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?

[TRANSPONDER]

In the case of battles where people 'slew'other people, areyou really going to argue they scored a tactical victory and the other side simply retreated?

I'm arguing that when talking about slaying everyone, it doesn't literally mean they slayed everyone or every category talked about, but it was just a way people exaggerated their victory like we still do today.

Are you going to put down the extermination of the Flood to metaphor?If co, then nothing in the Bible can be trusted, can it?

No, that doesn't logically follow. You keep claiming that metaphor means not true at all, but I see no reason offered to conclude the same.

No, I think we can be trusted to be aware when hyperbole and metaphor is being (possibly) used and when it is (probably) not, and the burden of proof is on the other to show that slaughter of women and children is merely a metaphor for a nation agreeing to cede an adjustment of the border.

I follow reasons, not what you or me or anyone else thinks is hyperbole and metaphor in writings from a culture not our own. If you want to claim a text means X, then back it up instead of trying to shift the burden. If you don't have sound reasons (and "I can just tell" isn't a sound reason) then don't make the claim.

It doesn't matter what you follow nor I, but the case pit forward (for others). The divide is that a story in the Bible is either taken as literal (ot happened) or as metaphoriical (it didn't)..I I get metaphor.To talk about an army descending like a torrent of rain doesn't mean the grunts were dropped from a great height, we get that, but when it says something like they slew the men women, children and cattle, it either means that or it doesn't. Why would we suppose it doesn't mean that unless someone was trying to excuse bad stuff in the Bible.

That is not a logical argument but whitewashing.

If we take the Flood, then we are talking of exterminating creation. If it doesn't mean that, then the point of the story collapses and we are at the 'Local Flood' excuse which may give us an actuallegend source but scuppers the claim about a god being behind it.

There's the same problem with Job. I think it's a parable.Others think it is literal; it really happened. That latter runs into the 'inspiration' problem where one asks why it isn't just imagination

[TRANSPONDER]

It would make a difference in that explicit instructions are not metaphorical or figurative.

Why? If a coach tells his team to go out there and kill or destroy their opponent, he can't be speaking metaphorically or figuratively?

Weak Analogy Fallacy:
"When an analogy is used to prove or disprove an argument, but the analogy is too dissimilar to be effective, that is, it is unlike the argument more than it is like the argument."
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... ak-Analogy

This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
(1Samuel 15:2-3)

Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, near the eastern border of Egypt. He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword. But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves and lambs—everything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed.
(1Sam. 15:7-9)

Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel: “I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.”
(1Sam. 15:10-11)

Yes. This is pretty specific.There is no credible case for metaphorically true; either it happened as said, or it didn't. Now,one can argue that there was such a battle but the description is somewhat fictitious. Ok, but I already mention a rather better analogy - the 'local Flood' excuse. If the Bible is adapting a memory of a non -total flood (it isn't as it derives from the riparian flood - legend of Mesopotamia), then one might claim it is true, in fact, but it makes it false, as regards God's purpose. I have heard the excuse that it refers just to a small area of land (Eden) which of course has no Black sea flood and which changes the narrative from global to local. Why is there reason to think that's what the Bible is saying?It is not based on the evidence, but is an excuse in spite of the evidence.

This is the problem with trying to argue that apparently literal things in the Bible are metaphor. There is no valid reason to make a legend true but faithbased need, nor to make an apparent literal record made metaphorical and slaying everyone down to the virgin girls which you take home, really means siting down at a table and negotiating a truce. There is no reason for it other than trying to explain away what the Bible says when it isn't convenient.,

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #30]

You described what a weak analogy is. You quoted a few passages. But you didn’t explain how my response was actually a weak analogy.

[The Tanager]

It doesn't matter what you follow nor I, but the case pit forward (for others). The divide is that a story in the Bible is either taken as literal (ot happened) or as metaphoriical (it didn't).

No, that is a false dilemma. Yes, the event either actually happened or it didn’t, but the way one talks about said event (or the truth it is meant to metaphorically portray) can be done in different ways. For instance, one can talk literally about an event…the Tennessee men’s basketball team beat St. Peter’s in the first round of March Madness by 34 points. One can also talk hyperbolically and figuratively about an event…the Tennessee men’s basketball team utterly destroyed St. Peters.

I get metaphor.To talk about an army descending like a torrent of rain doesn't mean the grunts were dropped from a great height, we get that, but when it says something like they slew the men women, children and cattle, it either means that or it doesn't. Why would we suppose it doesn't mean that unless someone was trying to excuse bad stuff in the Bible.

Why is it like that in the first instance, but not the second? You’ve given no reason besides implying that “of course”. You should suppose the things you do because of reason; you've given none.

That is not a logical argument but whitewashing.

No, it’s not. I’m not concealing anything, but laying out my reasoning for all to see. You, on the other hand, are just asserting, which is definitely not a logical argument.

[TRANSPONDER]

It doesn't matter what you follow nor I, but the case pit forward (for others). The divide is that a story in the Bible is either taken as literal (ot happened) or as metaphoriical (it didn't).

No, that is a false dilemma. Yes, the event either actually happened or it didn’t, but the way one talks about said event (or the truth it is meant to metaphorically portray) can be done in different ways. For instance, one can talk literally about an event…the Tennessee men’s basketball team beat St. Peter’s in the first round of March Madness by 34 points. One can also talk hyperbolically and figuratively about an event…the Tennessee men’s basketball team utterly destroyed St. Peters.

Yes.But given the event happened or it didn't, the way we might talk about was dealt with in my 2nd para.

I get metaphor.To talk about an army descending like a torrent of rain doesn't mean the grunts were dropped from a great height, we get that, but when it says something like they slew the men women, children and cattle, it either means that or it doesn't. Why would we suppose it doesn't mean that unless someone was trying to excuse bad stuff in the Bible.

Why is it like that in the first instance, but not the second? You’ve given no reason besides implying that “of course”. You should suppose the things you do because of reason; you've given none.

Because armies do not fall out of the skies (until air transport of troops,anyway) so that is obviously metaphor. When the description is graphic, then the burden of proof falls on the proposer of the metaphorical view to show why we should water it down as a metaphorical description of a poiite battle where parole was accepted and the women, children and property treated with respect other than 'of course' it suits the one who wants to explain away bad stuff in the Bible. Be honest, isn't that what is going on?

That is not a logical argument but whitewashing.

No, it’s not. I’m not concealing anything, but laying out my reasoning for all to see. You, on the other hand, are just asserting, which is definitely not a logical argument.

Are you indeed Well I just laid out my explanation as to why my reasoning if valid and yours is trying to whitewash the Bible. Over to you.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #30]

You described what a weak analogy is. You quoted a few passages. But you didn’t explain how my response was actually a weak analogy.

The weak analogy point is valid, as I pointed out. We know how games work, the team does not slaughter the opposing team except metaphorically. In war (especially ancient ones) slaughtering the other side, then perpetrating atrocities is only too likely, so the analogy fails; there is no good reason to ameliorate the event other than exaggerate the rapine, not that it does the Bible much credit that a decimation of the opponents and looting the baggage train is depicted as something far worse as though that was even better.

[The Tanager]

Yes.But given the event happened or it didn't, the way we might talk about was dealt with in my 2nd para.

Which paragraph are you referring to? The second paragraph in that post was “That is not a logical argument but whitewashing.”

Because armies do not fall out of the skies (until air transport of troops,anyway) so that is obviously metaphor.

By this logic, since people can be destroyed and killed, it’s not obvious that the coach’s pre-game speech is obviously a metaphor. What is obviously a metaphor or not depends on knowing the culture that uses the language. You know how basketball speeches work because you know that culture.

In ancient cultures, war did include various atrocities, but it also includes a whole bunch of exaggerated language, and space for non-combatants to leave the fort, and that kind of stuff. So, the burden is on the one making the claim. And you and Athetotheist claimed the Bible is being literal when it writes this. So, give us good reason to accept that claim as true.

When the description is graphic, then the burden of proof falls on the proposer of the metaphorical view to show why we should water it down as a metaphorical description of a poiite battle where parole was accepted and the women, children and property treated with respect other than 'of course' it suits the one who wants to explain away bad stuff in the Bible. Be honest, isn't that what is going on?

First, I’m not saying the battle was polite. But military targets would have been focused on. Oftentimes, cities that were attacked would have had the heads up and they would have gotten the non-combatants out of the way.

Second, stop the useless psychologizing if you want to continue to be taken seriously; it has no place in a rational discussion.

Third, why does the language being graphic shift the burden?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #33

You described what a weak analogy is. You quoted a few passages. But you didn’t explain how my response was actually a weak analogy.

Yes, I did. I did so by also quoting your analogy to show its weakness by contrast.

[1213]

...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.

They knew the word evil and knowledge. They knew what God had said about the tree. And they knew what the serpent said about the fruit. That is why I think it is wrong to say they had no idea what is going on. And God was with them, so they could have asked anything from Him directly.

People are independent and free, and responsible of all of their actions. Not knowing something is no good excuse. People should not do things, if they don't know enough. And if people do things without knowing enough, it is their own choice and responsibility.

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

In Exodus pharaoh's heart is hardened by that he should let the Jews go.

...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....

Jews were not punished for not converting. They were punished for not keeping the covenant, not living by God's commandments.

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.

I don't think there was coercion, or that he was blinded until he would convert.

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.

Quran says people should believe Jesus.

“…The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah… …believe in Allah and His messengers…”
Quran 4:171, https://legacy.quran.com/4/171

I think it would be very different without that.

If people wanted to know evil it is because they were made that way.

It is interesting how you try to move the blame from peoples's own actions to God.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #33

You described what a weak analogy is. You quoted a few passages. But you didn’t explain how my response was actually a weak analogy.

Yes, I did. I did so by also quoting your analogy to show its weakness by contrast.

Just quoting the things that you are comparing doesn’t show an analogy is weak, it just presumes that no one could come to a different conclusion without any actual reason for that claim.