If any other god.....

[Athetotheist]

"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (1 Samuel 15:3)


"And the LORD said unto me, Fear him not: for I will deliver him, and all his people, and his land, into thy hand; and thou shalt do unto him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon....

And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city."(Deuteronomy 3:2,6)

If these directives were attributed to any deity other than Jehovah, would Bible apologists accept any excuse for them? If any apologist for another deity offered an excuse for such behavior in that deity, would Bible apologists concede and fall silent?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #10

Why do you think the language is literal versus hyperbolic and figurative?

Why do you assume that it's the latter? Why are you trying so hard to sugarcoat the narrative?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #10

Why do you think the language is literal versus hyperbolic and figurative?

Why do you assume that it's the latter? Why are you trying so hard to sugarcoat the narrative?

I'm not assuming it is the latter. I believe it is the latter because of my previous considerations of the issue through the scholarship I've read concerning it. But I am always willing to challenge my views, so I'd like to hear your case (especially since you brought the claim up). Can you carry that burden? Do you have any rational support for your interpretation for us to consider or are you just assuming that's what the narrative says?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #12

I'm not assuming it is the latter. I believe it is the latter because of my previous considerations of the issue through the scholarship I've read concerning it. But I am always willing to challenge my views, so I'd like to hear your case (especially since you brought the claim up). Can you carry that burden? Do you have any rational support for your interpretation for us to consider or are you just assuming that's what the narrative says?

I can tell what the narrative says by reading it. So can you.

What scholarship have you read concerning it which indicates that it doesn't mean what it says? Does it suggest that the Bible was written as religious myth in the same vein as the stories of the polytheistic pantheons, and that the unsavory violence can thus be filtered out?

[The Nice Centurion]

The kids and babies were evil? ....

By what is said in the Bible, evil people will die, and those who are righteous will have eternal life. If a righteous baby would die because of God, I don't think it would be the end of the baby, which is why I have no problem with the death.

But, what do you think, should God allow evil to continue forever?

If your god wants to end evil, he would be best advised to start by hanging himself

Uh, my fault; According to christian mythology he already did just such a thing . . .

[brunumb]

If the orders were from Bible God, I believe the reason was that the people were evil. And I think God has right to kill evil people, because He has given life, and I don't see why He should allow evil people to live forever.

In that case my response would be "OK God, but do your own dirty work".

[1213]

If your god wants to end evil, he would be best advised to start by hanging himself

Do I understand correctly, you think God is evil, because He doesn't allow evil to continue forever?

Maybe I am wrong in this. Maybe God allows everyone live forever, but just separates evil from righteous so that the righteous live eternally with God and evil live eternally in their own place without God. What do you think, would that be a good solution, if the evil would have own place to live forever, without God?

[1213]

...But if one talked of a creator god that intervenes, it should never have allowed evil to happen like that, should never have set up Eden (and a set -yup it was)

So, you would not have allowed people to know evil, like they wanted to know?

and then never have intervened except to make Pharaoh do evil the kings never intended,

?

and should not have hardened the hearts of the Jews so they would become not his people

What to you mean with that?

nor have forced Paul's conversion (which shows that he doesn't care tuppence bout free will) just to spread Christianity,

Why do you think he forced? And why do you think free will means things go always as the person wants? Free will means only that person can freely want whatever he wants, not that everything goes also as one wants.

though to be fair, without the conversion of Europe to Christianity, you and I would be debating the Quran (though one without mention of Jesus) by now.

I don't think Quran would exist, if Christianity would not exist.

As to the rest, the horrible idea that it is ok to 'slay them all, God will know his own', is just one more reason why Christianity is bad morals, as well as bad logic. For instance, if God knows that the babies will grow up to be evil, why allow them to conceive in the first place? Why allow anyone? Just another reason why the Problem of Evil undermines a book that is very poor morals anyway.

Evil is allowed in this Matrix, because people wanted to know evil. But it is not a problem, because this is just a temporary lesson, and nothing of this world can destroy soul, which is the important thing.

I think it is nice that God has given this chance also for those who are evil.

[TRANSPONDER]

...But if one talked of a creator god that intervenes, it should never have allowed evil to happen like that, should never have set up Eden (and a set -yup it was)

So, you would not have allowed people to know evil, like they wanted to know?

The denial is profound in this one. According to that fairy - tale, rthe first pair had no knowledge or concept of evil, so how could they want it? The bottom line is that they had no idea of what was going on. And God either knew that and wanted it or didn't and is is working blind. The bottom line of the bottom line is that it was a deliberate stitch up to impose evil on man, and the bottom line of the bottomline of the bottomline, is that it is just a fairy tale to explain why Man is to blame for the way things are, not God.

and then never have intervened except to make Pharaoh do evil the kings never intended,

?

In Exodus, God hardened Pharaoh's heart, when he was inclined to let Moses' people vgo. Read it.

and should not have hardened the hearts of the Jews so they would become not his people

What to you mean with that?

I'm sure I explained this before. In Mark,explaining the parables, Jesus says the point of speaking in parables is so the Jews won't understand, turn, repent and be saved. God had damned them from the start. Bottomline is that none of this is true,and is a Pauline Christian doctrine that God decided to make the Gentiles his people, and punish the Jews for not converting, which is something he arranged. It only makes any sense as a god whose word we should not trust any more than we'd expect Trump to pay his bills, or it's all Christian paulinist propaganda and none of it is true.

My money's on the latter.

nor have forced Paul's conversion (which shows that he doesn't care tuppence bout free will) just to spread Christianity,

Why do you think he forced? And why do you think free will means things go always as the person wants? Free will means only that person can freely want whatever he wants, not that everything goes also as one wants.

Paul (according to Acts..which is, I state with confidence, is as much a fantasy as Eden) did not want to convert. God, blinded him until he did. This is corcion; this is not caring about Paul's free will.

though to be fair, without the conversion of Europe to Christianity, you and I would be debating the Quran (though one without mention of Jesus) by now.

I don't think Quran would exist, if Christianity would not exist.

The Quran is based more on Judaism than on Christianity. If Christianity had never taken off we'd have no sideline dogma about Jesus not dying on the cross, and just being a prophet, and not God's offspring, but otherwise, the Quran would be the same.

As to the rest, the horrible idea that it is ok to 'slay them all, God will know his own', is just one more reason why Christianity is bad morals, as well as bad logic. For instance, if God knows that the babies will grow up to be evil, why allow them to conceive in the first place? Why allow anyone? Just another reason why the Problem of Evil undermines a book that is very poor morals anyway.

Evil is allowed in this Matrix, because people wanted to know evil. But it is not a problem, because this is just a temporary lesson, and nothing of this world can destroy soul, which is the important thing.

I think it is nice that God has given this chance also for those who are evil.

If people wanted to know evil it is because they were made that way. Bottom line (again) the potter is to blame for the way the pot turns out and not the pot.
And just to be clear, (because Bible apologists so often misunderstand this) this is not to say that God is evil, but to say that Biblegod is unfeasible, incoherent and unbelievable which is just more evidence that the Bible does not deserve believing.

[The Tanager]

I can tell what the narrative says by reading it. So can you.

What scholarship have you read concerning it which indicates that it doesn't mean what it says? Does it suggest that the Bible was written as religious myth in the same vein as the stories of the polytheistic pantheons, and that the unsavory violence can thus be filtered out?

What the narrative says is the question we are discussing. Just asserting that your understanding is the clear one with no support and calling on me to prove otherwise isn't sound reasoning. If you don't have any reasons beyond question begging "that's what it clearly says" type of stuff, then fine, but should you have anything rational, I'm here to hear you out. Some of the scholars I've read on this issue would view the Bible as religious myth like other writings, some scholars wouldn't. They also realize that is a separate question and can keep it separate. Both "sides" of that question can understand the use of hyperbolic and figurative language within accounts meant to be taken historically.

[TRANSPONDER]

I can tell what the narrative says by reading it. So can you.

What scholarship have you read concerning it which indicates that it doesn't mean what it says? Does it suggest that the Bible was written as religious myth in the same vein as the stories of the polytheistic pantheons, and that the unsavory violence can thus be filtered out?

What the narrative says is the question we are discussing. Just asserting that your understanding is the clear one with no support and calling on me to prove otherwise isn't sound reasoning. If you don't have any reasons beyond question begging "that's what it clearly says" type of stuff, then fine, but should you have anything rational, I'm here to hear you out. Some of the scholars I've read on this issue would view the Bible as religious myth like other writings, some scholars wouldn't. They also realize that is a separate question and can keep it separate. Both "sides" of that question can understand the use of hyperbolic and figurative language within accounts meant to be taken historically.

If I undersatand this correctly, the burden of proof is on the one who asserts the Bible means something other than what it says. Of course we know about hyperbole, parable,poesy and analogy, but when it says in Matthew that Jesus taught the Lord's prayer at the sermon on the mount but in Luke just as they set off for Jerusalem and apparently for the first time, it means what it says. This is just one of ther many contradictions that Bible scholarship has missed for 2000 years, or has ignored. And it seems is still ignored, even if the 'it probably means something different' card is played. It's a fun game, Bibleapologists and excusers trying to fool us with pitiful excuses like 'they wrote differently back then', or'They forgot about the ascension', never mind, posting a screed of Gospel, leaving out the contradictions and then pretending there aren't any.

And yet the Bible fiddlers still expect us to treat them seriously and respectfully when they disrespect us, try to bamboozle us and treat us like idiots, while they appeal to authority of 'Scholarship' when evidently this means 2000 years of Bible - believing apologists with long beards.