake history about them coming from Egypt and meeting all these evil Canaanites doing bad shit that the Hebrews totally never did (according to them).
>>18006525>Why would the Hebrews brag about genocide that never happened? I think it DID happen, and they justified it by attacking the character of their victims and claiming that "God told us to do it."You’re taking a modern perspective. In the ancient world, genocide wasn’t a bad thing. In fact, it kinda made you look badass. Lying about a genocide that didn’t actually happen would make you look cool.Hell, there’s that story in the Bible where some brothers murder a whole town because the prince assaulted their sister or something, and god is only mad cuz they circumcised the town first.Also, Jericho almost certainly didn’t exist, but the Hebrews still wrote that they killed every man, woman, and child. They apparently considered that story to be a glowing reflection of them at the time.
>>18007057Its sinply not enough to be offended.You dont have to be autistic but if all you have is being offended, you'll blend the babies yourself.
>>18007785>having an ethical framework is being offendedSorry, you are wrong. You can frame me as some emotional nutcase for having ethics, but that is just an ad hominem attack. You would kill your own mother if you thought your God commanded it. That's insane.
>>18006525First of all, it wasn’t meant as bragging in the modern sense, but as a theological statement. And yes, the entirety of the Hebrew Bible is an allegory.
>>18007840Can you describe your ethical framework or is it just baby blenders all the way down?
>>18007871OK so you don't actually believe the historical basis of any part of the Hebrew Bible. Which is the basis for the New Testament - is that also allegory? Are you even Christian? Sure, some is obvious allegory, but other parts seem to describe historical events. >>18007987There are things that are obviously wrong, like rape or murder or yes, infanticide. Even the most ardent moral relativists scoff at the idea that there could be a society that thinks putting babies into blenders is a moral good. This puts to a lie their relativistic nihilism, and is also an absurd reduction of divine command theory - even if "God" commands you to do it, such an action is still evil. The story of Abraham and Isaac seems to endorse divine command theory, even if God makes capricious and unjust demands of you, you must obey. The fact that YHWH blinked in this game of chicken doesn't change the fact he demanded Abraham sacrifice his only son.
>>18008022It's not true that relativists always scoff at moralistic infanticide. And many civilizations practiced it religiously.Most women still believe in moralistic infanticide as abortion.We define God as goodness, not the other way around. When we say "if goodness was infanticide then you would do it" we are making a meaningless statement. We dont live in a universe where goodness is infanticide. Neither do we live in a universe where infanticide is the worst sin. Infants aren't goodness incarnate. If you kill a baby, goodness still exists.The sense of disgust has its place but it isnt the highest ordering principle. If you rely on disgust it will justify itself to do anything. Today you'll be disgusted by infanticide, tomorrow you'll be disgusted by mysoginists forcing rape babies to live.
>>18008116If you thought God told you to do it, you would.Divine Command theory leads to atrocities, not just because YHWH is fictional, but because people can become psychotic and hear the voice of "God" telling them to do barbaric acts.Even sane Muslims will often kill their daughters for rebelling and dating a white guy. According to them, this is the will of Allah. Mormons often say they'd rather have a dead child than one who leaves the faith. Again, pure barbarism.Avoid the two sides of the coin, moral relativism and divine command theory, think for yourself. Deep down you must know certain acts are evil, even if you hear THE VOICE OF GOD telling you to do it.
>>18008122That people erroneously believe they hear god talking is not evidence against god's morality or his ability to communicate.You misinterpret messages from other human bengs. Does that mean you should stop talking to other people?You misinterpret your own emotional signals and act out on them - do you need a lobotomy?Obviously neither is the case.
>>18008156You lobotomize yourself by saying whatever your God tells you is good, abandoning your own sense of right and wrong, desecrating morality.
>>18008182That's called wisdom. Proverbs 3:5-7. You keep speaking of atrocities and evil, but where are you getting your definitions from? What you personally call evil is subjective and can change in the future, it is not truth.
>>18008182When I say we define God as goodness, as opposed to goodness by what an arbitrary entity says, we're admitting there is an object - goodness - which we dont fully understand. That isnt lobotomy, its humility."If god said evil good then you would be evil"Is like saying "if the moon were edible then you could eat it". Its not meaningful.We dont lnow God based on our own instincts any more than we know black holes from our own instincts.You have a basic idea about them, but you dont really know how they work and you definitely dont know whats at the center.You can improve your instincts though. Same way you can communicate with other people better, and study black holes - from the outside.
>>18008227So you define a "god" who hates the tips of babies' dicks, commands a man to sacrifice his only son, orders the genocide of an entire race down to the children and animals as "goodness". Got it.
>>18008236You're still judging God against your own sense of right and wrong, which we've reiterated numerous times has no value. You cannot point to an ultimate objective source for your morality.
>>18008255>You're still judging God against your own sense of right and wrongThere's nothing else that he could be judged against.>You cannot point to an ultimate objective source for your morality.Evolution.
>>18008236My friend I'm trying to explain its the other way around.You start with "what is goodness" and over millenia you end up at "God".Humanity didnt hear about an entity demanding sacrifices and say "ah yes, that is good."They said "what is good" and summed it up as a conscious entity.
>>18008274Treating your own morality as the objective standard, built by evolution, you come against a problem when you find out other people have different moralities and evolution works by killing unfit babies, which somehow you find irredemably evil, despite believing in evolution as the moral source.Just think - other people have had arguments like these before and written down the results. Morality is a lot more than what you personally think. You should read moral philosophy.
>>18008304>you come against a problem when you find out other people have different moralities and evolution works by killing unfit babies, which somehow you find irredemably evil, despite believing in evolution as the moral source.That isn't a problem at all. What is your point supposed to be? Humans evolved the capacity for "morality" because, on average, the ones with it survived better on average. Cooperation is common in many animal species, and it clearly benefits the lot.
>>18008311Why would you place morality in quotes?Are you the same person who earlier was insisting certain things were "obviously" immoral - as in, inherently, or objectively?In particular, you mentioned infanticide. Nature - that is, evolution - shapes species by allowing infanticide.How do you reconcile that?
>>18008255Your morality is evil, if someone convinced you that murder was ordained by God, you'd become a serial killer. You have no objective morality except a hallucination about this "YHWH" "demanding" only good things when clearly in the Bible "he" "demands" absurdly evil things.Hell, at least the moral relativists admit their morality has no basis in something objective. I believe in good and evil, and I don't care what the Jewish deity allegedly says.
>>18008805Again, evil according to who?>if someone convinced you that murder was ordained by God, you'd become a serial killer.1 John 4:1. Test everything against God's word. Even if I was somehow convinced by a false teacher, that doesn't change what God actually says on the matter, "you shall not murder.">I believe in good and evilBut why? How can you prove good and evil exist with your worldview?
>>18008851Read your Euthyphro man, people have been arguing about this since before Jesus.>b-but I don't read philosophy! I only read the Bible.Your loss lmao.
>>18008901Proverbs 26:4: Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.It would be my loss if I argued like you do, since all we would be doing is spouting opinions with nothing to back up our claims besides "I think so," or, "other people said so." Philosophers aren't infallible sources, they're just people like you and me. You can't answer my questions about good and evil competently because the only thing you can appeal to is your own thoughts, which according to your worldview, you can't even prove to be reliable.
>>18008926The people who wrote the Bible were just people like you and me, too.
Gee...I wonder why the Jewish authors of the Old Testament slandered their nearest enemies...
>>18008929Yes, but inspired by God. 2 Timothy 3:16. If you don't even believe this verse to be true, then Jesus himself appearing and straight up telling you "I wrote the Bible," most likely won't convince you, either.
>>18008936Why would Jesus show up and lie? You really think your godman wrote Paul's letters? Such a creature would surely be a demon!
>>18008939You just proved my point
>>18008964Your point is Jesus wrote Paul's letters?
>>18005418>Were Canaanites really that wickedMy guy, child abandonment, child sex and child slavery were common back then. Sticking some kids in a fire is hardly exceptionally wicked for the place and time.
>>18008851Good things are good and bad things are bad my guy
>>18005773Canaanites practiced cremation, we know this because others complained about it. No claims they were burning infants alive though.
>>18005418*You all fell for it. It was obvious propaganda from the beginning.
>>18009057Another enlightened gentleman stepping up to use the baby blender, I see.
>>18009198Why wouldn't they? Aztecs thought their gods wanted blood and torture. Chinese people killed their daughters. Romans left unwanted babies outside city walls for animals to eat.Basically everyone kept sex slaves.Assyrians were known for their torture parties.
>>18008022Some of the Hebrew Bible is probably influenced by historical events, but most of it is a moral narrative.
>>18011485Is the New Testament also allegorical? What do you believe is historical part?
>>18011511The Jesus depicted in the Bible was definitely a real person, and some teachings like aphorisms may reflect actual sayings of him, but I'm not stupid enough to actually believe this man walked on water and rose from the dead.
>>18011756So you are not a Christian. You don't believe in the creeds. Not saying this as a slight to you, I'm not either, but you deny the resurrection which is kinda the point of orthodox Christianity.
>>18006917And you're absolutely certain it was actually God who commanded it? Why?
