NOGO

Ed is an apologist.

For everything that is thrown at him Ed shows us the veil that he uses so that his Christian eye wont see the truth.

Ever!

Ed

No, the foundation of Christian morality is the existence of the Christian God which can be demonstrated using basic laws of logic as I have done on other threads. And as far as biblical contradictions most of them can be easily resolved utilizing the grammatico-historical hermeneutic. How has Genesis been falsified given the broad meanings of many of its words in the original Hebrew?

Quote:

Ed: How is that disingenuous and immoral? jtb: You are being disingenuous when you claimed that your morals are the Ten Commandments supplemented by Christ's moral teachings. If this were so, then you would not use rape as an example of immoral behavior, because Christianity does not teach this.

Christianity plainly does teach that rape is immoral. How is that disingenuous? You have failed to answer that question, Steve.


[b] Actually metaphysical naturalism is fatally flawed, it cannot even give a reason why objective evidence exists. The subject-object correlation is unexplainable by naturalism, as I demonstrated in another thread. Therefore it should be rejected by anyone desiring a more rational worldview. Again how am I being disingenuous, Steve? Utilizing the law of causality and sufficient cause ARE what scientists do everyday.

Jack the Bodiless

Correction: you failed to do on other threads. Mostly you just invented your own rules as you went along, such as "only persons can produce the personal".
The "days" are in the wrong order. And there was no global Flood in historical times. People would have noticed...
Christianity plainly does NOT teach that rape is immoral. Jesus himself said nothing about it. And in the Old Testament: well, we've covered that.

(..."Steve"?)
Christian theism cannot give a reason why GOD exists. Strange that you don't consider this to be a "fatal flaw".
Evolution.
Genesis is false, metaphysical naturalism is not (as far as anyone can tell). It is disingenuous to pretend that your decision is scientific, Boris.

NOGO

Ed always did it in another thread. Funny he can't answer anything in this thread.

Christian morality has nothing to do with the Bible and logic is that last thing that you can possibly use to show that.

I challenge you to resolve even one.
Take for example Matthew's genealogy of Jesus. There are four names missing and I suppose that Matthew removed them because he needed the 14-14-14 combination. That is, 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 generations from David to the exile and 14 generations from the exile to Jesus. In Chronicles there are 18 generations from David to the exile.

Explain away!

Ed you failed to answer me on Deut 21

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Ed

It is a rational assumption given knowledge of human nature. But no I am not saying that this is the primary reason, the primary is the one stated in the verse. But the other reasons come about from studying the scriptures as a whole and in context. The bible tells us the reasons why people die. The overarching reason people die and why death exists for humans in this universe is that we are all in rebellion against the king of the universe, even babies. This can be seen in that even little babies are very selfish, do you have any children? If you do or even if you have nephews and nieces I think you have seen that little kids can be very selfish and even pretty mean.

How does that nullify the reason given that God knows what they are going to do in the future? But anyway see above about the primary and secondary reasons.

Hardly, they are the only nation that attacked Isreal at the time that did not immediately get attacked and destroyed. So that is why they probably felt like they got away with attacking Yahweh's people unlike all the other nations that Isreal defeated in the area at the time. That would be considered quite an achievement given Israel's record at the time. And even more so if they had heard about all the amazing things that happened in Egypt.

If the children were accomplices then no I wouldn't and according to the overarching biblical understanding of human nature they were accomplices if only indirectly by their innate rebellion against Yahweh. I am sure among the older kids they approved of the attack on Israel.

Synaesthesia

Ed,
Damnit Ed, you understand! You know!

Join me, my nobel and morally upright friend, in my campaign to decriminalize shaking children until their spines are snapped.

Good lord, these kids are not innocent. They are selfish and even pretty mean. If GOD ALMIGHTY, a being of infinite mercy and justice thinks that this sort of behavior justified all death, suffering, hellfire and damnation, we cannot but agree.

So come, let us set hidden bombs amongst our childrens toys. We will warn them, or get one of their siblings to warn them, that they cannot play with the superdelux transformer toy. If they disobey us, the chunks of flesh left to rot on the playroom floor will serve as a warning to the others.

PRAISE.

NOGO

Ed
It is a rational assumption given knowledge of human nature. But no I am not saying that this is the primary reason, the primary is the one stated in the verse. But the other reasons come about from studying the scriptures as a whole and in context. The bible tells us the reasons why people die. The overarching reason people die and why death exists for humans in this universe is that we are all in rebellion against the king of the universe, even babies. This can be seen in that even little babies are very selfish, do you have any children? If you do or even if you have nephews and nieces I think you have seen that little kids can be very selfish and even pretty mean.


Ed, maybe you should rewrite the Bible and add in all these wonderful explanations.

Humans are selfish from birth and we are also responsible for being selfish even before we learn to walk, right? If we are selfish from birth then it is written in our genes and is not an act of the will. Even according to the Bible children up to the age of 13 cannot be held accountable for anything that they do because they do not understand. This is our nature as created by your God according to your way of thinking. So God created us selfish and then punishes us for being selfish. You are making a lot of sense, Ed.

Back to the Amalekite.
You talk about primary and secondary reasons. All I see is stated and not stated reasons. The stated reason is contrary to the idea that people should not be punished for crimes which they have not commited.

This is a fundamental principle, people should not be punished for other's sins. Can you please state whether you agree or not ?????

After you have answered that one please state whether you acknowledge that the Bible gives a reason and only one which is contrary to the principle above?

If any other reason was relevant then the Bible would have said so, unless your God is trying to embarrass you, Ed. Since as it stands it looks like the Bible is condoning the killing of people for a crime which they have not committed then I would say that any other reason which did come in consideration should have been stated explicitly. The fact that the Bible does not explicitly state any other reason means that there isn't any.

Even if, as you admit, the stated reason is the most important reason you still have a huge problem. The Bible is saying that a crime which people have not committed is the primary reason for their execution. What kind of morality is that?


NOGO: In fact as I keep point out to you Yahweh promised their destruction immediately after the attack which would nullify your new found reason.

Ed: How does that nullify the reason given that God knows what they are going to do in the future? But anyway see above about the primary and secondary reasons.


What they are going to do in the future is irrelevant because the stated reaon for the massacre is the attack which took place 400 years before. And you have admitted that this is the primary reason for the massacre.

1) Right after the attack Yahweh says that the Amalekites are going to be wiped out because of the attack.

2) When the massacre takes place Yahweh says that the reason for it is the attack which took place 400 years before.

It is all quite clear and I do not see any reason to bring in other elements which are not stated. And you still have the problem that the stated and primary reason for the massacre is a crime which the people in question have not committed.


NOGO: Also it should be obvious from the description of the attack that this was not a major battle. The Israelites were just passing through. This is nothing to remember for 400 years.
This is another attempt at whitewashing the issue.

Ed: Hardly, they are the only nation that attacked Isreal at the time that did not immediately get attacked and destroyed. So that is why they probably felt like they got away with attacking Yahweh's people unlike all the other nations that Isreal defeated in the area at the time. That would be considered quite an achievement given Israel's record at the time. And even more so if they had heard about all the amazing things that happened in Egypt.

This is all fantasy. The war with the Amalekite happened because the Israelites went through the Amalekite's territory. The other wars that you are referring to are something quite different. In those battles the Israelites were at war for the purpose of conquering territory. They needed land to live on.


NOGO:
"Would you consider a judge sentencing the murderer of your wife taking revenge on him?"
You are asking the wrong question, Ed.
I will modify it for you so as to reflect the situation that we are discussing.
"Would you consider a judge sentencing the children of the murderer of your wife taking revenge on them?"
The answer is YES
What is your answer, Ed?

Ed: If the children were accomplices then no I wouldn't and according to the overarching biblical understanding of human nature they were accomplices if only indirectly by their innate rebellion against Yahweh. I am sure among the older kids they approved of the attack on Israel.

My question was "Would you consider a judge sentencing the children of the murderer of your wife taking revenge on them?"

You gave two answers

1. A definite NO
Because everybody is in rebellion against Yahweh.
What this implies is that if a man kills another a judge can sentence anyone at all since everybody is in rebellion against Yahweh. Great morality that you have Ed.

2. A conditional no
if the children approved of the murder. Again your morality stinks. No judge today would sentence a man to death simply because he approves of a murder. The other thing is that you do not have any evidence for this "approval".

You are implying that the descendents of the Amalekites who attacked the Israelites were accomplices to the attack. That is of course impossible because they were not born yet. So how can they be accomplices?
You are just dodging the question. Your innate rebellion against Yahweh is nonsense. If we are to accept this then I am an accomplice to all the crimes which have taken place since the begining of the world. Please Ed, try to make sense for a change.

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Jack the Bodiless

Ed, please click on this link:

<a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/iniquity.html" target="_blank">Are we punished for the sins of others?</a>

Note that there are thirteen verses quoted which support this view, and only three which contradict it. Many more verses could have been added to the box on the left: the massacre of the Egyptian firstborn and so forth. And why did Jesus die? For the crimes of others, right?

The overall verdict of the Bible is clear, right from the outset (the punishment of all humanity for what Adam and Eve did). It IS considered OK to punish innocents for the crimes of others. This is the central doctrine of Christianity!

If you don't feel that way: well, that is commendable. But, like your opposition to rape, you feel that way because your morality is not Christian.

NOGO

Jack

There are others such as

Matthew 23
29 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,
30 and say, "If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets."
31 "So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.
32 Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers.
33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?"


First, Jesus says that the pharisees testify against themselves when they say that they are the sons of those who killed the prophets.

Second, he says that they should fill up with the guilt of their fathers.

So Jesus is saying that children are responsible for the crimes of their ancestors. I wonder where he got such ideas from?

Actually I know. He read the Bible.
We can expect more apologetics from Ed.

NOGO

Ed,

How about some answers and please no more whitewashing the issues.