badger3k

Nope. Written proof is sources that are outside of the disputed text. Where are the writings of the Egyptians, the Babylonians, Assyrians, Philistines, Hittites, etc. that have the Israelites using such miraculous things as fire from the heavens? You see, what you want to do is use the Bible to prove the Bible. You state that the text in Joshua is proof because it is in the Bible. Let's see outside sources that can confirm the text, otherwise all you have is one source of highly dubious literal quality.
It might be if it happened. Show me evidence that it happened.

Ok, so then the actions that I do take must be the Will of God, then. If it were otherwise, then I would be acting against God's wishes, and denying Him what He wants. But I can't do that, according to you, so I have to be doing what He wants for whatever purpose He has.

Side note - present tense in your translation. Why not look up the Greek and tell us what it is (although you need to be sure to use the earliest text since that will presumably be the most accurate).

Now, you say that I cannot do evil and achieve a good result. But if I kill an entire group of people in the Lord's name so that we can build Churches for God's followers, and give them land, and, anyway, the people I killed were of dubious morality, then isn't that Good? If not, then why are the supposed instances of genocide in the Bible "Good"?

I thought you said that pain and suffering can be good, but isn't that evil? If you believe that the end justifies the means, then how is that different?

And when was that written? At the time of the massacres? Or hundreds of years later? Sorry Lee, not proof. I'll capitalize it to make it easier for you to see:

SHOW ME EVIDENCE THAT THE ISRAELITES WERE SORROWFUL OVER THE KILLINGS AND "WEPT" FOR THE AMORITES/AMELIKITES/ETC.

Show me textual evidence from the same time period that there was any regret. Saying that the writer of Hebrews says that Jesus is the eternal and never-changing doesn't say squat about anyone caring that a group of people were slaughtered off the face of the earth. You seem to have a lot of wishful thinking and very little actual thought. To repeat many people from many threads, Lee, your wishes do not make the truth.

Evidence, Lee - convince me. Show me proof. That quote, while amusing in it's simplicity, isn't proof - especially for the better. Why would obeying your god change me for the better if He asked me to slaughter an entire population?

Now, to go back to the question you didn't answer:

Why would Adam or Eve be different if they ate of the tree of life and became immortal and then ate the tree of morality?

Considering that they would eat the Morality Fruit, that means they would not be obeying God, wouldn't it? How can they be changed by obeying God when they disobeyed Him? How is that situation different than if they never ate the Immortality Fruit? In fact, since Adam and Eve were obeying God up until the point where they ate from the Morality Tree, how can obeying God change them so that they won't disobey? Do you mean that people who are changed can still disobey and Sin?

That's not what the Bible says. Read the text Lee, not what you want to see.

So you can believe in texts that aren't the Bible. Let's start simply, and show me evidence of this "release", as well as evidence from reality that shows that such is possible and in fact happens. Let's see the details, Lee, and while we're at it, explain how a fetus or newborn can be guilty of using sorcery or commiting sacrifices.

ONE pertinent question. The other is how you justify it as a Good and moral action. What they thought is irrelevant to that, unless you believe that morality is relative or subjective. Do you believe that there is no absolute code of morality?

A symbol of torture, brutality, and suffering is a demonstration of Love. Does that mean that a man who beats his family is showing them Love?

No - when you make claims about reality, such as the Israelite military using God's fire, you need to demonstrate that it actually happened, and for that you need outside sources that confirm it. Using the text to support itself isn't. We need to see actual evidence, most likely in the form of texts from those who fought the Israelites. Surely the Egyptians encountered such "fire" - they must have something mentioning such a miraculous event?

You don't, but the event happened. We have sources that confirm that the Pharoah Necho invaded Judah. Surely there is some reference to the Israelites use of divine fire in battle, if it was a common occurrence, which is what you are claiming. Show some support for what you say you believe, or else stop trying to claim it as fact.

John A. Broussard

Arguing with theists is difficult. Arguing with lee is virtually impossible. He claims, just what you are saying, that the bible must be true because it says its true, and that's all the evidence he needs.

He has never, never, never explained to me--as many times as I've asked him to, how Joshua stopped the sun from moving when it wasn't moving in the first place. Or he claims it "appeared" to stand still without explaining why the bible lied about what happened. And then avoids further discussion of the matter.

Rather than answer, he goes off into some sort of inane biblical prohecy about Babylon.

Yes! Discussing anything with lee is a challenge.

badger3k

Yeah, I agree, although such challenges tend to leave head-shaped depressions in brick walls.
:rolling:

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

I don't know that a similar account in another book must be called false, though, if this account as it stands conveys the facts well enough. I shall believe this objection when you stop saying the sun rises!

But this criticism is taking the account as it stands, is it not? So within this account, do we not see supernatural events all along? Then why is it incredible that there were supernatural judgments in carrying out these commands? There is even a record of such judgments, in the hail during a battle, which we must conclude, did not strike any Israelites somehow.

Well, show me evidence that the parts of the account that you are objecting to happened, then. But that is not what the objection is based on, it is based, again, on the account as it is written, and whether or not portions or all of it really happened is not crucial to this discussion.

Yes, that is what I believe.

Acts 4:28 They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.

It's a present tense participle in the Greek, "super-conquering, though him who loved us"...

Well, this is trying to provide reasons from a human standpoint, which was not the situation here. God does have a good outcome in view, but people and situations are beyond our ability to follow all the threads, so we have to know God's character, and then decide from there whether we may conclude that he uses his knowledge for a good purpose.

No, I hold that they can have a good result, like in the weight room, to give a small example.

I don't believe the end justifies the means, rather, God's ends and his plans and his means are all bound up together, i.e. God is smart, and he doesn't have to use expedients!

I was answering a different question though, it was asked "Who wept for them?" and I said, "God did." Now as far as the Israelites being sorrowful over the killings, I would refer to what I said before, that they were not ones to pounce on plunder (r.e. Jericho), they let one family who came over to their side live (indicating they did not have malice towards these people), they marched all night (indicating they were not undisciplined), and so forth. All this indicates that they were not dissipated or selfish, not ones to be like what has been depicted here.

As further evidence of this, we have an actual account of an Israelite being judged, in the case of Achan, in Joshua 7, where we can see Joshua and the Israelite's behavior in detail, and see if what has been said here characterizes them, in carrying out this judgment.

Now it might be said that this was an Israelite, not a Canaanite, but then we have this statement:

Joshua 7:12 That is why the Israelites cannot stand against their enemies; they turn their backs and run because they have been made liable to destruction.

Which is the same phrase used of the Canaanites, so we may take this judgment as showing us the behavior, the attitudes of the Israelites in carrying out judgments during this time.

Well, I can make similar questions so that an answer would contain implicit support for my view, as a direct answer to this question would similarly support yours.

I would expect that God could rescind his command not to eat this, if they had been tempted to disobey, and had then refused. The sin was the disobedience, not the eating, per se, the eating might have been allowed some time later.

Well, here is the text:

Exodus 22:17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

So a marriage was not required, and this is quite possibly seduction, not rape, even (re the NIV translation).

Well, I don't actually believe this is the reality of what happens in such sorcery, but this is what I read other people thinking about why pagans made such sacrifices.

I believe morality is absolute, and the critical factor is the motive, and the outcome that is in view, and I believe God knows enough to decide these issues of the end of a person's life, and that he has a good purpose even when suffering is involved.

Love is invariably shown by sacrifice, and a man brutally beating his family is not a sacrifice.

Not if it discredits their gods! I don't think they would be eager to report such a disastrous event. As in the typical military accounts, it is about the king's victories. We must not conclude from this, though, that they suffered no defeats.

I'm not claiming this was common for the Israelites in general, though! But we do have one account with a quite supernatural victory, a generation or two before this time...

2 Kings 19:35-36 That night the angel of the Lord went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand men in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning-- there were all the dead bodies! So Sennacherib king of Assyria broke camp and withdrew.

And then after Necho's invasion, we read of this request:

Jeremiah 21:2 "Inquire now of the Lord for us because Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon is attacking us. Perhaps the Lord will perform wonders for us as in times past so that he will withdraw from us."

So this was not unheard of, they even seemed to hope for this...

Regards,
Lee

John A. Broussard

I don't claim to be infallible. You, however, claim that the bible is infallible.
Now, let's try again. Did the sun in fact stand still as the bible says it did? That's a clear and unambiguous question.

Thanks.

badger3k

Well, in real life, we DON'T see these "supernatural" events, so if you want to claim they happened, rather than being literary conventions or mythical enhancements, you need extra-biblical sources that confirm they happened. How much simpler can I state it?

I'm not sure what reality you exist in, Lee, but I (and others) have explained to you how real experts look at events that are supposed to be historical. I think you even agreed at one point, but since you change your mind in this post, I know holding you to any kind of honor is futile.

Once again, when we have sources outside of the disputed text that states how things happened (ie, typical military tactics, weapons, etc.), we can use those as the basis of events UNLESS we have conflicting sources. You are arguing that the conflicting events happened (the peaceful death idea, for one) without backing it up in the slightest. YOU are the one who needs to provide evidence to show that you are not talking out of your ass.

So, where is this evidence? I've asked at least three times for you to provide evidence that the Israelite armies used this "divine fire". Where is that? You claim that the Israelites killed everyone in some compassionate manner but provide no evidence to back up your claims. I know this is typical of you, but it's pretty pathetic. Back up your claims. Do a little reading (I gave a few citations - did you look them up?) and get a clue as to how reality works. It's not hard.

So, then in other words, you just contradicted yourself. Why don't you decide what you believe before you try to get into discussions/debates/arguments.

OK, thanks - it's still irrelevant.

Which brings us back to the ultimate moral relativism of all. If we don't use our standards, then anything that someone says God wants is good, even if we consider it evil. So, if someone believes that killing a billion people is what God wants, and as you just stated, we CAN'T act contrary to God's will, then he must be doing what God wants, so we shouldn't punish him. Is that about right?

Then you won't mind if I skin your family slowly and make them roll in salt? Do you have any standards?

Right. If we are all doing God's will, then there is no Good or Evil, so whatever we do, the end result will be good in God's Eyes (since we cannot thwart him or deny his will according to you). If that isn't the definition of the ends justifying any means, what is?

And it's still entirely irrelevant. It shows us nothing that might indicate that anybody cared about those who were slaughtered. You're whole bit above is useless and a diversion. Again, show me where the Israelites were concerned over the people they slaughtered. Show me where it states that "God wept for the Amelekites" or something (in other words, you can't use Israel, or Jerusalem, as an example). BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS, Lee. Otherwise we have to assume what is written in the text.

Lee, your posts are all the same thing - evade the answer, make up something irrelevant and hope nobody notices. Pull ideas out of your ass and try to claim they are knowledgeable. I asked a question, surely as a believer you have an answer to that? If I was in Joshua's place and was told that the Lord expected me to slaughter men, women and children, how would that make me a better person?

I expect pigs will fly some day soon as well. Dpesn't mean it will. Why would it be allowed later IF they were kicked out because "they would be like us" if adam and eve ate both fruits. How can you say that?

Sorry Lee, but that doesn't hold water. If we go with your addendum, then the Law is: A rapist must marry his victim (if she is unmarried and her father allows him to pay for it). An exception to the rule does not invalidate the rule itself. It's an addition to it. Even today, Lee, how many people get away with things like rape because they have power or wealth? Why do you believe it would be any different back then? Read through some of the old histories and writings - you see the same behavior then as we do now.

Why not ask them? Read the Illiad? What does Homer say about the sacrifices (the hekatomb, for instance)? The other nations and peoples made sacrifices for the same reason the Israelites did - to appease their god(s), to beg for something, or to show thanks (to give three common reasons). It's not sorcery, Lee, it's called religion. Read up on what the Romans said about the 1st centery Christians - cannibalism was perhaps the most polite. Should we consider the early Christians in that light? If not, why not?

How can morality be absolute when we have no idea what it is? According to you, anything God wants is moral - and we have no hope of understanding Him. I'm sure you'll probably say we know through the Bible, but that's the point of this - genocide was good and just according to that book. That makes it OK, for EVERYONE, especially since it must be God's will. So, does that make a certain someone from the 1930-40s actions good and just?

You claim motive makes the difference, but you also said that we can't act against God's will - so we have to be doing what he wants, no matter what our own motive.

But he is making a sacrifice. Besides, why should it be seen as a sacrifice if it's part of God's plan? Who are we to make claims of hardship or sacrifice, when the end result is God's Will and Good? Why should we be using human standards in this case, or indeed, any case?

Actually, the writings of the Egyptians do contain a lot of details regarding their defeats. You're confusing the royal records with the thousands of other texts we have. Do you honestly expect that everyone, in all times, would not record such a miraculous event? This is as bad as the creationists conspiracy theories.

Again, Lee - back it up with alternate sources. That cite is in the same condition as the others. Let's see some sources from other nations that stated these miraculous events. Otherwise, as I said before, we can take the events in the Illiad and the Eddas as real events because there are other events in the same texts that support it. That's not how historians (or scholars in general) work.

When anything comes up that is abnormal or unusual, there has to be evidence for it before we can consider it to be an actual event. Soldiers killing people brutally is a FACT. It happened, and happens, throughout all time. Believing otherwise needs evidence. That's what you are arguing, you need to provide evidence.

Simple as that.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Well, this will make a way to endorse your conclusion, however I answer, and I may ask a similar clear question: Did the sun appear to stand still as the Bible says it did? A yes or no will do!

But my point again is that the question in this thread is taking the account as it stands, whether or not such events can happen is incidental to the question of the moral evaluation of these recorded events.

So how did a parting of a sea, or a river, happen in typical military encounters? What other instances of hailstorms may we refer to, in military tactics books?

And I have provided references within Scripture that show that supernatural intervention in battle was even expected by the people in question. Are we to believe their report of their own opinion? I think they would be most probably reporting their expectations accurately.

And in addition, there are also accounts of supernatural intervention, this was not recorded as just a wish! And there is even an instance of calling down divine fire:

2 Kings 1:10 But Elijah answered the captain of fifty, "If I am a man of God, let fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty." Then fire came down from heaven and consumed him and his fifty.

So we may conclude that this possibility would have occurred to them, though I am not claiming this request was made, I am not claiming this is the way this happened, I am saying it is possible, and even plausible.

No, I meant knowing God's character, and deciding, based on knowledge of what is really good or evil, whether God would be one to use his knowledge for a good purpose.

I will certainly mind! By my standards, that would be quite evil. And I also will hold, "super-conquering," even here, for them, for everyone who trusts God, as Jesus said, walking up the hill where he would be crucified:

Luke 23:28 But turning to them Jesus said, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me..."

Or as Paul said here:

Philippians 2:17 But even if I am being poured out like a drink offering on the sacrifice and service coming from your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you.

Why are these not indications, though? If we insist on a specific statement proving every point, we will not be able to conclude very much about anything. Would we expect to find a statement saying "Julius Caesar was an official Roman citizen" in so many words? Probably not, yet even without this, we may reasonably conclude that he was.

Because we read such a purpose for people to be like God, in Scripture!

1 John 3:2 But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

1 Corinthians 13:12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully...

Only they went about this in the wrong way...

Well, it makes it where a marriage is not required, which was what was being argued. And laws are not always at the boundary between sinning and not sinning! Like in a prison, where there are walls within walls, and even a sea at the border, at Alcatrez. As if to say, "if they cross the wall here, let's put a wall there."

Animal sacrifice, yes, in pagan human sacrifice, I think higher stakes were involved, such as in the example of cannibalism that you mentioned, this people who do this think they are acquiring characteristics of the people they have eaten. But I would hold that in any case, it is in order to get, not in order to give, that is the essence of paganism, self-interest, enlightened, perhaps, but still self all the same.

Because they sacrificed themselves, not others. Well, they did, that's how we have the word "martyr" in the dictionary.

Most people who hold relative values, insist that we should not force our values on others. Well, that is an absolute value. Other examples could be mentioned...

Yes, but our motive and God's motive might be different, and the outcome we have in view, and the outcome God knows will come about in the end, those might be different, too.

Because giving up a privilege or bearing some pain for a while, that will be removed, is still a sacrifice, it need not be an unrecoverable loss.

I do believe we can perceive real goodness, such as sacrificial love.

Well, that is the first I have heard of this, could you give some specifics?

How about the book of Jonah? Who ran, because he expected he was being sent to save one of Israel's worst enemies, he knew God's ways, and this is evidence that this was based on history, that God did not have a cruel or brutal motive, towards Israel's cruel enemies, and that then the Israelites (Jonah being a notable example) would have been expected to act and think likewise.

Jonah 4:10-11 But the Lord said, "You have been concerned about this vine, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?"

Regards,
Lee

badger3k

See, here's where the futility comes in. You want to argue as if these were real events. Everyone else is arguing that if you want to use these as real events you need to provide evidence that they were real, rather than mythological additions to the tale. That's why you need to back them up.

Doesn't that give you a clue that THEY DIDN'T HAPPEN! You refer to the Bible to prove that the Biblical writings are true when that is very much in doubt. Show me external evidence that any of that really happened and we'll see how it fits into the real world. If all you have are myths, then when the Athenians fought, Athena was fighting alongside them, but cloaked from mortal eyes by Her divine power. As it was written, so must it be true, eh?

So, if they expected it, and it didn't happen, how does that make the killing of an entire country more palatable? How does that make genocide ok? Should we say that if divine fire doesn't strike down our enemies, then that is ok to kill everyone who gets in our way?

But if God commands genocide, then that must be good, even though we poor humans (mostly) think it is evil. So our reason is a poor attempt to understand God's character. Didn't you say elsewhere that He was beyond our understanding?

But if I can't act contrary to what God wants, He must have wanted your relatives tortured in that way, perhaps to test you. So who are you to judge God's Will? How dare you say that you should be upset when it is all part of a Divine Plan that is beyond your understanding! Do you claim to be equal to your God?

If we should not weep for Jesus, then why should you weep or get upset at the loss of your family. You should be happy for them. Shame on you - you can't even follow the words of your own Savior.

Let's go back to square one on this, Lee, since you seem incapable of making the connection. Showing that the Israelites would weep for Jerusalem, THEIR OWN CITY, and THEIR OWN PEOPLE, does NOT mean that they would weep for the people they supposedly slaughtered to take over the territory that their God promised to them. If you would weep for your own families death, would you weep for Osama Bin Laden? Do you cry over the fact that Hitler died? Do you cry over every murderer or child molester who is put to death? Do you cry for the Amelekites?

Two completely separate issues, Lee, and I hope anyone with more than a second-grade education could see that. If you want to make a comparison, why not see how often the Romans wept for the people they conquered. Do you think they (as a people) cared if the Jews were exiled from their lands and their Temple destroyed? Show some evidence, Lee, something you are really loathe to do.

Sounds like revisionist history to me. Maybe "John" and Paul should have actually read the Old Testament they claimed as their own:

"3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken."

Split personality? Are you saying that God lied? That the Bible isn't literally true? That God actually wanted people to know good and evil and be immortal - that He made a mistake kicking them out of the garden? How do you explain that? And that still doesn't give any explanation as to why people would change if they became immortal first.

Lee, Lee, Lee. Marriage was required IF certain conditions were met, AND if certail exceptions were not met. We were talking about Law specifically and how it related to the morality. As a concession to accuracy, is it immoral for a rape victim who is unmarried to be forced to marry her rapist if her father approves and the rapist pays him off?

Have you ever prayed to get something? Can you smell the hypocrisy? Why do you eat the flesh and drink the blood of your Savior if not to gain the power and divinity of Him? It's a vestige of that ancient belief. And the point I was making is that the rumors the Romans made against the Christians are the same ones that the Christians make against everyone else. Why should I believe one more than the other?

Earth to Lee - the question is: Should we consider that the early Christians kidnapped babies, sacrificed them to their God, and then ate the bodies and had orgies, since that is what the Romans said of them? Again, why should we believe the Christian propaganda any more than we should believe the Roman propaganda? I doubt there has been a culture on Earth that has not villified their enemies. The early Jews were no exception. That's why we look at the evidence to see whether the ancient peoples had certain beliefs or practices. Even then, we also have to look at their own reasons for the practices as opposed to blindly listening to one group. None of that is relevant to today's morality or beliefs, but it is of historical and archaeological/anthropological importance.

Actually most people I know who hold that value also believe that some things are wrong all the time - hardly absolute. Genocide happens to be one of those things. Cannibalism can be understood in certain cultures, but does that make it a "good" practice? Why is it ok in religion but not in other aspects of our life? Why is genocide sometimes Good and sometimes Evil, Lee? So, is there some ultimate, absolute morality or not?

But if we cannot go against Gods will, why should our motive matter? Does that mean that I can kill someone because I love them, and it is OK? Why should it matter if the outcome we want is different than God's if He always gets His way? Our will is nothing compared to what God has planned, so what is the big deal if we want something or not?

But it can also be one. What's your point, beside more distraction away from the issues?

And if our standards are not the same as God's, then why should we use our standards? Why have any human standards if, for all we know, they are wrong?

Well, start with the 1st Dynasty, and work your way forward. Their culture is fascinating. A good reference to the start is "The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt; Ian Shaw, Oxford University Press, 2000; ISBN: 0-19-280293-3" - a bit dry but very informative. Your local library or university should have access to journals on archaeology, Egyptology and the like, and most have search engines that are fairly good. I remember that there was something concerning the Nubians fairly early on, the Hyksos, and I think something around the Hittites as well. Given my teaching and student workload now, I don't have the time or energy to do a search of all I read within the last year or so.

What does that have to do with humans killing other humans brutally in war? How is this evidence that soldiers used humane and non-painful methods of executing thousands of people in a captured city?

lee_merrill

Hi Badger,

Not necessarily, but we can evaluate what was said, since it shows what they thought.

I'm not saying this did or didn't happen, though, I am saying that this possibility of supernatural judgment would most probably have occurred to them, and they may well have asked for that. Beyond this, I don't know...

But if these people expected to meet these Canaanites again, that changes the whole picture, genocidaires don't think they will face the people they kill again. Genocide is to destroy, and if there is life after death, then having this in view makes what is called genocide, impossible. If people's lives can't really be ended.

So then the question becomes whether pain can have a benefit, even severe pain, for those being put to death in this account, and then we may apply an absolute value here, of having each person's best interest in mind, in following God, if fulfilled prophecy indicates he knows the future, and if we see examples of God turning even the worst events to bring good, as in the cross...

Yes, I agree, yet not incomprehensible, or capricious, and he also fits his own standards, the laws he has laid down.

Though God is in control of all events, even sinful events, he does not desire what those who commit those deeds desire, his purpose is for a different outcome, and thus Paul says "I rejoice, even at me being poured out." Then he adds, "and you also should rejoice along with me" (Phil. 2:18). If pain will bring a weight of glory, then there are no regrets, in that suffering.

Well, I would be upset at the intent to harm them, but again, not at the outcome.

Romans 8:36-37 As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.

And not after all these things, or despite them, but "in them."

I mentioned Jonah too, though, who went to one of Israel's worst enemies, on a mission of mercy, and we may consider this God's purpose for them to want this, too.

They are actually the ones who should be wept for, for they will indeed be brought to justice.

Luke 23:28 Jesus turned and said to them, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children."

I'm not saying this is natural! This is supernatural, and yet God's intent, for people to have this perspective.

Leviticus 19:34 The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

But he didn't want them to take this selfishly! That is the difference, seeing Jesus when he is revealed will make people like him, not only in knowledge and immortality, but also in the ways of God's love, the way of giving, instead of getting.

Because then they would be obeying, thus they would not eat of the tree of knowledge until it would do them good.

One exception does not mean there are not others, though! And again, this might be in reference to seduction, not rape, as the NIV translation translates Ex. 22:16.

Historians have not taken the Roman view as the true one, though, and they have recorded that people did die for their faith.

Well, we wish to harm someone, isn't that the essence of harming someone? A surgeon can cut a person, a thief can cut a person, and both cut out a tumor, yet the thief should go to jail.

No, if by "kill" you mean harm with an ill intent, for that is not love.

I believe there is agreement, though, we should seek everyone's best interest.

The implication here being, "You should be concerned, even about the most cruel enemies" (the Assyrians were notably cruel), and not be brutal yourself, and want what is best, even for them.

Regards,
Lee

badger3k

On that, we can agree. That doesn't change the argument on how WE view this. We are not superstitious goat herders in a very primitive time period.

What does supernatural judgement have to do with the Israelite army using divine fire in battle? You claim that the Israelites expected such supernatural occurrences. If you want to use that as evidence, you need to show that they did occur. If not, then you cannot claim a supernaturally peaceful death for the people Joshua killed.

I've split these points because they are two separate issues. Somehow you keep assuming that "life" includes some spiritual afterlife. Genocide is the physical death - the elimination in this life. Didn't we go over this before? Why not read what was posted before spouting it again, please. You had no evidence then and unless you have something new, this idea that it isn't genocide if you believe in life after death is a cop-out.
IF, IF, IF, IF - but not one shred of evidence for any of those IFs. Lee, if you believe in Life after death, then I can torture your relatives because the pain is worth it, right? Why the double standard?

If you can't understand, how can you claim to know what He is like? He only has to fit His own standards so long as He wants to, and can change His mind at any time.

So, His purpose is for a different outcome, so if I kill someone, that is not what He wanted? Is that what you are saying?

So, if I did it out of love for them, in a sincere effort to help them find God, then you would have no problem with me peeling their skin off and making them roll around in salt? Really?

Again, so, you equate a man being sent by God to another land the same as someone feeling remorse over killing thousands of human beings? Really?

Try again.

Ok, so now you want to weep for Osama, and rejoice for the dead at the World Trade Center? If you ever come to Texas please let me know so I can notify the police. And, to repeat, that still shows nothing that the Israelites felt any remorse over slaughtering thousands of men, women, and children. Try again, please.

Yeah, referring to the people they couldn't exterminate. Try again. You may have to reread this, as you still can't seem to grasp the concept of remorse FROM the Israelites FOR the people they killed. I haven't seen anything like it yet.

That makes no sense, Lee, and still does not address the question. Are you saying that if Adam and Eve ate the fruit, despite God's forbidding them, but they did it in an effort to please God, then it would have been ok?

If man did not eat the apple, and get kicked out of the garden, how would they have known good from evil, so why would Jesus have been needed? It sounds like a scam, where God arranged everything just so Jesus would be killed (although according to you he wasn't killed) - talk about Child Abuse (although since Jesus is God, it's some bizarre self-punishment thing going on - did God regret sending them out of the Garden and has been punishing himself all this time, and we suffer from fallout?)

Lee, eating of the immortality fruit was ok, but we have no evidence that God would change his mind and let them eat of the morality tree. I suspect this one has come from your posterior, since there is no biblical support for that idea anywhere. Please try to remember what I said (you can go back in this forum, no one will hate you for it) - until they ate the fruit, they too were obeying God. If obeying God changes you, why didn't it do anything for them? Why would eating a fruit that they could eat, just like any other, make a difference?

Riiiiiiight. And children are completely safe in Church and at Neverland.

And what religion were these historians? Do you think they had any bias? I find it amusing that if the Romans had succeeded in wiping Christianity off the earth, we would be hearing about that dangerous and evil cult of baby eaters who worshipped some dead guy and a Jewish deity. Real historians, the ones who try to remove the national (and other) biases don't buy the "sorcery" bit either. You seem to have some trouble distinguishing between the views of a culture and the views of someone outside of that culture.

There's a difference between thinking about hitting someone and hitting someone. You really think a doctor is like a streetcorner thug? That's really a poor analogy - does a doctor take an unsterilized blade and shove it into the victim with no anasthesia, and remove the tumor by blunt force? If you can't tell the difference between the entire situation, and only think it is the intent, then you really do have problems.

Reading comprehension time, Lee. If I kill (ie - end the physical life - make them DEAD) someone BECAUSE I love them, and want to help them be with God, I have their best interests at heart, because I want to get them closer to God. Since you seem to think intent is everything, then I have not committed a sin (although in most countries it is still a crime). Haven't you heard the phrase "you always hurt the ones you love?" I would do that action filled with love. And, since you seem to think that pain can be good, if they suffer a bit as they die, then that is ok as well. It's all part of the outcome God wants, correct?

I agree with that, but since you both avoided answering the question and have some rather disturbing ideas of "best interests", then that is all I agree with - we should use humanistic values to determine what is best for everyone, and use those standards as opposed to those of some thousand year old mythology.

Only to you, Lee. And it is still not evidence that anyone actually did this, if we let your belief stand. Come on Lee, I know you hate the phrase by now, but it's one that any scholar uses every day of their life - let's see the EVIDENCE. I know others have covered it, Lee, but assertions are not evidence.

For the record, what the text suggests is that if a man is concerned over a vine that he had nothing to do with, then God should be more concerned over many "vines" that he had created. Unfortunately, it's not an attitude that He shows often, or else he might have been concerned as thousands we slain by His people, at His command. Better late than never? It's interesting that God shows concern for the Assyrians, who the Israelites did not conquer, yet the groups they supposedly did were shown no mercy. Very interesting.