09 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder1) How were the many massacres of infants and children done at God's command in the OT consistent with ANY concept of "free will" resulting in "judgment"?
Your belief system is incoherent. Plus you have failed to address two rather important points:
1) How were the many massacres of infants and children done at God's command in the OT consistent with ANY concept of "free will" resulting in "judgment"?
2) If the name of Amalek was supposed to be wiped from memory, how come we're still talking about i ns to escape theological problems. This is, of course, the purpose of these translations.
Such an extermination can be seen to be merciful by delivering the young into the hands of the Lord and possibly saving their souls by not giving them time to become utterly sinful. Additionally, further generations that would have arisen from the perverse culture, are likewise prevented from coming into existence and spreading their sin.
2) If the name of Amalek was supposed to be wiped from memory, how come we're still talking about it? OT Monster God screwed up, didn't he?
I wouldn't say that. Amalek was a descendant of Esau, and he and the fate of his people would not have been deleted from the Bible in any case.
Plus I like how you cite to recent phony recent translations to escape theological problems. This is, of course, the purpose of these translations.
The KJV is full of mistranslations. Do you take these mistranslations at face value, or would you rather consult the original Greek and Hebrew for clarification?
09 Feb 08
Jorge: Reposted for your convenience.
Is it possible to sin so big and so often that you are no longer eligible to become saved? It seems to me this is what you are saying happened to the Amalekites...and, inexplicably, their animals...
Can modern day people sin so much and so big that even if they say the magic words (or whatever the fashionable thing to do is these days to become a Christian) God will simply reject them on account of their past deeds being so bad?
09 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesWell, you might venture to say this: but are you justified in doing so? I agree that, subjectively, it seems like one has the choice to determine one's attitude in the scenario you describe: but does one really? For example, might it not be the case that people with particular types of brains would be disposed to despair and others to hope? Or that neural firings triggered by random quantum fluctuations would result in one despairing or hoping? You present no argument that either form of explanation, in terms of cause or randomness, is not sufficient.
I think you are presenting a false dilemma. Let's say, like the soldier in Johnny Got His Gun, you find yourself in a situation where you have no arms, legs, ears, face, etc. Though, unlike the character in that novel, you are unable to communicate by Morse Code with anyone. If these are the antecedent conditions within you must live, what freedom mi together different attitude, or you could choose to wallow in despair and misery without hope.
Instead, you simply assert, without argument, that I present a false dilemma. However, it doesn't look false to me: I can't see any other coherent alternatives to determinism and haphazardism. To assert that free will exists is to assert that at least one such coherent alternative exists. So, if you assert that free will exists, then you must explain how an act of will can at once lack the causal antecedents that would make it inevitable, but lacking them, at the same time be responsive to the deliverances of reason, to which it must be subordinate.
09 Feb 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesParroting the same thing you said in your first post here doesn't answer my question, which was:
[b]1) How were the many massacres of infants and children done at God's command in the OT consistent with ANY concept of "free will" resulting in "judgment"?
Such an extermination can be seen to be merciful by delivering the young into the hands of the Lord and possibly saving their souls by not giving them time to become utterly sinful. Addition face value, or would you rather consult the original Greek and Hebrew for clarification?[/b]
How were the many massacres of infants and children done at God's command in the OT consistent with ANY concept of "free will" resulting in "judgment"?
Focus on the "free will" part. If infants are automatically saved this makes mincemeat out of the whole idea that "free will" is sooooooooooooo important to God. BTW, do you believe that humans are "ensouled" at conception? If so, and those zygotes that "die" are automatically saved as well (why wouldn't they be?), then the majority of souls are saved without even getting to any point where they could understand free will, much less exercise it.
2) Then God was wrong. As you pointed out, God said "I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.” "
09 Feb 08
Originally posted by Jorge Borges1And Jehovah saith unto Moses, `Go in unto Pharaoh, for I have declared hard his heart, and the heart of his servants, so that I set these My signs in their midst,
Yes, I would say the KJV translation is in error (an error fixed in the NKJV). For instance, the word-for-word literal translation does not contain, 'so that...' Neither does the New revised standard, nor the Amplified, etc.
"And Jehovah made strong the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not send away the sons of Israel" (Ex 10:20, J.P. Green's literal t ...[text shortened]... , and he hath not sent the sons of Israel away" (Ex 10:20, Young's literal translation).
Exodus 10:1 Young's Literal Translation
09 Feb 08
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesYou are an absolutely repugnant individual. Is any atrocity permissible as long as god supposedly commands it? When you start defending genocide and infanticide as being morally permissible, then it should be apparent that you have no coherent moral code to speak of. At least us secular 'moral relativists' will unconditionally condemn genocide in every circumstance. Your divinely countenanced barbarism is a blot on humanity.
1) How were the many massacres of infants and children done at God's command in the OT consistent with ANY concept of "free will" resulting in "judgment"?
Such an extermination can be seen to be merciful by delivering the young into the hands of the Lord and possibly saving their souls by not giving them time to become utterly sinful. Additionall ...[text shortened]... he perverse culture, are likewise prevented from coming into existence and spreading their sin.
09 Feb 08
Originally posted by rwingett"Merciful extermination" would be a good name for a heavy metal band.
You are an absolutely repugnant individual. Is any atrocity permissible as long as god supposedly commands it? When you start defending genocide and infanticide as being morally permissible, then it should be apparent that you have no coherent moral code to speak of. At least us secular 'moral relativists' will unconditionally condemn genocide in every circumstance. Your divinely countenanced barbarism is a blot on humanity.
10 Feb 08
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesYou've made this statement more than once in this thread. Would you be so kind as to present some non-biblical evidence for this claim?
snip while the Amalekites were a nation which practiced idolatry, child-sacrifice, demon-worship, and witchcraft as a way of life.
10 Feb 08
Originally posted by David C[sarcasm-mode: on] And what's wrong with child-sacrifices anyway? Can't such a sacrifice be seen to be merciful by delivering the young into the hands of the Lord and possibly saving their souls by not giving them time to become utterly sinful? [sarcasm-mode: off]
You've made this statement more than once in this thread. Would you be so kind as to present some non-biblical evidence for this claim?
10 Feb 08
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesHow is this any different than the Holocaust against the Jews and others during WWII? Apart from the fact that god supposedly ordered one and Hitler ordered the other, they are exactly the same. Genocide is genocide regardless of where the orders come from. Your god and Hitler are kindred spirits.
1) How were the many massacres of infants and children done at God's command in the OT consistent with ANY concept of "free will" resulting in "judgment"?
Such an extermination can be seen to be merciful by delivering the young into the hands of the Lord and possibly saving their souls by not giving them time to become utterly sinful. Additionall ...[text shortened]... he perverse culture, are likewise prevented from coming into existence and spreading their sin.
10 Feb 08
Originally posted by rwingettHitler didn't see himself as being merciful. That's the difference.
How is this any different than the Holocaust against the Jews and others during WWII? Apart from the fact that god supposedly ordered one and Hitler ordered the other, they are exactly the same. Genocide is genocide regardless of where the orders come from. Your god and Hitler are kindred spirits.
10 Feb 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI think Hitler would have been comfortable with this rationale:
Hitler didn't see himself as being merciful. That's the difference.
Additionally, further generations that would have arisen from the perverse culture, are likewise prevented from coming into existence and spreading their sin.
10 Feb 08
Originally posted by rwingettI was thinking of a reply to this, but frankly even the thought of a conversation about "merciful genocide" was starting to make my dinner feel a bit restless in my stomach. 😕
I'm sure that the Amakelites were killed in a 'merciful' genocide, as opposed to a 'malicious' genocide, was a great comfort to them.