John A. Broussard

Were they as cruel as the god of the bible? He wiped out the whole human race in a flood (except for Noah and family, of course).

Now the Assyrians never came within an ace of accomplishing that feat.

Which one is the most cruel, lee? God or the Assyrians?

Wads4

Seeing as how, in a later age, the Byzantines used "Greek fire", and how Mesopotamia (Irak) was described somewhere, possibly by Alexander the Great, as "the firery soil of Babylonia" (obviously due to surface oil extrusions spontaneously igniting),-- I think it more than likely that the Israelites and others could have used incendiary devices fueled by crude oil, and perhaps delivered by catapult or sling-shot, or planted by saboteurs and ignited by fire arrows from a distance. This could account for Elijah destroying the altar of the priests of Baal (if it happened). Such incendiary devices would no doubt be see as Divine fire, especially as everything else was also "Divine" in their mentality.

badger3k

That's a good interpretation - unfortunately there is no evidence (that I am aware of) that the Israelites possessed that - I'd say that there is about the same evidence for a "conquest" by an outside group of people as described in the Bible - in other words, zip. It makes a nice idea, but I haven't seen anything to support it - has anybody looked into ancient chemistry in the region? The idea of a "priestly class" of alchemists (to use descriptive terms) keeping their secrets is a cool one, but I'd be really skeptical of that unless we have evidence. Might be interesting to look into that.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

I don't actually need to show that they occurred, though, I only need to show that they would have thought it a real possibility within this account. Which certainly they would have, with Israelites crossing the Red Sea, the earth swallowing Korah and his family, the crossing of the Jordan, the falling of the wall at Jericho, and so on.

We did go over his before, and I responded similarly that Hitler and Stalin certainly did not consider they might meet these people again, to which the response was that we cannot presume to read the minds of people long dead, to which my response was that mind-reading is not required, to make this conclusion, it is reasonable, without such an ability, and as far as I recall, the argument ended there. So if so, I may restate my response, when the question is raised, until such time as the argument resumes.

I also read that he cannot change, and I have reason to believe that, too, though this is induction (and not a proof), that is the way we make virtually all decisions of importance.

No, his purpose was to bring a different result, even from this deed:

Genesis 50:20 As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.

Not if this was simply some person's idea! But God can bring, from even the most severe pain, lasting good, as in the cross, which indeed was grievous, but also in God's plan, for good.

No, I'm not saying this. I'm saying this indicates that God had a purpose for them to have an attitude of wanting what was best, even for their worst enemies.

No, to weep for those who have an intent to harm, because they will face justice (and more than the police), and rejoice for those who trusted God, even through a time of suffering, that is what Jesus meant, that is Christianity.

Philippians 1:28-29 Without being frightened in any way ... This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed, but that you will be saved--and that by God. For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him.

No, I'm saying the essence of the command was commanding obedience, and that this prohibition could then have been lifted, if they had resisted the temptation, and then obeyed, by not eating. After that, it might well have been allowed, and that would have changed them for the better. As in the prohibition being lifted, to the tree of life:

Revelation 22:14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.

So the prohibition of Gen. 3:24 is lifted here.

Because the essence of change in human hearts is not in acts of the body, but in acts of their spirit, what takes place in the heart.

Well, I could have polished my analogy some more, but I think the point is clear that the motive is the essence of moral wrong. You trip me up, and protest it was unintentional, my anger subsides. You simply try and deliberately trip me up, and fail, I stay upset.

You have to really know what's best, though, and be able to see beyond death, and all results from that deed, to make that evaluation, though, which we cannot do. By the expression "wanting what is best" I certainly mean "wisely wanting what is best" for another person, no one should sell their house and buy lottery tickets, intending to finance their kid's college education that way, with a good intent, yet not a wise one, for someone who takes an inappropriate risk in helping someone, is not loving them in the best way.

A problem arises when we don't know the outcome of our choices, though. Should I encourage my kids (though I don't actually have children) to work and save some for college, themselves? Or maybe they should instead focus on their studies. With someone who evidently can know the future, as in prophecies they make that are true, and with a willingness to die on a cross, that they could be forgiven, we have a way to decide such questions in a better way.

Well, fine, this criticism was of the Biblical system, so this implication defends that system, within its context, which was what I set out for as my destination.

I would mention Rahab again here, and then ask if since the Israelites had much more reason to hate the Assyrians, then does not the implication apply much more to the Canaanites, whom they had no reason to have ill will for, so much?

Then we have to address why God is not to be called cruel in having men be mortal, in general. And I meant what the Assyrians did to the living, apart from killing them, as Canaanites did:

1 Samuel 31:4 Saul said to his armor-bearer, "Draw your sword and run me through, or these uncircumcised fellows will come and run me through and abuse me."

Presumably this was because, in sequence, "run me through" and "abuse me" would have been in the opposite order.

Regards,
Lee

John A. Broussard

Please show the inductive stepls you went through to arrive at this conclusion that "he cannot change."

Thank you.

badger3k

Sorry Lee. You DO need to show that they occurred. How do you connect people believing in miracles and the reality that there is no evidence they do? How do you go from the Israelites expecting God to strike their enemies with fire, thus killing them, to the soldiers themselves seeing this happen so that they do not have to slaughter the men, women, and children? I know to you, believing something makes it true, but reality doesn't work that way. How does this justify the slaughter? If you want to use this argument, you do need to show that they actually happened.

Sorry, Lee, you MAY NOT restate your response because you have no response. No evidence, no reasoning showing how this makes one bit of difference. It's another attempt to shift the discussion away from things you'd rather not discuss. You didn't show squat, just tossed out incomprehensible ideas on how killing someone isn't killing someone if they believe in an afterlife. BS. Killing someone means ending their physical life and the killers belief in an afterlife (if he has one) makes no difference to that fact. I know you have serious problems with facts, but try to learn what they are please. It might help any serious argument you want to make.

So God is limited in what He can or cannot do? So, everytime we see God changing His mind in the Bible, He was lying? Interesting.

Well, at least we agree on one thing - if I kill someone God wanted that person to die. Thanks for clearing that up. Now, if only the courts would realize that....

Lee, you already said that it is Gods will, so that in the end my will doesn't matter, since whatever I do is Gods will. The results will be what God wanted, so it doesn't matter what I do - I cannot go against His Will - why should my thoughts be important?

More divergence. Lee, show one bit of evidence that the Israelites wept for those they killed. The rest of this garbage is more attempts to get away from that point. Put up or shut up, Lee. You said that the Israelites had remorse (although perhaps not those words) over the thousands they killed. Show me. Or drop the whole lame attempt to steer it away.

Lee, you really don't comprehend the Bible, do you? First you offer no evidence that God would have lifted the ban against eating of the fruit of morality, then you try to show how, at the "last days" God would let peopel eat and gain immortality. This shows that IF Adam and Eve were immortal, God would let them learn morality? WTF? How can you compare God letting people eat something he never banned them from eating in the first place with something he did? There is no connection there, whatever you may think. Explain logically, as in using rational thoughts and evidence to back that up. Let's see some textural evidence that God didn't kick people out of the garden because they ate the fruit and gained the wisdom (thus contradicting the Genesis passage, btw).

Great assertion Lee, now back it up.

Lee, you're doing a good job tripping yourself up all on your own. All I'm doing is pointing out the inconsistencies in your positions, and you consider that tripping you up? Sorry, but when something makes no sense, rational thinkers question it. It's not my problem you are inconsistent. This covers the whole argument, not just flawed analogies. Forums like these are for expanding your abilities, so learn from these.

So, you are also judging what is best for them? How can you say that killing someone ISN'T for the best, if nobody knows what that is? That still gets tripped up in your belief that God's Will is being done - since if that is so, then ANYTHING we do is part of God's plans and must therefore be FOR THE BEST. Unless, that is, you believe that what God wants is NOT for the best of the individual? Does God care about individuals or just larger groups? Can what is best for an individual be something other than the best for a group, even in the long term?

Additionally, WHY would I have to see "beyond death"? I have no proof that there is even anything "beyond death", so why should I concern myself with that? Since we have no idea what, if anything, happens, and have no evidence for anything of the kind, how can I try to figure out what is best in relation to that? We also then have the problem of WHOSE ideas are best? We have probably thousands, if not more, belief systems, and many say different things about life after death - so, why should I believe one more than another, when they all have the same evidence? Answer this - what if your beliefs are wrong, and what you assume to be best based on your knoweldge is NOT what is best - maybe your actions are consigning those you affect to some bad situation (like the Christian Hell)? What if, Lee?

Something like incomplete prophecies that are nonetheless fulfilled? Or prophecies that cannot come true until the world is dust, but are also claimed as successful AT THIS MOMENT? With low standards such as that, no wonder your evidence is nonexistent.

That aside, how does that address the question? We can look at the civilizations of thousands of years ago, and look at our own now. Should we use the standards of those times, with such niceties as slavery, or should we use todays humanistic standards, that says that slaves are people and have the same rights as those who are not, and that slavery is wrong? Should we say that Genocide is ok, because it was ok for some groups back then? Funny, I see morality and reasoning growing and changing throughout time, as people and societies change with them. Why should we use standards that are ancient and different than what we say is good now? Back then democracy was bad - do you want us to become a theocracy?

We're not discussing choices as such - here we are looking at the framework, with you wanting to use one created for a culture and a world that has been dead for a few thousand years. I use one that reflects what we know and think today - where genocide and slavery are not good deeds, where all people have value. Why do you prefer the opposite?

Actually, I'm juggling probably three or four different arguments here, maybe more, although they are related. You can defend the Bible within itself to try to make some coherency, but it seems to fall when we try to compare it to reality. Why is that? Is there something wrong with the argument?

Yawn. Come on - let's see some real evidence Lee, something that hasn't been refuted. Are we competing with the Tyre and Babylon threads for longest-running circular arguments?

What implication? Do you have evidence that the Israelites hated the Canaanites more than the Assyrians? Or that Rahab was more than an isolated event (etc, we covered this already)? Do you have something new to add that might be relevant?

We're not talking theoretical - let's see less IF and more IS - let's see the evidence that such was the case. Otherwise such is pointless. IF the Assyrians had laser beams and were Sith Lords, then maybe the Israelites would like Jar Jar Binks, as well, but I see no evidence for that either.

Lee, you seem to be the only one here who thinks that being mortal is being cruel. It's the way life is. There's no morality involved in people dying natually. We ascribe things that way because we add other factors into that, and if there is an intelligence that is making a decision on how people die, then that intelligence is definitely cruel and inhumane.

Now, I had (as usual) to go back and read what I wrote, since you often don't answer such questions directly. Surprise, you try to shift it away, again. Looking at what you wrote, again with no evidence that such abuse occured - although in this case you actually are probably correct - such abuse was common in wartime, when desecrating the body of a commander, or torturing one caught alive, was a fairly standard practice. The thing you seem to forget, is that BOTH sides were doing it. So, can you tell me that the people of Jericho did not kill each other while the Israelites were inside the walls - that mothers were not slitting the throats of their children so that the invaders would not "abuse" them?

By the way, I am sure that your implication there is some kind of sexual abuse, and that may be possible, but the most likely explanation is the torture of a commander was common. For example, it's a good way to show the people your power over the enemy. It's also a good way to get information that such a man might have. In this case, IIRC, you are talking about the man who was king at the time, so that makes it even more likely that he would be tortured - even after death. As I said, such desecration of a body was very common, and for one king to do that to another - the idea of the king AS country also applies here. Lot's of ideas related to that, but I'm not going to go deeper into the history or psychology of that. Surely you have seen movies where they depict all these kinds of things? While they may not be true, such things did happen. Look at the Israelites killing thousands and keeping the virgins for their own pleasure - does that not count as "abuse"?

Then we have the idea of scale. Who is more cruel - a man who might kill or torture one other - or someone (a deity perhaps?) who orders (and by your admission - who wants this result) the death and massacre of thousands of people? They both are cruel - but who is the worst? Who abuses the power he has to the largest extent? Remember, we had discussion on different ways that this stuff could have been done? You seem to have difficulty connecting concepts such as these together, but have no problem pulling unrelated things together when you hope they support your position - why is this?

John A. Broussard

Even without regard to scale, it's hard to get lee to decide which is worse (or better) Moses killing even one baby when following a mythical god's command, or a twelve year-old having an abortion of a fetus resulting from rape by her drunken father.

Luddite

This was written in such a way as to demand approval of the reader.
It was propaganda, as is most of the bible. Moses probably never existed, certainly if he did, was not responsible for very much of the bible which was rewritten during the "exile" in Babylon, by the Persians, mainly to get the Jews on their side and against the Egyptians. For the Persians to have allies in the march-lands between them and the Egyptians was very useful.

On the subject of killing babies, whether born or not, the bible is as bloodthirsty as most books of the time. Nowhere in it does it condemn the killing of foetuses, so the anti-abortionists have to manufacture "evidence" from the bible on their pet subject.

It is odd that a god as bloodthirsty and ferociously vicious as the one of the pentateuch could become so "touchy-feely" as the one some of today's christians worship. It is a transition so extreme as to appear to be different deities.

John A. Broussard

Welcome aboard. You've chosen an intriguing subject to begin with.

I wonder if the fact that Moses had pregnant women killed would count as abortions.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Primarily, it's an accumulation of many (mostly) small instances of faithfulness, such as when you get to know a person, and due to this, conclude that he or she is reliable.

Well, I do think the criticism in this thread does not depend on whether the account really happened or not. Yes, if the accounts are forgeries, that would invalidate Scripture, but that is another topic.

Well, this is not a response, though! My point is that Hitler and Stalin were certainly not expecting to meet the people they killed, again, and yet life after death is a theme in Scripture, so to really harm another person, to do them injustice, would not be advisable, if they would survive death, and perhaps meet you on the shore, when you arrive there.

Yes, he cannot lie, and this I have found to be true, his promises hold up.

Well, this is getting off topic, but the word "nacham," used in these passages (Gen. 6:6, 1 Sam. 15:35, and others), can also mean "grieved," and that is the way I understand these passages.

Well, I think people have degrees of freedom in their thoughts (though not in their actions, if they are not acting in obedience to God), and this is where the real accountability is, it is in the intent.

Actually, I'm saying God does weep even for those being judged, and sent Jonah to bring mercy to Israel's worst enemies, and this would imply that it was required of these Israelites to have the Canaanite's best interest in mind too, and be even grieved, even in judgment.

Well, this is yet another topic! So if you would want to discuss this further, a new thread can be started...

Well, this is a recognizable principle (as in the boy-moves-to-manhood movies), that changes in personality are not brought about by physical motions, or else the psychiatrists would be doing jumping jacks with their clients, by way of counsel.

Well, again, if these Israelites were going to meet these Canaanites again, they would not have the attitude of genocidaires, and I agree that genocide and slavery are evil, and the Bible holds that those acts with intent to harm are evil, too.

This is not the God of the Israelites, though, who was grieved, even in judgment, as mentioned above.

It seems we are simply reiterating points that have been made before, so I think I shall wind up here, and bow out now, best wishes to all...

Regards,
Lee