22 Nov 11
Originally posted by jaywillYour argument doesn't make any sense.
That was not my entire argument. Whether children and women were killed or were not I still regard God as doing the righteous thing at the right time in the right way.
Before I come to First Samuel there are quite a few acts of mercy, patience, and longsuffering of God toward sinners. For example:
God forbides that vengence should be taken on Cain ...[text shortened]... en as harsh as the defeat of the Amalekites was it must have been the appropriate judgment.
You argue that:
1. There are instances of Gods actions that you are capable of judging right or wrong, and God clearly acts 'right'.
2. There are instances of Gods actions that you are not capable of judging right or wrong (but appear to most observers to be 'wrong'😉, but because of 1. you assume these actions too must be 'right'.
But if this was logically sound, why do you not do it the other way around? Why not:
a. There are instances where Gods actions are clearly 'wrong'.
b. Therefore those instances where God appeared to acting 'right' should also assumed to be instances of wrong doing.
So you have some special reasons for being able to judge certain instances and not others. What are those reasons?
22 Nov 11
5 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
Your argument doesn't make any sense.
You argue that:
1. There are instances of Gods actions that you are capable of judging right or wrong, and God clearly acts 'right'.
2. There are instances of Gods actions that you are not capable of judging right or wrong (but appear to most observers to be 'wrong'😉, but because of 1. you assume these actions too ons for being able to judge certain instances and not others. What are those reasons?
Your argument doesn't make any sense.
You argue that:
1. There are instances of Gods actions that you are capable of judging right or wrong, and God clearly acts 'right'.
2. There are instances of Gods actions that you are not capable of judging right or wrong (but appear to most observers to be 'wrong'😉, but because of 1. you assume these actions too must be 'right'.
It is not that much different from the child who learns to trust his father's actions. As the child grows greater understanding comes with more maturity.
The Christian is in the process of being conformed to Christ. The Christian will eventually arrive at full transformation to be like Christ. As we are in the process we expect where I minds differ somewhat now they will not differ someday.
I have more than enough experience to trust that God's heart is good.
But if this was logically sound, why do you not do it the other way around? Why not:
a. There are instances where Gods actions are clearly 'wrong'.
I know of no instances where I judge God's actions as so clearly wrong. Maybe you do. I admit that there are instances difficult for me to explain.
When I was a younger believer I could not understand why God circumvented the Tower of Babel from being built. I thought it was marvelous that the world had one language and was united together to accomplish a grand project. WHy would God throw them into confusion and scatter them ?
Latter I realized that for mankind to be united yet apart from His eternal purpose and apart from Him, was dangerous. Probably a negative utopia would be the result of a godless yet totally unified mankind.
I am still growing spiritually. And I suspect until I see the Lord Jesus there will be portions of His revelation or actions done by God which I will find difficult to fully understand. This is not to say I think they are "clearly wrong". They are sometimes clearly difficult for me to understand.
b. Therefore those instances where God appeared to acting 'right' should also assumed to be instances of wrong doing.
This would represent to me a kind of spiritual sickness. It is like the child who assumes the father is doing wrong. And this not at two years old but at ten or 20 or 30.
I came to the Bible and the Old Testament particularly after I encountered the love of Christ. At first I did not read the Bible but proudly turned to Christian philosophy which I could not understand. Eventually the Holy Spirit impressed me that I should pick up the New Testament and start to read. First the Person of Jesus gained my trust and respect and love. Then I noticed that He took the Old Testament seriously. So I thought if it was good for Jesus it must be good.
First I met Jesus. Then I read of Jesus. Then this lead me to the whole Bible including the Old Testament. None of this involved an attitude of assuming a priori that God was evil. Rather I sought to know more about the loving Father who rescued me.
To say that God does not exist is some kind of horrific lie and delusion.
To imagine a dysfunctional God who somehow endowed His creatures with more wisdom than Himself such that He needs our correction, makes no sense. How could the effect be greater than the cause ?
The Apostle Paul expresses something of the same attitude about our growing into fuller undertanding:
"For now we see in a mirror obscurely, but at that time face to face; now I know in part, but at that time I will fully know even as also I was fully known." (1 Cor. 13:12)
So you have some special reasons for being able to judge certain instances and not others. What are those reasons?
Growth in the divine life, spiritual maturation effect the level of undertanding.
We are born again to "grow again".
23 Nov 11
Originally posted by jaywillthat is a failure of your character.
That was not my entire argument. Whether children and women were killed or were not I still regard God as doing the righteous thing at the right time in the right way.
Before I come to First Samuel there are quite a few acts of mercy, patience, and longsuffering of God toward sinners. For example:
God forbides that vengence should be taken on Cain (Gen. 4:14,15).
God has Noah preach warning for 200 years before the flood (2 Pet. 2:5)
God tolerates the iniquity of the Amorites for 400 years before judging (Gen.15:16).
God rescues whole city of Sodom from kidnapping through Abraham (Gen. 14:1-17)
God has mercy on Abimelech's kingdom though he takes Abraham's wife (Gen. 20:-18)
God mercilly allows Egyptians to the Exodus so that they go out "a mixed multitude" (Exo. 12:38).
delayed judgement is no mercy, it's also irrelevant. if i help an old lady across the street in the morning and murder her at night, my earlier kindness is meaningless.
They would do just as some of them witnessed the Hebrews trying to protect their wives and children in Exodus 17.
none of them would have been witness to that event, even if it did occur as the hebrews claim.
According to First Samuel only king Agag was left. And with the execution of Agag by Samuel the partially completed job assigned to Saul was completed.
After this we see Amalekites latter. And one running to tell David of Saul's defeat must indicate some amount of assimilation of Amalekites with Hebrews was likely (2 Sam.1: 1-10)
Since Agag had a Agagite descendent in the book of Esther, I figure there must be some unspoken limitations to the execution of the Amalekites by Saul. God said that He would have war with Amalek from generation to generation. War with Amalek may not mean every Amalekite was killed but only that their culture would be defeated by God and God's chosen people.
there was no limitation. the amalekites were hunted to extinction, with the survivors finished off later on by a savage band of jews who stole what land they had left: 1 chr 4:43
I also do not lose sight of the fact that the eventual goal of God was to bless all the families of the earth. There is no outrage from the "horrific God" skeptics that a peoples could be utilized to prevent God's blessing all of the families of the earth.
what do you believe to be blessings from this mad god you worship?
The definition you supplied of genocide I think would include what occured at Gettysburg and other brutal Civil War battles. But I cannot write and review that definition you gave at the same time. As I recall "population" was not the only qualifier.
no sir. the definition of genocide does not apply to what occurred at gettysburg, nor of civil war in general though some civil wars do have genocide occurrences.
one can however argue for a case of genocide in the treatment of the american natives by the invading settlers and their progeny.
The fact of the matter is that completion of the task given to Saul was performed by the slaying of king Agag. Apparently a portion of the population of the Amalekites remained.
some escaped the hebrew savagery for a while, only to be finished off later. when their mad god gives an order...they follow up. especially when there is some rich land to be gained in the deal.
What I don't see is Samuel killing Agag and then commanding that any and all existing Amalekites be sought out and rounded up for similar execution.
only because you haven't read all of the bible. i will snip off your long winded justification for the murderous acts based on speculation that's not consistent with what's written in the bible.
There may be sections which you regard as useless as historical accountings. That does not mean they did not occur. And since God's priorities are the feeding and building of faith these true events are useful to His economy.
in the end, you're left with another alleged important historical accounting that only the hebrews seem to have recorded. i'm sorry, but the evidence in the bible indicates the bloodthirsty lust of extermination the hebrews held towards the amalekites. any negative claims they have to make concerning the amalekite people are subject to suspicion, and when they make historical errors in their accounting, it lends even more credence to the theory that they invented the entire episode.
I am convinced that God's ordained way that we approach and contact Him subjectively and experiencially is through faith and not science. Therefore it is understandable that in some things we simply have no other way to take what was recorded except with faith.
no faith is necessary in identifying the fact that the biblegod ordered the hebrews to murder women and children and exterminate an entire people to take their lands and that the savage hebrews carried out this dastardly mandate to fruition.
As it stands there is SOME historical attestation to the truth of the Bible. Not as much as the curious mind would have, but there is some. Ie. the "pavement" which Luke says that Jesus was tried upon before Pilate was thought not to exist for years, rendering the Gospel of Luke suspect. Then one day that "pavement" was discovered.
of course there is some historical attestation to the bible. there is some historical attestation to the illiad as well, and there was some historical attestation to the fictional novel that was set in new york that i finished reading a month ago.
So sit tight. Perhaps some more historical varification of Esther may appear. But God's book is not simply to tickle man's curiosity.
that will be difficult since there is already historical verification of esther, only it proves that esther got the facts wrong.
It is a book of life to draw man close to the living God by faith. And I count it as true in the facts it records.
it does nothing of the sort. it's just another book that justifies murder, but at least this time, they spared the women and children. nice of them. looks like they learned to be more civilized.
I don't trust the mind of a person who holds Jesus as morally bankrupt.
that's you're prerogative. i don't trust the mind of a person who would worship a being slated to condemn uncounted souls to eternal torment and damnation for some alleged finite crimes committed in a short time of life on earth.
And I gave some examples of God's mercy towards those who He was displeased with. They testify that He is a merciful God. The offerings and sacrifices also were for the atonement of transgressors of every type.
mercy and eternal damnation are mutually exclusive. your god is not merciful.
You see? The eternal fire was prepared not for man but for the devil and his angels. To not be saved in Christ is to insist on joining the Devil's rebellion.
this is all nonsense since it must be taken on faith. there can be no rejection or acceptance of some being that allegedly existed in antiquity. it's utter absurdity to think that a god who will condemn people to eternal damnation for rejecting some ridiculous fable from a story book has any semblance of mercy or good judgement.
We still have Jesus Christ in history as quite a convincing testimony.
his testimony is not at all convincing and his history is doubtful at best.
I regard the integrity of Christ beyond reproach. I trust Him in His evaluation of the Bible's God, Whom He taught was His Father.
and that is another failure of your character. no being is above reproach, not even the one at the very top of the food chain.
23 Nov 11
4 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpirit
that is a failure of your character.
[quote] Before I come to First Samuel there are quite a few acts of mercy, patience, and longsuffering of God toward sinners. For example:
God forbides that vengence should be taken on Cain [b](Gen. 4:14,15).
God has Noah preach warning for 200 years before the flood (2 Pet. 2:5)
God tolerates reproach, not even the one at the very top of the food chain.[/b]
that is a failure of your character.
There's not reason why I trust the character assessment of someone who assesses Jesus Christ was morally currupt.
delayed judgement is no mercy, it's also irrelevant. if i help an old lady across the street in the morning and murder her at night, my earlier kindness is meaningless.
Nonsense. Delayed judgment giving someone time to repent and change there ways certainly can be mercy.
there was no limitation. the amalekites were hunted to extinction, with the survivors finished off later on by a savage band of jews who stole what land they had left: 1 chr 4:43
It doesn't say that. The 400 who escaped from David were not hunted down.
And while we're on the subject of character flaws, you have a hypocritical way of saying things you don't want to believe didn't happen in the Bible, and things you choose to believe did happen in the Bible.
some escaped the hebrew savagery for a while, only to be finished off later. when their mad god gives an order...they follow up. especially when there is some rich land to be gained in the deal.
The mad one is you. The rich land they were at first scare to move into when the 10 spies told them of the impregnability of the land. The generation after moved in.
Funny how you can remember the first Amalekites were not alive but you cannot remember that of the first generation only Caleb and Joshua were left alive. This double standard is another character flaw you display.
only because you haven't read all of the bible. i will snip off your long winded justification for the murderous acts based on speculation that's not consistent with what's written in the bible.
Just provide the text that every last Amalekite was hunted down will be enough. And if I don't see chapter and verse in the next post it will confirm my hunch that you're haven't read such a passage.
Another character flaw - pretending to have read details which are not there.
mercy and eternal damnation are mutually exclusive. your god is not merciful.
Since they are mutually exclusive it behooves man not to join the Devil and his angels in a place of eternal punishment, rather partake of God's merciful salvation.
23 Nov 11
2 edits
This statement proves the non-combatant explanation was not my "entire argument." It was posed as a question and attributed to the proposal of some scholars:
I showed how nasty the Amalekites were to the Hebrews.
Could it be that only combatants were singled out in the slaughtering ?
Some scholars say this could be the case.
23 Nov 11
1 edit
This was the definition of genocide VoidSpirit placed before me:
genocide: "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"
it was genocide.
the "systematic destruction" "in part" of a "national group" he includes in his definition of genocide.
Therefore I said the "war between the states", ie. American Civil War qualifies according to his own definition.
Key words = systematic, destruction, in part, national group.
23 Nov 11
May I be so bold as to make a suggestion? It would be so much easier to follow the conversation and consider each of the points being made if the format were more accessible. The gaps created when using
quoteboxes for small phrases or sentences not only contribute to an overly long post, the action results in encouraging the reader to simply skip the exercise altogether.
Cut/paste with either bold or italicize (ha-ha! pretty clever, right) not only break the post up into readable portions, it aids in keeping things clear.
Just a suggestion, folks.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
23 Nov 11
Originally posted by jaywillNo the American civil war was an attempt to defeat the opponent and impose the will of the victor on the other and not
This was the definition of genocide VoidSpirit placed before me:
[b]"genocide: "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"
it was genocide. "
the "systematic destruction" "in part" of a "national group" he includes in his definition of geno ...[text shortened]... inition.
Key words = systematic, destruction, in part, national group. [/b]
an attempt to eradicate the other side from existence.
23 Nov 11
Originally posted by sonhouse"Obviously a god would not..."
You can study the OT all you want but what you really have there is people writing BS to control other people. Obviously a god would not want to kill off an entire population, such a god would be by definition, insane. So the whole bible is filled with man made tales designed to control people and subjugate women. A god would NEVER say a man is worth 50 shekels and a woman only 35 shekels. Men for sure WOULD and DO say such things all the time.
Really, and how do you know what a god would do or not do?
Kelly
24 Nov 11
Originally posted by jaywillthat's not the way it works when the people being judged have no clue that they are under probation nor that the alleged god of the hebrews has authority over them.
Nonsense. Delayed judgment giving someone time to repent and change there ways certainly can be mercy.
It doesn't say that. The 400 who escaped from David were not hunted down.
1Ch 4:43 And they [the simeonites] smote the rest of the Amalekites that were escaped, and dwelt there unto this day.
stop trying to skirt around the issue, the amalekites were exterminated to the last.
And while we're on the subject of character flaws, you have a hypocritical way of saying things you don't want to believe didn't happen in the Bible, and things you choose to believe did happen in the Bible.
i don't believe anything that happened in the bible, nor do i hold any beliefs of any sort at all. i'm discussing what is written in the bible and the implications thereof.
the problem is that your preconceived notions of what god should or should not be have clouded your judgement when it comes to interpreting the nature of god as described by the hebrews.
you need to come to the realization that it is not god that you worship. what you worship is the tribal deity of the hebrews.
The mad one is you. The rich land they were at first scare to move into when the 10 spies told them of the impregnability of the land. The generation after moved in.
you're wasting your time. the bible says they wiped out the people and moved in, and did so because god had allegedly promised those lands to them. that's the bottom line. it doesn't matter how or when they eventually did it. what matters is that they did it and how they justified it.
Funny how you can remember the first Amalekites were not alive but you cannot remember that of the first generation only Caleb and Joshua were left alive. This double standard is another character flaw you display.
i have no idea what you're talking about nor how it relates to the hebrews misguided justifications for the extermination of the amalekites.
Just provide the text that every last Amalekite was hunted down will be enough. And if I don't see chapter and verse in the next post it will confirm my hunch that you're haven't read such a passage.
i gave you the chapter and verse, since you didn't bother to look it up, i pasted the verse in question above.
Since they are mutually exclusive it behooves man not to join the Devil and his angels in a place of eternal punishment, rather partake of God's merciful salvation.
there is nothing merciful about the biblegod's "salvation." it's coercion and threats of violence. a "love me or else" psychotic narcissism.
24 Nov 11
3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBH"Cut/paste with either bold or italicize (ha-ha! pretty clever, right)"
May I be so [b]bold as to make a suggestion? It would be so much easier to follow the conversation and consider each of the points being made if the format were more accessible. The gaps created when usingquoteboxes for small phrases or sentences not only contribute to an overly long post, the action results in encouraging the ...[text shortened]... he post up into readable portions, it aids in keeping things clear.
Just a suggestion, folks.[/b]
Not bad...lemme try:
Highlight what someone said!?
CAPSize them boxes, and use [.], [/.] instead.
Italic them posts into shape,
and they'll be bold over, they stand and gape!!!
couldn\'t find a good word rhyming with shape :[
24 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill" First I met Jesus"
[quote] Your argument doesn't make any sense.
You argue that:
1. There are instances of Gods actions that you are capable of judging right or wrong, and God clearly acts 'right'.
2. There are instances of Gods actions that you are not capable of judging right or wrong (but appear to most observers to be 'wrong'😉, but because of 1. you assume these acti tion effect the level of undertanding.
We are born again to "grow again".
This bit struck me as a bit of an odd thing for a christian to say, but because it is you jaywill 🙂, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, however I am curious to know as to how you met him. Was it in a physical form, in a dream or perhaps he appeared to you in a vision?