Doctor X

Billy Graham is Cool:

If YHWH is worth regard he could have spared the children--particularly the infants.

Period.

Thus:

Ipse dixit.

Mass murder is mass murder, whether one wishes to elevate it to "genocide" does not alter that fact.

Ipse dixit and not supported by the text. I am not certain how an infant threatens Israel.

Of course . . . YHWH kills unjustly. This is similar to stating that the Nazis were just to kill the Jewish children because they felt the Jewish adults had committed misdeeds.

No.

This is unjust mass-murder.

No.

This "horrendous, slow-death" is a result of the mass murder demanded by YHWH--felony murder. It is also only your belief that the women and children could not have been carried away as slaves . . . as in other cities. . . . Furthermore, if just YHWH could have assured that the city full of women and children could survive . . . or do you place limits on YHWH?

Argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam--no one asked the children.

However, you do concede that YHWH created the unjust conditions.

Same as above.

"The ancients" did not, as the actual history--as opposed to this mythic history--indicates.


Ipse dixit and not supported by the text and not a justification of a mass slaughter of innocents.

Does not remove the responsibilty from YHWH.

Ipse dixit and not supported by the text.

Ipse dixit and not supported by the text.

. . . which actually handles the other two if you add that it still does not remove the responsibility of YHWH for mass murder.

Thus, you would limit YHWH.

You prevent him from choosing not to demand mass murder of innocents.

Something the children never enjoyed. . . .

Herem: the Ban

This is a mythic example of a mass sacrifice of a conquered people to a deity.

--J.D.

Now, about that child sacrifice. . . .

winstonjen

Question: Isn't "Christian Thinktank" an oxymoron?

Darth Dane

How come we HAVE to take everything in context? Who decided that that was the only way to understand the words from God?

Please don't tell me humans did this, because I am human and can say the opposite, and I can't meet the men who perhaps decided this.

If it is divine law if you will, then no problem with the idea of contextivity.






DD - Love & Laughter

Cross Examiner

Doctor X,

Really? Did you even read the article? How exactly would he have saved the children inkeeping with modus operandi?

Read the section beginning "What was the timing of the events surrounding the judgment of the Amalekites?" in our analysis.


Murder is unjustifiable homicide. Ergo, self-defense/self-preservation is not murder. Read the analysis.

Infants do not threaten but the Amalek warrior-class (read: all able-bodied men) most certainly did. And did. And did. And did. Until Israel put an end to the aggression with one fell swoop in accordance to the judgment of God. Casus Belli. Note that the smart ones immigrated into Israel and were absorbed for centuries. The ones that stayed with the Amalekites over the centuries did so voluntarily.

Now remember, this is real life in a harsh period of human history, no easy solutions apart from constant divine intervention on a massive scale (read: not modus operandi). Israel had four options for the innocents (women, children):

1. Take them back as slaves (or to be sold as slaves)

2. Take them back and turn them over to social relief programs/processes in Israel.

3. Leave them there in the desert to their fate

4. Kill them there in the desert

Read the analysis starting with "So, if the Amalekite aggression virtually required the elimination of the warrior-class, what practical options for survival remained for the women/kids?" to see why 4 was the option selected.

Coup de grace

It must be unjustifiable. I recommend you read the well-studied argument on this point.

Yes. God could have done a miracle here for the Amaleks. Are they the only "worthy" candidates for such deliverance? Read the article.

I do? I concede that man has free will and suffers the consequences thereof since God generally works in history rather than on history. He allows man's self-determination to a large degree.

Add the qualifier "many" and then read the article section following "But doesn�t this event fit the anti-biblical pattern of �punishing the children for the sins of the parents�?" followed by "But aren�t individuals supposed to be punished for their OWN misdeeds ONLY, and not the misdeeds of others? (Deut 24:16, 2 Kings 14:1)"

OK. I've seen enough of your post. I am now convinced that you either did not read the article with any degree of interest or you merely "skimmed" it. I read it. I understand the context. You apparently did not to the same degree that I did. You ask the exact same questions addressed in the article without adding a thing to the discussion. X, there are many here who want to discuss their own issues, I don't have time to reinvent the wheel repeatedly for you, alone. If you want to continue the exploration of this issue with me (you can always engage another if dissatisfied with my approach), please do not ask the same questions addressed in the article and then pose them to me as if they had not been answered therein.

Regards,
BGic

Cross Examiner

ex-xian,

Patience. I haven't cloned myself yet. When there are ten of you and one of me some of you (generic for you all, I miss the French �vous� and �tu�) and some of your post stands to be ignored, realistically speaking. Besides, not every quip is necessarily deserving of a response; oftentimes remarks are off-topic, irrelevant or inflammatory. In fact, I�ve had a good deal of unjustifiable ad hominem stuff thrown my way recently (early on, Jobar assured me this place was more open-minded than iidb�s Christian counterparts; unfortunately, I could build a case against that notion with a few hyperlinks) that forces me to either ignore the post, thread or the member entirely (yeah! for the ignore list), depending upon the nature of the personal attacks. You, ex-exian, however, have been civil.

In the interest of time and parity, I will agree to discuss the first, and first only of your issues, and let the result thereof stand as indicative of the rest. In regards to your first "controversial" passage:

I find this commentary/brief analysis from Matthew Henry as explanative yet concise:

"The sword of war should spare women and children; but the sword of justice should know no distinction, but that of guilty or not guilty. This war was the execution of a righteous sentence upon a guilty nation, in which the women were the worst criminals. The female children were spared, who, being brought up among the Israelites, would not tempt them to idolatry. The whole history shows the hatefulness of sin, and the guilt of tempting others; it teaches us to avoid all occasions of evil, and to give no quarter to inward lusts. The women and children were not kept for sinful purposes, but for slaves, a custom everywhere practiced in former times, as to captives. In the course of providence, when famine and plagues visit a nation for sin, children suffer in the common calamity. In this case parents are punished in their children; and for children dying before actual sin, full provision is made as to their eternal happiness, by the mercy of God in Christ."

It is important to know who these people were who were judged and all other supporting contextual information. When talking about justice, context does indeed make a difference. This should be a good starting point.

Regards,
BGic

BTW, in case my point above was somehow missed, I lack the time to answer everyone's favorite Bible "problem" they found at the Skeptic's Annotated Bible website.

JGL53

Utterly insane and absolutely morally revolting. If there be a god, pray that he, she, or it protect us from fundamentalist, literalist christians.

Cross Examiner

JGL53,

Touch�

Doctor X

Apparently the individual would limit the powers of YHWH?

Ipse dixit remains.

Does not justify the mass-slaughter of children. Period.

Quod erat demonstrandum

Thus, unjustified homicide.

Quod erat demonstrandum times two.

The text does not support the suppositions of the article.

Now this apology is most unseemly:

Not supported by the text. Nevertheless, it was fine to kill the "stupid" infants. . . .

The options cited do not mesh with, say, Assyrian treatment of conquered towns that did not rebel. The fact the text is unhistorical is, perhaps, a second topic.

Unfortunately, it remains felony murder.

Unfortunately, it remains felony murder.

Yet he did not. He ordered an unjustified slaughter.

Quod erat demonstrandum times three.

Apparently, the individual cannot support his arguments with anything more substantial than "read the article." He would be well advised to find a citation that actually addresses the text objectively.

. . . and the infants exercised their free will and merited slaughter how?

Quod erat demonstrandum times four.

Yet, he cannot remove the fact that unjustified slaughter of innocents was ordered and demanded by YHWH.

Period.

Full stop.

Johnnie? Tell him about his wonderful consolation prizes. . . .

Fortunately, for I did not delude myself to fail to recognize an unjustified slaughter of innocents [Coming soon . . . to a theater near you.--Ed.]

Which were not answered either by the article or the individual.

Quod erat demonstrandum times five.

That the individual cannot respond to the charge made initially--a citation of YHWH's demand for the slaughter of innocent women, children, and infants, remains his problem.

He may spin about and spout and make up details not in the text. Fortunately, we have the text:

Now, again, about that requirement for child sacrifice. . . .

--J.D.

winstonjen

They're tastier than adults, apparently [especially when marinated in the fires of hell for eons on end - Ed.]

Hey! Stop posting things in poor taste!

[No - Ed.]

Secular Pinoy

Doc X,

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy