ex-xian

Sure,
Is that enough?
Nope, that's not a good anaolgy at all. You're talking historical-linguistic fluctuations in language, and I'm talking pure narrative.

I was a xian for 20 years. I preached, I evangelized, I counseled, I went to bible college, hell, I even cast the devil out of people, prophecies, and spoke in tongues. Believe me, I've studied (and still study) the bible.

Man, don't you read your own bible?

The links about the manuscripts? No, I didn't bother. I don't care if we have the original autographs, there're still to many contradictions and atrocities in the bible for it to be the word of god.

Doctor X

1 Sam 15:1-3

And Samuel said to Saul, "The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; nowe therefore hearken to the words of the Lord. Thus says the Lord of hosts, "'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way, when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'"

Quod erat demonstrandum. . . .

Now about those child sacrifices?

--J.D.

Doctor X

I gather my point has been accepted.

--J.D.

JGL53

I suppose if I said the babble contains a cute little story wherein god sends a she-bear to rip to shreads a group of children merely for making fun of some old bastard's baldness, BFis would pitifully ask 'Verse please?".

If atheists can take the time to actually read the babble, seems like BGic could do the same and avoid questions that make him seem like a retard.

Cross Examiner

Doctor X, it seems you cut right to the chase:

I take it you are disturbed by the implications that a Holy God would undertake the "genocide" found in 1 Samuel 15:1-3? Check it.

By now, you've now read for yourself that:

-Amalek, unprovoked, wreaked havoc on Israel for centuries before any serious retribution
-Their destruction could not be considered genocide
-Their destruction was an either/or proposition for the preservation of Israel
-The fate of the innocent (women, children) victims was directly due to the misdeeds of the Amalekite warrior-class and their leadership
-The innocents were otherwise doomed to a more horrendous, slow-death in the desert upon the destruction of the warriors and absorption of the remaining population was impossible for Israel.
-People throughout history have voluntarily preferred mercy killing (coup de grace) than be sold into foreign slavery, abused to death by foreigners or a hostile natural environment
-The ancients preferred voluntary death in the face of certain death by some involuntary means.
-Israel delivered swift judgment, in a decisive battle, with significantly less suffering than that caused by centuries of violence from Amalek.
-The modern notion of genocide or war crimes doesn't easily apply to ancient near east culture in the case of euthenasia.

Could God have found another way? This, verbatim from Miller:

1. He tried to convince the people (Amalek), for a long time, of the dangerous consequences of combating Israel.

2. He waited patiently for centuries for them to change their minds about their violent anti-Israelite terrorism.

3. He apparently "convinced" some of them to emigrate to Israel and enjoy the blessings of His people.

4. He apparently waited until some Amalekites were away from the main body of the group (since they show up later in the biblical record, implying some survivors who were not involved in that battle)

So, what is the rule? God generally works in history, not on history. Saving the Amelikites from this predicament of their own making would've required a special, outstanding miracle which wouldn't fit God's pattern of selective intervention in history (read: sovereign plan of redemption of the human race, not just one group). Generally speaking, man has free will and all the consequences thereof.

Regards,
BGic

Cross Examiner

JGL53,

Cut the ad hominem stuff. Or, if you insist to persist, I can always just put you on the forever-silenced ignore list. You choose. This place stands to loose it's (self-alleged) reputation for open-mindedness and hospitality. Jobar would be disappointed.

For your bear problem, check it.

For your Christian-retard quandry, check out what Mr. Plantinga would say.

Regards,
BGic

ex-xian

What about mine? ARe you going to ignore those?

excreationist

Billy Graham is cool:
The Amelikites (and Canaanites) weren't the only groups that God ordered the Israelites to completely exterminate.

Deuteronomy 20:10-18:
BTW, what do you think about these commandments?
Exodus 21:2-4, 7:
Exodus 21:20-21,26-27:
I think in the NIV only foreigners can become "slaves" while "servants" would generally be Hebrews... that is why they're treated differently. See also:

Leviticus 25:45-46:
This implies that you can rule over the foreign slaves ruthlessly.

You might say that the Israelites had slaves anyway, and God was just trying to make things fairer... but remember at the top of this post where God orders them to capture lots of slaves. (Assuming some cities surrended without a fight) And surely God could have commanded them to do anything he wanted - e.g. outlaw slavery. (After all he did have many Israelites killed for worshipping other Gods) What did they need slaves for anyway when their food came from God and they were wandering in the desert for 40 years? You'd probably say that the slavery wasn't harsh back then, but remember Exodus 21:20-21 (quoted a little earlier).

winstonjen

The Good News Bible has B&W pictures, but it's still extremely boring.

JGL53

I was really entertained by the apologist's 'explanation' of the 'bear problem'. The meat of it:

� They regarded God's prophet with contempt....Elisha then called down a curse on the villains. This cursing stemmed not from Elisha pride but from their disrespect for the Lord as reflected in their treatment of His spokesman �. Again God used wild animals to execute His judgment �

�.it was far more serious than a "mild personal offense." It was a situation of serious public danger, quite as grave as the large youth gangs that roam the ghetto sections of our modern American cities. If these young hoodlums were ranging about in packs of fifty or more, derisive towards respectable adults and ready to mock even a well-known man of God, there is no telling what violence they might have inflicted on the citizenry of the religious center of the kingdom of Israel� had they been allowed to continue their riotous course. "�

� Elisha didn't actually call out the bears--he merely pronounced judgment on these demonstrators. God decided what form the response took:
"Perhaps it was for this reason that God saw fit to put forty-two of them to death in this spectacular fashion (there is no evidence that Elisha himself, in imposing a curse, prayed for this specific mode of punishment), in order to strike terror into other youth gangs that were infesting the city and to make them realize that neither Yahweh Himself nor any of His anointed prophets were to be threatened or treated with contempt."
� This visible display of YHWH's power and reality (like the previous display of His kindness and activity for them) was designed to avert a far greater calamity:
"The savagery of wild animals was brutal enough, but it was mild compared to the legendary cruelty of the Assyrians who would appear to complete God's judgment in 722 BC The disastrous fall of Samaria would have been avoided had the people repented after the bear attack and the increasingly sever divine judgments that followed it. But instead of turning back to God, Israel, as would Judah in a later day, 'mocked God's messengers, despised his words and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of the LORD was arounsed against his people and there was no remedy�

Everyone understand now? It's quite simple - god is lord of all - when he sends his prophets to the rest of us to tell us how, when, and for how long to kiss their asses, we must obey. Those who don't get torn to shreds by wild animals, or something similar, because when you fuck with the lord's annointed prophets, you're fucking with the lord.

Cute, huh?

As for Plantinga, the guy doesn't really think belief, specifically religious belief, need be based on any evidence in any way. He also greatly resents being suspected of delusion or defect in any way because of this. This is just the way theists are, they don't choose to be this way. It's a natural orientation (sorta like being either gay, bi or straight, I guess).

OK - I'm a liberal, open-minded kind of guy. So let's all agree that theists in general aren't necessarily retarded. In fact, many are quite bright. Perhaps the arguments of Freud and Marx on this issue, quoted by Plantinga, are flawed (I never liked those two guys anyway.).

But what about someone who sincerely believes that the christian bible is the inspired, infallible, literal words of the one true god, even after reading and studying it and actually knowing what's in it? Uh, I think THAT'S morally retarded, at a minimum.