blank

  • ***
  • 1330 Posts
    • View Profile
expsredemption wrote:
Quote from: blank
Quote from: Jove81
Quote from: blank
Quote from: expsredemption
Blank,

 To make things clearer from this point I have started a new response so that all the information is not copied from previous posts.

If you are truly engaging, I will continue.

It seems you are playing the skeptic to me due to your sitting back rather then giving things that WOULD justify the situation for you.

I need to know what it is that it will take for you to accept a situation before I bother dealing with it.  This way, if that cannot be provided I don't have to waste time.  If it can, I will know what you are looking for and be more able to pin it down.

The large post that I put up breaking down what genocide is, and that it is not necessarily good or bad on itself (without background or supporting information).  It was to make it clear that genocide is not necessarily a negative thing just by being called "genocide".

Please give me some clarification on your end so that I know what exactly you are looking for and what you would find acceptable.


That's just it. I don't think genocide can be justified. Saying genocide isn't necessarily a negative thing and that humans aren't omniscient means to me that even the examples of genocide that you gave may in fact be positive occurrences just that humans in their limited capacities don't know this to be so.
That is why I look askance at people trying to justify genocide. They don't seem to realize the far reaching implications of such a justification.

What if the subject of the genocide were Nazis? We decide to wipe out all Nazis to prevent them from committing genocide on the Jews. Are we not justified?


Who is a Nazi? Are children Nazis? I don't think you can justify indiscriminately wiping out an entire population even if you're unable to separate the guilty from the non-guilty, you cannot justify it yet an omniscient God who can separate the guilty from the non-guilty chose not to do that.


Well... as Paul Copan might take it... you are taking an ill-informed Sunday School reading of the text when there is a much deeper and informed reading of the text that you are unaware of.  You are looking at the words you see from the standpoint you want to see them from, rather than looking at the language usage of the time in which it was written.


Rubbish. Anything that we now discover to be atrocities or simply wrong, suddenly possess deeper readings.

expsredemption wrote:
You just showed your ignorance in the past two posts.  If you were more informed you would realize that the command that God leveled does not necessarily mean that women and children were harmed in any way.  Secondly the Canaanites had the ability to turn from what they were doing and be saved (example of Rahab and Gibeonites).  Third, within the area directly dealing with the commands there is information that the Canaanites still persist.  The writers are not foolish enough to keep the Canaanites in existence while writing words that literally mean utter destruction.


You are still missing the point I'm making. My point is that someone who issues such a command for genocide is immoral. Did God say women and children weren't to be harmed? Whether or not they could be carried out though important isn't what I'm talking about.
On your second point, when were they to turn away? When the Israelites came for their lands? It was pretty clear that God didn't want them to share. He is omnipotent yet it didn't occur to him to create alternate land for the Jews and then send prophets to the Canaanites or something. You seem to think that people who are being invaded should simply surrender their lands. How naive is that?
Your third point simply means that the Israelites failing to follow God's commands thoroughly had pretty much sinned.

expsredemption wrote:
I cannot solve a situation of ignorance for you.  You won't believe something you haven't seen or read with your own eyes... (obviously, or we wouldn't be having this discussion in this fashion).  One of the problems is... you stop your search before looking at all the details and understanding all the background information.


Maybe you need to take off your God blinders and see the atrocious commands for what they are.

expsredemption wrote:
Copan's work deals with the common usage of the language (specifically dealing with war and combat language) of the time in that setting.  You would benefit from it because it will clarify some of the things you take to be the case in your current state of ignorance (lack of knowledge of some thing).


Of course. Does he deal with the fact that such a command is unacceptable?

expsredemption wrote:
You continue to mention women and children out of ignorance of the subject.  This is the third time I am telling you this.   Will you do it again?  You have shown that it is likely.


Weren't there women and children? Or do you think all the Canaanites were adult men?
What I see is that in your current state of being blinded by your idea of God seems to have deeply flawed your ideas of morality.

1

blank

  • ***
  • 1330 Posts
    • View Profile
expsredemption wrote: "Of course I'll bring up the women and  children we're talking about a genocide here aren't we? What am I to  get from Paul Copan's work? If you understand his work well enough, why  don't you present it satisfactorily?"

No, we are not necessarily talking about a Genocide here unless all the people were ACTUALLY intended to be dealt AND were dealt with.


How do you know they weren't intended to be dealt with? Maybe you need to actually take a look at your Bible. If they weren't all dealt with, then those Israelites disobeyed God's command and needed to be punished.

expsredemption wrote:
There is ample evidence to show that NOT ALL people were intended to be indiscriminately (as you stated in your ignorance) brought to death, and NOT ALL people WERE indiscriminately brought to death.   You understand this, of course, depends on doing some research and taking some effort.  That is your call.  However, it will be hard to call yourself rational and reasoned in your position if you do not.  


It seems you're simply making things up. Please take a look at your Bible. e.g take a look at the command given to Saul in 1 Samuel 15:3 and tell me what the intention of that command was.

2

Matt

  • **
  • 33 Posts
    • View Profile
All I have seen on your part is more commentary from a state of ignorance.   You are telling me to look at the Bible when you aren't even in a position to understand what the Bible is really communicating with what it is you are reading.  If you are going to read something and make a point from it it is first important to understand what it is ACTUALLY saying rather what you take it be be saying based on your current state of ignorance to its context.

Your objections will continue to be simplistic and misguided so long as you continue in your state of ignorance about the deeper context of the situation and commands at hand.


3

Matt

  • **
  • 33 Posts
    • View Profile
Also, in light of your suggestion that God send prophets to the Canaanites or allow them to have another land, or give Israel another land... that has been dealt with.

Canaan knew about the situation as shown in the passages I gave you referring to Rahab and the Gibeonites.   So they did already have knowledge and the ability to turn to the God of Israel.   Second, they could have still repented and turned from what they were doing in Canaanite culture and turned to the God of Israel after the land was beginning to be taken over.  Here again it appears you are unaware of what it means to be a Canaanite.  It is not just to be in the land, it is deeper than that.   They could have stayed in their land if they simply turned to the God of Israel.

The Canaanites were also able to flee to other lands if that was the case.  The Canaanites IN THE LAND were to be dealt with.  The Canaanites had a myriad of options to avoid the judgment that God was enacting on them... yet they chose not to.

I appreciate your conversation, but unless you intend to make a good faith effort to understand the concept of which you are, seemingly, completely ignorant of at the time, it seems this conversation has reached the extent that it can go.

You talk about "God blinders" in my case... and yet you are the one with the ignorance of the background information, the context, and common usage of the language being dealt with.  Far from a rational position to take on your part.


4

blank

  • ***
  • 1330 Posts
    • View Profile
expsredemption wrote: All I have seen on your part is more commentary from a state of ignorance.   You are telling me to look at the Bible when you aren't even in a position to understand what the Bible is really communicating with what it is you are reading.  If you are going to read something and make a point from it it is first important to understand what it is ACTUALLY saying rather what you take it be be saying based on your current state of ignorance to its context.

Your objections will continue to be simplistic and misguided so long as you continue in your state of ignorance about the deeper context of the situation and commands at hand.



All I see is you trying to do is justify an unjust command. Maybe you need to actually read what the Bible says and not just the words of some apologist because the apologist aims to justify the unjustifiable.
I simply wonder what context the command to go on a genocidal spree would be acceptable to you.
Your defense will continue to be abhorrent until you actually look critically at what it means to order genocide.

5

blank

  • ***
  • 1330 Posts
    • View Profile
expsredemption wrote: Also, in light of your suggestion that God send prophets to the Canaanites or allow them to have another land, or give Israel another land... that has been dealt with.


Of course it has. It probably didn't occur to God to do that.

expsredemption wrote:
Canaan knew about the situation as shown in the passages I gave you referring to Rahab and the Gibeonites.   So they did already have knowledge and the ability to turn to the God of Israel.   Second, they could have still repented and turned from what they were doing in Canaanite culture and turned to the God of Israel after the land was beginning to be taken over.  Here again it appears you are unaware of what it means to be a Canaanite.  It is not just to be in the land, it is deeper than that.   They could have stayed in their land if they simply turned to the God of Israel.


Are you listening to yourself? A bunch of invaders is coming in killing everyone babies, children, old people, women, animals and anything else they can lay their hands on based on the command of their God and you're saying they should join these invaders? Are you serious?

expsredemption wrote:
The Canaanites were also able to flee to other lands if that was the case.  The Canaanites IN THE LAND were to be dealt with.  The Canaanites had a myriad of options to avoid the judgment that God was enacting on them... yet they chose not to.


So they should just run away. I wonder whether you'll do that if you were told by some invader into your house that their God had instructed them to take over the house you own.

expsredemption wrote:
I appreciate your conversation, but unless you intend to make a good faith effort to understand the concept of which you are, seemingly, completely ignorant of at the time, it seems this conversation has reached the extent that it can go.


Sorry but it seems you're the one who is completely ignorant of how atrocious what you're trying to justify is.

expsredemption wrote:
You talk about "God blinders" in my case... and yet you are the one with the ignorance of the background information, the context, and common usage of the language being dealt with.  Far from a rational position to take on your part.



Sorry, those God blinders are in full effect. Until you're able to take them off and see how immoral and atrocious such a command is, you'll still be playing the usual apologist game of obfuscating by claiming language, ignorance and the failure of the invaded to flee as being the problem.
Good luck to you in your apologetics. Just hope you don't run into someone who has actually read the passages in question.

6

Matt

  • **
  • 33 Posts
    • View Profile
blank wrote:


Sorry, those God blinders are in full effect. Until you're able to take them off and see how immoral and atrocious such a command is, you'll still be playing the usual apologist game of obfuscating by claiming language, ignorance and the failure of the invaded to flee as being the problem.
Good luck to you in your apologetics. Just hope you don't run into someone who has actually read the passages in question.
[/QUOTE]

Blank,

 I don't believe you are helping your case with comments such as this.  You CANNOT really understand the ACTUAL command if you are ignorant of the language, culture, setting, genre, etc. in which the command was set.  You continue to state things such as "Just hope you don't run into someone who has actually read the passages in question..." in efforts to prove your point, yet, you show your ignorance again.

Just because someone has read something does not necessitate that they understand what is actually being stated, how it is actually being stated, why it is actually being stated, etc.  Sure they have a perception... but most people take the time and effort to look deeper into the situation to make sure they are understanding it correctly.

So far you have acknowledged that you are content with your misguided surface level understanding and unwilling to take the time to understand that which you are talking about.  This has nothing to do with apologetics, this has to do with intellectual acumen (which you are not displaying to any degree).

7

blank

  • ***
  • 1330 Posts
    • View Profile
expsredemption wrote:
Quote from: blank



Sorry, those God blinders are in full effect. Until you're able to take them off and see how immoral and atrocious such a command is, you'll still be playing the usual apologist game of obfuscating by claiming language, ignorance and the failure of the invaded to flee as being the problem.
Good luck to you in your apologetics. Just hope you don't run into someone who has actually read the passages in question.


Blank,

 I don't believe you are helping your case with comments such as this.  You CANNOT really understand the ACTUAL command if you are ignorant of the language, culture, setting, genre, etc. in which the command was set.  You continue to state things such as "Just hope you don't run into someone who has actually read the passages in question..." in efforts to prove your point, yet, you show your ignorance again.

Just because someone has read something does not necessitate that they understand what is actually being stated, how it is actually being stated, why it is actually being stated, etc.  Sure they have a perception... but most people take the time and effort to look deeper into the situation to make sure they are understanding it correctly.
[/QUOTE]

Which is what apologists do. They read so deeply into a clear statement that it starts meaning something else. Something that it actually doesn't mean.

expsredemption wrote:
So far you have acknowledged that you are content with your misguided surface level understanding and unwilling to take the time to understand that which you are talking about.  This has nothing to do with apologetics, this has to do with intellectual acumen (which you are not displaying to any degree).


Actually, you have displayed that you're unable to actually see something evil for what it is. What you think is intellectual acumen is actually your willingness to be mislead by apologists.
I listened to that Paul Copan interview and wasn't surprised when he made erroneous statements and omitted important information. Like I said, maybe what you really need to do is to actually read the text without your godblinders on.

8

blank

  • ***
  • 1330 Posts
    • View Profile
expsredemption wrote:
Quote from: blank


Sorry, those God blinders are in full effect. Until you're able to take them off and see how immoral and atrocious such a command is, you'll still be playing the usual apologist game of obfuscating by claiming language, ignorance and the failure of the invaded to flee as being the problem.
Good luck to you in your apologetics. Just hope you don't run into someone who has actually read the passages in question.


Blank,

 I don't believe you are helping your case with comments such as this.  You CANNOT really understand the ACTUAL command if you are ignorant of the language, culture, setting, genre, etc. in which the command was set.  You continue to state things such as "Just hope you don't run into someone who has actually read the passages in question..." in efforts to prove your point, yet, you show your ignorance again.

Just because someone has read something does not necessitate that they understand what is actually being stated, how it is actually being stated, why it is actually being stated, etc.  Sure they have a perception... but most people take the time and effort to look deeper into the situation to make sure they are understanding it correctly.


Which is what apologists do. They read so deeply into a clear statement that it starts meaning something else. Something that it actually doesn't mean.

expsredemption wrote:
So far you have acknowledged that you are content with your misguided surface level understanding and unwilling to take the time to understand that which you are talking about.  This has nothing to do with apologetics, this has to do with intellectual acumen (which you are not displaying to any degree).


Actually, you have displayed that you're unable to actually see something evil for what it is. What you think is intellectual acumen is actually your willingness to be mislead by apologists.
I listened to that Paul Copan interview and wasn't surprised when he made erroneous statements and omitted important information. Like I said, maybe what you really need to do is to actually read the text without your godblinders on.

9

Matt

  • **
  • 33 Posts
    • View Profile
Blank,

 Your last paragraph is telling.  You listened to an interview to make your decision on a field of scholarship and understanding.  Can you not see the laziness in that?  You can base your decisions on ignorance if you choose, just to convince yourself that your decisions are correct or reasonable.  

Either way, have a wonderful Thursday (whatever it might mean to you).

If you ever get the effort instilled to inform yourself on the topic, I look forward to further discussion.  Until then.


10

blank

  • ***
  • 1330 Posts
    • View Profile
expsredemption wrote: Blank,

 Your last paragraph is telling.  You listened to an interview to make your decision on a field of scholarship and understanding.  Can you not see the laziness in that?  You can base your decisions on ignorance if you choose, just to convince yourself that your decisions are correct or reasonable.  


Huh? Laziness? You recommended a resource to me, I checked it out and found it wanting. This was after I had conversed with you on the very same issue yet you think my approach was lazy? Maybe you feel that way because I didn't become an apologist after listening to the unimpressive interview.

expsredemption wrote:
Either way, have a wonderful Thursday (whatever it might mean to you).

If you ever get the effort instilled to inform yourself on the topic, I look forward to further discussion.  Until then.


I've tried to point out to you the problems with your God yet you persist in your apologist dance.
Good luck to you.

11

Daniel Pech

  • **
  • 104 Posts
    • View Profile
    • They Used to call it Family

This is in reply to what I think are two wrong, mutually opposing extremes: One extreme is the stance that 'if the boss said so then it's right'. The other extreme is the stance that 'whatever can most simply be construed as wrong must be wrong'.

I have at least two very interdependent points of thought on the topic at hand. I'll try to communicate the first point by way of analogy:

Imagine the following five conditions:

1. every planet in the Solar system is inhabited, and...

2. every one of those planets is entirely occupied by the worst possible (in the view of any given reader) imaginable ethical and biological corruptions of every sort, and...

3. there exists a space colony all members of which are far less wicked and biologically corrupt than is anyone on any of nine those planets, and...

4. that colony needs to return to a planet to survive much longer, and...

5. all the people of those planets refuse to give any place for the people of that space colony (the reader's own space colony) to live un-harassed and biologically safe.

Now, within those four conditions, would anyone here assert that it would be unjustified for the inhabitants of at least one locality on one of those nine planets to be annihilated so that that space colony could continue to exist? In other words: a) should that space colony not forcibly remove the people of that locality, and, b) even if that colony did forcibly remove the people of that locality, should that colony have to take on the burden of caring for any of the children of that locality whose parents are killed in the conflict?


My second point I'll try to make by asking three basic questions:

1. Does anyone here assert that humans are so sacred above that of lower life forms that there cannot possibly ever be any conditions under which it would be necessary for other humans to exterminate even one human life?

2. Does anyone here assert that it is biologically impossible for the microbiological dysfunctions and diseases which a population can accrue through biologically unnatural lifestyles to become so bad that even its small children are too afflicted with these dysfunctions to be able to grow up into remotely decent people?

3. Am I correct in assuming that Dawkins (and his supporters) allows for the abortion of a viable fetus in cases of rape, incest, and extreme-danger-to-the-mother-in-giving-birth?
Believing it to be the most profound game, a man blindly thinks he pits himself against Mother Nature at Checkers, only to find, too late, that She has been playing him at Chess.

Mothers don't go on strike:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1631277/posts

12

Daniel Pech

  • **
  • 104 Posts
    • View Profile
    • They Used to call it Family

expsredemption wrote: http://www.apologetics315.com/2011/11/is-god-delusion-william-lane-craig-in.html

The genocide question is posed at time 1:46:00 - 1:46:06

In his answer, Graig mentions that the point was not to kill a particular set of people as those people were to be defined by their persons. Rather, the point was to kill a particular set of people as those people were to be defined by their determination to keep possession of the particular geographic locality which God's nation/colony required for its own maintenance.

Had the Amalekites vacated that locality rather than fought to remain in it, none of the Amalekites that ‘fled before the sword’ would have been pursued and killed. Who is not going to run around in more-or-less of a circle who is at once trying to keep possession of their location and to keep out of range of the conquering army---even if this means trying to run so far out of your way so that that army gives up pursuing you, and so then you can go right back in and try to pick off that army one-by-one?

Believing it to be the most profound game, a man blindly thinks he pits himself against Mother Nature at Checkers, only to find, too late, that She has been playing him at Chess.

Mothers don't go on strike:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1631277/posts

13

above

  • **
  • 197 Posts
    • View Profile
Craig needs to stop paying attention to intellectual midgets like dawkins. His book, although held as the "gospel" of the pathetic religion of new atheism is not even worth the paper it's printed on. It's not science, it's not philosophy and it's not logic. It's just anger-drenched sophistry. In fact, sheer stupidity if you consider how irrational and desperate the so-called arguments (if you can call them that) actually are.

But I suppose, someone needs to educate the anti-intellectual atheist drones and someone needs to defend the minds and lifestyles of the people that have been unknowingly indoctinated by the utter garbage presented in this collection of ink and paper.

14

lapwing

  • ****
  • 8741 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Not my website but explains my choice of name and avatar

This is not strictly on topic but I've just experienced suppression of freedom of expression on the Richard Dawkins website and I wanted to advertise this. I've been interacting on that website for about six months - mostly trying to correct the distortions of Christian belief that are often presented. Although they have emailed me before this time there has been no email but I now cannot post on the website. This has happened in the middle of a recent discussion: "How do atheists find meaning in life". An earlier post on the thread was pulled for "preaching" although it was little different from others I have posted  - I edited and resubmitted it. The opening post of the thread distorted the meaning of Psalm 14 in relation to a paper on behavioural statistics of atheists and theists.

The terms and conditions of the RD website includes the statement:

"Please note that we will never remove comments simply because they challenge ideas, whether that’s atheism or evolution or anything else that most people on this site are in agreement about."

and

"where robust disagreement, provided it is intelligently argued, is welcome"

my username on that site is keith54.

For by one sacrifice Jesus has made perfect forever those who are being sanctified.

"Those who are still afraid of men have no fear of God, and those who have fear of God have ceased to be afraid of men"
"If the world refuses justice, the Christian will pursue mercy"
Dietrich Bonhoeffer