Crucifiction

I'm sure it comes up on here alot, but I was just debating a Christian over MSN and brought this up; he had an answer and I don't honestly know how much sense it makes:

"And I wish that I could be a king, then I'd know that I am not alone.... says:
There's also the fact that God is not omnipotent, at least as he is portrayed in the Bible, because he was defeated by iron chariots.
i listen to Coldplay... says:
quote that sir
i listen to Coldplay... says:
ermm
i listen to Coldplay... says:
or just give scripture
And I wish that I could be a king, then I'd know that I am not alone.... says:
Judges 1:19
And I wish that I could be a king, then I'd know that I am not alone.... says:
Let me look it up
i listen to Coldplay... says:
The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots
And I wish that I could be a king, then I'd know that I am not alone.... says:
Yes, that
And I wish that I could be a king, then I'd know that I am not alone.... says:
is it.
i listen to Coldplay... says:
that wasn't God.. that was Israel
i listen to Coldplay... says:
that was people
And I wish that I could be a king, then I'd know that I am not alone.... says:
"The LORD was with them"
And I wish that I could be a king, then I'd know that I am not alone.... says:
That context is always used in the Bible to mean that God is basically fighting their battles for them.
i listen to Coldplay... says:
maybe.. or it could mean that we're fighting in his name.. he tells us to attack them so we do"

Is that a good apologetic answer in light of the context?

RaymondR

I tried reading that, but with the huge MSN aliases I just got lost in it. Any chance of you replacing the MSN aliases with "I said" and "He said".

Boomeister

I found your aliases to be very distracting as well, but I got the gist of what was being said.
I haven't heard that apologetic before. I give him an E for effort. However, it seems that the way of thinking back then was that God was a supernatural man, inother words, he had feet, legs, genitals, etc. but that he was more powerful than we are. Given that the ancient Hebrews attributed everything to God and their relationship to him, I would think they mean this in its literal form. In other words, I think they believed their God was defeated, so therefore they were defeated (rather than vice versa). They had a polytheistic view in that there were other Gods, and their God fought these gods. They only worshipped one God, but they believed others existed.
The evolution of the belief in God is from a man-like God, who was one of many to a less human-like God who is the only one.


Boomeister

Crucifiction

"Me:
There's also the fact that God is not omnipotent, at least as he is portrayed in the Bible, because he was defeated by iron chariots.

Him:
quote that sir

Him:
ermm

Him:
or just give scripture

Me:
Judges 1:19

Him:
The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots

Me:
Yes, that

Me
is it.

Him:
that wasn't God.. that was Israel

Him:
that was people

Me:
"The LORD was with them"

Me:
That context is always used in the Bible to mean that God is basically fighting their battles for them.

Him:
maybe.. or it could mean that we're fighting in his name.. he tells us to attack them so we do"

Diogenes the Cynic

I think Coldplay is just making up an ad hoc response. The "Lord was with them" obviously implies that God was fighting with the Israelites.

This really isn't a battle that's worth getting too bogged down in, though. There's enough of a subjective loophole for apologists to let God off the hook. There are far better passages to attack with.

RaymondR

Thanks for decoding that.
His reasoning is a little odd. But I can go along with what Boomeister was saying.

I guess the ancient hebrews did not give much thought about future generations claiming that their god was omnipotent....

Chris Weimer

No, it's not valid at all. Fighting with someone is very different than fighting in the name of someone.

John Kesler

Judges 1:19 is but one passage which attempts to explain why the Israelites sometimes failed. Compare:

Okay, so the reason that Israel wasn't successful was because Yahweh was punishing them for disobedience. However, keep reading:

So now, another rationale has been introduced: Yahweh left the nations as a test for Israel. But wait, keep reading in chapter three:

Oh, so now the nations weren't driven out not as a punishment (2:20-21) or a test of loyalty (2:22-23), but because Yahweh knew that Israel needed some more experience in war.

To anyone who isn't determined to defend the Bible at all costs, I think it is obvious that these are man-made rationalizations to explain how Yahweh's nation of Israel wasn't always successful in battle.