World's first Atheist TV Channel

[sunburn]

I am not really worried about atheist…it's the amount of so called christians out there that is worrying me the most…

 

[Esanta]

No babbling here, I mean how could there be when you've got that market cornered.

Veni Vidi Scripsi

But since you brought it up, it's time for another Esanta educating Bible lesson. As Bible scholars assert, God dedicated things or persons to destruction in the Old Testament because they violently and steadfastly impeded or opposed his work over a long period of time (like you're doing Esanta).

Ahh, so THAT justifies killing kids in this absolute moral system of yours where some things are okay some times and not others.

This "dedication to destruction" was not used frequently in the Old Testament. It was reserved for the spoils of southern Canaan (Num 21:2–3), Jericho (Josh 6:21), Ai (Josh 8:26), Makedah (Josh 10:28) and Hazor (Josh 11:11).

In a most amazing prediction, Abraham was told that his descendants would be exiled and mistreated for four hundred years (in round numbers for 430 years) before God would lead them out of that country. The reason for so long a delay, Genesis 15:13–16 explains, was that "the sin of the Amorites [the Canaanites] has not yet reached its full measure."

Ahh, that Exodus of which there exists no archaeological evidence! Gotcha.

Thus, God waited for centuries while the Amalekites and those other Canaanite groups slowly filled up their own cups of condemnation by their sinful behavior. God never acted precipitously against them; his grace and mercy waited to see if they would repent and turn from their headlong plummet into self-destruction. They chose not to repent.

Ahh so the all powerful, foreseeing God waited until they numbered hundreds of thousands to kill them, even though he knew what they'd become! Gotcha.

And not that the conquering Israelites were without sin. Deuteronomy 9:5 makes that clear to the Israelites: "It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations."

Ahh, so the Israelites weren't perfect either but their genocide would be condoned while genocides against them are condemned regardless of the Israelites actions! I see now.

These nations were cut off to prevent the corruption of Israel and the rest of the world (Deut 20:16–18). When a nation starts burning children as a gift to the gods (Lev 18:21) and practices sodomy, bestiality and all sorts of loathsome vices (Lev 18:25, 27–30), the day of God’s grace and mercy has begun to run out.

So killing the victimized children is just absolutely dandy! Cool ..

Just as surgeons do not hesitate to amputate a gangrenous limb, even if they cannot help cutting off some healthy flesh, so God must do the same. This is not doing evil that good may come; it is removing the cancer that could infect all of society and eventually destroy the remaining good.

Comparing a whole demographic of people to a, infected limb. Logic prevails once again!

Now God could have used pestilence, hurricanes, famine, diseases or anything else he wanted but for various reasons in this case he chose to use Israel.

Of course he could ...

In the providential acts of life, it is understood that individuals share in the life of their families and nations. As a result we as individuals participate both in our families’ and nations’ rewards and in their punishments. Naturally this will involve some so-called innocent people; however, even that argument involves us in a claim to omniscience which we do not possess. If the women and children had been spared in those profane Canaanite nations, it would not be long before a fresh crop of adults would emerge to purvey great wickedness just as their predecessors.

So even though you can't 'claim to omniescence' you somehow know these kids, if spared, would grow up to be hateful people? Seems reasonable ...

Of special concern were the Amalekites. When the Israelites were struggling through the desert toward Canaan, the Amalekites picked off the weak, sick and elderly at the end of the line of marchers and brutally murdered these stragglers. Warned Moses, "Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God" (Deut 25:17–18).

Then the Amalekites are really immoral people, no? KILLING OTHERS! GOSH!

Some commentators note that the Amalekites were not merely plundering or disputing who owned what territories; they were attacking God’s chosen people to discredit the living God. Some trace the Amalekites’ adamant hostility all through the Old Testament, including the most savage butchery of all in Haman’s proclamation that all Jews throughout the Persian Empire could be massacred on a certain day (Esther 3:8–11). Many make a case that Haman was an Amalekite. His actions then would ultimately reveal this nation’s deep hatred for God, manifested toward the people through whom God had chosen to bless the whole world.

Yep, genocide is a very awful crime, it certainly is.

In Numbers 25:16–18 and 31:1–18 Israel was also told to conduct a war of extermination against all in Midian, with the exception of the prepubescent girls, because the Midianites had led them into idolatry and immorality. It was not contact with foreigners per se that was the problem, but the threat to Israel’s relationship with the Lord. The divine command, therefore, was to break Midian’s strength by killing all the male children and also the women who had slept with a man and who could still become mothers.

Aww, so they committed genocide, that awful crime they so hate being perpetrated against them, but kept all the nice, young prepubescent girls? I can only imagine how that's a great example of 'treat others as you would like others to treat you'. I suppose those young girls had absolutely nothing to do with male urges, eh?

The texts of Deuteronomy 2:34; 3:6; 7:1–2 and Psalm 106:34 are further examples of the principle of ḥerem, dedicating the residents of Canaan to total destruction as an involuntary offering to God.

What YOU would have done is make sure the wicked prevailed. That seems to be a theme of yours in most every discussion. Protect and empower the wicked, persecute and deceive the righteous. This doesn't speak well of you Esanta.

No, what I would point out is how utterly hypocritical it is to get worked up about genocide against your people then to go and commit one, kill indiscriminately, and think it to be so much more righteous than the one commited against you. Let's face facts, it's disgusting nomatter what side we stand on. 'Love your enemies, wish well for those who mistreat you, pray for those who persecute you'.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

God's normative morality is consistent, real, and objective. It is not subject to your feelings and false assertions. I'm not sure how you manage to get everything twisted around so badly even after it's clearly explained to you repeatedly. Is it deliberate or do you have a medical reason for it?

And your ignorance continues unabated. There is archaeological evidence and especially textual evidence for the Exodus and the events surrounding the Exodus (both before and after) are testable and datable. This happens to be one of the topics that Wikipedia has wrong and needs to amend.

As Deem pointed out, one reason for this is that extremely strong evidence for the validity of the Exodus has been published only in the scientific journals and never made it to the popular press. For example consider the two studies which examine one of the Egyptian plagues (before the Exodus) and demise of Jericho (after the Exodus).

Drs. Hendrik J. Bruins and Johannes van der Plicht reported in the prestigious British journal, Nature, (1) that the destruction of Jericho was dated to 1580 (" 13 years) B.C. (using 14C dating).

This date is significant, since several archeologists have insisted that Jericho was destroyed by the Egyptians between 1550 and 1300 B.C. The recent study discredits the Egyptian theory, since the date is much too old.

What is even more interesting is that scientists, using 14C dating and tree rings, have found evidence of a volcanic eruption from the Aegean island of Thera, which has been dated to 1628 B.C.(2)

This would place the eruption at 45 years prior to the destruction of Jericho, at a time which coincidentally corresponds to the time of the plagues the Lord unleashed upon Egypt.

Exodus 10:

Then the Lord said to Moses, "Stretch out your hand toward the sky, that there may be darkness over the land of Egypt, even a darkness which may be felt." So Moses stretched out his hand toward the sky, and there was thick darkness in all the land of Egypt for three days. (Exodus 10:21-22)

The researchers conducting the study commented that the 45 years difference in events was "rather striking." (3)

References:

1. Bruins, H.J. and J. van der Plicht. 1996. The Exodus enigma. Nature 382: 213-214.2. Renfrew, C. 1996. Kings, tree rings and the Old World. Nature 381:733-734.Kuniholm, P. I., Kromer, B., Manning, S. W., Newton, M., Latini, C. E., and Bruce, M. J. 1996. Anatolian tree rings and the absolute chronology of the eastern Mediterranean, 2220-718 BC Nature 381:780-783. Friedrich, W.L., P. Wagner, and H. Tauber. 1990. Thera and the Aegean World III Thera Foundation, London, UK.
3. "These averages, taken together, yield 3,356 +/- 18 yr BP, 45 radiocarbon years older than our [SUP]14[/SUP]Carbon destruction date for MB-IIC Jericho. This time difference is rather striking, as it could fit the desert period of 40 years separating the Exodus from the destruction of Jericho, mentioned in ancient Hebrew texts."

But as I continue to read your post I see that you experienced an infantile regression so will have to wait until you return to an emotional and mental state that is mature enough to continue this discussion. In the meanwhile, while you're in the throes of a pacifierific state, consider that your infantile comments are also hypocritical given your previous false assertions.



[QUOTE=Esanta;1653611]Ahh, so THAT justifies killing kids in this absolute moral system of yours where some things are okay some times and not others. Ahh, that Exodus of which there exists no archaeological evidence! Gotcha. Ahh so the all powerful, foreseeing God waited until they numbered hundreds of thousands to kill them, even though he knew what they'd become! Gotcha. Ahh, so the Israelites weren't perfect either but their genocide would be condoned while genocides against them are condemned regardless of the Israelites actions! I see now. So killing the victimized children is just absolutely dandy! Cool .. Comparing a whole demographic of people to a, infected limb. Logic prevails once again! Of course he could ... So even though you can't 'claim to omniescence' you somehow know these kids, if spared, would grow up to be hateful people? Seems reasonable ... Then the Amalekites are really immoral people, no? KILLING OTHERS! GOSH! Yep, genocide is a very awful crime, it certainly is. Aww, so they committed genocide, that awful crime they so hate being perpetrated against them, but kept all the nice, young prepubescent girls? I can only imagine how that's a great example of 'treat others as you would like others to treat you'. I suppose those young girls had absolutely nothing to do with male urges, eh? No, what I would point out is how utterly hypocritical it is to get worked up about genocide against your people then to go and commit one, kill indiscriminately, and think it to be so much more righteous than the one commited against you. Let's face facts, it's disgusting nomatter what side we stand on. 'Love your enemies, wish well for those who mistreat you, pray for those who persecute you'.[/QUOTE]

 

[Esanta]

God's normative morality is consistent, real, and objective. It is not subject to your feelings and false assertions. I'm not sure how you manage to get everything twisted around so badly even after it's clearly explained to you repeatedly. Is it deliberate or do you have a medical reason for it?

And your ignorance continues unabated. There is archaeological evidence and especially textual evidence for the Exodus and the events surrounding the Exodus (both before and after) are testable and datable. This happens to be one of the topics that Wikipedia has wrong and needs to amend.

As Deem pointed out, one reason for this is that extremely strong evidence for the validity of the Exodus has been published only in the scientific journals and never made it to the popular press. For example consider the two studies which examine one of the Egyptian plagues (before the Exodus) and demise of Jericho (after the Exodus).

Drs. Hendrik J. Bruins and Johannes van der Plicht reported in the prestigious British journal, Nature, (1) that the destruction of Jericho was dated to 1580 (" 13 years) B.C. (using 14C dating).

This date is significant, since several archeologists have insisted that Jericho was destroyed by the Egyptians between 1550 and 1300 B.C. The recent study discredits the Egyptian theory, since the date is much too old.

What is even more interesting is that scientists, using 14C dating and tree rings, have found evidence of a volcanic eruption from the Aegean island of Thera, which has been dated to 1628 B.C.(2)

This would place the eruption at 45 years prior to the destruction of Jericho, at a time which coincidentally corresponds to the time of the plagues the Lord unleashed upon Egypt.

Exodus 10:

Then the Lord said to Moses, "Stretch out your hand toward the sky, that there may be darkness over the land of Egypt, even a darkness which may be felt." So Moses stretched out his hand toward the sky, and there was thick darkness in all the land of Egypt for three days. (Exodus 10:21-22)

The researchers conducting the study commented that the 45 years difference in events was "rather striking." (3)

References:

1. Bruins, H.J. and J. van der Plicht. 1996. The Exodus enigma. Nature 382: 213-214.2. Renfrew, C. 1996. Kings, tree rings and the Old World. Nature 381:733-734.Kuniholm, P. I., Kromer, B., Manning, S. W., Newton, M., Latini, C. E., and Bruce, M. J. 1996. Anatolian tree rings and the absolute chronology of the eastern Mediterranean, 2220-718 BC Nature 381:780-783. Friedrich, W.L., P. Wagner, and H. Tauber. 1990. Thera and the Aegean World III Thera Foundation, London, UK.
3. "These averages, taken together, yield 3,356 +/- 18 yr BP, 45 radiocarbon years older than our [SUP]14[/SUP]Carbon destruction date for MB-IIC Jericho. This time difference is rather striking, as it could fit the desert period of 40 years separating the Exodus from the destruction of Jericho, mentioned in ancient Hebrew texts."

But as I continue to read your post I see that you experienced an infantile regression so will have to wait until you return to an emotional and mental state that is mature enough to continue this discussion. In the meanwhile, while you're in the throes of a pacifierific state, consider that your infantile comments are also hypocritical given your previous false assertions.

Exodus - Carol Meyers - Google Books

What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and when Did They Know It?: What ... - William G. Dever - Google Books

There is no archeological evidence for the Exodus. One more instance of a tiny minority to which you belong, making stuff up. There's no record in Egyptian records of Israelite slaves, nothing on the Plagues, nothing on the Pharoah and the Red Sea, no clay or crockery, no tangible mass of skeletons, marks of settlements; nothing, nada, zip, zilch.

The only single shred of 'evidence' that even HINTS at an Exodus comes in circumstantial evidence from around the time of Akhenaten's building of Amarna and his death, in that he hired a number of slaves to build the city in mudbrick. That's it.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Repeating your false assertions will never make them true Esanta.

As I stated, there's a wealth of evidence for the Exodus apart from the historical record of the Torah and despite the Exodus representing a distinctive redemptive contribution of Israel's faith not found elsewhere in ancient Near East religious traditions. I've given you a few scholarly published examples but you simply ignored them as is your habit.

Here's another one. The Ipuwer papyrus found in the early 19th Century in Egypt describes events which parallel remarkably events described in the Book of Exodus: Violent upheavals in Egypt, starvation, drought, escape of slaves with the wealth of the Egyptians, and death throughout the land.

Though divided, archeologists like Roland Enmarch and Kenneth Kitchen call it "the most extensively posited parallel" and state the river becoming blood should not be taken "absolutely literally" but that both Ipuwer and Exodus metaphorically describe what happens at times of catastrophic Nile floods when the river is carrying large quantities of red earth.

Another is the Merneptah Stela: The Bible and Interpretation

Instead of spending all your time with liberal feminists who adhere to post modern revisionism with a bias toward minimalism, you'd benefit from resources like the following examples: Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition: James K. Hoffmeier: 9780195130881: Amazon.com: Books and Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey: Richard S. Hess: 9780801027178: Amazon.com: Books

AND, then you wouldn't ignorantly continue to make blanket false assertions.

There is no archeological evidence for the Exodus. One more instance of a tiny minority to which you belong, making stuff up. There's no record in Egyptian records of Israelite slaves, nothing on the Plagues, nothing on the Pharoah and the Red Sea, no clay or crockery, no tangible mass of skeletons, marks of settlements; nothing, nada, zip, zilch. The only single shred of 'evidence' that even HINTS at an Exodus comes in circumstantial evidence from around the time of Akhenaten's building of Amarna and his death, in that he hired a number of slaves to build the city in mudbrick. That's it.