NOGO

Ed, this is what you stated concerning the Amalekite issue in a previous post.

So, Ed, I am talking about the primary reason for the massacre.
That is sufficient for me.
Your "other" reasons like the fact that the Amalekites celebrated their victory is just your creation and has no bearing on facts. People cannot be killed simply because they celebrate. Your "other" reason which states that everybody deserves to die is just irrelevant nonsense. BUT you have agreed that these are secondary reasons. Let's keep it at that.

I am forced to repeat things here, Ed, because you pretend that you have answered me when in fact you have avoided all the important issues.


Yes it does but that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

What we are talking about is "TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY" not a "consequence of" which does not entail any transfer of responsiblity and guilt. You should not confuse the two.

When Jesus says
"Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers." Mt:23:23

He is talking about transferring of responsibility and guilt from the actual people who committed the crime to their children. [I need an answer here - ISSUE 1]

The same is true for the Amalekites. 1 Samuel 15 says
"I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt."

Note the "I will punish".
This is in direct contradiction with Deut 24:16
Deuteronomy 24:16
... neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

And is an example of TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBLITY and guilt.

What I do today may have an impact on my children however no one will pretend that there is a transfer of responsiblity and that my children should feel guilty and assume some kind of punishment for what I did. These are completely different issues.

NOTE IN PARTICULAR
Dt24:16 every man shall be put to death for his own sin
Why, then, does the Bible state and you have agreed that it was the main reason that the Amalekites were being punished for something which happened 400 years before (1Sam 15) ??? [I need an answer here - ISSUE 2]



All this is also completely contrary to the stated reason which you have also called the main reason which is a trasnfer of guilt to the children as I have shown above.

Comment 1
The underlying reason applies to everyone according to your way of thinking so any murder can be justified this way. If this had anything to do with 1Sam15 the Bible would have said so. Instead the Bible gives a reason which constitutes a TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBLITY to the children and therefore unjust punishment. The bible gives an IMMORAL REASON in 1Sam15 which contradicts Deut 24:16. This makes a mockery of your underlying reason.

Comment 2
If the Amalekite commemorated their victory over the Israelites we do not know and the bible does not say. This is just something that you, Ed, have invented in an attempt to salvage your case. But for the sake of arguementation let's say that they did. If so, then they commemorated this victory from generation to generation for 400 years. This is 20 generations. Why then has the original people who committed the crime escaped punishment and all other generations escaped punishment and all of a sudden this particular generation must bear all the burden?

Fortunately the Bible give us an answer to this question.
Dt 25:19
When the LORD your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!

So, Yahweh had to wait till the Israelites defeated all their other enemies and had some time on their hands in order to avenge the defeat against the Amalekites. This mythological God cannot punish anybody until humans are good and ready to be His butchers. He cannot even punish them in the afterlife since the Israelites did not believe in the aftelife back then. It had to be in this life and since the poeple responsible died then the only alternatlive is to punish their children.

Deut 25:19 also shows that the particular generation of Amalekites does not matter. Any will do whenever the Israelites were good and ready to do the job. [I need an answer here - ISSUE 3]

"Do not forget"
This also shows that it was not the Amalekites who commemorated the event but the Israelites. This text has the word "revenge" all over it.

"you shall blot out the memory of Amalek"
Unfortunately, this was not to be since we are still talking about them today.

I assume that what you mean by timing is that they died before a natural death took place. Today we call that murder. Let me rewrite you statement accordingly
"So you are partially right, their murder WAS punishment for what their parents did."
Yes, Ed, that is exactly what I am talking about.
Deuteronomy 24:16
... neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
[I need an answer here - ISSUE 4]

Ed

No, but it relates to the personal and would not exist without persons.

Quote:

jtb: If "producing the personal" means pointing at something and saying "that's mine": well, I don't think that's a very profound achievement! The notion that evolution can't happen because it breaks a natural law based on this principle is obviously nonsense.

It is a little more than that, that which is personal must be utilized by the person in some type of relationship. I never said that it was a natural law, only that it is logical principle based on the law of logic, the Law of Sufficient Cause.

Quote:

jtb: Smerm and ova cannot point to a stick and say "that's mine". A newborn baby cannot point to a stick and say "that's mine". But, later, they can.

True, because a human embryo and a newborn are persons in development.

Quote:

jtb: If you want an emirical example of human-like intelligence arising from lesser intelligence without a human parent existing first, then the evolution of humans from (other) apes qualifies. This is not just a hypothesis: it is supported by overwhelming empirical evidence. And this empirical evidence won't magically go away just because it contradicts the Bible.

What empirical evidence? Apes already have aspects of the personal but they are not fully personal. But there has never been observed an ape gaining the aspects of personhood that they lack.

NOGO

Here is another post which Ed has chosen to ignore.

What is really unfortunate, Ed, is that you do not see the absurdity of this statement.

No matter how things were arranged the guy raped the girl. If this were a crime the guy would have been punished as rapists are punished in our current society.

The fact that the people who wrote the Bible believed that you can fix everything by having these people marry is a testimony to the dilapidate morality they lived by.

Man rapes woman.
Marry them.
Rape is gone.

If rape was a serious crime in ancient Israel then punishment for the man and not marriage would be the law.

Ed

No, not necessarily. If the term itself can mean age then there is definite possibility of overlap. Some scholars say that the morning and evening refer to the literal 24 hr day that initiates the creative age. Or it could be metaphorical for the beginning and ending of the age, these hebrew terms "morning and evening" when used conjunctively were often used metaphorically in ancient hebrew writings.

This is part I of my response, because it is getting late.

NOGO

Deut 22:
23 `When there is a damsel, a virgin, betrothed to a man, and a man hath found her in a city, and lain with her;
24 then ye have brought them both out unto the gate of that city, and stoned them with stones, and they have died: -- the damsel, because that she hath not cried, [being] in a city; and the man, because that he hath humbled his neighbour's wife; and thou hast put away the evil thing out of thy midst.


nogo: Notice the word "humble" used again as rape.


Ed:
No, this was not rape, this was consensual adultery because she didn't cry out in a city, where there would be people to rescue her.

NOGO::
The bible speaks of adultery here

Leviticus 20:10
If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

The reason the word adultery is not used in Deut 22 is because this was a special case. It was uncertain whether there was consent. So the girl is put to death not for adultery but because she did not cry out. The man was put to death for rape because it may have been possible that the girl did not consent. If this had been clearly adultery then there would be no need for another law.
This is the way NIV translates it.

NIV Deut 22:23
If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death-the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

What follows, Ed, is to show you that divorce was not as easy as you say.
Notice that Jesus says that divorce is only admitted for reason of unchastity

Matthew 5:32
but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

This is what Deut 24 is about.
Deuteronomy 24:1
If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house,

Deut 21:14 mentions no particular reason for sending the girl away.
It is not divorce because there was no marriage.
Otherwise, Ed, you are saying that a man could marry a woman for a single night. A one night stand. She no longer pleases him in the morning and you have a divorce. Is this the morality of Dt21:14

Jack the Bodiless

Ed, do you agree that "that which is American must be utilized by an American citizen in some type of relationship"?

Do you also agree that Americanism cannot arise from non-Americanism due to the Law of Sufficient Cause? If initially nothing American exists, then how can anything American come into existence, or become American if it previously existed as non-American?

Do you therefore agree that American citizens and American-owned items cannot possibly exist?

...And evolution IS undoubtedly a "sufficient cause" for the development of humans. Saying "no it isn't" won't get you anywhere.
Don't use words such as "empirical" when you obviously don't know what they mean. A hominid fossil is empirical evidence. DNA analysis produces empirical evidence. And it's been empirically shown that chimps possess near-human levels of consciousness and cognitive skills: with the exception of vocal skills, an adult chimp is roughly equivalent to a six-year-old child, and chimps can learn sign language. They are "persons". There is a campaign to officially recognize this fact by reclassifying them as genus Homo: that makes them human beings.
You are contradicting yourself. If there are literal 24-hour days as separators (remember, this phrase is used between EACH creation day), there can be no overlap.

Incidentally, you haven't answered my question:

WHY IS GOD GOOD?

Bill Snedden

Hoo ha!

I commend you (and NOGO) on your apparently infinite patience...

I would also point out to Ed that his definition of "personal" appears to be tautologous and therefore non-falsifiable. I mean, it seems a rather trivial observation that "personal" should be an adjective applied to that which "persons" produce. We certainly shouldn't expect anything produced by persons to be "impersonal", in the sense in which Ed is using the word.

But this really doesn't seem to reflect Ed's argument. I would ask, "exactly what does Ed mean by 'personal'?"

Persons, in our experience, have physical bodies (a head, a torso, two arms, etc.). Do all "personal things" have these characteristics?

I feel sure that Ed doesn't consider these essential characteristics. In fact, I feel sure, and Ed will correct me if I'm wrong, that what he really means by "only persons produce the personal" is "only persons produce that which is rational and conscious".

I would like to be able evaluate the truth of this statement, but in order to do so, Ed will need to provide coherent, non-self-referential definitions of "rational" and "conscious".

If I'm wrong in what Ed really means by "personal", he can correct me and we can go from there.

Regards,

Bill Snedden
_____________
"There is no god higher than truth." Mohandas Gandhi

Starboy

Bill, that is just too perfect.

Ed

Given that many arthropods are aquatic and many flying insects reproduce in the water, it is quite possible that flying insects "originated" from aquatic insects and actually existed prior to land insects. We may very well find some fossils that confirm that. Also the ancient hebrews did not differentiate between sustained flight and gliding.

Quote:

jtb: And still no overlap. "And the evening ad the morning were the fifth day".

See above about metaphorical usage.

Quote:

jtb: The Flood can be DATED from the Bible, and people living at that time did NOT mention it (and did not drown either). Status of Genesis: DEFEATED. Ed: Fraid not. The flood is never dated in the bible and given that the genealogies are not exhaustive and that the term often translated "son of" can also mean "descendent of". The date cannot be calculated, it is indefinite. Status of Genesis: UNDEFEATED. jtb: The claim that Biblical genealogies weren't exaustive is pure fiction invented by apologists. The term translated as "son of", when used in a genealogy, DOES mean "son of": because the intent of the passage is to lay out a genealogy.

Hardly, this was known about ancient genealogies even before Darwin. Matthew and the OT genealogies are not complete chronologies but rather abbreviated genealogies.

Quote:

jtb: Not that it matters anyhow, as the AGE of each person when he "became the ancestor of" the next IS specified. If you know the age of my grandfather when I was born, you don't need to know the age of my father to date my grandfather's birth. Status of Genesis: DEFEATED.

No, they are telling the age of the ancestor when he became the ancestor of the famous descendent. For example say I was a descendent of R.E. Lee. When Lee was 30 he became the father of my great great grandfather, therefore the ancient jews would say "Lee became the ancestor of Ed when he was 30 years old".

Quote:

Ed: No, as the scripture stated they were NOT to mistreat the captive women, this plainly includes rape. jtb: It plainly DOES NOT include rape.

If mistreat does not include rape then it doesn't include anything.

Quote:

jtb: and that single women had no defense against being raped (they were "fair game"), and that it was customary to rape captured virgins. Ed: It is true that single women were in much more dangerous situations in ancient societies, especially the surrounding pagan nations around ancient Israel where ritual involuntary prostitution was common. There was no organized police force in those days so single women were much more strongly motivated to marry. That is why these captive women would be much more likely to resign to marriage with soldiers that killed their families. jtb: Please explain why these women would rather be raped by the men who murdered their families than by strangers.

Because these men were being encouraged to marry these women by their leaders. Strangers are just that, an unknown factor and also by spending time with them for a month they could see the superior Hebrew society compared to their barbaric canaanite societies.

Quote:

jtb: The notion that these women voluntarily submitted to these murderers for their own protection is utterly repugnant. I suggest you proofread your posts and check for this type of stupidity in future.

Being repugnant to you is irrelevant, you need to reread the facts of the case that I have explained above.

Quote:

Ed: You have failed to demonstrate that the GR cannot be applied to rape. Status of biblical rape denial: UNDEFEATED. jtb: Sheesh, just go back a few pages. Or, better yet, just re-read the whole thread. You lost, bigtime.

Your absurd implication that normal men WANT to be sexually attacked by stronger women was not worth even mentioning. I was actually giving you a chance to come up with something better!

Quote:

jtb: You utterly failed to give any reason why the Universe AND God exist. By your own argument, this is a "fatal flaw". Status of argument for necessity of God's existence: DEFEATED. Ed: Given that something can logically be a cause without being an effect, a being that is self existent, ie God, does not need a cause for his existence. Status of argument for the existence of God: UNDEFEATED. jtb: And I can just as easily claim that THE UNIVERSE isn't an effect and doesn't need a cause. Your answer to my question is just another refusal to answer: "I say that God doesn't need a reason to exist, he just exists, so go away". I can give a similar answer, so yours is no better. Therefore your God is not NECESSARY, and your argument fails.

You can certainly CLAIM it, but almost all the scientific evidence points to it being an effect, ie it had a beginning and etc., so I would say my answer is a little better if you put any stock in science.

Quote:

jtb: Status of subject-object correlation argument: DEFEATED. Ed: No, survivability does not require knowledge of what is actually there. For example, an amoeba can hide under a shoe "thinking" it is a rock. It still may allow it to survive but its knowledge is incorrect and may eventually hurt its survivability, ie if the shoe has a human in it the amoeba may get crushed. jtb: Sensory apparatus increases the CHANCE of survival. Therefore it will be selected for. Therefore it will prevail, and get steadily better.

Actually this problem goes deeper than I have let on. If there is no God then you do not even have a rational basis for believing in an external reality. It could just be a very realistic dream. Only theists have a rational basis for believing that there is an objective reality, because a subject-object correlation was established at creation between the creator and the creation. So you do not even know if the evidence for evolution even actually exists.

Quote:

Ed: Absurd. The genealogies not being exhaustive is not equivalent to being wrong. Is a Websters Abridged Dictionary wrong? Of course not. jtb: The Bible says that "these are all the generations". ALL. By your own admission, this is not true. Therefore the Bible is wrong.

No, see above about ancient genealogies. A better translation would be "these are all the significant generations".

Quote:

Ed: Status of NOGO's challenge: DEFEATED. See previous post about the amalekite massacre. jtb: You have already ADMITTED that NOGO was right. So, if NOGO was right, how can you claim that his challenge was defeated? The reset is kicking in again. You are either lying in the hope that nobody will read your confession that NOGO was right, or you honestly have a mental disorder that causes you to keep forgetting your defeats. You have repeatedly admitted on this thread that the primary reason for the massacre of the Amalekites was what their ancestors did 400 years previously, after initially denying it but being forced by NOGO to admit that you were wrong. It is futile to lie when the lie can be exposed so easily, Ed.

No, I meant his challenge that that was the ONLY reason for their deaths.

Quote:

jtb: And while we're on the subject of lying, Ed: Ed: Hello tommy. Thanks for the response. It appears that nogo and starboy have wimped out and left the premises. So now I can discuss this with you. jtb: No, Ed, YOU wimped out. NOGO asked you over and over and over again to clarify your position on the punishment of innocents for the crimes of their ancestors. He insisted that you do this before continuing. He repeatedly warned you that he saw little point in continuing until you answered. You repeatedly wimped out. And you have sought to dredge up other arguments to disguise this fact. You have lost, Ed. You KNOW that you have lost. And you will use any lie, any form of dishonesty, to disguise the fact. I guess this comes from having no moral standards, Ed. NOGO left because he had DEFEATED you. Just as Starboy and myself (and, indeed, just about everybody else) have DEFEATED you.

Calm down Jack, I have not lied, or been dishonest, my position and the biblical position is that children can be punished for the sins of their fathers by God because he knows all the relevant facts regarding the children, but as stated in Deut. 24:16, the ancient hebrew government was not allowed to do so unless specifically directed to by God.

beyelzu

so, ed, when god says kill those babies cuz there fathers angered me its moral. well, if someone angers me and i kill there babies its not moral. damn, i have some apologies to make. be right back.