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]

...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.

But they didn't yet know right and wrong, and the serpent told the truth. They did not die when they ate the fruit, and you still have to consider why God even allowed this to happen unless it was necessary to introduce evil into the world - as I'm sure is all the story is intended to explain.

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.

Yes. We have moral codes and knowledge of good and evil now. The point of the story is that they didn't have it then.

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.

That is a dilly as far as denialist evasion goes. It is GOD who hardened Pharaoh's heart. God did it. The king was of a mind to let the Jews go. This is what the Bible says. I suggest thet you read it. It is coming to something (as I've had to say before) when an atheist has to educate you in your own Holy Book.

a

...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.

But the Covenant had been replaced by a new one, and the old commandments were superseded by a whole set of "I say unto you" and Food doesn't defile, but what one says, and keeping the sabbath doesn't matter. This is the teaching of the Christian religion (prefaced in the gospels,though I think rather, based on them). The Jews would not convert to the new Covenant of the new religion and have been punished for it ever since.

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.

It doesn't matter what you think; he was blinded and didn't ask for it. God did that to him as surely as he hardened Pharaoh's heart. The Bible says so.

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.

Does it? It says he was a prophet, not God's son; and he did not doe on the cross. Are you ok with that? I'm sure we've done this before, but perhaps how I'll get an answer.

“…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.

It would make no difference to have just one less prophet. Which is all Jesus was, according to the Quran. You could take Christianity away and Islam would hardly notice. It is far more based on Judaism/.

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.

I don't I try to move the responsibility for people's actions to people, while the Bible shows it is all down to God, but it blames men.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #40

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.

Need it spelled out for you? Okay. If a coach tells a team to go out and kill or destroy their opponents and all the team does is score more points and win the game, the coach doesn't confront the team angrily saying, "You didn't follow my instructions!"

There's the weakness in your analogy.

[The Tanager]

Need it spelled out for you? Okay. If a coach tells a team to go out and kill or destroy their opponents and all the team does is score more points and win the game, the coach doesn't confront the team angrily saying, "You didn't follow my instructions!"

There's the weakness in your analogy.

Thank you for spelling out your thinking. If the coach wanted the team to destroy their opponents and then they didn’t (for instance, because the team didn’t hustle on the boards, they passed sloppily, etc.), even if they eeked out a win, the coach definitely could confront the team angrily for not doing what they knew he was asking them to do via a general statement.

In 1 Samuel 15, if this is hyperbolic and figurative language, the command is to (1) destroy the Amalekites with no command to (2) sacrifice the best animals to God. Saul (1) allows the king to live and (2) allows the people to keep the spoils in order to sacrifice them to God. That is not following general instructions and so God tells Saul that. Saul eventually admits this is the case.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #43

In 1 Samuel 15, if this is hyperbolic and figurative language, the command is to (1) destroy the Amalekites with no command to (2) sacrifice the best animals to God.

"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.”

Nothing hyperbolic, nothing metaphorical. It's explicit. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that it means anything other than what it says, no matter how much you may wish that there were.

[The Tanager]

"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.”

Nothing hyperbolic, nothing metaphorical. It's explicit. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that it means anything other than what it says, no matter how much you may wish that there were.

You are just going right back to asserting your position with no rational support.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #45

You are just going right back to asserting your position with no rational support.

You're relying on a groundless hypothetical reach to support your position. The text itself supports mine.

[TRANSPONDER]

"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.”

Nothing hyperbolic, nothing metaphorical. It's explicit. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that it means anything other than what it says, no matter how much you may wish that there were.

You are just going right back to asserting your position with no rational support.

He just quoted the Bible at you. Even if there was any reason but faithbased denial to read this as 'Engage them according to the rules of war, the first to raise a white flag loses, respect their property' it is still God ordering an attack on another people to grab their land. Indeed it pretty much guarantees that the previous occupants would have to be eliminated. And isn't that what they did? Why would the hebrews on getting a message like that interpret it as 'play Nice,love your enemies'? I'm sure that wasn't what they did. Isn' it clear that you are denying even what the Bible says in favor of what you would want it to say.

It's terrible. I think I would rather have my head cut off than have to bin it like that.

[1213]

But they didn't yet know right and wrong, and the serpent told the truth. They did not die when they ate the fruit, and you still have to consider why God even allowed this to happen unless it was necessary to introduce evil into the world - as I'm sure is all the story is intended to explain.

The serpent lied. They died that day, lost their life with God and were thrown to this first death that some call life.

Have you ever considered, maybe the serpent lied? God has not told that the tree gives any knowledge. I believe the tree was put there to give a choice. People could have gotten knowledge easily from God directly, or they could learn it the hard way.

However, maybe it was not really about getting knowledge. It seems Eve took the fruit, because like modern feminists, she wanted to become admired and like the God. And man took it, because couldn't resist pleasing the woman. This would explain the end result, man was set above woman, because man wanted to please. And woman was set lower position, because wanted to be in high position, without thinking others.

Yes. We have moral codes and knowledge of good and evil now. The point of the story is that they didn't have it then.

They had all necessary knowledge to do the right thing.

It is GOD who hardened Pharaoh's heart. God did it.

By demanding that he must let Jews go free.

But the Covenant had been replaced by a new one

Actually it is not replaced. People broke the old covenant, which is why God made a new one.

The sign of that people broke the older covenant is that Jews were scattered, as God promised will happen, if the brake the covenant:

But if you will not listen to me, and will not do all these commandments; and if you shall reject my statutes, and if your soul abhors my ordinances, so that you will not do all my commandments, but break my covenant; I also will do this to you: I will appoint terror over you, even consumption and fever, that shall consume the eyes, and make the soul to pine away; and you will sow your seed in vain, for your enemies will eat it.
Lev. 26:14-16
I will scatter you among the nations, and I will draw out the sword after you: and your land will be a desolation, and your cities shall be a waste.
Lev. 26:33

[The Tanager]

He just quoted the Bible at you.

Exactly. He JUST quoted the Bible. When the question is “what does this quote mean and why do you think that” you have to do more than that. Asserting that it clearly means what you think it means is offering no rational support.

Even if there was any reason but faithbased denial to read this as 'Engage them according to the rules of war, the first to raise a white flag loses, respect their property' it is still God ordering an attack on another people to grab their land. Indeed it pretty much guarantees that the previous occupants would have to be eliminated. And isn't that what they did? Why would the hebrews on getting a message like that interpret it as 'play Nice,love your enemies'? I'm sure that wasn't what they did. I'm sure that wasn't what they did. Isn' it clear that you are denying even what the Bible says in favor of what you would want it to say.

I did not say this was figurative language meaning your quotes above. Yes, God ordered them to attack a people and to drive them from the land and to kill people. The reason offered is that they were committing great sins. God gave them plenty of time to repent and correct their ways, but they didn’t. In 1 Samuel 15:33, Agag is told “as your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.” Israel was supposed to be different, but they often go the wrong way and God brings judgment on them as well, befitting how they treated others. Eventually this is through Assyria and Babylon taking over their land. I don’t think that kind of judgment is wrong, especially with how many opportunities God gave them to change.

I'm sure that wasn't what they did. Isn' it clear that you are denying even what the Bible says in favor of what you would want it to say.

This is just going right back to asserting your position with no rational support. "I'm right because it's clear I'm right." That's not a rational argument.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #49

Yes, God ordered them to attack a people and to drive them from the land and to kill people. The reason offered is that they were committing great sins. God gave them plenty of time to repent and correct their ways, but they didn’t.

Anyone can write a book and make the same kind of claim.

This is just going right back to asserting your position with no rational support. "I'm right because it's clear I'm right." That's not a rational argument.

The argument isn't, "I'm right because it's clear I'm right."; the argument is, "This is what it means because this is what it says and the context doesn't say that it means anything else."

What "rational argument" do you have suggesting that it doesn't mean what it says? You don't seem to have much of one since between the two quotes from you I've used above, you're denying what it says and trying to justify what it says at the same time.