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?

[1213]

"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?

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. Do you have some good reason why God should allow evil people to live forever?

In exactly the same situation, any other god would be as rightful to do so.

[TRANSPONDER]

The kids and babies were evil? This is the excusethat Bible apologists use for Old Biblical delight in genocide. Even in the Gospels we find that Jesus can hardly wait for death and destruction to Fallon Judea and Galilee, and that's before the mission had failed.

Just like Eden being a set up to with the evil on humanity in the first place, the failure to convert the Jews to belief in Jesus and the Jewish war as punishment for that was already determined.

Mark 4. 10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

It is all utterly immoral and I am very glad I don't believe any of it.

[1213]

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?

[TRANSPONDER]

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?

I think, as you welknow, that it's nothing to do with a god, but with the evolved human instincts.

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

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.

[The Tanager]

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?

One should accept all sound reasons for a belief, whichever deity it concerns. One should take into account all the context possible to come to the most reasonable conclusion. I don’t fault other Ancient Near Eastern conquest accounts that use the same kind of language and speak of different deities, first, because I question the intention of the language which appears to have hyperbolic and figurative elements. Why do you read these directives as literal?

[TRANSPONDER]

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?

One should accept all sound reasons for a belief, whichever deity it concerns. One should take into account all the context possible to come to the most reasonable conclusion. I don’t fault other Ancient Near Eastern conquest accounts that use the same kind of language and speak of different deities, first, because I question the intention of the language which appears to have hyperbolic and figurative elements. Why do you read these directives as literal?

I'll tell you why I do, pending a reply from the theist atheist, Because if it is 'metaphorically true' (covering symbolism, poesy and analogy) that means 'not true at all' and means,in effect, that the stories of the Bible count for no more than the Enuma Elish or Bhaghavad Gita, for that matter. It is only because the Bible is (substantially and credibly) taken as a credible if not reliable record of events (1) or it counts for nothing more than any other religious book.

You know as well as any that religious fundamentalism insists it is all'literally true'(real events - give or take some Interpretation or fiddling, and with the NT it HAS to be literal, or Christianity collapses...which it did about the mid nineties, and the Faithful have been standing in the rubble swearing it's still still standing with the frescoes intact. But the resurrection at least must be taken as literal or it means nothing.

This taking the Bible as meaning what it says (give or take metaphor or poesy,which any Hellbound humanist can recognise as well as any believer) is valid because every time it is admitted as not literally true, the doubts and questions arise about the rest of it. At least to those whose thinking is objective and open - minded enough to even ask questions and have doubts that go beyond Faithbased denial, apologdetics excuses and the last resort "let's agree to differ" which is a dirty trick ("scraping a draw") that translates as "My theory is as good as yours" which by then it has been shewn that it isn't.

And this is the perfect metaphor, for 'My opinion is as good as yours' denial. Which we see much of, even if you don't do it and didn't do it here. I'm just saying why taking the Bible as literally true is the only reason to take it as anything other than paper- dart material.



(1) and bear in mind that Eden has to be true, or Evil is not down to the pot but the potter, and the sacrifice for sin is not necessary. Not that it ever made any sense,even with the 'God does not want Robots'(i heaven I suppose) because midlessness is what would be needed or no mind could endure even a tailor-made heaven, let lone eternal grovelling to a god.

[The Tanager]

I'll tell you why I do, pending a reply from the theist atheist, Because if it is 'metaphorically true' (covering symbolism, poesy and analogy) that means 'not true at all' and means,in effect, that the stories of the Bible count for no more than the Enuma Elish or Bhaghavad Gita, for that matter. It is only because the Bible is (substantially and credibly) taken as a credible if not reliable record of events (1) or it counts for nothing more than any other religious book.

Historically reliable records of events will often include hyperbolic and figurative elements to it. This does not mean "not true at all".

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #8

Historically reliable records of events will often include hyperbolic and figurative elements to it. This does not mean "not true at all".

"And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:" (Deuteronomy 7:2)

If "historically reliable records of events" quote a deity as instigating violent massacres, what are those records saying about that deity?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #8

Historically reliable records of events will often include hyperbolic and figurative elements to it. This does not mean "not true at all".

"And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:" (Deuteronomy 7:2)

If "historically reliable records of events" quote a deity as instigating violent massacres, what are those records saying about that deity?

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