Mr.Duck on 13/1/2007 at 15:53
God shall surely come to smithe this thead.
Amen.
:cool:
Convict on 13/1/2007 at 15:56
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
None of that is (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) proof.
@ fett: I appreciated your post, that's the sort of thing I was hoping to read in this thread. I know my "OT proves Yahweh is evil" is a simplistic statement and held out of historical context; however, I
personally would argue that a genuinely benevolent God would not solicit genocide no matter what historical period he was operating in.
Have you read any suggested explanations for that?
Josh68 on 13/1/2007 at 15:58
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
I
personally would argue that a genuinely benevolent God would not solicit genocide no matter what historical period he was operating in.
What if God has a perfect memory (any God would) and can store the experiences of his subjects. We all say 'life has ups and downs' well put that in the perspective of God. Life indeed has ups and downs.
Maybe the middle ages were the storing up of the energy that we needed to accomplish the industrial revolution. Or any number of other similar 'ups and downs'. We can't pretend to know (if there is a God) what his plans are and what we will need to go through to accomplish his goals.
fett on 13/1/2007 at 16:17
Quote Posted by Convict
Have you read any suggested explanations for that?
In a *simplistic* nutshell the argument is that God's intent was to preserve the nation of Israel at any cost (i.e. the genocide of other nations) since the Messiah who was to save all the world from 'eternal death' (read:hell/separation from God) was to come from the nation of Israel. To extrapolate a bit, prophecies were given that spelled out the coming of a Jewish Messiah, other nations in their lust for blood, conquest, etc. attempted to annihilate Israel, so genocide served a threefold purpose:
1) to preserve Israel<Messiah<mankind,
2) to bring judgment upon evil nations (no question that the Hittites, Amorites, etc. fit anyone's definition of evil), and
3) to annihilate said evil nations in war before they died from within due to violent religious practices.
Reason 3 actually holds more water than you'd think when you learn that some of these OT nations were actually decreasing rapidly in population due to religious practices that involved sacrificing women and children en masse. Some would even go so far at to call Reason 3 'the mercy of God' for putting them out of their misery on a national scale.
Convict on 13/1/2007 at 16:22
Yeah I thought it was reason 2 but reason 3 is very interesting from a historical perspective alone (mass sacrifices). I was just saying that StD may have been judging without checking it out first a bit.
fett on 13/1/2007 at 16:30
Another thing that isn't often taken into account with Reason 2 is that there seems to be ample evidence in these other cultures (particularly the Ammonites, Ammorites, and Hittites - which overlap a bit), that they had been warned that Israel was seeking peaceful passage through their territories and to leave them alone unless they wanted to be wiped out. There's a tendency to always see Israel as the aggressor among ancient Middle-eastern cultures, but we forget that they were primarily a nation of ex-slave, ranchers/farmers - not warlike in nature as were so many nations that they conquered in the OT. It wasn't until the time of Solomon and David that Israel even had a legitimate conscripted army.
P.S. Laser Eyes - I think the Josh McDowell rhetoric falls a bit short of the definition of 'proof' in terms of objective evidence that will satisfy the questions of the post-modern skeptic. What you've brought forth are merely strong arguments for the Bible's uniqueness - and I'll give you that its preservation and such is nothing short of creepy. Most of your 'proofs' are at best only proof of a supernaturally engineered book - not proof of God. There's quite a large leap from 'the Bible is special' (and I grant you that it IS - on an epic scale) to 'the Bible is God's inerrant word'. I won't go into it here since everyone is sick of my lecturing on this subject...
Fingernail on 13/1/2007 at 16:39
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
None of that is (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) proof.
@ fett: I appreciated your post, that's the sort of thing I was hoping to read in this thread. I know my "OT proves Yahweh is evil" is a simplistic statement and held out of historical context; however, I
personally would argue that a genuinely benevolent God would not solicit genocide no matter what historical period he was operating in.
StD it doesn't matter what you think benevolence is, the point of faith is to accept that God's will is unknowable by us and attempting to place human characteristics such as "goodness" or "benevolence" or "evil" onto him is irrelevant because we can never know what his motives (or actions) actually are unless he chooses to reveal them.
And even then, arguably, as imperfect beings we can never truly comprehend exactly WHY God would do something, because we can never be in his (hypothetical) position.
SD on 13/1/2007 at 16:39
Quote Posted by fett
no question that the Hittites, Amorites, etc. fit anyone's definition of evil
I'd kind of want to get their side of the story too before I label them as deserving of complete annihilation. Only having the word of the Hebrews that their enemies were baby-eating bastards is insufficient for one to formulate a balanced opinion.
Quote Posted by Fingernail
StD it doesn't matter what you think benevolence is, the point of faith is to accept that God's will is unknowable by us and attempting to place human characteristics such as "goodness" or "benevolence" or "evil" onto him is irrelevant because we can never know what his motives (or actions) actually are unless he chooses to reveal them.
Do you not think it would then be a little silly (not to mention unfair) for a Creator Supreme to bestow upon his creations a sense of morality that directly questions his motives? I mean, God killing people
en masse might be justified in the grand scheme of things, but for God to then tell everyone that such acts are wrong doesn't exactly sit easy. "Do as I say and not as I do" would appear to be the order of the day here.
Flagston on 13/1/2007 at 16:51
Quote Posted by Josh68
We can't pretend to know (if there is a God) what his plans are and what we will need to go through to accomplish his goals.
Many people do pretend to know all this and more whether it be by countering atheist arguments with endless what if's or by using human judgement to interpret the bible the way they see fit and act accordingly. Bible interpretations are one thing I suppose but I just do not see how people can assert a "what if" argument as true when it is about a being that exists outside of human understanding.
Fingernail on 13/1/2007 at 16:52
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Do you not think it would then be a little silly (not to mention unfair) for a Creator Supreme to bestow upon his creations a sense of morality that directly questions his motives? I mean, God killing people
en masse might be justified in the grand scheme of things, but for God to then tell everyone that such acts are wrong doesn't exactly sit easy. "Do as I say and not as I do" would appear to be the order of the day here.
I guess this is why it's called
faith?
Don't get me wrong, I know exactly the fundamental paradox but nonetheless it's just one of those things that as much as you argue with a true believer, there's no practical reason for them to change their belief (for the most part).
