semyaza

I have problems. PB has brought up some of them. Let me spell out what I feel is the fatal flaw:

Miller confuses the events of the Exodus with the events of I Samuel 15. He tries to make conditions of the former apply to the latter. It doesn't work. Here are the facts :-

1) If Samuel is to be believed, it was God himself who ordered the attack (15:2)

2) The only stated reason for the attack is the events of the Exodus (15:2). NO OTHER REASONS ARE GIVEN NOR IMPLIED!!!!!!

3) Said attack took place more than 400 years earlier. Clearly, none of the original combatants were still alive. Thus, all inhabitants of the city were innocent of the only stated reason for the attack!

4) God specifically orders the destruction of the innocents (15:3).

Now, it hardly needs to be pointed out that these actions constitute a war crime in the vocabulary of any civilised nation. Men have been tried, convicted and executed in living memory for much the same actions.

Miller equivocates by arguing that the Amalekites had a knowledge of 'the truth', while completely ignoring a) the stated reasons for the massacre, and b) that 'Truth' is relative. Are we to believe that the Amalekites were simply to roll over and accept the 'truth' of Yahweh on nothing more than the say-so of a horde of murderous brigands?

As read, the passage clearly makes God a criminal and a murderer of the worst sort. The reasons for the attack are clearly stated; hence I roundly reject any and all attempts to sneak in 'mitigating circumstances'.

svensky

I'm curious to know how you know this ?
And the alternative was ?
Ummm ... men and God are not the same and God does have the right to take life. So this is a faulty comparison.

But tell me how you know there are no other reasons that are implied.

Jason

svensky

Who exactly isn't guilty ?
And God makes a habit of doing this sort of thing and violating the basic principles of the world he has constructed where exactly ?
I'm glad you think it is more humane to let people starve to death. Don't blow the point off.

Jason

Azathoth

And that really is the thrust of the argument.Ultimately,god can do whatever it wants because it's god,and anything god does is good because it's god.

So,god had no choice with the children?This being keeps the Israelites alive for 40 years on food provided by it.The same being that suppposedly created everything,and it can't keep a few kids alive?

Please.Whenever Mr Miller wants to excuse the actions of god,it conveniently becomes unable to do anything to help.

Oh,and his theory that back then the only way to determine who had the more powerful god was to fight and wipe the other guy out.Maybe,but not when there's an actual supernatural being there.

God's prophets get into plenty of mojo contests to see who's got the tougher god,and guess who wins every time,and every time the people on the opposite side know that it's ol' sky pappy who's the main man among gods,and better than them.

semyaza

Feel free to point out where the 'other reasons' are mentioned in the text.

Jeremy Pallant

Hi, Jason. Nice to see, well, read, you again.

I did, in fact, check your link. Let me reply to the points itemised in it.

1. The Amalekites are a predatory, raiding, and nomadic group; and are descendants of Esau (and hence, distant cousins to Israel).

The behaviour of the Israelites is no different.

2. They would have been aware of the promise of the Land TO Israel, from the early promises to Esau's twin Jacob.

I don't remember what my French ancestors said to each other 400 years ago. I don't think it reasonable to assume the Amalekites would necessarily have remembered a promise made around 800 years previously. Furthermore, the Israelites left. By the standards you uphold, I am entitled to return to France and claim land taken from my family by the Catholics.

3. They did NOT live in Canaan (but in the lower, desert part of the Negev--a region south of where Judah will eventually settle), and would NOT have been threatened by Israel--had they believed the promises of God.

I don't know. A genocidal neighbour moves into the general region and I certainly wouldn't have felt safe. Also the assumption is that the Amalekites had an accurately recorded history going back 800 years. I ask you, how well does the average person remember thirteenth century history?

4. As soon as Israel escapes Egypt--before they can even 'catch their breath'--the Amalekites make a long journey south(!) and attack Israel.

The Bible doesn't really say that. It says "then came Amalek and fought with Israel." The time between this battle and the Exodus is not given, nor is it said where the Amalekites lived at the time. The reasons for the fight aren't given. The Amalekites may have been justified, but any such thinking is pure speculation. Certainly the mass movement of 2-3 million people would give cause for pause.

5. Their first targets were the helpless

So? The Israelites used to target the helpless as well, according to the Bible. The best you can say is that the Amalekites and Israelites were as bad as one another. Such behaviour hadly makes the Amalekites any more evil than any army that attacks stragglers.

God uses none of this as the reason for the attack on the Amalekites, though, instead citing reasons four hundred years old. Incidentally, when I said "prove it", I wasn't really looking for you to use the Bible, hardly a reliable source of information. I'm more interested in knowing what archaeology has to say about the nature of the Amalekites.

Polar Bear

*palm smacking forehead* Oh, that's right, I forgot ... your religion says that EVERYONE is guilty and worthy of death, even newborn infants. That little theological loophole must make it real convenient to justify atrocities.


Um, they're called "miracles" and according to you Christians they happen all the time.

It's a false dichotomy. You pretend that the only choices are death by the sword or death by starvation. The Israelis could have absorbed the new people into their midst. The war orphans/widows could have wandered over to the next city and begged for mercy. Or, your all powerful God could have provided something for them.

But what does it matter? They were all guilty and worthy of death, right? Just like the rest of us, right? So if God murdered the newborn infants of every unrighteous woman on a daily basis for the next, oh, 100 years, then that would be perfectly OK because (1) Goddidit and (2) we're all disgusting sinners worthy of death.

Right?

Jack the Bodiless

Women and children are perfectly capable of tending goats. In fact, this would be easier without men (who eat more). They would not have starved.

From the OP:
My favorites:

Contradiction: <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/iniquity.html" target="_blank">Are we punished for the sins of others?</a> Not just a straightforward contradiction between verses, but a faultline running right through christianity, from the punishment of all mankind for the sin of Adam and Eve, right through to the crucifixion of Jesus for the sins of everyone else. Yet this is supposedly a god of "perfect justice".

Absurdity: The Great Flood. Just about everything related to it is an absurdity, and it is also absurd to suggest that it actually happened anyhow.

Atrocities: Too many to count. A good one is the massacre of the Egyptian firstborn. They were innocent of any wrongdoing, and it was a setup anyhow (God hardened Pharaoh's heart to give himself the excuse).

Injustice: eternal punishment for finite sins.

False Prophecies: two categories. Matthew's habit of creating bogus prophecies by ripping OT verses out of context ("false" because they clearly don't refer to Jesus), and the ongoing failure of the Second Coming. No matter what semantic tricks the apologists attempt, the plain intent of the writers is clear, and Paul thought he would live to see the Rapture: