biblical atrocities, and tigers, and bears, oh my!

[Ben Kenobi]

Arrian, Azazel,

That's what I meant. For the sake of the debate, both presuppositions must be assumed to be true.

Throughout human history, nations have come up with all sorts of stuff to justify things they want to do.

True.

So some people did things to Israelites they didn't like.

If you read the last post on numbers, you see that the Israelites had no problems whatsoever, until a plague hit, and started to kill them.

The Israelites kill them and take their virgin women. The idea that this was sanctioned by God is, to me, a) highly unlikely; and b) disgusting.

Counterpoint. Israel was forbidden to take wives from the tribes among them. Why then, would God command them to take wives among these women? Could God not just say, kill them all?

Would you prefer this action, Arrian? Would it be less disgusting?

Again, we come back to the point of blameless. These women are entirely blameless, so how can they be condemned along with the rest of their tribe? God took mercy upon them, and took them into Israel.

[Mercator]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No 'potential' about it. Someone who does not believe in God, who recieves a voice, which he accepts as God, is in reality, a believer.

If he is not sure, he will either ask someone who he believes will know, or he will reject the voice as 'impossible.'

According to this then, anyone who would ever "hear voices" andd accepts them as God, even when he didn't believe before, actually believed all along. But does God "speak" to everybody? Could I be believing in God without actually knowing it myself?

However, you do have a good point, which is why such prophecies need to be carefully considered, not just by the person, but by those with some familiarity with this sort of thing. Elders, or priests do fine.

And then what if the guy really was just halucinating, but his halucinations just happen to "agree with God"?

[Ben Kenobi]

If you accept as possible that one God, Yahweh, can speak to his people, then you also have to accept as possible that all gods might speak to their people

Do you wish to challenge all these other 'gods?'

Then I will let their disciples speak for them. I will speak for mine.

After all, yoru belief in a particular god and rejection of others is nothing more than an opinion.

No. Sorry. My beliefs are in the resurrection of Christ as a historical fact, and not on mere opinion.

"For if Christ did not die,
then we rest in our sins,
and worse, for we are
decievers of men."

[Arrian]

Counterpoint. Israel was forbidden to take wives from the tribes among them. Why then, would God command them to take wives among these women? Could God not just say, kill them all?

Would you prefer this action, Arrian? Would it be less disgusting?

Again, we come back to the point of blameless. These women are entirely blameless, so how can they be condemned along with the rest of their tribe? God took mercy upon them, and took them into Israel.

The main thing I found disgusting was the idea of a God sanctioning the slaughter of all those men and non-virgin women.

My point was that it sure seems to me that the Israelites decided to smack down their neighbors and steal their women, and then invented this excuse that "God told us to!"

However, assuming for the sake of argument that there is a God and he did speak to the Israelites and tell them to go slaughter their neighbors, I reject that God utterly. To hell with him.

-Arrian

[Mercator]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Counterpoint. Israel was forbidden to take wives from the tribes among them. Why then, would God command them to take wives among these women? Could God not just say, kill them all?

Would you prefer this action, Arrian? Would it be less disgusting?

Again, we come back to the point of blameless. These women are entirely blameless, so how can they be condemned along with the rest of their tribe? God took mercy upon them, and took them into Israel.

This whole business reminds me of an old joke (I'm not too good at telling jokes, but I'm sure you know it):
Hitler: "I want to kill all jews and one clown."
Some other fella: "Why the clown?"
Hitler: "See! Nobody cares about the Jews!"

[Arrian]

No. Sorry. My beliefs are in the resurrection of Christ as a historical fact, and not on mere opinion.

And this is where it all breaks down. How does one debate belief? Pointless.

-Arrian

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No. Sorry. My beliefs are in the resurrection of Christ as a historical fact, and not on mere opinion. "

"For if Christ did not die, then we are still in our sins, and worse, for we are decievers of men."

That's still an opinion, there's no way around it. In your opinion it's a historical fact. But guess what? There's not one jot of proof for it, any historian will tell you that.

Beliefs without evidence = opinions.

[Ben Kenobi]

According to this then, anyone who would ever "hear voices" andd accepts them as God, even when he didn't believe before, actually believed all along.

No. On hearing God speak to him, he believes.

But does God "speak" to everybody?

I'm not sure. He certainly could. He draws everyone to him, but some people don't accept the invitation, and this will take many different forms from a spoken word.

Could I be believing in God without actually knowing it myself?

That reminds me of an interesting essay, that says that we know God in our hearts, but that we choose to not listen to him.

And then what if the guy really was just halucinating, but his halucinations just happen to "agree with God"?

A hallucination would not carry the precision of prophecy, as we see throughout the old testament.

[Ben Kenobi]

The main thing I found disgusting was the idea of a God sanctioning the slaughter of all those men and non-virgin women.

So then, you do admit that God was merciful to those who were blameless.

Thank you Arrian.

[Ben Kenobi]

any historian will tell you that.

I'm sorely tempted to give a MtG reply to this answer.

Dude, it's what I do for a living. I AM a historian.

In your opinion it's a historical fact.

Given the facts, the events surrounding the resurrection, the situation, all corroborated by independent sources, and eyewitness testimony, the resurrection is the most reasonable explanation for these events.

Now, to call that opinion, is to render all historical facts of that day and age mere opinion.

[Arrian]

MAIN THING, Ben. Secondary to that was the taking of the women.

The alternative, you know, doesn't have to be killing them too. It could just be to leave them alone. But that's no good. They might actually try to live on their land, and the Israelites want that, so better just assimilate the useful bits (virgin women... which to me says "the young girls who weren't yet of marriageable age" which means they're malleable still).

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Given the facts, the events surrounding the resurrection, the situation, all corroborated by independent sources, and eyewitness testimony, the resurrection is the most reasonable explanation for these events.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Dude, it's what I do for a living. I AM a historian.

Then you should be ashamed for the blatant mischaracterization of the biblical accounts of the resurrection as being historical.

Given the facts, the events surrounding the resurrection, the situation, all corroborated by independent sources, and eyewitness testimony, the resurrection is the most reasonable explanation for these events.

Independent sources and eyewitness testimony? We have no independent sources or eyewitness testimony! The only sources relating to the resurrection are hearsay accounts written decades after the supposed events by people who didn't witness them! Whose eyewitness account do we have of the resurrection?

You get an F in history.

[Ben Kenobi]

The alternative, you know, doesn't have to be killing them too. It could just be to leave them alone.

Yeah, right. Leave them alone, and they will do find. All their fathers and brothers are dead.

assimilate the useful bits

Well, why not kill them earlier, when you first encounter them? Everything in Numbers 31, has to be considered by Numbers 25.

[GePap]

So then, you do admit that God was merciful to those who were blameless.

And hence lies the problem: You excuse the killing because 'in god's eyes they were guilty', and this is what people have a problem-that genocide is OK as long as God says they deserve it: which means to you morality is simply based on God's command- so ifone day you were convinced God told you to kill all the first borns, you would, becuase God said so, and thus it must be ok.