lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Unless he bears this pain, as well.

But were the hailstones not part of God's action here, and thus part of his command being carried out? And there is actually a similar statement next:

Joshua 11:22-23 No Anakites were left in Israelite territory; only in Gaza, Gath and Ashdod did any survive. So Joshua took the entire land, just as the Lord had directed Moses...

Now leaving some Anakites meant the command was not completely fulfilled, yet we read "Joshua took the entire land, just as the Lord had directed." So we need not conclude that all that the statement of fulfilling God's command means that all that was done was exactly what was commanded.

And Josh. 10:40 says Joshua did this, and yet most translations render Josh. 11:20 as referring to the Lord doing this, not Joshua, an indication that this is God acting directly, in a real sense.

I believe it is not, yet again, we need not insist that the command was to use swords in all instances.

No, I'm not denying God commanded that they all be put to death, and I am actually saying that I would indeed carry out a just command, as someone must carry out a just sentence handed down by the court system, or a just command by God, as I believe the command given to Joshua was just.

And no, I'm not saying that a divine command is by definition a moral one, as indicated by your use of the phrase "innocent murderer." It must be seen to be just, inherently, as I (and Andrew) have said.

I did mention that Rahab and her family, who abandoned their nationality, were kept alive.

Can we see all the results of carrying out such a judgment? If we have no indication from someone who does know, that this should be carried out, we should not propose to act.

I actually believe we may hope God will save everyone, that repentance can be brought about after death, after judgment, even.

But a voice claiming to be God is not God, real knowledge of God is required, not just a voice in the head, however clear it might be.

Yes, if we can see why the ones put to death were put to death, then we could see if this would tell us why the ones who were spared, were spared. How is this avoiding your question?

Because if the men were like the Nephilim, to be with them sexually might well unite the women with them in some crucial way.

Well, that is your interpretation, we may not need to insist that they were pursuing gratification here, though.

You are not very familiar with the Amorite worship, it would seem. The topic of sexual wrongs is quite appropriate here, most commentators do not go into detail, just as the history books do not describe Roman idol worship in detail.

"We know what sort of sentimental associations are called up to us by the phrase 'a garden'; and how we think of some gracious maiden lady or kindly old parson pottering under a yew hedge. Then let any one who knows a little Latin poetry recall suddenly what would once have stood in place of the sun-dial or the fountain, obscene and monstrous in the sun; and of what sort was the god of their gardens." (G.K. Chesterton)

And the Nephilim were mighty, but apparently not innocent, which is why I have mentioned them in replying.

Other people have questioned the account of Joshua though, since the two cases seem parallel.

Numbers 25:6-7 Then an Israelite man brought to his family a Midianite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while they were weeping at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. Then Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand…

But the questions here involve questioning the actual content of the Bible, indeed, as you said: "The story doesn't have to be historical in order for it to be worthy of criticism any more than Aesop's Fables have to be historical to merit some criticism."

What happened then could happen again, I would say.

You are denying this tautology, though, as if to say, even if God has this prerogative, he does not have this prerogative, so that is why I make this statement, every generation dies, and nations too, and if God is in control, then this is also under his control. Now the question becomes, does God have a right to this prerogative? Does he know enough to exercise it? And I would point to fulfilled prophecy as a conclusive indication that God knows the future, and that this supports the conclusion that he knows all of it, and can see the end of all decisions, and thus, if (on other grounds) we know that he is good, he has this authority by right, and not just by might.

But why are only natural agents possible causes, if not by definition? How can we know that there are no supernatural causes, and claim that a fulfilled prophecy must not possibly be supernatural? This claim seems to require that you have supernatural(!) knowledge, in order to make it.

It's sensible that a real prediction of an improbable event (Babylon will never be rebuilt, for instance, though people have tried, there will always be Jewish people, Edom will disappear as a nation) is only natural? And common sense says Moses did not write the Pentateuch? Their evidence to the contrary seems tenuous, at best.

Does the probability matter here, though? My argument here does not depend on them actually doing this, it only depends on if this was at all possible, a possibility is enough to make my point, again, I am not proposing that something might have happened (and thus speculating on actual events, and proclaiming possibilities in the way you are objecting to here), I am actually concluding it did not.

I agree with the text, though, this rejoinder seems to be a misunderstanding here, you seem to be saying I am proposing what actually happened, when I am not.

It has to be moral Biblically, the Bible has to be consistent here, would be my reply.

Of course, I am not claiming slaughter is okay, but if death is not the end of hope?

No, I'm saying that the last verse in Psalm 106 gives us reason to believe that the love that endures forever is not exclusive to Israel, and thus the judgment, as well as feeding everyone, could be done with all the people's best interest in mind.

They in fact say explicitly that their acts were demonic, and thus we may conclude that the possibility that God commanded it is not significant.

Because we must also have more than just a possibility that a claim that God spoke was really God speaking, there must be some substantial ground for believing this, as I mentioned in the case of the woman who heard a voice, above.

But that is the opposite of what I have said, that a sinful command is by definition, not God's will. Not the other way around, God cannot change his mind about morality.

People cannot do this, so we do not have this prerogative, I hold that God knows the future, and has a good purpose, and can make the decision of when and how a person will meet death, and only at his (real) direction can his prerogative, be carried out by a person.

Yes, he was, and God gave the order, because he knows enough to decide this, though we do not.

Regards,
Lee

Biff the unclean

Is there a good reason you evade questions instead of answering them? Are you embarrassed by the barbarity that is part and parcel of your religion, is that why?


That is the only knowledge of God that you get. How can you say that it isn’t real? God was telling her to do exactly the same things He told Moses, Joshua and Abraham. God manifest Himself in the same fashion He did to the Patriarchs. An angel spoke to her in her dreams and God spoke in a commanding voice to her when she was awake. What more do you want? It’s the same story with her that caused Abraham to be so honored that God Himself was then after called “the God of Abraham.�

So why do you view people in the bible differently than you do people in real life? Last Fall there was a news story of a woman who woke up on a slab in the morgue with a toe tag on after being dead for a couple of days. No one even suggested that she was resurrected and had died to forgive your sins. All anyone said was that whoever declared her dead was mistaken.
The woman we are talking about above who murdered her little boys at God’s directions is called crazy. But not Abraham, why is that?
Why do you throw out your standards when the topic is religion?

Biff the unclean

And damned good swimmers to have made it past Noah’s flood.

John A. Broussard

So there was no way for god to avoid all the suffering and misery of innocent people (young children and the unborn) and still achieve whatever end he had in mind. That's what you are saying.

It then follows that god is not all-powerful and so can't prevent that needless suffering

or

god isn't concerned about the suffering--may actually enjoy watching it.

Which do you feel explains god's actions? If you reject one or both conclusions, I'd appreciate hearing your reasons for doing so.

Thanks.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

I have never heard a voice from God, or that might have been God, even, in my head. Other people do, who are obviously not really hearing from God.

Yet I hear from God.

Here is more:

1 John 4:2-3 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

And that is what I want, a spirit that acknowledges Jesus as having really come in the flesh, I heard a missionary in Ethiopia saying this test is a good one! When people are speaking demonically, they can't say this.

Because it's possible that God really speaks? And we have instructions on how to tell, as above, and we can expect to tell, if we seek to know?

Well no, I meant that if fallen angels could interact with women in the world once, it could happen twice.

I don't say people are innocent, but yet, I do hold that this is the way that is needed, not because I see to the end of eternity, but because I have enough evidence to find this conclusion justifiable. As in the cross.

As in the cross, he is concerned, and if he chose the cross, and was not helpless in this, we may also conclude that he has really chosen this way, because "the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength."

And even further, if there was nothing to overcome, what would there be to reward?

Best wishes,
Lee

Biff the unclean

Well that’s nice for you. But this woman who murdered her little boys heard the same message from god that Abraham did about Isaac. What standard do you use that honors Abraham yet condemns her?

That’s no problem at all. The spirit who ordered both this woman and Abraham was Jesus Himself. He didn’t go by the name Jesus in Abe’s day but it was the same Lord God Almighty

That’s not an answer. This woman and Abraham both received the same message in the same manner with the same claims of origin. Why is she crazy and father Abraham not? What standard do you use? The Ethiopian one you mention says her voice was the voice of God and she isn’t crazy.

The bible says all the Nephilim…included with everything that lived…drowned. It makes no mention of their return, and warns you of dire consequences if you add stories to the bible that aren’t there. Which you are doing, tsk, tsk, tsk.

So He chose suffering as John suggested. That means He’s sadistic and the cross means He’s also masochistic. Adding masochism is not a step up. He could have forgiven mankind the way you and I do it…by just simply forgiving with nobody getting hurt. He could have decided, instead of nailing him to a cross, that Jesus would spend two weeks at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel in Waikiki for the forgiveness of sin.

There would be no need for a reward.
Since it feels so good when you stop, why not hit yourself repeatedly on the noggin with a hammer? That’s the same logic you are using here.

John A. Broussard

So as far as you are concerned, no matter how much human suffering is involved, no matter how many innocent lives are destroyed, no matter how much incredible torture from leprosy, ebola or all the other plagues of human history are inflicted upon people, you believe that god has ordered all this, so you can therefore sit complacently by and say, "God's will be done."

I hate to say this, lee, but I am clearly a more moral person than you. I'm utterly appalled at human suffering. If I felt that a god was behind it, who could have avoided it had he/she/it wanted to, I would immediately lose all faith in that god.

However, I do thank you for sharing your feelings with me. They have gone a long way toward strengthening my connvictions.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

I expect she didn't know God, a voice claiming to be God is not therefore God, knowledge of him is required. How would you know if a letter claiming to be from the President was really from the President? Or even more, how do you know your best friend's voice? Someone from around the world could claim they got a call from your best friend, and claim that was him speaking, isn't their claim to know that it was him speaking as good as yours? Well no, it's not, if they don't know him.

We are not allowed to say what additional details were possible, based on the recorded accounts?

People don't get hurt when they are sinned against? The cross is God's way of showing he bears this pain, not an additional suffering that somehow cancels the pain from the sin.

I would rather have the potential for a reward, though! Isn't that better, haven't you run in a race, upon occasion?

That pain is not being overcome (though it ceases) by you stopping, though, thus there is no reward inherent here.

But this skips over what I said, which was that he knows enough to decide this, which is not simply saying "God's will be done," period, end of sentence.

I don't doubt that you are! Most people are better than I am, as it turns out, in my opinion.

I would too. What I hold to here is that the suffering is bringing about good that could come in no other way, thus it could not have been avoided.

Mark 8:31-32 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.

Regards,
Lee

Biff the unclean

And how then is she different from father Abraham?
What happened to your Ethiopian missionaries test that this voice from God passed with flying colors? Why do you deny the Lord your God Lee, when He spoke so clearly to this woman?

There’s a difference between saying there might be additional unknown details and saying what these unknown details are. The second makes you a candidate for damnation.

You are missing the point of God being the creator of reality. If anyone HAS to have pain at all for any reason, then it was God’s idea, which makes Him a sadist. If He decides that He too must suffer this pain that makes Him a sadomasochist. You see He’s Almighty… nobody forces Him to experience anything He doesn’t want.

So it’s all just some stupid game then?

Pain ceasing is what pain being overcome means. Your reward in heaven is that there is no pain there.


Then who is it that is constricting God to make suffering necessary for good to happen? Who is this sadistic Being more powerful than your God?

“Would you like a cookie Lee?� asks God. “Good, but first I have to punch you in the nose. Because there is no way that you could enjoy how yummy chocolate chip cookies are if you didn’t experience suffering first.�
According to your story here Lee, not only are John A. Broussard’s morals better than yours are, they are better than those of your omni-benevolent God. John would just give you the cookie, and maybe even a glass of milk, with no strings of suffering attached.
It would seem that your God isn’t a source of morality after all.

BadBadBad

Probable? What would you base these probabilities on? History? What other history books would you believe at all that contain floods that never happened and magic such as parting of the Red Sea as principal aspects of the main story? What evidence of underlying history do we have in this kind of ancient story?

That's ok though, whether it was occasional or prolific as described in the story, it's irrellevant. The extreme circumstances are described. Nice try on the euphemisms of sacred bans and war. Joshua is a story of genocide.

Wow, do we have an outside source as to the actual history of the story of Joshua here? Man, why don't you reveal your sources! You could be famous!

So if you know it's a story that re-writes history, please reveal your sources to the world. We've all been waiting for hundreds of years for external sources to verify the story of Joshua. It must be great to sit in your shoes knowing the real history of Joshua. Either that or, ... wait. It couldn't be. You wouldn't just blatantly assert you know the real history of Joshua?

Let me ask you this. Does the real history of Joshua include God at all?