Steven Carr

Because you cannot reproduce the arguments in the article, without making yourself look like a blood-thirsty psychopath? (Just a guess, I could be wrong)

semyaza

Unless you are Glenn Miller, we are not planning to read someone else's opinions. Give your own reasons why you think the Israelites were justified in committing genocide.

Echo

Well I think they are worth the trouble, since there are some pretty good examples in the bible of events I would call absurdities, but we still need to talk a little more about what qualifies something as absurd, so as to avoid your label of "begging the question." If your response to every absurdity is to say "well you're just *assuming* it's absurd" then your request for absurdities seems to be little more than a charade. What are some examples of kinds of events you would deem absurd? If you give me an idea, then I can look to see if there are passages of the bible that fit the mold.

Wow, I don't know what kinds of atheists you've been hanging out with, but I can assure you that no atheist on this board would be stupid enough to interpret the above passage as anything but metaphor. The examples I mentioned in my earlier post - talking snakes, Balaam's talking donkey, the mass resurrection of the dead who wandered through Jerusalem, the angels who came down and took human wives - these give no indication of being metaphor and every indication of having been written down as recollections or retellings of alleged historical events.

You have also not answered my question as to whether absurdities such as the above can be redeemed from the wastebin of absurdity by merely relabeling them as miracle events. If so, then any absurdity can be reclassified as a miracle, and I'll once again suspect your request for absurdities is just a charade.

How could I make reference to other ANE cultures that were more enlightened or more just when you and I probably share no common understanding of the meanings of the words?

To you, "just" is whatever God does, correct? So you win by default. Any atrocity I point out, no matter how gut-wrenchingly brutal or horriying to our modern sensibilities, fails to
count because in your lexicon "just" and "good" are words that describe *anything* God does.

I'll repeat my earlier question. Is there any act
so horrible, so vile, that if God did it, condoned it, or ordered it, we would be justified in concluding this god committed an atrocity?

Well again, you win by default. How can I demonstrate that an open-ended prophecy can never be fulfilled? I could roll out a few dozen open-ended prophecies right now and challenge you to prove they can never be fulfilled. More charades.

That one is a bit debatable. If the remaining walls of the twin towers were enshrined as memorials and visited and kissed by hundreds of people a day, one might say that in a way, it wasn't really completely destroyed. But I won't quibble over that one. I've seen far better unfulfilled prophecies than that but they're usually answered with the following rationalizations: The prophecy will be fulfilled at some unspecified time in the future (thereby rendering it unfalsifiable), the prophecy was conditional (a la Ninevah), or the prophecy has to be interpreted "spiritually"

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Echo ]</p>

svensky

I see. Lets not read the article lets just assume what it says then make claims about the content.

Your next trick is mind reading ?

Very enlightened. No wonder I got sick of this sort of silliness and moved onto to greener pastures

Jason

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: svensky ]</p>

svensky

Why not ? Not interested in the pursuit of understanding ?

Jason

svensky

Of course I will respond like that if you say something to the effect of "I think X is absurd". What else are you doing ? Also, it wasn't my request it was BH's. I just thought it was worth clarifying that finding an absurdity without begging the question was likely to be impossible.

I can't think of something that would qualify. Your welcome to try though and I will look at each one by one if you like.
Again it wasn't my request.
We both know what the words mean.
Only in practice for all of the examples I have seen people try to cite of injustice.
But to say that it is offensive to modern sensibilities is irrelevant anyway. It is an anachronism to say X is an atrocity by our modern standards. Was it unheard of or unjustified by the circumstances of the time and the people of the time.

To give an example. The ANE peoples that where killed when women and children where are a special case. If the choice is leave them to starve or be eaten by animals vs run them through which is the kinder choice ? Remember there where no relief organisations.

Sure the choice is ugly, but how is dehydration/starvation or attack by wild animals a better way to die compared to being run through ? At least being run through is quick.
Cite an example that is unjustified given the circumstances surrounding them. If you just going to rip 5 lines out and go "Hey this is an atrocity" that isn't going to cut it. Explain what other options where available and in keeping with Gods way of dealing with the situation.

Have a read of the article linked above for a good indepth run down of the situation surrounding one of these events to get a feel for what is required. You'll simply call it "apologist rationalizations" no dount (please surprise me and read it with an open mind), but have a look anyway.
It is not a charade. That the skeptic is stupid enough to take on the burden of proof here is not my problem. If you insist the things you claim exist it is not my fault if you can't shoulder the burden of proof. It is your claim that these problems exist, so it your job to show why.

Show why with a prophecy it must have been fulfilled at a certian time and that it was not.

If a prophecy is listed as conditional you can hardly whine when becasue a condition for voiding the prophecy comes to pass that it then remains unfulfilled. What sort of silliness is that ?
Show why is can't be fulfilled at any other time, why it wasn't fulfilled and show that the condition for voiding it was not met.

It is your burden of proof that you assume when looking for these things.

Sorry if you think it is to tough

Jason

semyaza

I interested in pursuing your understanding, not that of someone else. I have already read Glenn's page and I have my own issues with it. Do you agree with everything he says?

Hawkingfan

These are my favorite absurdities (compiled by Donald Morgan at the Secular Web Modern Library):

GE 1:3-5, 14-19 There was light ("night and day") before there was a sun.

GE 1:12, 16 Plants began to grow before there was sunlight.

GE 1:29 Every plant and tree which yield seed are given to us by God as good to eat. (Note: This would include poisonous plants such as hemlock, buckeye pod, nightshade, oleander.)

GE 4:15 A mark is placed on Cain as a distinctive identifying symbol when there were only three (known) persons on earth.

GE 4:17 Cain builds and populates a whole city in only two generations.

GE 9:12-16 God first creates the rainbow. (Note: Apparently the laws having to do with refraction of light were null and void prior to this time.)

GE 30:37-43 Jacob alters the genetic characteristics of cattle by letting them view a striped rod. (Note: His purpose in doing so was to fleece Laban of his cattle.)

GE 38:27-29 Twins are being delivered. One puts out his hand and the midwife binds it with a scarlet ribbon to identify him as the firstborn. But he draws back his hand, and his brother is born first (thereby obtaining the rights of the firstborn son).

EX 12:30 The Lord kills all the first-born of Egypt and there is not a house where there is not at least one dead. (This means that there was not a house in Egypt that did not include at least one first-born---a most unusual situation.)

EX 17:14 God says that he will utterly blot out the remembrances of Amalek. (That remembrance is now permanently preserved in the Bible.)

LE 11:20-21 There are winged creatures (birds or insects) that go around on all fours. (Note: There are no birds that go around on four legs, and all insects have six legs.)

LE 11:6 (States, incorrectly, that the rabbit, or hare, chews its cud.)

2CH 21:20, 22:1-2 Ahaziah was forty-two when he became king; he succeeded his father, who died at the age of forty. Thus, Ahaziah was two years older than his father. 2CH 21:20, 22:1-2 Ahaziah was forty-two when he became king; he succeeded his father, who died at the age of forty. Thus, Ahaziah was two years older than his father.

MT 4:8 There is a high mountain from which all the kingdoms of the world can be seen. (Note: This implies a flat earth.)

MT 24:29-30 Although the sun and the moon have been darkened and the stars have fallen from heaven, there is still enough light to see.

MK 16:17-18 Those who believe are able to handle snakes and drink any deadly poison without suffering harm.

JN 6:24-30 A large crowd of persons (probably several thousand)asks Jesus for a sign so that they might see and believe. This occurs immediately following the Feeding of the Multitude which should have been one of the greatest miracles and most convincing signs of all time.

svensky

A qualified yes. What issue did you have ? I had no problems with the argument.

Jason

Polar Bear

I'll tackle Glenn's essay.

His justifications for the Flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah revolve around the idea that the "sinners" had a chance to hear the "truth" for quite some time and rejected it. Also, apparently every single person on the planet (in the case of the Flood) and in Sodom/Gomorrah was guilty of all manner of unspeakable atrocities. Those who were not guilty were annihilated anyway -- out of mercy, Glenn argues, because without the sinful and guilty men around, there was just no way the women and children could have survived.

This would make more sense if the adults suffered some kind of special punishment while the children were just raptured straight to heaven. But no, they were all executed in exactly the same way, by fire or flood.

The Amalekites are handled the same way: what happened to them happened because they had it coming. A long list of Amalekite crimes are cited. And they were even given warning, according to Glenn. He turns the 400-years-elapsed problem into part of the story by saying that the Amalekites had 400 years to change their ways and did not, which completely eludes the fact that the Amalekites who committed the crimes were no longer alive 400 years later.

So what would be equivalent to this? I like the example of wiping Germany off the map 300 years from now because of what happened during WWII. To be fair, let's say 400 years -- let's send them a couple of "prophets" this year to "warn them" and tell them how they can be saved. The prophets won't stick around for 400 years, of course, and no one alive in 400 years will know or remember the words of the prophets. But then the Germans can be utterly annihilated. And we can kill their infants and children, too, because, um, that's better than letting them wander around in the woods, or something.