biblical atrocities, and tigers, and bears, oh my!

[Ben Kenobi]

Arrian, Azazel,

That's what I meant. For the sake of the debate, both presuppositions must be assumed to be true.

Throughout human history, nations have come up with all sorts of stuff to justify things they want to do.

True.

So some people did things to Israelites they didn't like.

If you read the last post on numbers, you see that the Israelites had no problems whatsoever, until a plague hit, and started to kill them.

The Israelites kill them and take their virgin women. The idea that this was sanctioned by God is, to me, a) highly unlikely; and b) disgusting.

Counterpoint. Israel was forbidden to take wives from the tribes among them. Why then, would God command them to take wives among these women? Could God not just say, kill them all?

Would you prefer this action, Arrian? Would it be less disgusting?

Again, we come back to the point of blameless. These women are entirely blameless, so how can they be condemned along with the rest of their tribe? God took mercy upon them, and took them into Israel.

[Mercator]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No 'potential' about it. Someone who does not believe in God, who recieves a voice, which he accepts as God, is in reality, a believer.

If he is not sure, he will either ask someone who he believes will know, or he will reject the voice as 'impossible.'

According to this then, anyone who would ever "hear voices" andd accepts them as God, even when he didn't believe before, actually believed all along. But does God "speak" to everybody? Could I be believing in God without actually knowing it myself?

However, you do have a good point, which is why such prophecies need to be carefully considered, not just by the person, but by those with some familiarity with this sort of thing. Elders, or priests do fine.

And then what if the guy really was just halucinating, but his halucinations just happen to "agree with God"?

[Ben Kenobi]

If you accept as possible that one God, Yahweh, can speak to his people, then you also have to accept as possible that all gods might speak to their people

Do you wish to challenge all these other 'gods?'

Then I will let their disciples speak for them. I will speak for mine.

After all, yoru belief in a particular god and rejection of others is nothing more than an opinion.

No. Sorry. My beliefs are in the resurrection of Christ as a historical fact, and not on mere opinion.

"For if Christ did not die,
then we rest in our sins,
and worse, for we are
decievers of men."

[Arrian]

Counterpoint. Israel was forbidden to take wives from the tribes among them. Why then, would God command them to take wives among these women? Could God not just say, kill them all?

Would you prefer this action, Arrian? Would it be less disgusting?

Again, we come back to the point of blameless. These women are entirely blameless, so how can they be condemned along with the rest of their tribe? God took mercy upon them, and took them into Israel.

The main thing I found disgusting was the idea of a God sanctioning the slaughter of all those men and non-virgin women.

My point was that it sure seems to me that the Israelites decided to smack down their neighbors and steal their women, and then invented this excuse that "God told us to!"

However, assuming for the sake of argument that there is a God and he did speak to the Israelites and tell them to go slaughter their neighbors, I reject that God utterly. To hell with him.

-Arrian

[Mercator]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Counterpoint. Israel was forbidden to take wives from the tribes among them. Why then, would God command them to take wives among these women? Could God not just say, kill them all?

Would you prefer this action, Arrian? Would it be less disgusting?

Again, we come back to the point of blameless. These women are entirely blameless, so how can they be condemned along with the rest of their tribe? God took mercy upon them, and took them into Israel.

This whole business reminds me of an old joke (I'm not too good at telling jokes, but I'm sure you know it):
Hitler: "I want to kill all jews and one clown."
Some other fella: "Why the clown?"
Hitler: "See! Nobody cares about the Jews!"

[Arrian]

No. Sorry. My beliefs are in the resurrection of Christ as a historical fact, and not on mere opinion.

And this is where it all breaks down. How does one debate belief? Pointless.

-Arrian

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No. Sorry. My beliefs are in the resurrection of Christ as a historical fact, and not on mere opinion. "

"For if Christ did not die, then we are still in our sins, and worse, for we are decievers of men."

That's still an opinion, there's no way around it. In your opinion it's a historical fact. But guess what? There's not one jot of proof for it, any historian will tell you that.

Beliefs without evidence = opinions.

[Ben Kenobi]

According to this then, anyone who would ever "hear voices" andd accepts them as God, even when he didn't believe before, actually believed all along.

No. On hearing God speak to him, he believes.

But does God "speak" to everybody?

I'm not sure. He certainly could. He draws everyone to him, but some people don't accept the invitation, and this will take many different forms from a spoken word.

Could I be believing in God without actually knowing it myself?

That reminds me of an interesting essay, that says that we know God in our hearts, but that we choose to not listen to him.

And then what if the guy really was just halucinating, but his halucinations just happen to "agree with God"?

A hallucination would not carry the precision of prophecy, as we see throughout the old testament.

[Ben Kenobi]

The main thing I found disgusting was the idea of a God sanctioning the slaughter of all those men and non-virgin women.

So then, you do admit that God was merciful to those who were blameless.

Thank you Arrian.

[Ben Kenobi]

any historian will tell you that.

I'm sorely tempted to give a MtG reply to this answer.

Dude, it's what I do for a living. I AM a historian.

In your opinion it's a historical fact.

Given the facts, the events surrounding the resurrection, the situation, all corroborated by independent sources, and eyewitness testimony, the resurrection is the most reasonable explanation for these events.

Now, to call that opinion, is to render all historical facts of that day and age mere opinion.

[Arrian]

MAIN THING, Ben. Secondary to that was the taking of the women.

The alternative, you know, doesn't have to be killing them too. It could just be to leave them alone. But that's no good. They might actually try to live on their land, and the Israelites want that, so better just assimilate the useful bits (virgin women... which to me says "the young girls who weren't yet of marriageable age" which means they're malleable still).

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Given the facts, the events surrounding the resurrection, the situation, all corroborated by independent sources, and eyewitness testimony, the resurrection is the most reasonable explanation for these events.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Dude, it's what I do for a living. I AM a historian.

Then you should be ashamed for the blatant mischaracterization of the biblical accounts of the resurrection as being historical.

Given the facts, the events surrounding the resurrection, the situation, all corroborated by independent sources, and eyewitness testimony, the resurrection is the most reasonable explanation for these events.

Independent sources and eyewitness testimony? We have no independent sources or eyewitness testimony! The only sources relating to the resurrection are hearsay accounts written decades after the supposed events by people who didn't witness them! Whose eyewitness account do we have of the resurrection?

You get an F in history.

[Ben Kenobi]

The alternative, you know, doesn't have to be killing them too. It could just be to leave them alone.

Yeah, right. Leave them alone, and they will do find. All their fathers and brothers are dead.

assimilate the useful bits

Well, why not kill them earlier, when you first encounter them? Everything in Numbers 31, has to be considered by Numbers 25.

[GePap]

So then, you do admit that God was merciful to those who were blameless.

And hence lies the problem: You excuse the killing because 'in god's eyes they were guilty', and this is what people have a problem-that genocide is OK as long as God says they deserve it: which means to you morality is simply based on God's command- so ifone day you were convinced God told you to kill all the first borns, you would, becuase God said so, and thus it must be ok.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by GePap

Quote:

So then, you do admit that God was merciful to those who were blameless.

And hence lies the problem: You excuse the killing because 'in god's eyes they were guilty', and this is what people have a problem-that genocide is OK as long as God says they deserve it: which means to you morality is simply based on God's command- so ifone day you were convinced God told you to kill all the first borns, you would, becuase God said so, and thus it must be ok.

Bingo.

Except for the spelling.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Arrian
Bingo.

Except for the spelling.

It's GePap, be merciful.

[Arrian]

I didn't deliberately mangle his handle as others have done to mock his spelling.

BEHOLD! I am merciful!



-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

that genocide is OK as long as God says they deserve it:

I dispute, that is is genocide at all, but rather more akin to capital punishment. To distinguish between the blameless and the guilty is not a feature of genocide, but rather the antithesis. Genocide kills without regard to moral standing.

God told you to kill all the first borns, you would, becuase God said so, and thus it must be ok.

No, because it would violate God's rules, hence God would not command such a thing. God is good, not good is God. To be good is an essential characteristic of God, that like other essential characteristics, cannot be parted from him. Thus he commands, because it is good, rather than the inverse, that what is good, is what he commands.

[GePap]

It's GePap, be merciful.

I didn't deliberately mangle his handle as others have done to mock his spelling.

BEHOLD! I am merciful!



-Arrian

Aww,you guys are so cute..but certainly lose point for lack of originality.

I spells likes I wanz to spells!!!

(or simply prefer to type fast over checking accuracy)

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No, because it would violate God's rules, hence God would not command such a thing. God is good, not good is God. To be good is an essential characteristic of God, that like other essential characteristics, cannot be parted from him. Thus he commands, because it is good, rather than the inverse, that what is good, is what he commands.

OK, so you have said that since God wanted to make some space for his chosen people, it was OK to slaughter a bunch of people who stood in the way of that..cause they were not innocent..

NOW: I guess I would have to say that since the jews were the chosen people, the Holocaust was wrong..

So lets go to rwanda..now, if some Hutu priest came and told you "God told us that we had to eliminate the Tutsi and traitors to secure our homeland", would you then be OK with the Hutu actions (assuming you become convinced the man's account of God perhaps having come down and make these statements)? becuase according to what you have posted-God CAN command mass killings as long as it will further HIS plan.

[Az]

To be good is an essential characteristic of God, that like other essential characteristics, cannot be parted from him. Thus he commands, because it is good, rather than the inverse, that what is good, is what he commands.

Yeah, like the holocaust, that was really good. Unless god doesn't rule the world.

[Boris Godunov]

I'm still wondering what blame the little boy Midianites had, or the old women ones, that warranted them being slaughtered. What did the infant boys do?

[GePap]

Another even bigger question:

You say God can NOT command evil not because what God commands = good, but that God can only command good. Are you saying there is a Good beyond God, to which even God is beholden? Or are you making the claim that God's nature is limited, and thus can't do anything that is not Good? and if this is the answer, how does this not refute omnipotence?

[Boris Godunov]

We can look at Deuteronomy for an even worse example:

2:31
And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land.

2:32
Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz.

God delivered Sihon to the Israelites
and they killed him, his sons, and all his people,
including all of the women and the children.
2:33
And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.

2:34
And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain

See, here, nobody is spared. Every single person wiped out. Seems to meet BK's criteria for genocide.

[Boris Godunov]

And again:

20:16
But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

20:17
But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

Even listing the peoples to be killed through genocide for the express purpose of Lebensraum.

[Arrian]

Nice guy, this God, eh?

-Arrian

[Az]

Even listing the peoples to be killed through genocide for the express purpose of Lebensraum.

I've got this urge to protect my people: there was nothing exceptional in this behavior.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

Even listing the peoples to be killed through genocide for the express purpose of Lebensraum.

I've got this urge to protect my people: there was nothing exceptional in this behavior.

Actually, there was. The jealous, intolerant Yahweh was rather an anomaly in religious terms. While every other people committed mass slaughter while invading, it was not oftend they so completely destroyed other peoples as did the Hebrews described in the Old Testament. Most conquerers merely subjugated, taxed and interbred with the people they subdued.

But the Hebrews certainly weren't alone, no.

[Ben Kenobi]

GePap:

Are you saying there is a Good beyond God, to which even God is beholden?

Let's go off on a tangent for awhile. In what sense is someone good? Christ alludes to this, in saying, that it is only God who is good. All of us, as fallen human beings, cannot be good, because of what we do, in not living up to the standard of God.

In saying that God is good, you are saying that he achieves his own standard. That is why I was careful to say that it is a part of his nature, to be good, and cannot be seperated from God.

In being truly good, God is not limited, but rather prevented from sinning. He is free to truly be, as we are not. It is the ultimate promulgation of God to be good.

So lets go to rwanda..now, if some Hutu priest came and told you "God told us that we had to eliminate the Tutsi and traitors to secure our homeland",

First of all, in what sense would the Tutsi be traitors? To the state? If so, it cannot be God commanding the Hutu, but the state.

God CAN command mass killings as long as it will further HIS plan.

He can make us, so he can also unmake us. But he promises to punish only the wicked, something that as God, only he can know perfectly, and precisely.

He has also made other covenants, never to destroy man, or the world, as he did in the time of the flood, and has sought different ways to bring us closer to him in his fullness, with the last of these ways through the atonement of Christ.

Such as it is, God promises to delay judgement until the time of the second coming, and as such, he will not order mass killings, but instead allow each one of us to choose our own fate. But this is a gift, it has not always been this way.