(As promised) Murder, rape, relative morals, and the Old Testament

[GreatSport]

This post is for all atheists, or anyone else, who may think
(incorrectly) that God mandated/permitted rape and murder in the OT
and then proceeded to prohibit it in the NT, thus teaching relative
morals.

While some may be surprised that a post of this length would come from
an author expressing a desire for brevity ("Brevity is an art"), I
have attempted to follow the maxim one atheist appropriately brought
to my attention: Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.
Thus, I have endeavored to make this post as concise as possible while
still dealing adequately with the issues in question.

I am more than happy to respond to honest questions and comments that
may be posted in reply to what has been written, but I would ask that
those who desire a response from me do several things:
1. If you disagree with what is written, please do not just say
"That's wrong!" and move on. I would ask for a response from you
atheists that deals with the issues presented and that actually gives
me some tangible, logically coherent argument to respond to.
2. Please refrain from using profanity. It's neither profitable
nor does it belie a great deal of intelligence on the part of the one
using it. While there is no prohibition against profanity on this
group, replying to responses to this post is my prerogative. I would
ask that, if you would like a response from me to what you have
written, you not use profanity.
3. Please read the entire post before responding. Many atheists,
it seems, hit the reply button before they read a thing, and,
consequently, raise issues that are answered several or more sentences
down the line. This may prove to be especially true of this post, as
it contains responses to very controversial issues. The arguments
presented here often require several paragraphs to be developed
fully. It will therefore help if you read the post entirely before
responding, thus allowing the arguments presented to be fully
developed before you respond to them.


To begin, allow me to establish some framework that will greatly aid
us in understanding the Scriptures. First off, how are we to
interpret the Bible? Allow me to present a response to a question an
atheist gave me. The question was, "How do you know whether the Jesus
you believe in is the real one? Many denominations pick and chose
what Bible passages should be taken literally, which should be
interpreted metaphorically, and which should be ignored altogether.
Suppose there is a god and one true religion somewhere in the world.
And suppose that the followers of that church go to heaven and
everybody else goes to hell. There is a good chance that it won't be
your religion. So it wouldn't matter whether you believed in God or
followed the teachings of your church. You would be going to hell
anyway. So why worry. Focus on the life you are living now. All we
can do is live the best way we can."

In many books, it has been shown that Christianity is not another
religion, but separate, distinct, and directly in opposition to every
other religious system contrived by man. It makes claims no other
religion makes, and, furthermore, because of its uniqueness, is not
really a religion at all (a religion being man trying to elevate
himself to a place of acceptance by some deity or "higher power").
Rather, Christianity claims to be a relationship with the One True God
whereby God reaches down to man and saves man from himself. As
stated, this has been proved by several books, which I encourage those
who would like a more in-depth treatment of the subject to read. The
books include, "Seeking and Finding God" and "In Defense of the
Faith," books by Dave Hunt, available in print or e-book format at
www.TheBereanCall.org. The response to the rest of the question was
as follows:

"Just because there are many claims to truth even within nominal
Christianity doesn't mean you can't arrive at the truth. To do so
will require that we first validate the Bible by proving beyond a
reasonable doubt that it is true, for, otherwise, there is no merit to
any of the claims of Christianity at all. If we can validate the
Bible, then we can turn to the Bible to guide us to what teachings
within nominal Christendom are correct.

"In regards to Biblical interpretation, the Bible tells us how to
interpret it. It is to be interpreted in the same way the Holy Spirit
teaches believers, by 'comparing spiritual things with spiritual.' (1
Corinthians 2:13) To compare spiritual things with spiritual things
simply means that we understand one part of the Bible by comparing our
interpretation of it with other parts of the Bible. This rule is
followed by Paul, Matthew, and others in their writings. Thus, if an
interpretation does not line up with the whole of Scripture, it is not
correct.

"For example, if I hear it taught that Paul does not condemn
homosexuality in the New Testament, but rather that he was referring
to man-boy physical relationships common in his culture, how can I
know whether or not that claim is true? Answer: by comparing
Scripture with Scripture. This interpretation is easily refuted by
Romans 1:27, which states, 'And likewise also the men, leaving the
natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men
with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves
that recompense of their error which was meet.'

"Scripture also clearly states, 'We have also a more sure word of
prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that
shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in
your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is
of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time
by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by
the Holy Ghost.' No prophecy of the Scripture, either foretelling
[prophesying the future] or "forthtelling" [proclaiming what Scripture
means or has to say about a certain issue], is of private
interpretation. That puts a stop to those who would say, 'Well, this
verse means this to me, but it may mean something else to you. The
Bible just means different things for different people.' Wrong. You
have no Biblical right to interpret something to fit your bias or to
interpret it apart from the rest of Scripture. The task in Biblical
interpretation is not assigning a meaning to a passage, but, rather,
discovering what a passage means.

"In regards to literal or metaphorical interpretation, simply take the
Bible literally unless you have some reason to take it
metaphorically. This is what we all do with every other written
work. Why deviate from that pattern when interpreting the Bible? For
example, words such as 'like,' 'as,' '[something] is [something
else],' which are examples of similies, metaphors, etc., should be
taken allegorically. Thus, when Jesus says, 'The kingdom of heaven is
like unto treasure hid in a field,' (Matthew 13:44) we know to take
this figuratively because of the word 'like.' The best rule of thumb
is: Always take the Bible literally unless there is some obvious
reason not to.

"So, to say 'Because there are so many claims to truth, one cannot
know what really is true,' is wrong. Jesus clearly stated, 'And ye
shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.' (John 8:32)
Some Christians may respond to this verse with the old maxim, 'God
said it, I believe it, that settles it.' Wrong. What we should say
is, 'God said it, that settles it, I hope you believe it!' The Bible
makes it clear over and over again that certainty is vital. Why
believe in something that is anything less than 100% convincing?
Thus, you're statement to the effect, 'We can't know where we're going
after we die, so just live the best that you can,' flies in the face
of both logic and sound reason. Human beings want, no demand,
certainty. That's what this post was all about. Let's establish
verifiable criteria so that, regardless of which religious system we
explore, we can ascertain whether or not it is worthy of our faith.
In fact, let's do one better and find the 'religion' that calls every
other religion false and itself the only source of truth. Then, if
that religion proves to be true, we have saved ourselves from a
lifetime of rummaging through every religious thought ever conceived.
If it proves false, then we can logically proceed from that point."

The second thing that I would like to lay as groundwork is that the
Bible is a ->historical<- book. It details factual events, real
people, and historically verifiable data. The Bible, contrary to the
popular belief of many atheists, is not a collection of fairy tales
compiled by some ancient race of ignorant people who desired a
monotheistic religion. Time and space will only allow me to skim over
some quick archeological and historical evidence that validates the
Bible. I hope to deal with this topic in a post soon. For now, allow
me to list some of the evidence that directly supports the historical
accuracy of the Bible:

* Noah's flood is the only plausible explanation for sedimentary
levels visible on earth today, including some strata that have
petrified trees standing -> straight up<- through layers of sediment
supposedly laid down over billions of years. ("Scientific Evidence for
Noah's Flood" DVD by Dr. Baker, available at www.TheBereanCall.org)

* Jesus was a historical person, as verified by the four Gospel
writers and secular historians such as Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus,
Lucian, and others. ("Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh
McDowell)

* Hundreds of the locations mentioned in the Bible have been
identified with a relative degree of certainty. Contrast this with
the Book of Mormon, of which none of the topography mentioned in it
has ever even come close to being verified! ("Bible Map Insert"
published by Son Light Publishers, Inc.; "The Truth about Mormonism"
tract available from the Berean Call)

* Joshua's conquest of Canaan is corroborated by tablets found at
Amarna, Tell El. ("Thompson Chain Reference Bible: Archeological
Supplement no. 4328")

* Hundreds of historical events were prophesied by the Bible hundreds
and even thousands of years before they took place. ("In Defense of
the Faith" and "Judgment Day!" by Dave Hunt) For example, the Bible
prophesied the rise of the Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman
empires in such detail that skeptics thought that the prophecies had
to have been written hundreds of years after the fact. This has been
overwhelmingly disproved. ("Daniel in the Critics Den" and "The Coming
Prince" by Sir Robert Anderson)

* The existence of a non-physical part of man, taught by the Bible but
scorned by materialists, is nonetheless beginning to be recognized by
leading secular scientists as correct. ("Seeking and Finding God,"
"Psychology and the Church," "An Urgent Call to a Serious Faith," and
"In Defense of the Faith" written by Dave Hunt)

* Recent archeology has verified the Biblical claim that there was
once a Jewish temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. An article
entitled "Link to First Temple found" reads, "Archeologists overseeing
contested Islamic infrastructure work on Jerusalem's Temple Mount have
stumbled upon a sealed archeological level dating back to the First
Temple period, the Israel Antiquities Authority announced. The find
marks the first time that archeological remains dating back to the
First Temple period have been found on the contested holy site, the
state-run archeological body said. No archeological excavations have
ever been carried out on the Temple Mount, which is Judaism's holiest
and Islam's third-holiest site, due to opposition from religious
leaders. The sealed archeological level, dated from the eighth to the
sixth centuries BCE, was exposed at the end of August in the area
close to the southeastern corner of the raised platform surrounding
the Dome of the Rock, and includes fragments of ceramic tableware and
animal bone. 'The layer is a closed, sealed archeological layer that
has been untouched since as early as the eighth century BCE,' said
Yuval Baruch, the Jerusalem District archeologist for the Israel
Antiquities." (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?
cid=1192380615840&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)
Also note this article: "Muslims fume at discovery of 1st Temple
remains [Excerpts] 'Palestinian' spokesmen have denounced as lies and
deception Israeli claims that remains had been uncovered on
Jerusalem's Temple Mount dating back to the period of Solomon's
Temple. According to the Associated Press, the Israel Antiquities
Authority announced it had discovered fragments of ceramic table wares
and animal bones dating back to the first Jewish temple - from the 6th
to the 10th centuries BC. The finds also included fragments of bowl
rims, bases and body sherds, the base and handle of a small jug and
the rim of a storage jar. But the Islamic Trust denied that any
discovery was made, AP said. AP got it right when it stated that 'the
site [Temple Mount] represents the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict.' For Muslims everywhere, and especially for the Arab
nationalists out to appropriate part of the 3000-year-old City of
David and turn it into the capital of a Palestinian state, denying any
Jewish link to the most coveted sites has long been a central
component of their strategy. Down the decades since 1967, Palestinian
Arab academics, archeological 'experts' and popular television and
radio talk-show hosts have all collaborated to 'prove' that there is
no physical evidence to support the Jews' claim to having had a
homeland in 'Palestine' two millennia ago. At Camp David in 2001,
while participating in negotiations with Prime Minister Ehud Barak
under the auspices of US President Bill Clinton, Arafat shamelessly
stated as 'fact' that the Jews had never had a temple in Jerusalem,
and that King Solomon had built his house of worship not far from
Jericho. Arafat in fact sought to be buried on the Temple Mount - a
site the Islamic world calls its 'third holiest' - and to which
Muslims turn their backs when praying towards Mecca and Medina five
times a day. The mass-murderer of Jews and others believed that
interring his corpse at the site would help strengthen the Arab claim
to sovereignty over it." http://www.jnewswire.com/article/2206

We could go on and on listing the factual accuracy of the Bible, but
this is neither the time nor the place. I walk us through all that to
say this: because the Bible is a historical book, every Scripture that
we will consider in this post has historical context that cannot be
ignored if we are to interpret the Bible correctly.

Last, but not least, I would like to present something I found the
other day that many of you might find helpful: (taken from
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLE FACTS Compiled and edited by Mark Water)

THE SKEPTICS GUIDE TO MISINTERPRETING THE BIBLE

1. Assuming that the unexplained is not explainable

2. Presuming the Bible guilty until proven innocent

3. Confusing our fallible interpretations with God's infallible
revelation

4. Failing to understand the context of the passage (A big one for
this post-AMS)

5. Neglecting to interpret difficult passages in the light of clear
ones

6. Basing a teaching on an obscure passage

7. Forgetting that the Bible is a human book with human
characteristics

8. Assuming that a partial report is a false report

9. Demanding that NT citations of the OT always be exact quotations

10. Assuming that divergent accounts are false ones

11. Presuming that the Bible approves of all its records

12. Forgetting that the Bible uses nontechnical, everyday language

13. Assuming that round numbers are false

14. Neglecting to note that the Bible uses different literary
devices

15. Forgetting that only the original text, not every copy of
Scripture, is without error

16. Confusing general statements with universal ones

17. Forgetting that latter revelation supersedes previous
revelation

The Scriptures that we will be dealing with in this post are ones
raised by Rajinet and LL. If other atheists have verses they would
like responded to, I would be more than happy to do so for you,
provided that you observe the requests I made above.

JUDGES 21:10-24: LL's first Scripture is Judges 21:10-24. The context
is this: the tribe of Benjamin had protected the inhabitants of a town
that had raped a woman. The woman's husband, covering up the role he
played in allowing the rape to take place, went to the elders of
Israel. Demands were made to hand over the criminals for justice to
be done to them. The tribe of Benjamin refused. War followed, and
the rest of the tribes eventually defeated Benjamin. In the ensuing
conflict, the entire tribe of Benjamin was annihilated except for 600
men. The Israelites regretted the fact that they lacked on tribe and
sought to find a way for the tribe of Benjamin to be preserved.
Unfortunately, the rest of the tribes had sworn not to give their
daughters in marriage to a Benjamite. The solution arrived at was
this: find a group of people that had not answered the call to war and
take their unmarried women for wives for the tribe of Benjamin. It
was discovered that no one from the town of Jabeshgilead had come to
the war.

This is the setting in which we find the key verses from this passage,
verses 10-13, which say, "And the congregation sent thither (to
Jabeshgilead) twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded
them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the
edge of the sword, with the women and the children. And this is the
thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every
woman that hath lain by man. And they found among the inhabitants of
Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by
lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh,
which is in the land of Canaan." The Israelites then proceed to have
the Benjamites kidnap several hundred more women because the 400 women
captured were not sufficient to provide wives for the 600 men left
from the tribe of Benjamin.

LL's comment was: "Obviously these women were repeatedly raped. These
sick bastards killed and raped an entire town and then wanted more
virgins, so they hid beside the road to kidnap and rape some more.
How can anyone see this as anything but evil?" Yes this was wrong and
evil, but you need to be careful that you don't read things into the
text of Scripture. Factually speaking, that "these sick bastards
killed and raped an entire town" is not accurate. Nowhere does it say
anyone was raped in the conquest of Jabeshgilead. There were,
however, many people senselessly murdered. Also, that "theses sick
bastards...then wanted more virgins" is not accurate if you mean that
they wanted the virgins for themselves. From the very first, the
women were not for them but for the 600 men left from the tribe of
Benjamin. There were still 200 other men that lacked wives. The 200
women were kidnapped by the men from the tribe of Benjamin for
themselves, not for the men that murdered the inhabitants of
Jabeshgilead.

I'm surprised that LL would even raise these Scriptures as proof that
God allowed murder and rape. That she did seems to show ignorance of
the context of the verses she cited. For one thing, in none of the
verses preceding or following Judges 21:10-24 do the Israelites ask
God whether they should do what they did. Rather, they "had made a
great oath concerning him that came not up to the LORD to Mizpeh,
saying, He shall surely be put to death." (v. 25) This is akin to
the oath made by Saul in 1 Samuel 14. Rather than being from God, a
man, or men in the case of the nation of Israel in Judges, decided
what was right and then did it, failing to seek God and His will
first.

Instead of God authorizing or approving of the actions of the
Israelites, the end of this chapter, also of the entire book of
Judges, states: "In those days there was no king in Israel: ->every
man did that which was right in his own (not God's) eyes.<-" The
action of the Israelites was neither mandated nor condoned by God.
Rather, it was a decision made by the elders of Israel, one that was
immoral and wrong because they were doing that which was right in
their own eyes.

This passage neither teaches, supports, or condones relative morals.

NUMBERS 31:17-18: The second set of Scriptures in question is this
passage, which states, "And they warred against the Midianites, as the
LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. And they slew the
kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi,
and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam
also the son of Beor they slew with the sword. And the children of
Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones,
and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all
their goods. And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and
all their goodly castles, with fire. And they took all the spoil, and
all the prey, both of men and of beasts. And they brought the
captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the
priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the
camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho. And
Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the
congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp. And Moses was
wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands,
and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. And Moses
said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these
caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to
commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was
a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every
male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man
by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a
man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

LL's comment was, "Clearly Moses and God approves of rape of
virgins."

Actually, no. There were laws governing the conduct of the Israelites
toward those they took captive in war, which both Rajinet and LL
referenced. Perhaps we had best examine those laws and this situation
in conjunction with one another.

The laws in question are from Deuteronomy 21:10-14, which says, "When
thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God
hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them
captive, and seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a
desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou
shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and
pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from
off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and
her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and
be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou
have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will;
but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make
merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."

All of the parameters of this law would have played out in the above
story from Numbers. An Israelite man would have seen a Midianite (or
Moabite; Midian and Moab are words referring to the same ethnic group
[Num. 22:4]) woman, desired her for his wife, allowed her to go
through the process of mourning described in Deuteronomy, and then
consummated the marriage.

First off, we must note that Israel would be at war if and when this
law would effect a given situation. The captives of war would be, as
always the case with those defeated in war, at the mercy of their
conquerors. God prescribed that, when Israel conquered their enemies,
they treat them in a just yet merciful way. Allow me to explain.

Let's put the account from Numbers in the context of history, both
Biblical and secular. To do so, we must go back to around 1,800 B.C.,
the time of the Patriarch Abram. God, the Creator of the world and
thus the owner of it and everything in it, had promised the land of
Canaan would belong to Abram (whose name God later changed to
Abraham), a former pagan who obeyed God's call to leave his home in
the Ur of the Chaldees and sojourn in a land of promise he would later
inherit. God swore to Abraham, "I am the LORD that brought thee out
of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land (the land of Canaan) to
inherit it." (Gen. 15:7) God then made a covenant with Abraham to
demonstrate to him the sureness of His promise. In this covenant,
known as the Abrahamic covenant, God stated, "Know of a surety that
thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall
serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; And also
that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall
they come out with great substance. And thou shalt go to thy fathers
in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. But in the fourth
generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the
Amorites is not yet full." (Gen. 15:13-16)

The clear picture that God gave to Abraham was this: God, who owns all
the earth and has entrusted it to man, gave the land of Canaan to
Abraham and his descendents forever. However, Abraham's descendents
would not inhabit the land for around 500 years because, in God's own
words, "the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full." By this, God
meant that the inhabitants of the land of Canaan were not yet
practicing wickedness to such a great degree that God was going to
move upon them in judgment (an exception was, of course, the case of
the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah).

God, Who has placed within man's conscience and in the world around
man an inescapable witness of Himself, was going to permit the
wickedness of the Amorites (a name used for the collective inhabitants
of the land of Canaan) to continue on its downward course for over 500
years. During this time, through the witness of conscience within and
creation without, God would testify to these people of their
wickedness and offer them a chance to repent. As you probably well
know, the wickedness of the inhabitants of the land of Canaan only
grew, until it reached such colossal proportions that God finally
moved to exterminate the unrepentant sinners.

Thus, the story from Number does not occur in a vacuum. These people
had already been given hundreds of years to repent. However, they did
not. Thus, rather than allow the immoral practices of the Canaanites
to proceed unchecked, and thus destroy hundreds of other lives, God
used the nation of Israel to halt the advance of vile sin. And the
sin practiced by the Canaanites was indeed vile, even by the standards
of most atheists who don't believe in absolute morals. Perhaps one of
the worst of the practices was the religious act of human/child
sacrifice, a sin to which the Hebrews themselves later fell prey
because they did not obey God by exterminating the unrepentant
inhabitants of the land. (Please note that the Moabites practiced
child sacrifice to their god, Chemosh.) Because of their failure to
obey God, the Hebrews ultimately intermarried with the Canaanites,
learning their abominable practices. God had warned the Hebrews in
Leviticus 18:26-27, "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my
judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any
of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: (For
all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were
before you, and the land is defiled;)."

Thus, unrepentant sinners had gone as far as God would permit and He
then moved to judge them (we will also see in another Scripture
referenced by LL that the same thing is going to come upon the
unrepentant sinners who now inhabit planet earth).

Now, we must also note that the Israelites were not the aggressors in
the battle with the Moabites. The land of Moab did not lie within the
territory God had given the children of Israel. That the Israelites
were not coming to attack the Moabites/Midianites is inferred by the
king of Moab himself, who lamented, "Now shall this company lick up -
>all that are round about us,<- as the ox licketh up the grass of the
field." The king of Moab then proceeded to hire Baalam to curse
Israel. Balak, the king of Moab, stated in his message to Baalam,
"Come now therefore, I pray thee, curse me this people; for they are
too mighty for me: peradventure I shall prevail, that we may smite
them, and that I may drive them out of the land." (Numbers 22:6)
When this tactic didn't work, Baalam presented his insidious doctrine,
referenced elsewhere in Scripture, namely, If you cannot conquer them,
corrupt them. This he ingeniously accomplished by getting the Moabite
women to seduce the men of Israel and entice them into idol worship
(Numbers 25:1-2). God could not tolerate this affront to Himself and
the backhanded tactics by which the Midianites were seeking to destroy
the Israelites, so he sent a plague to destroy the Israelites that
transgressed (Numbers 25; please note, these Israelites had been duly
warned of the consequences for their actions [Exodus 20:3-6; Numbers
15:30-31]) The Israelites, after being provoked by these actions of
the Midianites, responded to these hostilities in self-defense,
proceeding to defeat the entire nation of Midian. (The conquest of the
Moabites was necessary so that they might not continue to defile those
around them with their wicked practices and in order to protect the
nation of Israel from further acts of aggression by the Moabites.)
Thus, Moab was defeated in a war that they, not Israel, had provoked.

Of the law dealing with the treatment of the female captives taken by
Israel, LL's only commentary was, "Rape of Female Captives." Rajinet
wrote, "God asks you not to touch her (the female captive-Greatsport)
for a month to let her mourn her parents (and perhaps husband and
children) you might have killed." It is doubtful that an Israelite
man would marry a foreign woman previously married to a foreign man.
I'm not aware of any instance in the Old Testament where married women
were taken as captives in war and then married by an Israelite.

Rajinet continues, "What if she doesn't want to be touched after a
month either? God doesn't give her a choice; he allows you to force
yourself on her keeping her captive until you tire of her, which makes
her your sex slave regardless of whether you call yourself a husband
or call her a wife. (How else would a judge look at it if you actually
followed these verses)." Please note the following:

In a day where captives of war were often treated as subhuman chattel
by their captors, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had provided a
means, not only to protect female captives from being taken advantage
of by their Hebrew captors, but also a means for their assimilation
into the nation of Israel. A Hebrew man could, after permitting a
captive to lament her family, marry her. Please note, a Hebrew man
was only permitted to marry the woman, not rape her. Also, the
provision of permitting the woman to mourn her lost family for a full
month almost ensured that no momentary immoral urge would dominate the
man's actions as he would be forced to provide for the woman for a
full month before he could consummate the marriage, and, after the
marriage was consummated, he had to perform all of the duties of a
husband to the captive. Thus, captives were to be treated the same as
Israelite women after the marriage. An honest reading of Deuteronomy
21:10-13 (we're not considering verse 14 yet), one in which the
prescribed law is followed to the letter, allows for no other
situation than the one given above. In short, the part of the law God
gave in verses 10-13 regarding female captives, if enforced to the
letter, would have protected the captives from abuse and provided a
home for them.

To say, "God doesn't give her a choice," is not correct. Like so many
situations in life, the decision came before the undesirable
circumstances were experienced. If the nations the captives were
taken from had not rejected the God of the Bible and committed
abominations reprehensible to the conscience God has placed in every
person, these laws would not have been necessary in the first place.
Thus, it was the wickedness of the nations the captives came from that
got the captives into the situation they found themselves. God, Who
is just, had to deal with the sin of the Canaanites, but He is also
merciful and provided for the equitable treatment of those captured in
the inevitable wars. As we all experience in daily life, the
decisions made by various members of our collective nation affects the
experience of our individual lives. Ironically, it was the Canaanites
themselves who created the captive situation by their rejection of
God.

Rajinet continues, "He asks you to set her free only if you get tired
of her, that is the only circumstance where she can be rid of you. If
she thinks she's better off with you and than being dumped, God gives
her no choice in the matter since he doesn't ask you to not dump her.
In short, Humpty Dumpty doesn't allow her a choice to not be humped or
to not be dumped. The only thing he doesn't allow you to do is pimp
her. If you tell a judge 'Gee, when I tired of her, I freed her; I
didn't pimp her', what response would you get? To put it succinctly,
Capture her, rape her and dump her as you will." The Biblical answer
to these questions is as follows:

First, it must be noted that God never intended divorce to exist; He,
however, permitted it because of the hardness of men's hearts (Matthew
19:7-9). In the verses in question, God allows the man to divorce the
woman, but only in such a way that would guarantee that she would not
be taken advantage of by her former husband. While Rajinet argues
that this law ->could have been<- abused, it can also be argued that
most, if not all, laws can. In general, the value of a law to society
lies, not in its prescriptions (what it directs to be done), but in
its enforcement. An unenforced law is worse than no law, for it lends
an aura of weakness and gives the one breaking the law a sense of
superiority to the one who made the law. (Please note that, while God
allows men to break His laws for a short time, they ultimately will
not escape justice. Even in the brief period between birth and death,
men still are subject to the law of sowing and reaping (Gal. 6), a law
which sooner or later will catch up with all of us, if not on planet
earth, then in eternity. The reprise between sinning, i.e. breaking
the law, and justice is to give the one who broke the law an
opportunity to voluntarily repent [pardon the split infinitive; it
reads best].)

Thus, the argument that this law is immoral because it could be broken
or abused doesn't hold water, for the same is true of any law. This
law, if enforced to the letter, provides no loophole for abuse.

In regards to the statement, "If she thinks she's better off with you
and than being dumped, God gives her no choice in the matter since he
doesn't ask you to not dump her. In short, Humpty Dumpty doesn't allow
her a choice to not be humped or to not be dumped." Well, many
divorces occur where one party does not want the divorce, so obviously
the ultimate solution would either be to outlaw divorce (impractical,
don't you think?) or change men and women's hearts so that they would
never even consider it as an option. God said that the only reason He
ever allowed for divorce in the OT was because men's hearts were hard
(divorce is not allowed in the NT [1 Cor. 7:10-11, 39]). Thus, if we
humans hadn't had hard hearts in the first place, there would never
have been divorce to begin with. Once again, we are the cause of our
own grief.

Now, if a woman should happen to be divorced by her husband, it
nowhere states that she cannot remarry. In fact, she can (Deut.
24:1-4). Furthermore, she will not end up as a slave (sex or
otherwise), she is free to go wherever she cares. Also, she cannot be
remarried by her first husband if she gets married to another man ().

Once again, how men might twist the law is not the matter in question,
because that can be done to any law. The issue is whether or not the
law, as written, is morally right. Based on an honest evaluation of
what the result would be if this law were enforced leads us to the
conclusion that there is nothing immoral or wrong about it. On the
contrary, it is just and provides a situation for female captives of
war that promotes their well-being and provides a way for them to come
to know the God of the Bible.

DEUTERONOMY 20:10-14: The next Scripture in question reads as follows,
(I will add verse 15, as it is vital to a proper understanding of this
passage) "When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then
proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of
peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that
is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve
thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war
against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God
hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male
thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little
ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil
thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of
thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt
thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which
are not of the cities of these nations."

As you can see, the situation is this: a city involved in a war with
the nation of Israel has two options: accept terms of peace or be
conquered. This is no different than our modern warfare tactics
(i.e., surrender or be defeated; there's really no third option).
Terms of peace are offered, which, if rejected, lead to war.

I'm assuming that the issue LL was raising regarding this passage
stems from what would happen if the people refused the offer of
peace. I don't know for certain though, for she made no comment other
than the heading she placed over the text, which read: "More Murder
Rape and Pillage."

In regards to murder, that charge is incorrect, because this is war
we're discussing. Israel was never promised a world-wide kingdom
gained by their sword. Rather, God gave them a specific allotment of
land. Therefore, if Israel was in a situation that mandated the use
of this law, they would be fighting against a city "very far off from
thee, which (is) not of these nations (i.e., the "the Hittites, and
the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the
Jebusites." Deut. 20:17)." If Israel were fighting a city very far
off from them, it would be because they had been attacked by those
people or some other situation had provoked a war. Thus, to say that
this law allows murder is incorrect. It has to do with war.

Rape is not permitted either. The people are to be taken as captives,
not raped. After this has happened, the law regarding female
prisoners of war, which we already discussed above, would come into
effect.

Waving the bloody shirt of pillage is not accurate either. When the
city refused the offer of peace, it knowingly chose its own destiny.
Thus, for the Israelites to take the spoil of the city is not wrong-
they conquered the city, but only at the invitation of the city's
inhabitants.

War is never a pleasant situation, especially when cities full of
civilians are involved. Yet, once again, there is nothing immoral
about this law. An offer of peace is made, and, if rejected, the rest
of the story is standard procedure when it comes to war.

DEUTERONOMY 22:28-29: This passage states, "If a man find a damsel
that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie
with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give
unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his
wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his
days." LL's comments regarding this passage were, "What kind of
lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God."

Quite the accusation to level at God! And, worst of all, it is
unfounded. For one thing, in ancient cultures, the desire of most
women was to be married, bear children, and have a posterity that
would carry on the family name. To be unwed or childless was a great
stigma, and the loss of one's virginity was devastating. Thus, a
woman who was raped as described in the above passage was truly in a
desperate plight. The rapist would severely inhibit an unmarried
women's ability to be married; his use and abuse of her would likely
be the cause of shame and loss of opportunity. He had stolen
something from the unmarried woman that could never be replaced. The
rapist's actions permanently and irrevocably tarnished the lives of
the victim and her family. He must be made to pay for it. Thus, he
would be required to pay 50 shekels of silver to the girls father.
Not only that, he would be required to marry the woman and provide for
her for the rest of her life. The option of ever divorcing her, and
thereby escaping the consequences of his actions, was denied the
perpetrator. We can rest assured that the woman's father would see to
it that his daughter was not taken advantage of further by her
husband.

Thus, to argue that this law favored the rapist or placed the victim
in a perilous situation is incorrect. In order for this to make
sense, we must understand that Jewish society was much different than
our own society. By and large, members of Jewish families all lived
in the same village or town, were acquainted with almost everyone in
their locale, and placed a strong emphasis on family. Thus, the
rapist would probably be known by the family. In a society with a
strong emphasis on family, this law would work well. It would
probably not work well in modern-day America.

Lest those who believe in relative morals take that last statement as
an admission that the Bible teaches such a ridiculous notion, let us
examine the situation: this law deals, not with whether rape is right
or wrong, but, rather, what should be done if rape occurs in a
situation with the given circumstances. The Bible clearly says, "Rape
is wrong (2 Sam. 13:1-19; Matthew 5:28-30; 1 Corinthians 6:18;
etc.)." The Bible then proceeds to say, "Now if rape happens, and the
victim is an unmarried woman living in Old Testament Israel, here's
what should be done..." Thus, in this passage, the Bible is dealing
with what should be done about rape occurring in a situation with the
given certain circumstances, not whether rape is right or wrong.
Adapting our response in order to deal with wrong actions is OK so
long as we do not violate another moral absolute in dealing with the
situation, which this law does not.

DEUTERONOMY 22:23-24: LL's next Scripture reads, "If a damsel that is
a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city,
and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of
that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the
damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because
he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from
among you." LL's response was, "It is clear that God doesn't give a
damn about the rape victim. He is only concerned about the violation
of another man's 'property.'"

First off, we must consider what this verse ->says<-, not what we
think it says. Let's begin with some definitions: what does
"betrothed" mean? In Bible times, betrothal was similar to
engagement, but more binding. The couple was considered to be married
even though they had not as yet consummated the marriage. This is why
Joseph, when he heard that Mary was with child, was considering
privately "putting away (or divorcing)" Mary even though they were not
come together physically. In the Hebrew culture, they were already
considered to be married.

This verse states that a man and a betrothed woman who "lie" together
are to be stoned. The word "lie" is number 7901 in Strong's and
basically means "to lie down (for rest, sexual connection, decease, or
any other purpose)." The word never signifies rape; rather, it
connotes voluntary sexual relations. Thus, the penalty imposed was
for violating the sanctity of marriage (remember, a betrothed woman
was considered married and she knew it), not for being raped. Notice
the absence of words such as "lay hold on her," as in the last verse
we examined, or "forced her" as used elsewhere in the Bible (Judges
20:5; 2 Sam. 13:12,14,22; Esther 7:8, etc.). This verse ->leaves
out<- any language of involuntary actions on the part of the woman,
thus indicating that this is not an instance of rape.

Thus, God's statement, "She cried not, being in the city," is just
because the woman committed a voluntary act when help was readily
available. Matthew Henry, a Bible commentator, said this about this
passage, "If a damsel were betrothed and not married, she was from
under the eye of her intended husband, and therefore she and her
chastity were taken under the special protection of the law. 1. If her
chastity were violated by her own consent, she was to be put to death,
and her adulterer with her, v. 23, 24.... Qui tacet, consentire videtur--
Silence implies consent. Note, It may be presumed that those willingly
yield to a temptation (whatever they pretend) who will not use the
means and helps they might be furnished with to avoid and overcome it.
Nay, her being found in the city, a place of company and diversion,
when she should have kept under the protection of her father's house,
was an evidence against her that she had not that dread of the sin and
the danger of it which became a modest woman. Note, Those that
needlessly expose themselves to temptation justly suffer for the same,
if, ere they are aware, they be surprised and caught by it. Dinah lost
her honour to gratify her curiosity with a sight of the daughters of
the land. By this law the Virgin Mary was in danger of being made a
public example, that is, of being stoned to death, but that God, by an
angel, cleared the matter to Joseph."

Indeed, this law flies in the face of what some modern "experts" have
told young women, namely, "Just give the rapist what he wants.
Resisting will only lead to more problems." God says that this
reasoning is foolishness. Put this passage into its historical
context and it makes sense.

I will note that LL did not quote the verses that follow the passage
we just examined (v. 25-27). These verses read, "But if a man find a
betrothed damsel in the field, and the man ->force her<- (signifies an
involuntary action), and lie with her: then the man only that lay with
her shall die: But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in
the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against
his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: For he found
her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none
to save her." Here is an instance of rape, indicated by the words,
"force her, and lie with her," and God cares very much about the
victim! Yet this passage does not suit the atheists' bias, so they
ignore it.

This is not just.

2 SAMUEL 12:11-14: This Scripture is one of the most interesting
passages of the Bible, both for what it says and for what it tells us
about God. Before we can examine it, we must understand what its
context is. What has happened that leads to the situation described
in these verses? The situation is this: David, the king of Israel,
was supposed to be at war leading his army. Instead, he was at home
enjoying the luxuries of the palace. While walking on the upper
stories of his palace one evening, David saw another man's wife, named
Bathsheba, "washing herself." (It is highly unlikely that this was an
accidental encounter, totally unintended to happen. Rather, the way
the rest of the passage reads suggests that Bathsheba was careless at
best, a temptress at worst. Whatever her motives, David's thoughts
and actions are nevertheless due to his own lusts.) David, seeing
this beautiful woman in such a sensual situation, lusted after her,
called her to his palace, and committed adultery with her. Bathsheba
then purified herself and returned to her own home. After Bathsheba
sent David word that she was pregnant, David tried unsuccessfully to
make her husband, Uriah, think that he was the father of the child by
calling him to the palace from his post on the battlefield, asking him
how the war was going, and then letting him go home for the night.
Uriah, however, was noble and slept on the outer part of the palace
where the king's servants slept, rather than going home to sleep with
his wife. David tried once more to get Uriah to go home and thus have
sexual relations with his wife by making Uriah drunk. Even in a
drunken state, Uriah was more noble than David and once again spent
the night sleeping with the kings servants outside the palace. David
ultimately had it arranged so that Uriah would be slain in battle by
allowing Uriah to enter into the heat of the battle and then telling
his general to pull away from Uriah so that he would be left alone and
die. David then allowed Bathsheba to mourn the death of her husband
before marrying her.

It is in this context that the passage cited by LL is found. Nathan,
a prophet of God, comes to David with a parable that exposes the
king's sin by causing David to condemn himself. After Nathan tells
David that David himself is the one pictured in the parable and that
David's actions are a great affront to God, Nathan declares, "Thus
saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine
own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them
unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of
this sun. For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before
all Israel, and before the sun. And David said unto Nathan, I have
sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also
hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this
deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to
blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die."

LL's objections to this passage were, "This has got to be one of the
sickest quotes of the Bible. God himself brings the completely
innocent rape victims to the rapist. What kind of pathetic loser
would do something so evil? And then he kills a child! This is sick,
really sick!"

That this story is even in the Bible is proof that, "The Bible is not
a book men could write if they would, or would write if they could."
This story relates the actions of a man named David, of whom the God
says, "I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own
heart." (Acts 13:22) Are murder, adultery, lying, and stealing things
of which God approves? No! All of these things are prohibited in the
Ten Commandments found in Exodus 20. Thus, God's statement is not a
rubber stamp of approval on David's whole life. Rather, it's an
indication of David's heart attitude toward God that he demonstrated
consistently, though not perfectly, throughout his life.

I'm not quite sure what LL wanted to see happen to David. I have a
feeling that, if God had punished David with a death sentence, you
atheists out there would say, "God is too harsh. Look at how He
punished David!" Yet, God righteously forgives David, and some say,
"David got off too easy!" You can please some of the people some of
the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time, but
God doesn't try to please anyone. Rather, He does what is right.
It's been well stated that justice is what we want for everyone else,
but mercy is what we want for ourselves. God showed mercy to David by
putting away David's sin and the accompanying death penalty, but He
also would not let David go undisciplined.

This is where we must take time to examine two Bible words: justice
and mercy. You can't have one without the other, any more than you
can have hot without cold, light without darkness, right without
wrong, etc. Without a corresponding opposite, an attribute such as
mercy has no meaning or worth.

Justice is getting what I deserve for my actions; justice has to do
with right and wrong and their corresponding consequences. Mercy, on
the other hand, is not getting what I deserve; mercy has to do with a
righteous suspension of the consequences of my actions. Yet, how can
a person righteously be shown mercy when they are guilty? For someone
to just "get off the hook" without ever experiencing a penalty for
their actions is not just. Thus, in order to be righteous, even mercy
must be dispensed in a just fashion.

God is the One Who made life this way, and He never breaks His own
moral laws. God could righteously forgive David the same way that He
can forgive any sinner today-through the death of the Lord Jesus
Christ in the sinner's place. That, "the wages of sin is death" (Rom.
6:23) does not mean physical death alone, but also spiritual death,
which could also be described as the severing of communication of
God's Spirit with the spirit of the sinner. The Bible declares that,
"all have sinned" (Rom. 3:23) and are thus worthy of God's righteous
penalty of death for transgressing His laws.

How then does one explain passages such as Job 1:1, where it is said
of the patriarch Job, "There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name
was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared
God, and eschewed evil." Job was a sinner according to Romans 3:23
("all have sinned"), yet the Bible says that Job was "perfect and
upright"?! Isn't that a contradiction in the Bible! Actually, no.
The meaning of the word "perfect" has changed in meaning since the
translation of the King James Bible was completed in 1611. Thus, the
word "perfect" means "whole or complete," not "sinless." Job was a
complete man, a whole man, a man who was spiritually upright before
God. It still seems like we've got a problem though. How could Job,
a sinner, be in a state of completeness and uprightness before a holy
God?

The key, once again, is justice and mercy. God, Who is love (1 John
4:8,16), wants to forgive men and women and thus show them mercy by
withholding from them the penalty that their sin demands. Yet God is
also just, which means that the penalty for sin must be paid.
Therefore, the only way for God to forgive men must be through the
righteous payment of the penalty for sin, but who's to pay it? God
didn't specify; He only said that someone must pay the death penalty
that sin demands.

That no human being could pay this penalty is obvious, because "death"
means not only separation from this life forever, but separation from
God Who is THE Life forever. Some may object to the "forever" part of
the punishment for sin. Such individuals may argue that an action
made in finite time should not merit eternal punishment. The answer
to this objection is that yes, the sin did occur in a finite period of
time (even if an individual where to partake of a certain sin for the
better part of life it would still only be a finite or limited amount
of time in the scope of eternity); however, the sinner broke a law of
the eternal God. Furthermore, despite the claims of some atheists to
the contrary, God says that man has a spirit and soul which form the
immaterial part of his being. Thus, when the physical brain dies, the
mind which operates the brain much like we operate a computer, goes on
living. In other words, the material part of you dies, but the
immaterial part of you, because it is not physical and therefore not
subject to physical laws, keeps on living in the non-material
dimension. For those of you who object to the above, you'll have to
wait until the matter can be more fully addressed in a later post.
For now, we must move on.

I know this is getting long, but please stay with me. We have gone
through all of the above to reach this conclusion: the physical part
of man will be subject to physical death for his sin, but the non-
physical part of man will also be subject to non-physical death for
his sin. Thus, whether in this life or in the one to come, death is
inescapable.

That's where David is after his sin with Bathsheba. However, David
also knew that there was coming a Savior Who would deliver mankind
from both sin itself and from the consequences of sin. David in fact
prophesied the work of Jesus Christ on the cross thousands of years
before it occurred in Psalm 22 (we know that this prophecy came
thousands of years before the birth of Christ because the Jews have
had the Psalms in their Scriptures since they were first written
thousands of years ago; modern Jews accept Psalm 22 as having been
written by King David, a real historical figure as has been proven by
archeology).

Why have I spent so much time on this subject before even answering
the questions posed by LL? Because it must be shown that David was
first of all forgiven of his sin before we can then proceed to show
that David was still subject to the consequences for his sin. God
showed David mercy based on the coming of the Messiah whose death
would have been portrayed in the sacrificial animal David would have
offered in obedience to the Old Testament law. However, God still had
to chastise David, for several reasons.

First, the Bible tells us that being chastised is a sign of being a
child of God. Thus, the Bible says, "My son, despise not thou the
chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For
whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he
receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with
sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be
without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards,
and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which
corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be
in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily
for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our
profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening
for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless
afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them
which are exercised thereby." God had to chastise David just like any
good father chastises his children when they disobey. A good father
does it for the welfare of his child, that the child might learn not
to disobey again and thus endanger himself or herself again.

Secondly, David had, "given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD
to blaspheme." (2 Sam. 24:14) God' enemies, that includes you
atheists, needed to see that God does not take sin lightly and that He
will deal with it.

Thirdly, the nation of Israel needed a stern warning that its leaders,
whether "good" or "bad," were not above God, Who is the King of Kings.

Thus, because David had sown to the wind, he was going to reap a
whirlwind of trouble. "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for
whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." (Gal. 6:9) David's
crop from his sinful sowing included the following troubles:
1. "The sword shall never depart from thine house" (2 Sam. 12:10)
2. "I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house" (2 Sam.
2:11a)
3. "I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy
neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this
sun." (2 Sam. 2:11b)
4. "the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die." (2 Sam.
12:14)

It is in the area of the penalties for David's sin that LL's
objections come in.

First, "The sword shall never depart from thine house" (2 Sam. 12:10)
This has been true throughout history, as the Jews, and especially the
tribe of Judah, had constant warfare and death throughout the rest of
the Bible into the New Testament. Jesus Christ was the heir of the
throne of David due to the fact that his father Joseph, who was
descended from David (Matthew 1:1-17), adopted Jesus as his own son,
thus transferring the right to the throne of David to Jesus. The
"sword" of judgment for the sin, not only of David's family, but also
of the entire human race, stuck fast in the heart of Jesus as God
"made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the
righteousness of God in him." (2 Cor. 5:21) Yet Jesus took the
"sword" of God's judgment willingly and forever carries in Him the
marks of it as a token of His victory over sin and death.

Secondly, "I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own
house" (2 Sam. 2:11a) This was fulfilled in the rape of David's
daughter Tamar by her brother Amnon, the murder of David's son Amnon
by his brother Absalom, the insurrection led by Absalom against his
father David, and the attempted takeover of the throne and subsequent
death of David's son Adonijah. Truly, evil arose against David from
within his own house.

Thirdly, "I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto
thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this
sun." (2 Sam. 2:11b) LL's response to this penalty was, "This has got
to be one of the sickest quotes of the Bible. God himself brings the
completely innocent rape victims to the rapist. What kind of pathetic
loser would do something so evil?" "Evil"? That's strong language
for an atheist! Funny they reserve it almost solely for actions they
accuse God of. Anyhow, it doesn't matter because quoting only this
verse doesn't consider the entire matter.

David's son Absalom fulfilled this prophecy in 2 Samuel 15:16-17 and
16:20-23, which reads, "And the king (David) went forth, and all his
household after him. And the king left ten women, which were
concubines, to keep the house. And the king went forth, and all the
people after him, and tarried in a place that was far off...Then said
Absalom to Ahithophel (Bathsheba's Grandfather and the former
counselor of David), Give counsel among you what we shall do. And
Ahithophel said unto Absalom, Go in unto thy father's concubines,
which he hath left to keep the house; and all Israel shall hear that
thou art abhorred of thy father: then shall the hands of all that are
with thee be strong. So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of
the house; and Absalom went in unto his father's concubines in the
sight of all Israel. And the counsel of Ahithophel, which he
counselled in those days, was as if a man had inquired at the oracle
of God: so was all the counsel of Ahithophel both with David and with
Absalom (in other words, Ahithophel gave "good" advice [in the sense
that it worked toward accomplishing its intended goal], though it was
also immoral advice)."

Thus, the phrase, "I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give
them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight
of this sun," is to be considered in light of its fulfillment. That
God "took" David's wives before his eyes and "gave" them unto his
neighbor means nothing more than God's permitting this incidence of
incest and rape to occur. This is clear from Scripture, for the Bible
states, "the king left ten women, which were concubines, to keep the
house." Ahithophel then tells Absalom, "Go in unto thy father's
concubines, which he hath left to keep the house." LL's statement
that God, "Brings the completely innocent rape victims to the rapist,"
is true only insomuch that God permitted this to happen. God did not
grab the women by the hand, haul them over to Absalom, and say,
"Fulfill the prophecy." Rather, God used the evil in Ahithophel and
Absalom's heart to fulfill this prophecy. The rather vivid, "I will
take thy wives...and give them unto thy neighbor," is a fulfillment of
the law of sowing and reaping: David sowed fornication and he reaped
fornication, but this time it involved ten women, not just one.

God did not hand deliver the rape victims to David's evil son. He
did, however, permit the women to be left behind, to be available for
the evil scheming of Ahithophel, and to be raped by Absalom. God
could have stopped this from happening, just as He could stop all evil
from happening. But to do so, He would have to do one of two things:
either He would have to stand over each human being's head threatening
judgment continually, making Him a tyrant that coerces obedience by
brute force, or He would have to take away man's free will and the
ability man has to choose to sin.

In the first example, God would be forcing His will on us rather than
allowing us the choice of whether or not to obey Him. On the other
hand, taking away man's freedom of choice would result in a populace
of robots, admittedly unable to do evil, but also unable to do good,
unless God commanded it. Thus, God could get no voluntary response
from these robots, only what He had preprogrammed them to do. These
mindless creatures could not love, for love is a choice. Neither
could men and women respect a God Who wasn't powerful enough to give
them the freedom to choose and still remain "in control."

Thus, God has given men and women a free will, thereby making mankind
capable of either great good or great evil. God only can do so
because He is "Sovereign" (though not in the Calvinistic or Reformed
sense of the word) and can, despite the conniving of us sinners,
accomplish His will in the world.

Thus, though this may sound strange to some creationists, we don't
live in the world God created! We live in the world that we have
created by our own sinful choices! God's Word tells us that the
original creation was "good," (see Genesis 1&2) but man's sin
destroyed that perfection, and has ravaged planet earth like a
malignant cancer ever since. Once again, God doesn't step in because
He is neither a tyrant nor does He want a bunch of robots walking
around on this earth. The way God has made love demands that man be
able to choose, else love isn't really love.

That's three out of four on the penalty list. Let me reiterate once
more that God used the evil in men's heart to discipline David, yet
this was only necessary because David had willfully chosen to sin, not
because God wanted it that way or had somehow "predestined" it to
occur. If you read this passage along with its corresponding
fulfillment, you can arrive at no other conclusion.

Fourthly, "the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die." (2
Sam. 12:14) LL's response was, "And then he kills a child! This is
sick, really sick!" Before you make such hasty statements, listen to
what David said after the child, for whom he fasted and prayed in
order that God might spare his life, died, "While the child was yet
alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether God will be
gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead,
wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to
him, but he shall not return to me." (2 Samuel 12:22-23) David knew
that the child was in heaven, happy and safe from trouble, and free
from what was about to befall David and his household.

We must also understand that sin has consequences. The Bible tells
us, "The wages of sin is death." (Rom. 6:23) Sometimes, as in this
case, the innocent suffer along with the guilty. I don't hear
atheists protesting divorce on the grounds that it hurts children. (By
the way, though some claim that ->not<- getting a divorce could also
hurt children, divorce is still not the best answer. Rather, the best
solution is for husbands and wives to love their spouse and their
children more than themselves, which is not possible apart from a
radical change of heart wrought by God. Love others more than
yourself and you don't need divorce. But that's a side note.)

The atheists ought not to say, "How could this happen to a poor
child? We're going on a crusade to destroy the idea of the God of the
Bible for doing this!" Rather, you should attack the sin of adultery
that even lead to this consequence in the first place. Because David
sinned, God had to discipline Him, and that discipline involved some
very stiff correction.

Moreover, the claim is made that the death of this child was wrong,
even "sick," but most atheists wouldn't have said a word had he been
killed several months earlier when he was still in his mother's womb.
That's a double standard to say the child should not have died on the
one hand, but he certainly could have died on the other hand if that's
what his mother had wanted. However, most of you will say that an
unborn human is not really a human and move on. To what other
organism do you apply that reasoning? Kill an endangered species in
its mother's womb or in its egg and you will get prosecuted for
killing the animal itself, not unwanted or extra "tissue." Modern
medical science, through ultrasound and other medical pre-birth tests,
proves that unborn babies are human beings from the moment of
conception, rather than the moment the parties involved decide the
baby can be called a human and permitted to live.

Yes, the death of this child is terrible. However, God is the giver
of life, and, if He chooses, He can call it back to Himself. The
child, though smitten by God with a disease, went to a place where
there is no sickness, pain, or suffering. If you don't believe in
heaven and a loving heavenly Father, than you will view this as
foolish reasoning because all your hopes, dreams, ambitions, joys, and
desires are bound up in this life. If you refuse to believe that
there is something better than this world, or something worse, you
will view this life as the best and only thing there is. The Bible
says something entirely different. Job, an Old Testament patriarch,
when enduring great loss and personal suffering, wrote, "Why died I
not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of
the belly? Why did the knees prevent me? or why the breasts that I
should suck? For now should I have lain still and been quiet, I
should have slept: then had I been at rest, With kings and counsellors
of the earth, which built desolate places for themselves; Or with
princes that had gold, who filled their houses with silver: Or as an
hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw
light. There the wicked cease from troubling; and there the weary be
at rest. There the prisoners rest together; they hear not the voice
of the oppressor. The small and great are there; and the servant is
free from his master." (Job 3:11-19)

In conclusion, God didn't go around haphazardly causing grief just for
the fun of it. David sinned, flaunted his sin in the face of God, and
thought that he could get away with it. God would not be mocked.
David sowed what he thought he could handle, but reaped more than he
bargained for. David got what he wanted, but he didn't want what he
got. It was because of David's choice to sin that these terrible
things occurred, not because God wanted it to be that way. Because
God is just, David had to be disciplined as a warning to me and you
that sin has terrible consequences. This discipline involved some
very terrible things, but, once again, God must deal with sin.

JUDGES 5:30: LL's next Scripture is this passage, which reads, "Have
they not sped? have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel
or two; to Sisera a prey of divers colours, a prey of divers colours
of needlework, of divers colours of needlework on both sides, meet for
the necks of them that take the spoil?" The only commentary given by
LL was, "Rape and spoils of war."

Yes, but by whom? If you read the verses immediately preceding this
passage, you will find that this is not talking about God, the
Israelites, or their "spoils of war" at all. Verses 28-29, the
preceding verses, read, "The mother of Sisera looked out at a window,
and cried through the lattice, Why is his chariot so long in coming?
why tarry the wheels of his chariots? Her wise ladies answered her,
yea, she returned answer to herself,...(then comes LL's passage)"

Sisera is a Canaanite general who came to attack Israel. This passage
is from a song sung by Deborah the female judge of Israel in
commemoration of the Israelites' victory over the Canaanites. In
Deborah's song, Sisera's mother, a Canaanite woman, is wondering why
Sisera has not returned sooner, and she reasons with herself that it
is because he has stopped to spoil his enemy, the Israelites!

In fact, the word translated "damsel" in the passage cited by LL is
the Hebrew word "Racham," (7356 in Strong's) and is translated as
"womb" in other places. Thus, this passage could read, "Have they
divided not the prey; to every man a 'womb' or two..." If this does
not indicate the evil intentions of the would-be captors, then I don't
know what does!

EXODUS 21:7-11: This is our next passage, which reads, "And if a man
sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the
menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her
to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a
strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt
deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he
shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him
another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall
he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall
she go out free without money." LL's only commentary was the heading,
which read, "Sex slaves."

How do you get "sex slaves" out of this passage?! The word
"maidservant" simply means that: a female servant. The young girl
would probably be in this situation because her family was poor and
desperately needed money, this being an absolute last resort. For
most girls, being a servant might be a sacrificial way of helping her
family, one where she gave up her own comfort for a time that the rest
of her family might survive. Her servitude, however, was not a
permanent condition. It would only last for seven years at most (Ex.
21:2). During this time, she would perform manual labor, but "she
shall not go out as the menservants do (i.e., be required to do a male
servant's job).

If her father sold the girl out of sheer greed, her servitude would
only last seven years as stated earlier, and she was to be treated
with kindness by her master (Lev. 25:43, Exodus 20:8-11, Deut. 16:14,
etc.). Most greedy fathers, however, would probably not choose
selling their daughter as the most lucrative alternative, for she
could always chance to marry a rich man, like Abishag the Shunammite
in 2 Kings 1&2 and the Song of Solomon.

The passage begins by stating that the girl would become a servant if
sold. If, however, the master wants to marry her, then the situation
changes. She then becomes his wife, not his servant (good hint on how
to treat your wives, guys :). If her husband divorces her, the former
servant is then free to be redeemed, but cannot be sold to one from
any nation other than Israel. Thus, the girl is always guaranteed
freedom in seven years whether she remains a servant or is married and
then divorced. If the man's son marries her, the former master is to
treat her like she were his own daughter, not a servant.

If the master of this young girl were to rape her, he would be forced
to provide well for her for the rest of his life without ever having
the option of divorcing her. In addition, he would have to pay the
father of the maiden 50 shekels of silver, probably more than he
bought the girl for in the first place as servants usually only cost
30 pieces of silver (Deut. 22:28-29).

If her husband, whether her master or her master's son (it's not
abundantly clear which, but it would appear that this law is meant to
be applied to both of them), marries another woman in addition to the
former servant girl, the former maidservant is entitled to the same
food, clothing, and "duty of marriage" as she received from her
husband before he married his other wife, or the maidservant is free
to leave. Even if her husband does two out of the three (food,
clothing, or "duty of marriage"), the woman can leave if her husband
leaves the third undone.

Thus, to say that this allows for sex slaves is not only wrong, it is
an unjust representation of the Scriptures. The woman has clearly
defined rights that would prevent her from being abused in any way.

ZECHARIAH 14:1-2: LL's final passage reads, "Behold, the day of the
LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. For
I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city
shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and
half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the
people shall not be cut off from the city." LL's only comment was the
heading she placed over the verse, which read, "God Assists Rape and
Plunder."

This is incorrect. These verses are prophecy ->yet to be
fulfilled.<-

Allow me to paint a picture of what is going on in these verses from
Zechariah by turning your attention to the Bible, which has foretold
the future hundreds and even thousands of years in advance with
perfect accuracy.

While some professing Christians, and probably all atheists, scoff at
the Biblical event known as the rapture of the church, it is,
nevertheless, a Bible prophecy. It will one day, probably very soon,
be fulfilled. It will play a key role in earth's final days, as God's
outline for the remainder of world history clearly shows:

- On the one hand, planet earth will continue to experience wars,
plagues, famines, and earthquakes as it always has (Matthew 24:6-8);
yet, we will also experience general economic prosperity characterized
by buying, building, marrying, and partying (Matthew 24:38; Luke
17:26-30). Truly, the coming years, however many they may be before
the rapture, will merit the title, "The Best of Times, The Worst of
Times."

-At a time, known only to God the Father (Mark 13:32-37), Jesus Christ
will descend from heaven and catch up, or "rapture," first and
foremost all believers who have fallen asleep in the Lord (died) and
secondly those Christians who are living to meet Him in the air (1
Thessalonians 4:13-18). It's a prophecy. No one can debunk it or
improve upon what the Bible tells us.

-The instance disappearance, really removal, of perhaps several
hundred million people worldwide will cause a global panic unlike
anything planet earth has ever seen. Into the religious, economic,
and political vacuum created by the rapture of millions of Christians
will step a world leader of amazing capabilities the Bible calls the
"man of sin," (2 Thessalonians 2:3-5) or "antichrist." (1 John 2:18)
This world leader, catapulted into power by the terrifying
disappearances, will promise world peace and a new age of plenty and
prosperity. With his offers of peace, he will "conquer" the world
(Dan. 8:25; Revelation 6:1 & 2). One of the cornerstones of this
ruler's peace policy will be a treaty with the nation of Israel for
seven years (Dan. 9:27). In return for the protection guaranteed by
this ruler, Israel will demilitarize (Ezekiel 38; Isaiah 28:14-18).

-Rebellious man's peace will be short-lived. No sooner will this
ruler gain and seemingly consolidate his power than World War III will
break out (Revelation 6:3 & 4). From the way things are currently
shaping up on planet earth, my guess is that it will be the Muslims
who precipitate this war, probably in an attempt to annihilate the
nation of Israel. If this is correct, the Antichrist, true to his
agreement, and desiring to be hailed as her Messiah, will intervene to
rescue Israel. Immediately following this war, and probably as a
result of it, world-wide famine and plague will ravage planet earth,
and 1/4 of the earth's population will die (Revelation 6:5-8). Thus,
while trying to create peace without God, over 1/4 of the earth's
population will die. It only gets worse.

-These events will have been brought about by the actions of men, and
will probably constitute about the first 3 1/2 years of the period the
Bible calls the Tribulation. Then, however, things will get out of
hand. Before we move on, note that the Antichrist is not only "anti"
Jesus Christ in the sense of being "against" Him, but also "anti"
Jesus Christ in the sense of trying to take His place. Thus, the
Antichrist will demand to be worshipped as God (2 Thessalonians 2:4),
and set up what the Bible calls the "Abomination of Desolation" (Matt.
24:15; Mark 13:14) (probably a statue with supernatural powers
[Revelation 13:11-15]) in the temple that will soon be rebuilt on the
Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Jesus warns those then in Judea to "Flee
into the mountains" (Matthew 24:15 & 16). The Antichrist, having
betrayed Israel and desecrated her temple, will be rejected as
Israel's Messiah. In return, the Antichrist will seek to destroy her
(Revelation 12:1-13). God will miraculously intervene, saving the
nation of Israel and stopping the Antichrist's armies (Revelation
12:14-17).

-The remaining 3 1/2 years of the Tribulation will be characterized by a
series of fourteen judgments poured out on the earth, each getting
progressively worse. The first judgment will destroy 1/3 of all trees
and all the green (living) grass on earth (Rev. 8:7). The second
judgment will turn 1/3 of the sea into blood, killing 1/3 of all sea
creatures and destroying 1/3 of the ships of the world (Rev. 8:8 &
9). The third judgment will poison earth's water, killing many people
(Rev. 8: 10 & 11). The fourth judgment will reduce the amount of
daylight by 1/3 and the amount of time the moon shines by 1/3 (Rev.
8:12). (So much for global warming) My point in listing some of
these details is to emphasize the gravity of what is said after these
first four judgments have come to pass. God tells us, "Woe, woe, woe,
to the inhibiters of the earth by reason of (the judgments yet to
come)!" (Rev. 8:13) Eventually, the earth will be virtually destroyed
by the judgments of God, leading Jesus to call this the time of "Great
Tribulation," (Matt. 24:21) which no flesh would survive unless it had
been shortened by His return to deliver the nation of Israel from
being destroyed by the Antichrist (Matt. 24:22).

-As an aside, God will bring these judgments on the earth to cause men
to realize their frailty, His power, and their need of Him as Lord and
Savior. The Bible puts it this way: "And I saw another angel fly in
the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them
that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue,
and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him;
for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made
heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.... If any
man worship the beast (Antichrist) and his image, and receive his mark
in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of
the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of
his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in
the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And
the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they
have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and
whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. Here is the patience of the
saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith
of Jesus." (Rev. 14:6-7, 9b-12) Sadly, in our day people are being
conditioned to receive the Antichrist. I just read about "Guitar Hero
III" (which sold something like 1.4 million copies in the first week
or so). It comes with a song entitled "The Number of the Beast." In
light of what the Bible says, can any atheist really believe that this
is just a coincidence?

-However, the ultimate purpose of this time of trial is found in Joel
3:1-3, a companion passage to the passage cited by LL, which reads,
"For, behold, in those days (at the end of the Great Tribulation), and
in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and
Jerusalem, I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down
into the valley of Jehoshaphat (Armageddon), and will plead with them
there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have
scattered among the nations, and parted my land. And they have cast
lots for my people; and have given a boy for an harlot, and sold a
girl for wine, that they might drink." Many now living on planet
earth are guilty of what the Bible mentions here, namely, scattering
the Jews among the nations and parting their land, giving some of it
to the so-called "Palestinians." (A great expose of that lie can be
found in the book "Judgment Day!" by Dave Hunt
[www.thebereancall.org]) From the Balfour Declaration to the modern
Roadmap to Peace, the nations of the world have divided the Holy Land,
land of which God says, "The land shall not be sold for ever: for the
land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me." (Lev.
25:23) The nations of the world are giving away God's land and have
scattered the Jews, God's chosen people, in defiance of Him and His
Word. He cannot allow that to go unpunished.

-Thus, we come to the passage from Zechariah. What will happen is
this: the nation of Israel will, once again, return to their land, as
stated above in the passage from Joel. As in the case of the Ten
Egyptian Plagues, Israel will probably be spared from the ravages of
the Great Tribulation, and the Antichrist will be much too busy
dealing with plagues, earthquakes, wars, etc. to stop Israel, at least
for a time. However, the Bible declares that nations in the south
(Egypt, Ethiopia, etc.) will rebel against the Antichrist. This
rebellion will be unsuccessful (Dan. 11:40-43). The Antichrist will
vanquish the army from the South, and then will hear about armies
coming against him from the east and the north (Russia and the Baltic
States, cf. Ezekiel 38:1-6) (Dan. 11:44). In a move to crush these
armies, the Antichrist will set up his headquarters in Israel (Dan.
11:45) and begin destroying the Jews.

It is into this setting, with another global war being waged,
literally World War IV, that God will move in judgment against the
nations of the world.

Sinful men and women will have had their heyday, doing their best to
rule the earth and establish peace without the Prince of Peace, and
they will fail miserably, ushering in the bloodiest period in the
annals of world history to that date.

Yet God will use the evil in these people's hearts to punish them for
what they have done to His people, the Jews. Using their own sinful
desire for wealth and power, God will gather the nations of the world
to Jerusalem for the greatest battle in history, the Battle of
Armageddon.

Israel will be in desperate straits as this battle commences. In
fact, "the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women
ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity," but
then God allows it to go no further: "and the residue of the people
shall not be cut off from the city." Just when it appears that all is
lost for Israel, surrounded by the Antichrist, and the hosts of the
kings of the East and North, Jesus Christ will cleave the skies,
illuminating the sin-darkened world with the light of His holy
presence. God will deal with the Antichrist and his minions: "And the
beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles
before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of
the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast
alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone." (Rev. 19:20)
Revelation 19:21 tells us, "And the remnant were slain with the sword
of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his
mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh."

Thus, the rape and pillage going on in the verses we are examining
comes from the sinful hearts of those determined to destroy God's
chosen people, the Jews. God tells us that He will gather the nations
and tells us what those people will do as He gathers them together to
punish them for their rejection of Him and their abuse of the Jews.
All throughout the Great Tribulation, men and women will be given
chance after chance to turn to God and receive His forgiveness (Rev.
9:20 & 21; 16:8-11). Many will repent, and they will be martyred for
their faith, something it seems that several atheists on this group
would be all too happy to do if they could just get their hands on
some Christians. However, in the end, God will deal with sin. "He
that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and
there is no respect of persons." (Col. 3:25)

FINAL REMARKS: LL gave these closing comments, "So it turns out that
the god of your bible not only supports rape, slavery and the stoning
of innocent women and children, he also has an admirable view of the
worth of women generally and their position in society, where they
have no say in how they are treated. What a guy! No wonder believers
revere him."

These claims have been shown to be untrue.

First of all, the God of the Bible never supports rape. Period. We
have proved that above.

Secondly, the only slaves permitted were those from other nations.
Hebrew servants were freed every seven years. Furthermore, even those
foreign slaves that the Israelites did have were to be treated
according to the second greatest commandment: "But the stranger that
dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou
shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt:
I am the LORD your God." (Lev. 19:34) Thus, God provides for the
abolition of something He never commanded, only permitted. If every
one of us were honest, we would not care to be a slave, and, thus, if
we followed the teaching of the Bible, slavery would disappear. Once
again, God does not coerce man into what is best, but leaves him free
to choose. Man will have to bear the consequences of his choice as
history has shown to be all too true.

Thirdly, God never allowed or commanded the stoning of innocent women
and children. Period. LL, or some other atheist, will have to be
more specific if they would like a more specific answer.

Fourthly, God's view of women exalts them to a place of honor and
dignity. Compare the Bible's teachings with Islam, which demeans
women, calling them inferior to men (Muhammad said that most of the
people in Hell were women), or Mormonism, with its historical -
>endorsement<- of polygamy, even going so far as to state that it was
necessary for one to be promoted to godhood, the ultimate goal of
Mormonism. On the other hand, the God of the Bible ->allowed<- men,
such as Jacob, David, Solomon, etc., to have many wives, but He only
designed men to have one, as illustrated by Adam and Eve in Genesis
1. Once again, God allows men to choose for themselves, and suffer
the consequences, as Abraham, David, Solomon, and a host of others
have. (Compare their lives with the happy marriage of Ruth and Boaz
found in the Book of Ruth.) Though never condemned in so many words,
God clearly disapproves of polygamy. His original intent in marriage
was that, "a man (singular) leave father and mother, and...cleave to his
wife (singular): and they twain (one man + one woman; no polygamy
there) shall be one flesh." God tells us that women are the "weaker
vessel" (1 Peter 3:7), not the "inferior vessel." Thus, women are not
capable of, nor should they be expected to perform, duties God
designed men to carry out. God commands a woman's husband to "dwell
with her according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto
the weaker (not inferior) vessel, and being heirs together of the
grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered." (1 Peter 3:7) He
also states, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the
church and gave himself for it." (Ephesians 5:25) Christ's love for
believers is beyond comprehension. That is the way men are to love
and treat their wives. Thus, in stark contrast to all of the world's
other religions, the Bible exalts the status of women. LL and others
will have to be more specific if they have other objections.

Fifthly, women did have a say in how they were treated. This is shown
in the very passages cited by LL and elsewhere in Scripture. We have
seen that divorced women could remarry at will, former female servants
were to be treated equally by their husbands or they could leave as
they so desired, etc. The main problem seems to be a lack of
examination of the rest of Scripture. Yes, there are places in the
Bible where women were forced into marriages. However, that is not
God's design. Because marriage illustrates God's wooing of lost
sinners to come unto Himself, marriage should always be entered into
with the total consent and commitment of both parties. The Bible
shows that women should always be given a choice as to whom they marry
(see for example Gen. 24, especially verse 58).

Finally, the maligning of God's character, based on a misunderstanding
of ten Scripture passages, is unjust. A very little study of these
verses reveals their true meaning and intent. There is no excuse for
ignorance when it comes to the Bible. Every person in America who
truly wants a copy of the Scriptures can obtain one free of charge,
whether online or through groups such as the Gideons. All the
objections raised in this post were based on a misunderstanding of
Scripture, not a problem with the Bible itself.

I would also note that ->none of the verses raised by LL and Rajinet
and addressed in this post deal with the rightness or wrongness of
rape.<- Rather, they prescribe what should be done in certain
instances where it might occur.

Thus, for any atheist to use these Scriptures as "proof" that God
mandated or allowed murder, rape, etc. in the Old Testament or that
the Bible teaches relative morals, is a misrepresentation of the
Bible. LL's final comment, "What a guy (the God of the Bible)! No
wonder believers revere him," is based on a misunderstanding of Who
God is and what the Bible truly says. No true Christian reveres the
straw man of God that was created by a misunderstanding of the ten
passages of Scripture addressed in this post.

If you want to know the One True God Who reveals Himself in the Bible,
the place to start is the Bible. Through it, learn what God says of
Himself, not what others purport He is like.

The best place to begin is by recognizing that God proves His
existence through the Bible, an amazing book filled with prophecies
made hundreds and even thousands of years before they took place.
There are no such verifiable prophecies in any of the other Scriptures
of any of the world's religions. Prophecy proves that the God of the
Bible exists, that He is Who He says He is, and that He is worthy of
our complete and total trust. We should let Him rule our lives
because He is the only God.

If you are not willing to accept the above, then there is no hope for
you-you will die and go to hell because of your unbelief: "The...
unbelieving...shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire
and brimstone: which is the second death." (Rev. 21:8)

If, however, you choose to accept God's irrefutable proof of Himself
(Bible prophecy), acknowledge that you "have sinned, and come short of
the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23) and thus cannot be in right standing
with God on your own, and put your faith in Jesus Christ's
satisfaction of God's justice, you can be saved from the righteous
wrath of God that Jesus Christ took in your place and experience
eternal joy with Him in heaven and His coming eternal kingdom.

The God of the Bible pleads with you to come to Him on His terms. The
choice is yours. You will bear the eternal consequences for your
choice.

"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give
you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and
lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke
is easy, and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:28-30)

[Dave]

On Jan 2, 9:06 am, GreatSport <a...@masterpiecebookends.com> wrote:
> This post is for all atheists, or anyone else, who may think
> (incorrectly) that God mandated/permitted rape and murder in the OT
> and then proceeded to prohibit it in the NT, thus teaching relative
> morals.

The OT god did mandate, or order, raping, pillaging, and plundering,
of several city states that worshiped competing gods. The NT god was
quiet on the topic.

All morals are relative, even the ones the christians claim to adhere
to.

And I hope no one was stupid enough to read your lengthy apology. It
most certainly wasn't worth the bother. The bible needs to be tossed
out, not blindly followed.

[Drafterman]

> Faith," books by Dave Hunt, available in print or e-book format atwww.TheBereanCall.org. The response to the rest of the question was
> as follows:

Incorrect. Christianity is a religion it's alleged uniqueness
notwithstanding. The definition of religion is not, as you erroneously
state "man trying to elevate himself to a place of acceptance by some
deity or higher power".

A religion, in this context is most accurately described as:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the
universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency
or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and
often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally
agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion;
the Buddhist religion.

Of which Christianity is a part of. I find the attempts to define
Christianity as something other than a religion arrogant and
dishonest.

Secondly, you have addressed, previously, some claims that
Christianity makes that others do not. I do not remember all of them,
so I cannot say that they were all refuted, but I do recall refuting
at least some of them. Even if we accept this as fact, it is not
relevant. Unique does not equal true.

>
> "Just because there are many claims to truth even within nominal
> Christianity doesn't mean you can't arrive at the truth. To do so
> will require that we first validate the Bible by proving beyond a
> reasonable doubt that it is true, for, otherwise, there is no merit to
> any of the claims of Christianity at all. If we can validate the
> Bible, then we can turn to the Bible to guide us to what teachings
> within nominal Christendom are correct.
>
> "In regards to Biblical interpretation, the Bible tells us how to
> interpret it. It is to be interpreted in the same way the Holy Spirit
> teaches believers, by 'comparing spiritual things with spiritual.' (1
> Corinthians 2:13) To compare spiritual things with spiritual things
> simply means that we understand one part of the Bible by comparing our
> interpretation of it with other parts of the Bible. This rule is
> followed by Paul, Matthew, and others in their writings. Thus, if an
> interpretation does not line up with the whole of Scripture, it is not
> correct.

This is completely absurd. It basically means your interpretations of
any single part of the Bible are correct if they agree with your
interpretations of other parts of the Bible. This is circular and
completely cuts out the necessity of an objective measure. What you
quote could only even attempt to be true if it made the claim that
only one set of interpretations of the Bible are internally consistent
and, thus, correct. If this was true it would be easy enough to state
what those interpretations are (rather than spouting off this evasive
hocus pocus "comparing spiritual things with spiritual"). I don't want
to know that the Bible tells us how to interpret it. I want to know
what the correct interpretations are, and why those specific ones are
correct. If they exist, you should show them, along with their proof,
which should be conclusive. The continued existence of multiple
interpretations suggests to me that no set of internally consistent
interpretations with conclusive support of their validity exists.

>
> "For example, if I hear it taught that Paul does not condemn
> homosexuality in the New Testament, but rather that he was referring
> to man-boy physical relationships common in his culture, how can I
> know whether or not that claim is true? Answer: by comparing
> Scripture with Scripture. This interpretation is easily refuted by
> Romans 1:27, which states, 'And likewise also the men, leaving the
> natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men
> with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves
> that recompense of their error which was meet.'

This is fallacious. All that is being said here is that when there are
contradictions in scripture, choose an interpretation that resolves
the contradiction! This, of course, presupposes that the passages in
question *must* be right. The correct order should be to independently
validate the passages, then, if they both must be right (which is
unlikely, if they contradict or are contrary to each other), then
attempt to examine the conflict itself to resolve it. The usual
resolution to such things is the modification of either passage (which
means they weren't right) or the inclusive of additional information.
The solution presented here is neither, simply choosing the reality
that glosses over the contradiction, thus the reader learns nothing
and simply sticks their fingers in their ears lest they actually learn
something.

>
> "Scripture also clearly states, 'We have also a more sure word of
> prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that
> shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in
> your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is
> of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time
> by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by
> the Holy Ghost.' No prophecy of the Scripture, either foretelling
> [prophesying the future] or "forthtelling" [proclaiming what Scripture
> means or has to say about a certain issue], is of private
> interpretation. That puts a stop to those who would say, 'Well, this
> verse means this to me, but it may mean something else to you. The
> Bible just means different things for different people.' Wrong. You
> have no Biblical right to interpret something to fit your bias or to
> interpret it apart from the rest of Scripture. The task in Biblical
> interpretation is not assigning a meaning to a passage, but, rather,
> discovering what a passage means.

More poetic nonsense. Why is it necessary to discover "what a passage
means"? Why doesn't it just say what it means? Why is interpretation
necessary? Why is the book written in such a way that lends itself to
contrary private interpretations? Why is not an unbiased, objective
interpretation obvious?

>
> "In regards to literal or metaphorical interpretation, simply take the
> Bible literally unless you have some reason to take it
> metaphorically. This is what we all do with every other written
> work. Why deviate from that pattern when interpreting the Bible? For
> example, words such as 'like,' 'as,' '[something] is [something
> else],' which are examples of similies, metaphors, etc., should be
> taken allegorically. Thus, when Jesus says, 'The kingdom of heaven is
> like unto treasure hid in a field,' (Matthew 13:44) we know to take
> this figuratively because of the word 'like.' The best rule of thumb
> is: Always take the Bible literally unless there is some obvious
> reason not to.

Grammatical errors. Similies use "like" and "as", yes. Metaphors do
not. "All men are pigs" is a metaphor. Without the obvious "like/as"
indicates, by what measure do we determine something is literal or
metaphorical? Our own experiences, of course. Men, scientifically are
not pigs. So I assume the phrase is metaphorical. This is obvious. But
what about the mention of time periods in Genesis? Literal days?
Metaphorical days? It is said in the quote to assume literal unless
given reason otherwise. Given this, then the entire Bible is discarded
as myth because it goes against all reason. It is more likely that
everything miraculous or divine in the Bible is either a
misinterpretation of events, exaggeration, lie, or other confusion of
reality. If this is not reason enough, then I challenge you to provide
to me an acceptable reason to interpret metaphorically as opposed to
literally.

>
> "So, to say 'Because there are so many claims to truth, one cannot
> know what really is true,' is wrong. Jesus clearly stated, 'And ye
> shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.' (John 8:32)
> Some Christians may respond to this verse with the old maxim, 'God
> said it, I believe it, that settles it.' Wrong. What we should say
> is, 'God said it, that settles it, I hope you believe it!' The Bible
> makes it clear over and over again that certainty is vital. Why
> believe in something that is anything less than 100% convincing?
> Thus, you're statement to the effect, 'We can't know where we're going
> after we die, so just live the best that you can,' flies in the face
> of both logic and sound reason. Human beings want, no demand,
> certainty. That's what this post was all about. Let's establish
> verifiable criteria so that, regardless of which religious system we
> explore, we can ascertain whether or not it is worthy of our faith.
> In fact, let's do one better and find the 'religion' that calls every
> other religion false and itself the only source of truth. Then, if
> that religion proves to be true, we have saved ourselves from a
> lifetime of rummaging through every religious thought ever conceived.
> If it proves false, then we can logically proceed from that point."

Why don't we start from the beginning and establish verifiable
criteria that define a need for religion at all? Then, if no need for
religion be defined, we have saved ourselves from a lifetime of

rummaging through every religious thought ever conceived.

>

> The second thing that I would like to lay as groundwork is that the
> Bible is a ->historical<- book. It details factual events, real
> people, and historically verifiable data. The Bible, contrary to the
> popular belief of many atheists, is not a collection of fairy tales
> compiled by some ancient race of ignorant people who desired a
> monotheistic religion. Time and space will only allow me to skim over
> some quick archeological and historical evidence that validates the
> Bible. I hope to deal with this topic in a post soon.

History is not told in similes, metaphors, and fables. The Bible is
not a historical book, but your own admission.

> For now, allow
> me to list some of the evidence that directly supports the historical
> accuracy of the Bible:
>
> * Noah's flood is the only plausible explanation for sedimentary
> levels visible on earth today, including some strata that have
> petrified trees standing -> straight up<- through layers of sediment
> supposedly laid down over billions of years. ("Scientific Evidence for
> Noah's Flood" DVD by Dr. Baker, available atwww.TheBereanCall.org)

No, it is not, or it would be accepted by the scientific community.
Noah's flood is not plausible by any means, by virtue of the fact that
we exist now to discuss it. Noah's flood would be a global extinction
event, the survivors of which would be organisms living in the deepest
parts of the oceans, possible. It would reset our evolutionary path.
Such an event could not have occurred within human history.

Polystrate fossils (fossils that intersect multiple geological strata)
do not contradict modern geology. I recommend you read actual science
books when attempting to understand science, rather than apologist
literature. I attempted to look up some credentials for Dr. Mace
Baker, but could not find exactly what he had a Phd in.

I would recommend you read: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html,
which includes references to scientific literature written by the
relevant scientists.

>
> * Jesus was a historical person, as verified by the four Gospel
> writers and secular historians such as Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus,
> Lucian, and others. ("Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh
> McDowell)

A historical person, with no ties to the alleged birth of Mary (for
which there is a 30 year gap, for some reason). Regardless all the
accounts you mention were written years after his alleged death and
resurrection. There are reasons to believe that characters meeting the
basic criteria for King Arthur and Robin Hood also existed, that does
not make every story about them true. Conclusion: Irrelevant.

>
> * Hundreds of the locations mentioned in the Bible have been
> identified with a relative degree of certainty. Contrast this with
> the Book of Mormon, of which none of the topography mentioned in it
> has ever even come close to being verified! ("Bible Map Insert"
> published by Son Light Publishers, Inc.; "The Truth about Mormonism"
> tract available from the Berean Call)

And there is a whole wealth of geography not mentioned by the Bible.
So, if you have a book that only mentions locations for a very small
geographic area, is it more likely that the book was written for and
by people of that area, or a book meant to deliver a message to the
whole world? Where is the Indian and Chinese bible with the same
messages? Where is the Incan, Mayan and Aztec Bible? Why is the
message so tied to the civilization that, from an unbiased standpoint,
seems to have created it, if the message is supposed to exist
independent of them?

>
> * Joshua's conquest of Canaan is corroborated by tablets found at
> Amarna, Tell El. ("Thompson Chain Reference Bible: Archeological
> Supplement no. 4328")

[1] For this and every other potentially verified historical event in
the Bible the following refutation applies:

Proving one thing in a list of claims does nothing. Absolutely NOTHING
toward proving other claims, except where they are necessarily
related. That they happen to be bound within the same book, with
unsupported and circular assertions of the entire books truth, is
irrelevant.

>
> * Hundreds of historical events were prophesied by the Bible hundreds
> and even thousands of years before they took place. ("In Defense of
> the Faith" and "Judgment Day!" by Dave Hunt) For example, the Bible
> prophesied the rise of the Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman
> empires in such detail that skeptics thought that the prophecies had
> to have been written hundreds of years after the fact. This has been
> overwhelmingly disproved. ("Daniel in the Critics Den" and "The Coming
> Prince" by Sir Robert Anderson)

Prophecies are irrelevant.

>
> * The existence of a non-physical part of man, taught by the Bible but
> scorned by materialists, is nonetheless beginning to be recognized by
> leading secular scientists as correct. ("Seeking and Finding God,"
> "Psychology and the Church," "An Urgent Call to a Serious Faith," and
> "In Defense of the Faith" written by Dave Hunt)

Provide a reference to an actual scientific text, by a relevant
scientist to support the claim that there is a non-physical part of
humans, as described by the Bible, necessarily exists.

Irrelevant, see [1], above.

>
> We could go on and on listing the factual accuracy of the Bible, but
> this is neither the time nor the place. I walk us through all that to
> say this: because the Bible is a historical book, every Scripture that
> we will consider in this post has historical context that cannot be
> ignored if we are to interpret the Bible correctly.

And here is where you show dishonesty or mere sloth. That claims are
bound in a single book does not make proving them any easier.

If I have a book with the following claims:

The sky is green.
Apples are red.

Proving one does not prove the other. In order to prove the Bible is a
historical book it is absolutely necessary that you go on and list the
factual accuracy of the Bible. Until you decide it is the time and
place, we cannot go on. If the Bible is a historical book, then it
should be no small effort on your part to provide the historical
verification of anything in the Bible. So why not start at the
beginning, with the first two books of Genesis? This attempt at deceit
is insulting. You expect us to simply assume that everything else in
the Bible is historical by providing alleged support for a pitiful
smattering of examples? Despite the previous and contradictory
admission that parts of the Bible are metaphorical? I'm sure in your
mind you feel you are building the solid framework for an indisputable
argument, but I suggest you replace the Bible with some other work and
see if it would be convincing for you. From any other viewpoint you
are building a house of cards that collapses at every stage, yet you
make the motions of it going higher and higher.

>
> Last, but not least, I would like to present something I found the
> other day that many of you might find helpful: (taken from
> ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLE FACTS Compiled and edited by Mark Water)
>
> THE SKEPTICS GUIDE TO MISINTERPRETING THE BIBLE
>
> 1. Assuming that the unexplained is not explainable

Strawman. The unexplained is the unexplained, by definition.

>
> 2. Presuming the Bible guilty until proven innocent

Strawman. We presume adherents to the bible have the burden of proof,
which they do, since they are making the claim.

>
> 3. Confusing our fallible interpretations with God's infallible
> revelation

It isn't our fault that the Bible lends itself to such confusion, even
among its adherents.

>
> 4. Failing to understand the context of the passage (A big one for
> this post-AMS)

See above.

>
> 5. Neglecting to interpret difficult passages in the light of clear
> ones

See above.

>
> 6. Basing a teaching on an obscure passage
>
> 7. Forgetting that the Bible is a human book with human
> characteristics

No, we know this, which is why we argue that there is no divinity
within it, whatsoever.

>
> 8. Assuming that a partial report is a false report

No, we assume it is a partial report.

>
> 9. Demanding that NT citations of the OT always be exact quotations

Straw man. We demand they be consistent, not necessarily exact.

>
> 10. Assuming that divergent accounts are false ones

Strawman. We assume they are not valuable, which they are not.

>
> 11. Presuming that the Bible approves of all its records
>
> 12. Forgetting that the Bible uses nontechnical, everyday language

The Bible uses archaic, out of date language. It is not a good guide.

>
> 13. Assuming that round numbers are false

If the answer calls for something other than a round number, then yes,
it is, by the degree for which it is off.

>
> 14. Neglecting to note that the Bible uses different literary
> devices
>
> 15. Forgetting that only the original text, not every copy of
> Scripture, is without error
>
> 16. Confusing general statements with universal ones
>
> 17. Forgetting that latter revelation supersedes previous
> revelation

Then why include previous ones? Or why not specifically state that the
previous ones are null and void? Are footnotes not allowed in the
Bible?

[Observer]

On Jan 2, 9:06 am, GreatSport <a...@masterpiecebookends.com> wrote:

> This post is for all atheists, or anyone else, who may think
> (incorrectly) that God mandated/permitted rape and murder in the OT
> and then proceeded to prohibit it in the NT, thus teaching relative
> morals.

Observer
Look you superstitious fucking moron no atheist believes that a god
ever did anything . Get that through your thick fucking skull.

>
> While some may be surprised that a post of this length would come from
> an author expressing a desire for brevity ("Brevity is an art"), I
> have attempted to follow the maxim one atheist appropriately brought
> to my attention: Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.
> Thus, I have endeavored to make this post as concise as possible while
> still dealing adequately with the issues in question.
>
> I am more than happy to respond to honest questions and comments that
> may be posted in reply to what has been written, but I would ask that
> those who desire a response from me do several things:
> 1. If you disagree with what is written, please do not just say
> "That's wrong!" and move on. I would ask for a response from you
> atheists that deals with the issues presented and that actually gives
> me some tangible, logically coherent argument to respond to.
> 2. Please refrain from using profanity.

Observer
Fuck you , The spouting of superstitious filth is far more offensive
than the use of a few words to which an idiot objects.

It's neither profitable
> nor does it belie a great deal of intelligence on the part of the one
> using it. While there is no prohibition against profanity on this
> group, replying to responses to this post is my prerogative. I would
> ask that, if you would like a response from me to what you have
> written, you not use profanity.

Observer
Look you fucking dim wit Most atheist posting here have you by at
least 50 points of IQ. Your fear of crass language not withstanding.
I further submit that our educational level is vastly superior to
yours.
Having read your previous posts was the convincing factor in my
decision.

I redacted the balance of your superstitious filth on the grounds of
its hideous offensiveness and lack of objective value.

Happy New Year

Psychonomist

[Observer]

Observer

Hurray for Drafterman !

Excellent post.

Thank You Thank You .

Best regards

Psychonomist

> More poetic nonsense. Why is it necessary to ...
>
> read more »

[Drafterman]

I try. :)

> ...
>
> read more »

[Simpleton]

On Jan 2, 10:26 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

Good of you to take this up, D Man. I have done so in the past only
to be met with funeral silence past a round or two followed by a long
gap after which Alex resubmits the same argument again.

(Alex, I'll respond if you stick around.)

>
> Incorrect. Christianity is a religion it's alleged uniqueness
> notwithstanding. The definition of religion is not, as you erroneously
> state "man trying to elevate himself to a  place of acceptance by some
> deity or higher power".
>
> A religion, in this context is most accurately described as:
>
> 1.      a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the
> universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency
> or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and
> often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
> 2.      a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally
> agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion;
> the Buddhist religion.
>
> Of which Christianity is a part of. I find the attempts to define
> Christianity as something other than a religion arrogant and
> dishonest.
>

"Atheism is a religion, Christianity is not a religion, it is a
relationship with God" - Anonymous Christians

> Secondly, you have addressed, previously, some claims that
> Christianity makes that others do not. I do not remember all of them,
> so I cannot say that they were all refuted, but I do recall refuting
> at least some of them. Even if we accept this as fact, it is not
> relevant. Unique does not equal true.
>

Indeed, this is a graphic illustration of the point:

http://www.shoujoai.com/attach/95/707295/Unique

[Drafterman]

On Jan 2, 2:21 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 10:26 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Good of you to take this up, D Man. I have done so in the past only
> to be met with funeral silence past a round or two followed by a long
> gap after which Alex resubmits the same argument again.

The same here, and I think that's how it'll be this time around. It's
my fault, probably, for refusing to accept the truth of the Bible
*before* accepting the truth of God to begin with.

[Alex Smith]

The OT god did mandate, or order, raping, pillaging, and plundering,
of several city states that worshiped competing gods. The NT god was
quiet on the topic.

No, God did not. If you had read the post you would see that you are
incorrect.

All morals are relative, even the ones the christians claim to adhere
to.

See the post.

And I hope no one was stupid enough to read your lengthy apology. It
most certainly wasn't worth the bother. The bible needs to be tossed
out, not blindly followed.

Really? I have been asked to address several honest questions, I do so, and
I am told that no one should bother reading what I wrote. That doesn't make
sense.

[Dave]

On Jan 2, 11:52 am, "Alex Smith" <a...@masterpiecebookends.com> wrote:
> The OT god did mandate, or order, raping, pillaging, and plundering,
> of several city states that worshiped competing gods. The NT god was
> quiet on the topic.
>
> No, God did not. If you had read the post you would see that you are
> incorrect.

I don't give a rats ass what the moronic posted had to say. The bible
disagrees with him. Have you tried reading the bible?

> All morals are relative, even the ones the christians claim to adhere
> to.
>
> See the post.

Again, I do not care what the moron posted. Christians lie to protect
their god and religion. Why should I trust anything they have to say?

> And I hope no one was stupid enough to read your lengthy apology. It
> most certainly wasn't worth the bother. The bible needs to be tossed
> out, not blindly followed.
>
> Really?

Yes.

[Alex Smith]

-----Original Message-----
From: Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 12:24 PM
To: Atheism vs Christianity
Subject: [AvC] Re: (As promised) Murder, rape, relative morals, and the Old
Testament

On Jan 2, 11:52 am, "Alex Smith" <a...@masterpiecebookends.com> wrote:
> The OT god did mandate, or order, raping, pillaging, and plundering,
> of several city states that worshiped competing gods. The NT god was
> quiet on the topic.
>
> No, God did not. If you had read the post you would see that you are
> incorrect.

I don't give a rats ass what the moronic posted had to say. The bible
disagrees with him. Have you tried reading the bible?

You can't claim that the Bible says one thing that if you haven't examined
the evidence to the contrary. My post refutes your position, but you won't
even examine the evidence.

> All morals are relative, even the ones the christians claim to adhere
> to.
>
> See the post.

Again, I do not care what the moron posted. Christians lie to protect
their god and religion. Why should I trust anything they have to say?

I answered that in my post. If you won't read it, I cannot take time to
answer it again.

> And I hope no one was stupid enough to read your lengthy apology. It
> most certainly wasn't worth the bother. The bible needs to be tossed
> out, not blindly followed.
>
> Really?

Yes.

I don't blindly follow the Bible. Proof, listed in my post, verifies the
Bible.

You want to toss it out the window without examining the evidence. Who is
the one acting blindly?

[Dave]

On Jan 2, 12:33 pm, "Alex Smith" <a...@masterpiecebookends.com> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com
>
> [mailto:Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 12:24 PM
> To: Atheism vs Christianity
> Subject: [AvC] Re: (As promised) Murder, rape, relative morals, and the Old
> Testament
>
> On Jan 2, 11:52 am, "Alex Smith" <a...@masterpiecebookends.com> wrote:
> > The OT god did mandate, or order, raping, pillaging, and plundering,
> > of several city states that worshiped competing gods. The NT god was
> > quiet on the topic.
>
> > No, God did not. If you had read the post you would see that you are
> > incorrect.
>
> I don't give a rats ass what the moronic posted had to say. The bible
> disagrees with him. Have you tried reading the bible?
>
> You can't claim that the Bible says one thing that if you haven't examined
> the evidence to the contrary. My post refutes your position, but you won't
> even examine the evidence.

Why should I examine your so called "evidence" when it goes against
what the bible actually says? Why does YOUR interpretation take
precedence over what the bible actually says?

> > All morals are relative, even the ones the christians claim to adhere
> > to.
>
> > See the post.
>
> Again, I do not care what the moron posted. Christians lie to protect
> their god and religion. Why should I trust anything they have to say?
>
> I answered that in my post. If you won't read it, I cannot take time to
> answer it again.

You evaded the question.

[Dave]

On Jan 2, 12:33 pm, "Alex Smith" <a...@masterpiecebookends.com> wrote:

[Alex Smith]

-----Original Message-----
From: Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Drafterman
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 10:26 AM
To: Atheism vs Christianity
Subject: [AvC] Re: (As promised) Murder, rape, relative morals, and the Old
Testament

In regards to your definition, Christianity may be classified as a religion,
but it is so fundamentally different from all religions that that
classification doesn't do it justice. That you persist in this definition
shows that you don't know what Biblical Christianity is, not that I'm making
an incorrect statement. Maybe you should try checking out the books I
mentioned.

Secondly, you have addressed, previously, some claims that
Christianity makes that others do not. I do not remember all of them,
so I cannot say that they were all refuted, but I do recall refuting
at least some of them. Even if we accept this as fact, it is not
relevant. Unique does not equal true.

I never said that unique=true. I was sidetracked from pursuing that series
of posts further by the question addressed here. I could not proceed until
I had answered the questions presented to me.

>
> "Just because there are many claims to truth even within nominal
> Christianity doesn't mean you can't arrive at the truth. To do so
> will require that we first validate the Bible by proving beyond a
> reasonable doubt that it is true, for, otherwise, there is no merit to
> any of the claims of Christianity at all. If we can validate the
> Bible, then we can turn to the Bible to guide us to what teachings
> within nominal Christendom are correct.
>
> "In regards to Biblical interpretation, the Bible tells us how to
> interpret it. It is to be interpreted in the same way the Holy Spirit
> teaches believers, by 'comparing spiritual things with spiritual.' (1
> Corinthians 2:13) To compare spiritual things with spiritual things
> simply means that we understand one part of the Bible by comparing our
> interpretation of it with other parts of the Bible. This rule is
> followed by Paul, Matthew, and others in their writings. Thus, if an
> interpretation does not line up with the whole of Scripture, it is not
> correct.

This is completely absurd. It basically means your interpretations of
any single part of the Bible are correct if they agree with your
interpretations of other parts of the Bible.

No. Rather, some Scriptures are abundantly clear in what they mean. Others
are not. If you don't understand a passage, compare it's teachings with the
rest of the Bible by seeing what other passages that address the same
subject have to say on the matter.

This is circular and
completely cuts out the necessity of an objective measure.

No. The Bible is unique: it is a self-interpreting book.

What you
quote could only even attempt to be true if it made the claim that
only one set of interpretations of the Bible are internally consistent
and, thus, correct.

Any apparent inconsistencies in the Bible are due to finite beings reading
something written by the eternal God.

If this was true it would be easy enough to state
what those interpretations are (rather than spouting off this evasive
hocus pocus "comparing spiritual things with spiritual").

What is evasive about that? Nothing I stated is evasive: compare parts of
the Bible that are unclear with parts of the Bible that are clear. For
starters, check our John 3:16. If you can understand that verse, than you
can understand salvation, and, thus, the rest of the Bible.

I don't want
to know that the Bible tells us how to interpret it.

Why not? It's one of the unique aspects of the Bible, one that no skeptic
has yet refuted.

I want to know
what the correct interpretations are, and why those specific ones are
correct.

The correct interpretations are the ones that the Bible teaches from cover
to cover without any conjuring on the part of any man. The Roman Catholic
church has an entire system of theology not supported by Scripture. You can
tell that their interpretations of some passages are incorrect because they
don't line up with all of the rest of Scripture.

If they exist, you should show them, along with their proof,
which should be conclusive.

I do in this post regarding the passages raised by LL and Ranjinet.

The continued existence of multiple
interpretations suggests to me that no set of internally consistent
interpretations with conclusive support of their validity exists.

This is the case with any writing-multiple interpretations exist. Their
existence is no proof that a definite one cannot be arrived at. It only
means that we have our work cut out for us.

>
> "For example, if I hear it taught that Paul does not condemn
> homosexuality in the New Testament, but rather that he was referring
> to man-boy physical relationships common in his culture, how can I
> know whether or not that claim is true? Answer: by comparing
> Scripture with Scripture. This interpretation is easily refuted by
> Romans 1:27, which states, 'And likewise also the men, leaving the
> natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men
> with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves
> that recompense of their error which was meet.'

This is fallacious. All that is being said here is that when there are
contradictions in scripture, choose an interpretation that resolves
the contradiction!

No. No contradiction was presented. A humanistic teaching was. I refuted
it using the Bible alone.

This, of course, presupposes that the passages in
question *must* be right.

They are right, as I have noted in this post. The fact that the Bible
predicted the future hundreds and thousands of years in advance proves that
it is "right."

The correct order should be to independently
validate the passages,

How?

then, if they both must be right (which is
unlikely, if they contradict or are contrary to each other),

Once again, that may be due to our perception of things.

then
attempt to examine the conflict itself to resolve it.

We don't resolve conflicts. We find out where our understanding of the
Bible is incorrect.

The usual
resolution to such things is the modification of either passage (which
means they weren't right)

I would need an example in order to respond to that.

or the inclusive of additional information.

Add not unto his (God's) words, lest he reprove thee and thou be found a
liar.-Prov. 30

The solution presented here is neither, simply choosing the reality
that glosses over the contradiction,

There was no contradiction in question in the example I gave.

thus the reader learns nothing
and simply sticks their fingers in their ears lest they actually learn
something.

We learn by building upon what we already know. "Cogito ergo sum," (I
think, therefore I am) and we can go from there to prove that God exists.
Marvelous. We'll have to discuss that sometime.

>
> "Scripture also clearly states, 'We have also a more sure word of
> prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that
> shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in
> your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is
> of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time
> by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by
> the Holy Ghost.' No prophecy of the Scripture, either foretelling
> [prophesying the future] or "forthtelling" [proclaiming what Scripture
> means or has to say about a certain issue], is of private
> interpretation. That puts a stop to those who would say, 'Well, this
> verse means this to me, but it may mean something else to you. The
> Bible just means different things for different people.' Wrong. You
> have no Biblical right to interpret something to fit your bias or to
> interpret it apart from the rest of Scripture. The task in Biblical
> interpretation is not assigning a meaning to a passage, but, rather,
> discovering what a passage means.

More poetic nonsense. Why is it necessary to discover "what a passage
means"? Why doesn't it just say what it means?

It does. But we don't know until we take time to learn.

Why is interpretation
necessary?

You must interpret everything you read.

Why is the book written in such a way that lends itself to
contrary private interpretations?

Opposing interpretations can be arrived at when reading any book. The
Sunnis and the Shiites are a good example of this. They both read the
Koran, yet their tradition has led them to opposite conclusions. Their
entire conflict is due to the insufficiency of the Koran, i.e. it does not
delineate who should have filled Mohammad's place.

Why is not an unbiased, objective
interpretation obvious?

For some verses one is. Why not start with those verses and work from
there?

>
> "In regards to literal or metaphorical interpretation, simply take the
> Bible literally unless you have some reason to take it
> metaphorically. This is what we all do with every other written
> work. Why deviate from that pattern when interpreting the Bible? For
> example, words such as 'like,' 'as,' '[something] is [something
> else],' which are examples of similies, metaphors, etc., should be
> taken allegorically. Thus, when Jesus says, 'The kingdom of heaven is
> like unto treasure hid in a field,' (Matthew 13:44) we know to take
> this figuratively because of the word 'like.' The best rule of thumb
> is: Always take the Bible literally unless there is some obvious
> reason not to.

Grammatical errors. Similies use "like" and "as", yes. Metaphors do
not.

Yes. I know. I included an example of a metaphor when I wrote '[something]
is [something else],'

"All men are pigs" is a metaphor.

Without the obvious "like/as"
indicates, by what measure do we determine something is literal or
metaphorical?

Metaphors are pretty obvious-they say one thing is another thing unlike the
first thing.

Our own experiences, of course. Men, scientifically are
not pigs.

Shouldn't that be "not currently pigs"? Didn't men and pigs both evolve
from the same slime?

So I assume the phrase is metaphorical. This is obvious. But
what about the mention of time periods in Genesis? Literal days?
Metaphorical days?

Literal. No metaphor is in the text.

It is said in the quote to assume literal unless
given reason otherwise. Given this, then the entire Bible is discarded
as myth because it goes against all reason.

That the earth is billions of years old is only a theory, and not a very
good one at that.

It is more likely that
everything miraculous or divine in the Bible is either a
misinterpretation of events, exaggeration, lie, or other confusion of
reality.

Hmmmm....you've got some real problems with evolution then. Isn't getting
life out of dead matter a miracle, no matter how many times you zap it with
electricity, which only sterilizes the matter more, making it less and less
fit for life? Yet, you don't find that so hard to believe. Why?

If this is not reason enough, then I challenge you to provide
to me an acceptable reason to interpret metaphorically as opposed to
literally.

I don't want a metaphorical interpretation unless the text of Scripture
gives us a reason to interpret metaphorically, as I stated before.

>
> "So, to say 'Because there are so many claims to truth, one cannot
> know what really is true,' is wrong. Jesus clearly stated, 'And ye
> shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.' (John 8:32)
> Some Christians may respond to this verse with the old maxim, 'God
> said it, I believe it, that settles it.' Wrong. What we should say
> is, 'God said it, that settles it, I hope you believe it!' The Bible
> makes it clear over and over again that certainty is vital. Why
> believe in something that is anything less than 100% convincing?
> Thus, you're statement to the effect, 'We can't know where we're going
> after we die, so just live the best that you can,' flies in the face
> of both logic and sound reason. Human beings want, no demand,
> certainty. That's what this post was all about. Let's establish
> verifiable criteria so that, regardless of which religious system we
> explore, we can ascertain whether or not it is worthy of our faith.
> In fact, let's do one better and find the 'religion' that calls every
> other religion false and itself the only source of truth. Then, if
> that religion proves to be true, we have saved ourselves from a
> lifetime of rummaging through every religious thought ever conceived.
> If it proves false, then we can logically proceed from that point."

Why don't we start from the beginning and establish verifiable
criteria that define a need for religion at all?

Have you? If you have, I'd like to see it.

Then, if no need for
religion be defined, we have saved ourselves from a lifetime of
rummaging through every religious thought ever conceived.

I wasn't planning on doing that anyway.

>
> The second thing that I would like to lay as groundwork is that the
> Bible is a ->historical<- book. It details factual events, real
> people, and historically verifiable data. The Bible, contrary to the
> popular belief of many atheists, is not a collection of fairy tales
> compiled by some ancient race of ignorant people who desired a
> monotheistic religion. Time and space will only allow me to skim over
> some quick archeological and historical evidence that validates the
> Bible. I hope to deal with this topic in a post soon.

History is not told in similes, metaphors, and fables. The Bible is
not a historical book, but your own admission.

The Bible does indeed contain stories; these stories use similes, metaphors,
etc. However, much of the Bible claims to be, and is, real history.

> For now, allow
> me to list some of the evidence that directly supports the historical
> accuracy of the Bible:
>
> * Noah's flood is the only plausible explanation for sedimentary
> levels visible on earth today, including some strata that have
> petrified trees standing -> straight up<- through layers of sediment
> supposedly laid down over billions of years. ("Scientific Evidence for
> Noah's Flood" DVD by Dr. Baker, available atwww.TheBereanCall.org)

No, it is not, or it would be accepted by the scientific community.

I suppose the fact that washing your hands to prevent infection couldn't
have been considered to be valid because the scientific community didn't
accept it for hundreds of years?

Just because leading scientist have not accepted something, or because they
have accepted something, does not make it true or false.

Noah's flood is not plausible by any means, by virtue of the fact that
we exist now to discuss it.

Not so.

Noah's flood would be a global extinction event,

It was. See the Genesis.

the survivors of which would be organisms living in the deepest
parts of the oceans, possible.

Umm, the survivors were on the ark and walked off of it onto dry ground
after the flood was over.

It would reset our evolutionary path.

There is no evolutionary path. That is only a theory, which lacks credible
evidence.

Such an event could not have occurred within human history.

Why not? The Bible, a historical book, says that it did.

Polystrate fossils (fossils that intersect multiple geological strata)
do not contradict modern geology.

The explanations contrived to explain that phenomena take more faith than
believing in a universal flood.

I recommend you read actual science
books when attempting to understand science, rather than apologist
literature. I attempted to look up some credentials for Dr. Mace

Baker, but could not find exactly what he had a PhD in.

Try contacting the Berean call (www.thebereancall.org). They sell the DVD,
so they should know.

I would recommend you read:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html,
which includes references to scientific literature written by the
relevant scientists.

Thanks. I'll check it out, but I doubt the evidence presented here is any
different than what I have already read.

>
> * Jesus was a historical person, as verified by the four Gospel
> writers and secular historians such as Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus,
> Lucian, and others. ("Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh
> McDowell)

A historical person, with no ties to the alleged birth of Mary (for
which there is a 30 year gap, for some reason).

What do you mean? Josephus corroborates the divinity of Christ: "Now there
was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man;
for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the
truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of
the Gentiles. He was Christ.

"And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had
condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not
forsake him; for he appeared alive to them the third day; as the divine
prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things
concerning him.

"And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this
day." The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus (The John C. Winston Company,
Phil., 1957), p. 535

Regardless all the
accounts you mention were written years after his alleged death and
resurrection.

We don't doubt other similar accounts, about Abraham Lincoln for example,
from credible sources, so why doubt these? Josephus was born in A.D. 37, so
these would all have been recent events to him.

There are reasons to believe that characters meeting the
basic criteria for King Arthur and Robin Hood also existed, that does
not make every story about them true.

No, but it does show that someone like them did indeed exist. If Jesus did
exist, then the accounts of writers such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John
have been proven to be true in that respect. Moving logically from that
point, we can proceed to verify their accounts as far as possible, realizing
that, ultimately, some of what they say will have to be accepted by faith
since we can't go back and observe what they write about. This is, however,
true of any writing, even for accounts of recent events. Since we can't
view everything eyewitnesses tell us, we must choose whether or not to
accept their accounts as true based on their credibility. With this in
mind, we have every reason to accept the Gospel accounts as true.

Conclusion: This is relevant.

>
> * Hundreds of the locations mentioned in the Bible have been
> identified with a relative degree of certainty. Contrast this with
> the Book of Mormon, of which none of the topography mentioned in it
> has ever even come close to being verified! ("Bible Map Insert"
> published by Son Light Publishers, Inc.; "The Truth about Mormonism"
> tract available from the Berean Call)

And there is a whole wealth of geography not mentioned by the Bible.
So, if you have a book that only mentions locations for a very small
geographic area, is it more likely that the book was written for and
by people of that area, or a book meant to deliver a message to the
whole world?

Hmmm...well, the Bible states, "For God so loved the world..."-sounds like
that's meant for all of the people on planet earth to me.

Listen to this verse: "God now commandeth ->all men<- ->every where<- to
repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge ->the
world<- in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath
given assurance unto ->all men,<- in that he hath raised him from the dead."
(Acts 17:30 & 31) So, it sounds like the Bible is indeed for all people.

Where is the Indian and Chinese bible with the same
messages? Where is the Incan, Mayan and Aztec Bible? Why is the
message so tied to the civilization that, from an unbiased standpoint,
seems to have created it, if the message is supposed to exist
independent of them?

There is evidence that these civilizations had that message but rejected it
and thus lost it. For instance, the gospel is contained in the Chinese
alphabet (try Googling it). But Romans 1 tell us that some people "when
they (the Chinese, Aztec, Incan, Mayan, etc. civilizations) knew God, they
glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their
imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." It all went downhill
from there.

God never forces Himself on anyone. If you reject Him, He's not going to
push the issue.

>
> * Joshua's conquest of Canaan is corroborated by tablets found at
> Amarna, Tell El. ("Thompson Chain Reference Bible: Archeological
> Supplement no. 4328")

[1] For this and every other potentially verified historical event in
the Bible the following refutation applies:

Wait a minute! Atheists ask for evidence, and when evidence is given, they
have this blanket refutation. How is that open-minded or objective?

Proving one thing in a list of claims does nothing. Absolutely NOTHING
toward proving other claims, except where they are necessarily
related.

I can't take time to prove every verse of every book in the Bible. And you
wouldn't listen anyway.

Let's get hypothetical: Let's say this tablet proves beyond a shadow of a
doubt to everyone's satisfaction that Joshua did really conquer Canaan as
the Bible says he did. We haven't proved the entire Bible, but we have
proved part of it to be true. This evidence lends some credence to what the
Bible has to say.

Therefore, you can no longer dismiss the Bible as not being historical.
Thus, we have done something-we have shown that there is a reason to trust
the Bible.

That they happen to be bound within the same book, with
unsupported and circular assertions of the entire books truth, is
irrelevant.

True, but I'm not giving you that. I'm giving you an external proof of the
Bible's historical accuracy.

>
> * Hundreds of historical events were prophesied by the Bible
hundreds
> and even thousands of years before they took place. ("In Defense of
> the Faith" and "Judgment Day!" by Dave Hunt) For example, the Bible
> prophesied the rise of the Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman
> empires in such detail that skeptics thought that the prophecies had
> to have been written hundreds of years after the fact. This has been
> overwhelmingly disproved. ("Daniel in the Critics Den" and "The Coming
> Prince" by Sir Robert Anderson)

Prophecies are irrelevant.

Why?

Prophecy proves that there is a God because only He could tell the future.

Prophecy is irrefutable proof that God exists.

>
> * The existence of a non-physical part of man, taught by the Bible
but
> scorned by materialists, is nonetheless beginning to be recognized by
> leading secular scientists as correct. ("Seeking and Finding God,"
> "Psychology and the Church," "An Urgent Call to a Serious Faith," and
> "In Defense of the Faith" written by Dave Hunt)

Provide a reference to an actual scientific text, by a relevant
scientist to support the claim that there is a non-physical part of
humans, as described by the Bible, necessarily exists.

They are listed in those books. I hope to address this in more detail in a
future post. In the meantime, leading ->secular<- scientists are quoted in
those books.

Not so. Once again, there is a reason to believe the Bible because we have
external proof of its veracity.

>
> We could go on and on listing the factual accuracy of the Bible, but
> this is neither the time nor the place. I walk us through all that to
> say this: because the Bible is a historical book, every Scripture that
> we will consider in this post has historical context that cannot be
> ignored if we are to interpret the Bible correctly.

And here is where you show dishonesty or mere sloth.

How?

That claims are
bound in a single book does not make proving them any easier.

I never said that it did.

If I have a book with the following claims:

The sky is green.
Apples are red.

Proving one does not prove the other. In order to prove the Bible is a
historical book it is absolutely necessary that you go on and list the
factual accuracy of the Bible.

I did, but you gave my evidence a blanket dismissal. That's hardly just.

Until you decide it is the time and
place, we cannot go on. If the Bible is a historical book, then it
should be no small effort on your part to provide the historical
verification of anything in the Bible.

Once again, I did but you dismissed the arguments as irrelevant.

So why not start at the
beginning, with the first two books of Genesis?

There is only one book of Genesis in the Bible.

This attempt at deceit
is insulting. You expect us to simply assume that everything else in
the Bible is historical by providing alleged support for a pitiful
smattering of examples?

Didn't I say, " We could go on and on listing the factual accuracy of the

Bible, but this is neither the time nor the place. I walk us through all
that to say this: because the Bible is a historical book, every Scripture
that we will consider in this post has historical context that cannot be
ignored if we are to interpret the Bible correctly."

Despite the previous and contradictory

admission that parts of the Bible are metaphorical?

No contradictions were shown. Take the literally unless you have a good
reason not to.

I'm sure in your
mind you feel you are building the solid framework for an indisputable
argument, but I suggest you replace the Bible with some other work and
see if it would be convincing for you. From any other viewpoint you
are building a house of cards that collapses at every stage, yet you
make the motions of it going higher and higher.

That is a hasty generalization, one that I hope you will reconsider.

>
> Last, but not least, I would like to present something I found the
> other day that many of you might find helpful: (taken from
> ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLE FACTS Compiled and edited by Mark Water)
>
> THE SKEPTICS GUIDE TO MISINTERPRETING THE BIBLE
>
> 1. Assuming that the unexplained is not explainable

Strawman. The unexplained is the unexplained, by definition.

Yes, but you assume that it cannot be explained. I assume that it might
possibly be explained.

>
> 2. Presuming the Bible guilty until proven innocent

Strawman. We presume adherents to the bible have the burden of proof,
which they do, since they are making the claim.

Your attitude is, "The Bible is false. I won't accept any evidence to the
contrary." This is not the open-minded image that atheists like to portray
to the world.

>
> 3. Confusing our fallible interpretations with God's infallible
> revelation

It isn't our fault that the Bible lends itself to such confusion, even
among its adherents.

No one ever said that it was.

>
> 4. Failing to understand the context of the passage (A big one for
> this post-AMS)

See above.

This is a problem, but you won't admit it.

>
> 5. Neglecting to interpret difficult passages in the light of clear
> ones

See above.

This is a problem, but you won't admit it.

>
> 6. Basing a teaching on an obscure passage

You fail to recognize that the Bible does have obscure passages. No wonder
you don't understand it.

>
> 7. Forgetting that the Bible is a human book with human
> characteristics

No, we know this, which is why we argue that there is no divinity
within it, whatsoever.

This means that it relates to real life. That doesn't disprove the Bible.

>
> 8. Assuming that a partial report is a false report

No, we assume it is a partial report.

Correct.

>
> 9. Demanding that NT citations of the OT always be exact quotations

Straw man. We demand they be consistent, not necessarily exact.

Fine.

>
> 10. Assuming that divergent accounts are false ones

Strawman. We assume they are not valuable, which they are not.

I thought you liked multiple points of view.

>
> 11. Presuming that the Bible approves of all its records

No comment?

>
> 12. Forgetting that the Bible uses nontechnical, everyday language

The Bible uses archaic, out of date language. It is not a good guide.

Really? Homer's Illiad, using archaic language, led to the discovery of the
lost city of Troy. The Bible, using somewhat archaic, yet reliable
language, leads to eternal life.

>
> 13. Assuming that round numbers are false

If the answer calls for something other than a round number, then yes,
it is, by the degree for which it is off.

They are not always false though. That's the point.

>
> 14. Neglecting to note that the Bible uses different literary
> devices

You have failed to note this, and you have no comment?! This is a warning,
one that you would do well to heed.

>
> 15. Forgetting that only the original text, not every copy of
> Scripture, is without error

No comment?

>
> 16. Confusing general statements with universal ones

This could lead to errors, could it not?

>
> 17. Forgetting that latter revelation supersedes previous
> revelation

Then why include previous ones?

Because they build on each other.

Or why not specifically state that the
previous ones are null and void?

Because they are not. They prove that what follows them is true because it
was foretold.

Are footnotes not allowed in the
Bible?

God did not include any; why should we?

[Alex Smith]

I'll be around Simpleton. Post away.

You're one of the ones that wanted me to do this, so don't you think you
should at least respond to what's written?

I only dropped those other posts because I thought others had lost interest
and I was challenged to write this one, which took a considerable amount of
time. If you want to post anything in response to my others posts, I'm
still set up with e-mail alerts, so we could pick back up where we left off
if you want to.

-----Original Message-----
From: Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Simpleton
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 11:21 AM
To: Atheism vs Christianity
Subject: [AvC] Re: (As promised) Murder, rape, relative morals, and the Old
Testament

[Alex Smith]

If you read the post, you will see that what you say the Bible says is not
actually what the Bible says. My interpretation is in line with the Bible.
Your interpretation is the one that is out of line with the text of
Scripture.

> > All morals are relative, even the ones the christians claim to adhere
> > to.
>
> > See the post.
>
> Again, I do not care what the moron posted. Christians lie to protect
> their god and religion. Why should I trust anything they have to say?
>
> I answered that in my post. If you won't read it, I cannot take time to
> answer it again.

You evaded the question.

I did no such thing. If you read the post, you will see that the Bible does
not teach relative morals. If there is at least one moral that is not
relative, then you cannot say "all morals are relative."

The Bible, the very book you say teaches relative morals, refutes your
assertion. Once again, it's in the post. I challenge you to read it.

[Simpleton]

On Jan 3, 9:50 am, "Alex Smith" <a...@masterpiecebookends.com> wrote:
> I'll be around Simpleton. Post away.
>
> You're one of the ones that wanted me to do this, so don't you think you
> should at least respond to what's written?
>

I will once I am assured that you'll be around. For the moment D Man
has it addressed

> I only dropped those other posts because I thought others had lost interest
> and I was challenged to write this one, which took a considerable amount of
> time. If you want to post anything in response to my others posts, I'm
> still set up with e-mail alerts, so we could pick back up where we left off
> if you want to.
>

It is not a matter of my wanting to.

[Simpleton]

This is next to impossible to read. Your comments and D Man's appear
interspersed without separation markers.

[Alex Smith]

Hmmm...Must be my e-mail client. Give me a few minutes.

-----Original Message-----
From: Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Simpleton
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 10:44 AM
To: Atheism vs Christianity
Subject: [AvC] Re: (As promised) Murder, rape, relative morals, and the Old
Testament

[Alex Smith]

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Drafterman

Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 10:26 AM

To: Atheism vs Christianity

Subject: [AvC] Re: (As promised) Murder, rape, relative morals, and the Old Testament

 

I hope everyone can read this now.  If not, let me know. :)

>Incorrect. Christianity is a religion it's alleged uniqueness notwithstanding. The definition of religion is not, as you erroneously state "man trying >to elevate himself to a  place of acceptance by some deity or higher power".

 

>A religion, in this context is most accurately described as:

 

>1.   a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the

>universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often >containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

>2.   a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally

>agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

 

>Of which Christianity is a part of. I find the attempts to define Christianity as something other than a religion arrogant and dishonest.

 

In regards to your definition, Christianity may be classified as a religion, but it is so fundamentally different from all religions that that classification doesn't do it justice.  That you persist in this definition shows that you don't know what Biblical Christianity is, not that I'm making an incorrect statement.  Maybe you should try checking out the books I mentioned.

 

>Secondly, you have addressed, previously, some claims that Christianity makes that others do not. I do not remember all of them, so I cannot say that >they were all refuted, but I do recall refuting at least some of them. Even if we accept this as fact, it is not relevant. Unique does not equal true.

 

I never said that unique=true.  I was sidetracked from pursuing that series of posts further by the question addressed here.  I could not proceed until I had answered the questions presented to me.

Add not unto his (God's) words, lest he reprove thee and thou be found a liar.-Proverbs 30

Conclusion: This IS relevant.

You have failed to recognize that the Bible does have obscure passages.  No wonder you don't understand it.

> 

>    7. Forgetting that the Bible is a human book with human

> characteristics

 

>No, we know this, which is why we argue that there is no divinity within it, whatsoever.

 

This means that it relates to real life.  That doesn't disprove the Bible.

 

> 

>    8. Assuming that a partial report is a false report

 

>No, we assume it is a partial report.

 

Correct.

 

> 

>    9. Demanding that NT citations of the OT always be exact quotations

 

>Straw man. We demand they be consistent, not necessarily exact.

 

That’s OK.  They are.

[Alex Smith]

BTW, you guys haven't even touched the main topic of the post.

[Simpleton]

On Jan 3, 11:04 am, "Alex Smith" <a...@masterpiecebookends.com> wrote:
> BTW, you guys haven't even touched the main topic of the post.
>

Dave and D Man did. Adequately.

> >http://www.shoujoai.com/attach/95/707295/Unique- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Alex Smith]

The main topic of the post is whether or not God mandated murder, rape, etc.
in the OT. The second half of the post proves that He did not, yet no one
has even commented on that part of the post so far.

Also, I wrote this in response to LL and Rajinet, yet neither of them seems
to have read it yet.

[Simpleton]

On Jan 3, 11:56 am, "Alex Smith" <a...@masterpiecebookends.com> wrote:
> The main topic of the post is whether or not God mandated murder, rape, etc.
> in the OT.

He did.

> The second half of the post proves that He did not, yet no one
> has even commented on that part of the post so far.
>

Dave did. You simply asserted that the God did not, and called it
proof. The Bible disagrees with you.

> Also, I wrote this in response to LL and Rajinet, yet neither of them seems
> to have read it yet.
>

Well, if you take months to get around, and then lump what each was
asking in one long post because it is more convenient for you, and do
not have a track record of staying around, why would you expect
anything from someone else?

I had also suggested that you break things up in smaller sections,
addressing one issue at a time.

I'll be glad to respond as soon as I am convinced that you'll be
around.

[Alex Smith]

-----Original Message-----
From: Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Simpleton
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 12:01 PM
To: Atheism vs Christianity
Subject: [AvC] Re: (As promised) Murder, rape, relative morals, and the Old
Testament

On Jan 3, 11:56 am, "Alex Smith" <a...@masterpiecebookends.com> wrote:
> The main topic of the post is whether or not God mandated murder, rape,
etc.
> in the OT.

> He did.

Your mistaken. My post proves that He did not. If He didn't, you should be
able to refute my post.

> The second half of the post proves that He did not, yet no one
> has even commented on that part of the post so far.
>

> Dave did. You simply asserted that the God did not, and called it
> proof. The Bible disagrees with you.

I did nothing of the kind. I wrote an entire post (17,000+) words, yet he
simply stated "No, God did mandate them," without addressing any of my
arguments, all of which disprove his position.

The Bible does not disagree with me, as the post, to which you have as yet
to respond, proves.

> Also, I wrote this in response to LL and Rajinet, yet neither of them
seems
> to have read it yet.
>

> Well, if you take months to get around,

I wrote it as fast as I could.

> and then lump what each was
> asking in one long post because it is more convenient for you,

Why is that a problem?

> and do
> not have a track record of staying around, why would you expect
> anything from someone else?

I couldn't show my face on the group until I answered their questions. I
have been a part of AvC since September of 07, if I'm not mistaken.

> I had also suggested that you break things up in smaller sections,
> addressing one issue at a time.

Not a bad idea; but, what's wrong with the way I decided to do it?

> I'll be glad to respond as soon as I am convinced that you'll be
> around.

I already told you I will be.

I submit that that's just an excuse for not responding to a post which
conclusively refutes the atheists' position. Please prove me wrong if I am.

[Drafterman]

It is not "fundamentally" different. It is its "fundamentals" that
define it as a religion!

Does Christianity contain a set of beliefs concerning the cause,

nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the
creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving

devotional and ritual observances?

The answer is yes, like all other religions.

Does Christianity contain a specific fundamental set of beliefs and
practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

The answer is yes, like all other religions.

Fundamentally, Christianity is like all other religions. Any
uniqueness are in higher-level details, not in the fundamentals.

When concerning the definition of words I will consult a book designed
to provide the definition of words. That is, a dictionary. If you
disagree with the above assessment, then I expect either of the
following from you:

An explanation at how Christianity does not contain a set of beliefs

concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when
considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually

involving devotional and ritual observances or a specific fundamental

set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of

persons or sects.

Or why the dictionary is wrong in its definition of religion.

Otherwise I expect a concession that Christianity IS a religion.
Whether or not the word "does it justice" is irrelevant. Any attempts
to say that Christianity is not a religion *is a lie*. You admit in
regards to the definition of religion Christianity can be classified
as such. By what other measure would it be classified as a religion,
if not by the very definition of the word?! From my point of view this
is merely an admission that you recognize that Christianity is a
religion, but you don't *like* it to be called as such because of any
bad connotations that are associated with the concept of organized
religion. That you attempt to dishonestly separate Christianity from
religion seems to be an admission to the validity of those
connotations.

>
> Secondly, you have addressed, previously, some claims that
> Christianity makes that others do not. I do not remember all of them,
> so I cannot say that they were all refuted, but I do recall refuting
> at least some of them. Even if we accept this as fact, it is not
> relevant. Unique does not equal true.
>
> I never said that unique=true. I was sidetracked from pursuing that series
> of posts further by the question addressed here. I could not proceed until
> I had answered the questions presented to me.

If unique doesn't equal true, then what relevance is it? All religions
make unique claims. Unless you are prepared to say why Christianity's
uniqueness is more valid than any other philosophies' uniqueness, why
address the topic at all? You have had a lot of questions posed to
you, it seems to me that it is your choice which you choose to answer.

>
> > "Just because there are many claims to truth even within nominal
> > Christianity doesn't mean you can't arrive at the truth. To do so
> > will require that we first validate the Bible by proving beyond a
> > reasonable doubt that it is true, for, otherwise, there is no merit to
> > any of the claims of Christianity at all. If we can validate the
> > Bible, then we can turn to the Bible to guide us to what teachings
> > within nominal Christendom are correct.
>
> > "In regards to Biblical interpretation, the Bible tells us how to
> > interpret it. It is to be interpreted in the same way the Holy Spirit
> > teaches believers, by 'comparing spiritual things with spiritual.' (1
> > Corinthians 2:13) To compare spiritual things with spiritual things
> > simply means that we understand one part of the Bible by comparing our
> > interpretation of it with other parts of the Bible. This rule is
> > followed by Paul, Matthew, and others in their writings. Thus, if an
> > interpretation does not line up with the whole of Scripture, it is not
> > correct.
>
> This is completely absurd. It basically means your interpretations of
> any single part of the Bible are correct if they agree with your
> interpretations of other parts of the Bible.
>
> No. Rather, some Scriptures are abundantly clear in what they mean. Others
> are not. If you don't understand a passage, compare it's teachings with the
> rest of the Bible by seeing what other passages that address the same
> subject have to say on the matter.

Can you provide an example of a scripture that is "abundantly clear"
in what it means?

>
> This is circular and
> completely cuts out the necessity of an objective measure.
>
> No. The Bible is unique: it is a self-interpreting book.

Yes, as I said: circular.

>
> What you
> quote could only even attempt to be true if it made the claim that
> only one set of interpretations of the Bible are internally consistent
> and, thus, correct.
>
> Any apparent inconsistencies in the Bible are due to finite beings reading
> something written by the eternal God.

Any apparent inconsistencies in a document written by anything (divine
or not) are either accidents or done on purpose. So, of the
inconsistencies of the Bible, don't by God on accident, or on purpose?

Point being: God should have been able to write such a document to
prevent any misinterpretations.

>
> If this was true it would be easy enough to state
> what those interpretations are (rather than spouting off this evasive
> hocus pocus "comparing spiritual things with spiritual").
>
> What is evasive about that? Nothing I stated is evasive: compare parts of
> the Bible that are unclear with parts of the Bible that are clear. For
> starters, check our John 3:16. If you can understand that verse, than you
> can understand salvation, and, thus, the rest of the Bible.

But I can only verify the validity of my understanding by comparing it
with other verses. Tell me, what other verse am I to use to check my
understanding of Jogn 3:16?

>
> I don't want
> to know that the Bible tells us how to interpret it.
>
> Why not? It's one of the unique aspects of the Bible, one that no skeptic
> has yet refuted.

I'm refuting it now.

>
> I want to know
> what the correct interpretations are, and why those specific ones are
> correct.
>
> The correct interpretations are the ones that the Bible teaches from cover
> to cover without any conjuring on the part of any man. The Roman Catholic
> church has an entire system of theology not supported by Scripture. You can
> tell that their interpretations of some passages are incorrect because they
> don't line up with all of the rest of Scripture.

But you can't tell *which* interpretations are incorrect. If two
things result in contradiction, at least one is false, but it is
impossible, a priori, to say which.

>
> If they exist, you should show them, along with their proof,
> which should be conclusive.
>
> I do in this post regarding the passages raised by LL and Ranjinet.
>
> The continued existence of multiple
> interpretations suggests to me that no set of internally consistent
> interpretations with conclusive support of their validity exists.
>
> This is the case with any writing-multiple interpretations exist. Their
> existence is no proof that a definite one cannot be arrived at. It only
> means that we have our work cut out for us.

It means that the original work is flawed, or there wouldn't be any
work for us to do.

>
> > "For example, if I hear it taught that Paul does not condemn
> > homosexuality in the New Testament, but rather that he was referring
> > to man-boy physical relationships common in his culture, how can I
> > know whether or not that claim is true? Answer: by comparing
> > Scripture with Scripture. This interpretation is easily refuted by
> > Romans 1:27, which states, 'And likewise also the men, leaving the
> > natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men
> > with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves
> > that recompense of their error which was meet.'
>
> This is fallacious. All that is being said here is that when there are
> contradictions in scripture, choose an interpretation that resolves
> the contradiction!
>
> No. No contradiction was presented. A humanistic teaching was. I refuted
> it using the Bible alone.

You "refuted" it using fallacious reasoning, as I described.

>
> This, of course, presupposes that the passages in
> question *must* be right.
>
> They are right, as I have noted in this post. The fact that the Bible
> predicted the future hundreds and thousands of years in advance proves that
> it is "right."

No. It doesn't. Any correct "predictions" only proves those
predictions correct and nothing more. The proximity of statements of
unknown truth value to statements of known truth value, does not
affect the truth value of the unknown statements.

>
> The correct order should be to independently
> validate the passages,
>
> How?

Not my problem.

>
> then, if they both must be right (which is
> unlikely, if they contradict or are contrary to each other),
>
> Once again, that may be due to our perception of things.

Once again, a book written by an allegedly omniscient being should not
be susceptible to such human flaws.

>
> then
> attempt to examine the conflict itself to resolve it.
>
> We don't resolve conflicts. We find out where our understanding of the
> Bible is incorrect.

Which resolves the conflict.

>
> The usual
> resolution to such things is the modification of either passage (which
> means they weren't right)
>
> I would need an example in order to respond to that.
>
> or the inclusive of additional information.
>
> Add not unto his (God's) words, lest he reprove thee and thou be found a
> liar.-Prov. 30
>
> The solution presented here is neither, simply choosing the reality
> that glosses over the contradiction,
>
> There was no contradiction in question in the example I gave.

The interpretation you provided was contradicted (refuted) by another
scripture. That was the contradiction.

>
> thus the reader learns nothing
> and simply sticks their fingers in their ears lest they actually learn
> something.
>
> We learn by building upon what we already know. "Cogito ergo sum," (I
> think, therefore I am) and we can go from there to prove that God exists.
> Marvelous. We'll have to discuss that sometime.

No, you don't build on what you know:

"Add not unto his (God's) words, lest he reprove thee and thou be
found a liar.-Prov. 30"

And therefore you do not learn.

So, the existence of multiple Muslim sects reflects the insufficiency
of the Quran, but the existence of multiple Christianity sects does
not reflect the insufficiency of the Bible? This is called special
pleading, and it is a fallacy. You take the truth of the Bible by
default, and forcefully adapt every other concept to fit that notion
without ever evaluating it, yet you fail to realize the same arguments
you use to justify your Bible can be used for other religions and the
same arguments you use against other religions can be used against
your own.

Metaphors on only obvious when it is obvious that the first thing is
unlike the other. When you take a document written in an ancient
language, translated several times over several thousand years, such
things can be lost.

>
> Our own experiences, of course. Men, scientifically are
> not pigs.
>
> Shouldn't that be "not currently pigs"? Didn't men and pigs both evolve
> from the same slime?

No, it shouldn't. Men (as in human men) have always never been pigs.

>
> So I assume the phrase is metaphorical. This is obvious. But
> what about the mention of time periods in Genesis? Literal days?
> Metaphorical days?
>
> Literal. No metaphor is in the text.

By what measure to I determine the validity of that?

>
> It is said in the quote to assume literal unless
> given reason otherwise. Given this, then the entire Bible is discarded
> as myth because it goes against all reason.
>
> That the earth is billions of years old is only a theory, and not a very
> good one at that.

Every scientific statement is a theory, and they are the absolute best
things we have.

>
> It is more likely that
> everything miraculous or divine in the Bible is either a
> misinterpretation of events, exaggeration, lie, or other confusion of
> reality.
>
> Hmmmm....you've got some real problems with evolution then. Isn't getting
> life out of dead matter a miracle, no matter how many times you zap it with
> electricity, which only sterilizes the matter more, making it less and less
> fit for life? Yet, you don't find that so hard to believe. Why?

You address two different topics. You mention evolution, but then
offer a very skewed (read: straw man) depiction of abiogensis, which
is a different topic. I would have problems with your description, but
thankful it does not represent anything scientific, so I can discard
it as bunk. As far as what real scientists say about abiogensis, it is
a hypothesis yet, and has not the support of other widely accepted
theories, like evolution and gravity.

I don't, which is why I believe there is no need for one. However,
since you do posit a need for one, you should provide a reason for
that need.

>
> Then, if no need for
> religion be defined, we have saved ourselves from a lifetime of
> rummaging through every religious thought ever conceived.
>
> I wasn't planning on doing that anyway.

No, you just want to choose one religion and be done with it, without
giving a reason why we need to choose religion at all. If your goal
here is to reduce wasted time, my choice is better than yours, since
choosing any single religion wastes more time than choosing none.

>
> > The second thing that I would like to lay as groundwork is that the
> > Bible is a ->historical<- book. It details factual events, real
> > people, and historically verifiable data. The Bible, contrary to the
> > popular belief of many atheists, is not a collection of fairy tales
> > compiled by some ancient race of ignorant people who desired a
> > monotheistic religion. Time and space will only allow me to skim over
> > some quick archeological and historical evidence that validates the
> > Bible. I hope to deal with this topic in a post soon.
>
> History is not told in similes, metaphors, and fables. The Bible is
> not a historical book, but your own admission.
>
> The Bible does indeed contain stories; these stories use similes, metaphors,
> etc. However, much of the Bible claims to be, and is, real history.

Something that is only partly historical is only partly historical.
Your statement is the equivalent of handing someone a Dr. Seuss book
and saying it is factual because there exist blue fish.

>
> > For now, allow
> > me to list some of the evidence that directly supports the historical
> > accuracy of the Bible:
>
> > * Noah's flood is the only plausible explanation for sedimentary
> > levels visible on earth today, including some strata that have
> > petrified trees standing -> straight up<- through layers of sediment
> > supposedly laid down over billions of years. ("Scientific Evidence for
> > Noah's Flood" DVD by Dr. Baker, available atwww.TheBereanCall.org)
>
> No, it is not, or it would be accepted by the scientific community.
>
> I suppose the fact that washing your hands to prevent infection couldn't
> have been considered to be valid because the scientific community didn't
> accept it for hundreds of years?

Correct. Before we understood the how washing hands could prevent
infection it would have been invalid to present washing hands as a
method to preventing infection.

You see, there are two components for a logical argument to be sound.
One is the validity of the structure; that the conclusion necessarily
follows from the premise. The other is that the premises themselves
are valid. If an argument lacks in either of these, it is unsound.

That washing hands prevents infections may have been true, it until we
could show why, we would have been unable to show how it was
*necessarily* true.

>
> Just because leading scientist have not accepted something, or because they
> have accepted something, does not make it true or false.

Correct. But it does make it the best explanation there currently is.
While we cannot, with 100% certainty, say that any current scientific
theory is correct, or will remain correct, we can, with reasonable
certainty say that any current scientific theory is better than any
former scientific theory. Noah's flood was never even a scientific
theory, merely a myth which a whole wealth of physical evidence
contradicts. Even if there happened to be somethings that the *story*
of Noah's flood explained better than current scientific theories, you
still have to deal with the literal mountains of observations that we
have made that would have been impossible had Noah's flood happened.
Namely, all of them.

>
> Noah's flood is not plausible by any means, by virtue of the fact that
> we exist now to discuss it.
>
> Not so.

Yes, so.

>
> Noah's flood would be a global extinction event,
>
> It was. See the Genesis.

No, Genesis describes it as a genocidal event for which there were
many survivors, enough to repopulate the Earth in record time. An
*actual* global flood would have destroyed all such life, boat or not.

>
> the survivors of which would be organisms living in the deepest
> parts of the oceans, possible.
>
> Umm, the survivors were on the ark and walked off of it onto dry ground
> after the flood was over.

In your story, yes. In reality, no such thing would have been
possible. No ark of any construction would have provided a refuge from
the deluge.

>
> It would reset our evolutionary path.
>
> There is no evolutionary path. That is only a theory, which lacks credible
> evidence.

Unless you are a member of the scientific community, trained and
educated in such matters, whose responsibility it is to determine the
credibility of evidence for such scientific theories, you are talking
out of your ass. You get such opinions from garbage books, which is
insane. You do not go to creation books to learn about evolution. You
go to books about evolution, written by evolutionary scientists.

>
> Such an event could not have occurred within human history.
>
> Why not? The Bible, a historical book, says that it did.

Because Noah's flood is a myth. Put forth as a historical story the
Bible is wrong or lying.

>
> Polystrate fossils (fossils that intersect multiple geological strata)
> do not contradict modern geology.
>
> The explanations contrived to explain that phenomena take more faith than
> believing in a universal flood.

I doubt that you have actually considered the reasons why there exist
polystrate fossils. So, indeed, from your point of view there are gaps
that would require faith to cover. But for those that actually study
and are educated in such subjects, there exist no gaps and, thus,
requires no faith.

>
> I recommend you read actual science
> books when attempting to understand science, rather than apologist
> literature. I attempted to look up some credentials for Dr. Mace
> Baker, but could not find exactly what he had a PhD in.
>
> Try contacting the Berean call (www.thebereancall.org). They sell the DVD,
> so they should know.

The public should know, without trying to be sold something. If Dr.
Baker had any legitimacy to his claims, I would be hearing about him
as a Nobel prize winner, not some obscure website where he has to
peddle his own theories.

>
> I would recommend you read:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html,
> which includes references to scientific literature written by the
> relevant scientists.
>
> Thanks. I'll check it out, but I doubt the evidence presented here is any
> different than what I have already read.
>
> > * Jesus was a historical person, as verified by the four Gospel
> > writers and secular historians such as Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus,
> > Lucian, and others. ("Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh
> > McDowell)
>
> A historical person, with no ties to the alleged birth of Mary (for
> which there is a 30 year gap, for some reason).
>
> What do you mean? Josephus corroborates the divinity of Christ: "Now there
> was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man;
> for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the
> truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of
> the Gentiles. He was Christ.
>
> "And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had
> condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not
> forsake him; for he appeared alive to them the third day; as the divine
> prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things
> concerning him.
>
> "And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this
> day." The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus (The John C. Winston Company,
> Phil., 1957), p. 535

And nothing there that says he was born of a virgin or did anything of
a verifiably divine nature.

>
> Regardless all the
> accounts you mention were written years after his alleged death and
> resurrection.
>
> We don't doubt other similar accounts, about Abraham Lincoln for example,
> from credible sources, so why doubt these? Josephus was born in A.D. 37, so
> these would all have been recent events to him.

We have accounts of Abraham Lincoln before, during, and after his
life. Josephus was *born* after *Jesus* died (or close thereof,
depending on the estimate). By the time Josephus could have even
started compiling a history several decades must have passed.

>
> There are reasons to believe that characters meeting the
> basic criteria for King Arthur and Robin Hood also existed, that does
> not make every story about them true.
>
> No, but it does show that someone like them did indeed exist. If Jesus did
> exist, then the accounts of writers such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John
> have been proven to be true in that respect. Moving logically from that
> point, we can proceed to verify their accounts as far as possible, realizing
> that, ultimately, some of what they say will have to be accepted by faith
> since we can't go back and observe what they write about. This is, however,
> true of any writing, even for accounts of recent events. Since we can't
> view everything eyewitnesses tell us, we must choose whether or not to
> accept their accounts as true based on their credibility. With this in
> mind, we have every reason to accept the Gospel accounts as true.

The Gospel accounts would only be proven true in the respect that a
man named Jesus existed. Nothing more. Everything else would have to
be taken as a leap of faith. And while this is true for any other
work, including Arthur and Robin, other works do not proclaim to be
the only way to heaven, or you go to hell. Given such gravity a higher
standard must be placed on such works. Any reasonable person should
demand certainty from a work that declares eternal punishment if one
gets the details wrong.

>
> Conclusion: This is relevant.
>
> > * Hundreds of the locations mentioned in the Bible have been
> > identified with a relative degree of certainty. Contrast this with
> > the Book of Mormon, of which none of the topography mentioned in it
> > has ever even come close to being verified! ("Bible Map Insert"
> > published by Son Light Publishers, Inc.; "The Truth about Mormonism"
> > tract available from the Berean Call)
>
> And there is a whole wealth of geography not mentioned by the Bible.
> So, if you have a book that only mentions locations for a very small
> geographic area, is it more likely that the book was written for and
> by people of that area, or a book meant to deliver a message to the
> whole world?
>
> Hmmm...well, the Bible states, "For God so loved the world..."-sounds like
> that's meant for all of the people on planet earth to me.

Yet no specific mention of any places outside the local region.

>
> Listen to this verse: "God now commandeth ->all men<- ->every where<- to
> repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge ->the
> world<- in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath
> given assurance unto ->all men,<- in that he hath raised him from the dead."
> (Acts 17:30 & 31) So, it sounds like the Bible is indeed for all people.
>
> Where is the Indian and Chinese bible with the same
> messages? Where is the Incan, Mayan and Aztec Bible? Why is the
> message so tied to the civilization that, from an unbiased standpoint,
> seems to have created it, if the message is supposed to exist
> independent of them?
>
> There is evidence that these civilizations had that message but rejected it
> and thus lost it. For instance, the gospel is contained in the Chinese
> alphabet (try Googling it). But Romans 1 tell us that some people "when
> they (the Chinese, Aztec, Incan, Mayan, etc. civilizations) knew God, they
> glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their
> imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." It all went downhill
> from there.

Please provide for me the passages in the Bible that mention those
other peoples by name.

>
> God never forces Himself on anyone. If you reject Him, He's not going to
> push the issue.

Which is only a reflection of his alleged desire to have us with him.
That is: none.

>
> > * Joshua's conquest of Canaan is corroborated by tablets found at
> > Amarna, Tell El. ("Thompson Chain Reference Bible: Archeological
> > Supplement no. 4328")
>
> [1] For this and every other potentially verified historical event in
> the Bible the following refutation applies:
>
> Wait a minute! Atheists ask for evidence, and when evidence is given, they
> have this blanket refutation. How is that open-minded or objective?

I am not refuting the evidence given. I am refuting the *automatic*
verification of unrelated evidence that is assumed simply by
supporting one thing. If you actually read my refutation, you would
know that.

>
> Proving one thing in a list of claims does nothing. Absolutely NOTHING
> toward proving other claims, except where they are necessarily
> related.
>
> I can't take time to prove every verse of every book in the Bible. And you
> wouldn't listen anyway.

Translation: Those grapes *must* be sour.

>
> Let's get hypothetical: Let's say this tablet proves beyond a shadow of a
> doubt to everyone's satisfaction that Joshua did really conquer Canaan as
> the Bible says he did. We haven't proved the entire Bible, but we have
> proved part of it to be true. This evidence lends some credence to what the
> Bible has to say.
>
> Therefore, you can no longer dismiss the Bible as not being historical.
> Thus, we have done something-we have shown that there is a reason to trust
> the Bible.

That there exists *some* potential truth to something the Bible says
does not make it historical. Perhaps I am a bit strict, but if you
hand me a book and call it "historical" I am going to expect that the
*entire* book be historical.

>
> That they happen to be bound within the same book, with
> unsupported and circular assertions of the entire books truth, is
> irrelevant.
>
> True, but I'm not giving you that. I'm giving you an external proof of the
> Bible's historical accuracy.

No, you expect me to accept the truth of the *whole* Bible given a
smattering of support for a few passages.

>
> > * Hundreds of historical events were prophesied by the Bible
> hundreds
> > and even thousands of years before they took place. ("In Defense of
> > the Faith" and "Judgment Day!" by Dave Hunt) For example, the Bible
> > prophesied the rise of the Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman
> > empires in such detail that skeptics thought that the prophecies had
> > to have been written hundreds of years after the fact. This has been
> > overwhelmingly disproved. ("Daniel in the Critics Den" and "The Coming
> > Prince" by Sir Robert Anderson)
>
> Prophecies are irrelevant.
>
> Why?

Because unless they are used to prevent or alter the events they
predict (thus disproving the prophecy) they are useless. Prophecies
can only be proven true after the fact, when it is too late to do
anything, and even then it is impossible to know that the prophecy was
true or lucky, or inevitable or self-fulfilling.

>
> Prophecy proves that there is a God because only He could tell the future.

Him an Nostradamus.

>
> Prophecy is irrefutable proof that God exists.

Incorrect. Prophecy is irrefutable proof that people will take vague
statements made years ago and twist and interpret them in such a way
to fit modern or contemporary events as to *make* them true. On a long
enough time line *every* prophecy made by every person will be proven
true, by virtue of the fact that just about anything can happen and
the limitless ways people can interpret even the most mundane
statements.

>
> > * The existence of a non-physical part of man, taught by the Bible
> but
> > scorned by materialists, is nonetheless beginning to be recognized by
> > leading secular scientists as correct. ("Seeking and Finding God,"
> > "Psychology and the Church," "An Urgent Call to a Serious Faith," and
> > "In Defense of the Faith" written by Dave Hunt)
>
> Provide a reference to an actual scientific text, by a relevant
> scientist to support the claim that there is a non-physical part of
> humans, as described by the Bible, necessarily exists.
>
> They are listed in those books. I hope to address this in more detail in a
> future post. In the meantime, leading ->secular<- scientists are quoted in
> those books.

You have yet to cite a scientific book written by a relevant
scientist.

We have only reason to believe that which we have reason to believe.
Despite my efforts to seem to fail to realize that proximity to truth
does not make something else true.

>
> > We could go on and on listing the factual accuracy of the Bible, but
> > this is neither the time nor the place. I walk us through all that to
> > say this: because the Bible is a historical book, every Scripture that
> > we will consider in this post has historical context that cannot be
> > ignored if we are to interpret the Bible correctly.
>
> And here is where you show dishonesty or mere sloth.
>
> How?

You expect us to merely accept the truth of unsupported parts of the
Bible simply because you have supported other parts (which is
dishonest, since I have already shown you why this is fallacious).

>
> That claims are
> bound in a single book does not make proving them any easier.
>
> I never said that it did.

Good. Then every verse of the Bible that you have failed to provide
support for remains, rightfully so, unsupported and thus unacceptable
as testimony.

>
> If I have a book with the following claims:
>
> The sky is green.
> Apples are red.
>
> Proving one does not prove the other. In order to prove the Bible is a
> historical book it is absolutely necessary that you go on and list the
> factual accuracy of the Bible.
>
> I did, but you gave my evidence a blanket dismissal. That's hardly just.

No, I gave a refutation of your attempt to force a blanket acceptance
of the entire Bible, based on a few pieces of support for certain
historical events.

>
> Until you decide it is the time and
> place, we cannot go on. If the Bible is a historical book, then it
> should be no small effort on your part to provide the historical
> verification of anything in the Bible.
>
> Once again, I did but you dismissed the arguments as irrelevant.
>
> So why not start at the
> beginning, with the first two books of Genesis?
>
> There is only one book of Genesis in the Bible.

Sorry, I meant chapters.

>
> This attempt at deceit
> is insulting. You expect us to simply assume that everything else in
> the Bible is historical by providing alleged support for a pitiful
> smattering of examples?
>
> Didn't I say, " We could go on and on listing the factual accuracy of the
> Bible, but this is neither the time nor the place. I walk us through all
> that to say this: because the Bible is a historical book, every Scripture
> that we will consider in this post has historical context that cannot be
> ignored if we are to interpret the Bible correctly."
>
> Despite the previous and contradictory
> admission that parts of the Bible are metaphorical?
>
> No contradictions were shown. Take the literally unless you have a good
> reason not to.

Metaphorical is contrary to historical. The Bible cannot be both.

>
> I'm sure in your
> mind you feel you are building the solid framework for an indisputable
> argument, but I suggest you replace the Bible with some other work and
> see if it would be convincing for you. From any other viewpoint you
> are building a house of cards that collapses at every stage, yet you
> make the motions of it going higher and higher.
>
> That is a hasty generalization, one that I hope you will reconsider.
>
> > Last, but not least, I would like to present something I found the
> > other day that many of you might find helpful: (taken from
> > ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLE FACTS Compiled and edited by Mark Water)
>
> > THE SKEPTICS GUIDE TO MISINTERPRETING THE BIBLE
>
> > 1. Assuming that the unexplained is not explainable
>
> Strawman. The unexplained is the unexplained, by definition.
>
> Yes, but you assume that it cannot be explained. I assume that it might
> possibly be explained.

No, I don't. I assume it is unexplained until it is explained. We both
assume it *might* be explainable. The difference is that you take it
as truth regardless, while I wait for the support.

>
> > 2. Presuming the Bible guilty until proven innocent
>
> Strawman. We presume adherents to the bible have the burden of proof,
> which they do, since they are making the claim.
>
> Your attitude is, "The Bible is false. I won't accept any evidence to the
> contrary." This is not the open-minded image that atheists like to portray
> to the world.

No, my attitude is "The Bible is not true until proven so".

>
> > 3. Confusing our fallible interpretations with God's infallible
> > revelation
>
> It isn't our fault that the Bible lends itself to such confusion, even
> among its adherents.
>
> No one ever said that it was.

If it isn't our fault, then you cannot call it a misinterpretation.

>
> > 4. Failing to understand the context of the passage (A big one for
> > this post-AMS)
>
> See above.
>
> This is a problem, but you won't admit it.
>
> > 5. Neglecting to interpret difficult passages in the light of clear
> > ones
>
> See above.
>
> This is a problem, but you won't admit it.
>
> > 6. Basing a teaching on an obscure passage
>
> You fail to recognize that the Bible does have obscure passages. No wonder
> you don't understand it.
>
> > 7. Forgetting that the Bible is a human book with human
> > characteristics
>
> No, we know this, which is why we argue that there is no divinity
> within it, whatsoever.
>
> This means that it relates to real life. That doesn't disprove the Bible.

The Bible doesn't relate to any life I'm aware of.

>
> > 8. Assuming that a partial report is a false report
>
> No, we assume it is a partial report.
>
> Correct.
>
> > 9. Demanding that NT citations of the OT always be exact quotations
>
> Straw man. We demand they be consistent, not necessarily exact.
>
> Fine.
>
> > 10. Assuming that divergent accounts are false ones
>
> Strawman. We assume they are not valuable, which they are not.
>
> I thought you liked multiple points of view.

Multiple points of view does not necessarily mean divergent accounts.

>
> > 11. Presuming that the Bible approves of all its records
>
> No comment?

Nope.

>
> > 12. Forgetting that the Bible uses nontechnical, everyday language
>
> The Bible uses archaic, out of date language. It is not a good guide.
>
> Really? Homer's Illiad, using archaic language, led to the discovery of the
> lost city of Troy. The Bible, using somewhat archaic, yet reliable
> language, leads to eternal life.

And we really have no way of knowing which of the many cities there
correspond with the city of Troy, if any do. Nevertheless, we accept
the doubt, given that eternal salvation does not rest on us being
right. Where eternal salvation does lie on the line, there should be
no doubt.

>
> > 13. Assuming that round numbers are false
>
> If the answer calls for something other than a round number, then yes,
> it is, by the degree for which it is off.
>
> They are not always false though. That's the point.

No, but they are false when the answer is not a round number, or not
close to a round number. I can only assume this item refers to the
grossly inaccurate measurement of pi at "3".

>
> > 14. Neglecting to note that the Bible uses different literary
> > devices
>
> You have failed to note this, and you have no comment?! This is a warning,
> one that you would do well to heed.

I note that the Bible uses literary devices. It is a book of myths and
fables which almost always use literary devices. Literary devices,
however, are not hallmarks of historical books, which are presented in
a straightforward manner.

>
> > 15. Forgetting that only the original text, not every copy of
> > Scripture, is without error
>
> No comment?

Nope.

>
> > 16. Confusing general statements with universal ones
>
> This could lead to errors, could it not?

Sure. But like with all confusion that stems from Biblical
interpretation, there is no way to say which interpretation is
correct.

>
> > 17. Forgetting that latter revelation supersedes previous
> > revelation
>
> Then why include previous ones?
>
> Because they build on each other.

If it builds off of it, then it does not replace it, which is what
supersede means.

>
> Or why not specifically state that the
> previous ones are null and void?
>
> Because they are not. They prove that what follows them is true because it
> was foretold.
>
> Are footnotes not allowed in the
> Bible?
>
> God did not include any; why should we?

The point is, God should have.

[Simpleton]

On Jan 3, 12:15 pm, "Alex Smith" <a...@masterpiecebookends.com> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com
>
> [mailto:Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Simpleton
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 12:01 PM
> To: Atheism vs Christianity
> Subject: [AvC] Re: (As promised) Murder, rape, relative morals, and the Old
> Testament
>
> On Jan 3, 11:56 am, "Alex Smith" <a...@masterpiecebookends.com> wrote:
> > The main topic of the post is whether or not God mandated murder, rape,
> etc.
> > in the OT.
>
> > He did.
>
> Your mistaken.

No.

> My post proves that He did not.  

No.

> If He didn't, you should be
> able to refute my post.
>

He did. Very simply by providing the Bible as evidence.

> > The second half of the post proves that He did not, yet no one
> > has even commented on that part of the post so far.
>
> > Dave did.  You simply asserted that the God did not, and called it
> > proof.  The Bible disagrees with you.
>
> I did nothing of the kind.  I wrote an entire post (17,000+) words, yet he
> simply stated "No, God did mandate them," without addressing any of my
> arguments, all of which disprove his position.
>

Nope. The Bible disagrees with you. No more refutation is required
for the point you can the major one. If you want a refutation of your
"proof", ask for it specifically.

> The Bible does not disagree with me, as the post, to which you have as yet
> to respond, proves.
>

No, the bible does disagree with you.

> > Also, I wrote this in response to LL and Rajinet, yet neither of them
> seems
> > to have read it yet.
>
> > Well, if you take months to get around,
>
> I wrote it as fast as I could.
>

Which does not change the fact that you took a long time to get
around.

> > and then lump what each was
> > asking in one long post because it is more convenient for you,
>
> Why is that a problem?
>

It is not. It takes longer to respond to longer posts and it is easy
to lose track of conversations in a medium like this.

> > and do
> > not have a track record of staying around, why would you expect
> > anything from someone else?
>
> I couldn't show my face on the group until I answered their questions.  I
> have been a part of AvC since September of 07, if I'm not mistaken.
>

Good to know.

> > I had also suggested that you break things up in smaller sections,
> > addressing one issue at a time.
>
> Not a bad idea; but, what's wrong with the way I decided to do it?
>

Nothing, you are less likely to get responses the way you did it.
Heck you did not respond to LL's post yourself either, you created a
new one. So you should know what if anything was wrong with it.

> > I'll be glad to respond as soon as I am convinced that you'll be
> > around.
>
> I already told you I will be.
>

I am not convinced yet, which is what I'll need to be.

> I submit that that's just an excuse for not responding to a post which
> conclusively refutes the atheists' position.  Please prove me wrong if I am.

Taunt all you want, it ain't gonna help your claims. Feel free to
wallow in your ignorance, in the meantime.

[Alex Smith]

No.

No.

How?

> If He didn't, you should be
> able to refute my post.
>

He did. Very simply by providing the Bible as evidence.

He provided no Scripture verses whatsoever.

> > The second half of the post proves that He did not, yet no one
> > has even commented on that part of the post so far.
>
> > Dave did.  You simply asserted that the God did not, and called it
> > proof.  The Bible disagrees with you.
>
> I did nothing of the kind.  I wrote an entire post (17,000+) words, yet he
> simply stated "No, God did mandate them," without addressing any of my
> arguments, all of which disprove his position.
>

Nope. The Bible disagrees with you.

Where?

No more refutation is required
for the point you can the major one.

I don't understand. ?

If you want a refutation of your
"proof", ask for it specifically.

OK, what about the 10 passages I covered in the post. Would you refute the
explanations given?

> The Bible does not disagree with me, as the post, to which you have as yet
> to respond, proves.
>

No, the bible does disagree with you.

You'll have to show how.

> > Also, I wrote this in response to LL and Rajinet, yet neither of them
> seems
> > to have read it yet.
>
> > Well, if you take months to get around,
>
> I wrote it as fast as I could.
>

Which does not change the fact that you took a long time to get
around.

True. I did my best.

> > and then lump what each was
> > asking in one long post because it is more convenient for you,
>
> Why is that a problem?
>

It is not. It takes longer to respond to longer posts and it is easy
to lose track of conversations in a medium like this.

Good point.

> > and do
> > not have a track record of staying around, why would you expect
> > anything from someone else?
>
> I couldn't show my face on the group until I answered their questions.  I
> have been a part of AvC since September of 07, if I'm not mistaken.
>

Good to know.

> > I had also suggested that you break things up in smaller sections,
> > addressing one issue at a time.
>
> Not a bad idea; but, what's wrong with the way I decided to do it?
>

Nothing, you are less likely to get responses the way you did it.
Heck you did not respond to LL's post yourself either, you created a
new one.

I thought this would be more likely to get a response since it isn't buried
in the archives.

So you should know what if anything was wrong with it.

I guess nothing.

> > I'll be glad to respond as soon as I am convinced that you'll be
> > around.
>
> I already told you I will be.
>

I am not convinced yet, which is what I'll need to be.

How can I convince you?

> I submit that that's just an excuse for not responding to a post which
> conclusively refutes the atheists' position.  Please prove me wrong if I
am.

Taunt all you want,

I'm not taunting you-I'm throwing down the gauntlet. You won't accept it.

it ain't gonna help your claims. Feel free to
wallow in your ignorance, in the meantime.

My ignorance? You have yet to produce any conclusive facts for me to
address.

[Simpleton]

Read your post, read Dave and D Man's responses.

> > If He didn't, you should be
> > able to refute my post.
>
> He did.  Very simply by providing the Bible as evidence.
>
> He provided no Scripture verses whatsoever.
>

He kept it short.

> > > The second half of the post proves that He did not, yet no one
> > > has even commented on that part of the post so far.
>
> > > Dave did.  You simply asserted that the God did not, and called it
> > > proof.  The Bible disagrees with you.
>
> > I did nothing of the kind.  I wrote an entire post (17,000+) words, yet he
> > simply stated "No, God did mandate them," without addressing any of my
> > arguments, all of which disprove his position.
>
> Nope.  The Bible disagrees with you.  
>
> Where?
>

Where you claim otherwise.

> No more refutation is required
> for the point you can the major one.  
>
> I don't understand. ?
>

Is that a question?

> If you want a refutation of your
> "proof", ask for it specifically.
>
> OK, what about the 10 passages I covered in the post.  Would you refute the
> explanations given?
>

They have been by D Man.

> > The Bible does not disagree with me, as the post, to which you have as yet
> > to respond, proves.
>
> No, the bible does disagree with you.
>
> You'll have to show how.
>

No, you have to show that why you disagree with the bible.

> > > Also, I wrote this in response to LL and Rajinet, yet neither of them
> > seems
> > > to have read it yet.
>
> > > Well, if you take months to get around,
>
> > I wrote it as fast as I could.
>
> Which does not change the fact that you took a long time to get
> around.
>
> True.  I did my best.
>

Pat yourself on the back.

> > > and then lump what each was
> > > asking in one long post because it is more convenient for you,
>
> > Why is that a problem?
>
> It is not.  It takes longer to respond to longer posts and it is easy
> to lose track of conversations in a medium like this.
>
> Good point.
>
> > > and do
> > > not have a track record of staying around, why would you expect
> > > anything from someone else?
>
> > I couldn't show my face on the group until I answered their questions.  I
> > have been a part of AvC since September of 07, if I'm not mistaken.
>
> Good to know.
>
> > > I had also suggested that you break things up in smaller sections,
> > > addressing one issue at a time.
>
> > Not a bad idea; but, what's wrong with the way I decided to do it?
>
> Nothing, you are less likely to get responses the way you did it.
> Heck you did not respond to LL's post yourself either, you created a
> new one.  
>
> I thought this would be more likely to get a response since it isn't buried
> in the archives.
>

Well, give it another thought, then.

> So you should know what if anything was wrong with it.
>
> I guess nothing.
>

Then why ask?

> > > I'll be glad to respond as soon as I am convinced that you'll be
> > > around.
>
> > I already told you I will be.
>
> I am not convinced yet, which is what I'll need to be.
>
> How can I convince you?
>

By sticking around for a while.

> > I submit that that's just an excuse for not responding to a post which
> > conclusively refutes the atheists' position.  Please prove me wrong if I
> am.
>
> Taunt all you want,
>
> I'm not taunting you-I'm throwing down the gauntlet.  You won't accept it.
>

OK, throw down the gauntlet all you want, and then taunt if you like,
it still ain't gonna make your unproven and debunked claims any more
valid.

In fact, D Man has done a splendid job, I see no reason to add to it.

> it ain't gonna help your claims.  Feel free to
> wallow in your ignorance, in the meantime.
>
> My ignorance?  You have yet to produce any conclusive facts for me to
> address.

Which is why I feel that you should continue to wallow in it. If you
wanted to get out of it, you'll see that your positions have been
addressed by Dave and D Man in this thread, and in others by others.

[RobertBM1@gmail.com]

it was said...

"All morals are relative, even the ones the christians claim to adhere
to"

tell me then is it "relative" if someone rapes and kills little
children.... I would think that even to atheists this cannot be
"relative" but an absolute moral evil... Even to say "All morals are
relative" is an absolute moral statement because all morals are
absolutly "relative".....

Further show us WHERE God in the OT cammanded rape.. I would love to
see your evidence because I have read through the OT more then
once.....

On Jan 2, 1:21 pm, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 2, 9:06 am, GreatSport <a...@masterpiecebookends.com> wrote:
>
> > This post is for all atheists, or anyone else, who may think
> > (incorrectly) that God mandated/permitted rape and murder in the OT
> > and then proceeded to prohibit it in the NT, thus teaching relative
> > morals.
>

> The OT god did mandate, or order, raping, pillaging, and plundering,
> of several city states that worshiped competing gods. The NT god was
> quiet on the topic.
>

> All morals are relative, even the ones the christians claim to adhere
> to.
>

[Simpleton]

On Jan 3, 1:14 pm, "Robert...@gmail.com" <bm...@rogers.com> wrote:
> it was said...
>
> "All morals are relative, even the ones the christians claim to adhere
> to"
>
> tell me then is it "relative" if someone rapes and kills little
> children....  

Absolutely it is relative.

If someone is mentally deranged or of a young age, say eight years
old, and he or she rapes and/or kills a little child, it is relatively
less heinous than a grown man like yourself, assuming to be of sound
mind, doing so.

The punishments (or treatment) is different for this reason.

Heck, this is how the law is in the US. Established democratically,
I'd note. By a citizenry comprising of some 80% Christians and 6%
atheists.

> I would think that even to atheists this cannot be
> "relative" but an absolute moral evil...

It is not evident that you thought this through.

In anticipation of the leap you might take at this point, no one is
saying that raping and killing little children is moral or right, it
is a disgusting thing, but the morality is relative.

In this case based on who does it.

In Saudi Arabia, the morals are even different.

400 years ago, the morals were still different.

Morality is relative to the era and the culture.

> Even to say "All morals are
> relative" is an absolute moral statement because all morals are
> absolutly "relative".....
>

There is nothing moral about stating an absolute.

> Further show us WHERE God in the OT cammanded rape.. I would love to
> see your evidence because I have read through the OT more then
> once.....
>

Where LL cited it. Read through Alex's post to find that out.

[Dave]

On Jan 3, 11:56 am, "Alex Smith" <a...@masterpiecebookends.com> wrote:
> The main topic of the post is whether or not God mandated murder, rape, etc.
> in the OT.

According to the exact words of the bible, the OT god did mandate,
order, or encourage, those actions.

> The second half of the post proves that He did not, yet no one
> has even commented on that part of the post so far.

Why respond to your biased interpretations when we have the exact
words of the bible to go by?

[Dave]

On Jan 3, 12:15 pm, "Alex Smith" <a...@masterpiecebookends.com> wrote:

> .....

> I did nothing of the kind. I wrote an entire post (17,000+) words, yet he
> simply stated "No, God did mandate them," without addressing any of my
> arguments, all of which disprove his position.

Why read your overly verbose posting when the bible disagrees with
you?

Numbers 31 - AND THE LORD SPAKE UNTO MOSES.....

What follows is the OT god telling Moses and others to kill, ape,
pillage, and plunder. Do you deny that? I have no doubt you will lie
to us about it, but there are the exact words of the OT god commanding
what you claim it did not.

[Dave]

On Jan 3, 12:36 pm, "Alex Smith" <a...@masterpiecebookends.com> wrote:
>
> My ignorance? You have yet to produce any conclusive facts for me to
> address.

Your ignorance backed by arrogance. I provided one example of how you
lied. There are other examples. I just picked out the first of many
instances where the OT god told it's followers to kill all the males
in a city/state then keep the virgin females for themselves or split
them with the priests. That you deny all that just shows your
arguments to be dishonest.

Also, even the most ignorant of those posting here have figured out
how to do it properly. I suggest you take the time to learn how to do
it right.

[Dave]

On Jan 3, 1:14 pm, "Robert...@gmail.com" <bm...@rogers.com> wrote:

> it was said...
>
> "All morals are relative, even the ones the christians claim to adhere
> to"
>
> tell me then is it "relative" if someone rapes and kills little
> children.... I would think that even to atheists this cannot be
> "relative" but an absolute moral evil...

Do you understand what "relative" means? Apparently not. You really
shouldn't get into discussions that are way over your head.

> Even to say "All morals are
> relative" is an absolute moral statement because all morals are
> absolutly "relative".....

Does that make sense to you?

> Further show us WHERE God in the OT cammanded rape.. I would love to
> see your evidence because I have read through the OT more then
> once.....

If you read it more than once, then you know where it is.

[Alex Smith]

This has been quite a day for AvC.

I'm told that Dave has single handedly refuted my entire post WITHOUT EVEN
ADDRESSING ANY OF THE VERSES I DISCUSSED IN MY POST! Quite the
accomplishment.

Simpleton has declared D Man the winner in our little verbal exchange, even
though I have only replied to him once. Seems a little biased to me.

Furthermore, Simpleton, Dave, D Man, and any others out there will accept
proof of the Bible so long as I observe the following:

-I must not think that proving one verse true helps prove other
verses, even if they state the same thing. ???

-The internal consistency of the Bible means nothing. The fact that
I prove God is love in 1 John 4:8 won't allow me to show what that means in
John 3:16, where it says He loves the world. ???

-In short, I can prove the Bible so long as I prove the entire Bible
all at once without any reference to the Bible itself whatsoever. (I'd like
to know how they expect me to do that.) ???

Simpleton declares that D Man has refuted my post regarding murder, rape,
etc. in the OT, yet D Man has not yet touched on that part of the post.

In short, today has been a day where, without addressing the main issues
raised in my post, three atheists claim to have refuted my entire post with
consummate ease. And, in so doing, they have had no problems laying down
rules which say how I can and cannot prove the Bible, never telling me how
they come up with these rules or why I should follow them.

Now, Robert joins the conversation, asks for proof of murder, rape, etc.
being mandated in the OT, and Simpleton tells him that all the verses can be
found in my post.

Little does Simpleton know that it is there, in my post, that the proof of
God's never having done so lies, completely intact and, to this point,
unchallenged as conclusive evidence that what the atheists claim is false.

But they won't address even one of the passages I cover in the post.

-----Original Message-----
From: Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Simpleton
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 1:30 PM
To: Atheism vs Christianity
Subject: [AvC] Re: (As promised) Murder, rape, relative morals, and the Old
Testament

[Simpleton]

On Jan 3, 2:30 pm, "Alex Smith" <a...@masterpiecebookends.com> wrote:
> This has been quite a day for AvC.  
>

How would you know?

> I'm told that Dave has single handedly refuted my entire post WITHOUT EVEN
> ADDRESSING ANY OF THE VERSES I DISCUSSED IN MY POST!  Quite the
> accomplishment.
>

Not really, you did not post much of a post, it was rather easy.

> Simpleton has declared D Man the winner in our little verbal exchange, even
> though I have only replied to him once.  Seems a little biased to me.
>

Indeed, since I have only said that he provided an excellent response
to which I did not need to add anything.

The fact that you have only replied to him once is telling though.
And laughable since you are claiming non-response establishes validity
of your own position. You won't get this, but, I have responded one
fewer time to your original post.

The accusation of bias is not quite relevant.

> Furthermore, Simpleton, Dave, D Man, and any others out there will accept
> proof of the Bible so long as

...there is proof presented, and not just asserted.77

> I observe the following:
>
>         -I must not think that proving one verse true helps prove other
> verses, even if they state the same thing. ???
>
>         -The internal consistency of the Bible means nothing.  The fact that
> I prove God is love in 1 John 4:8 won't allow me to show what that means in
> John 3:16, where it says He loves the world. ???
>
>         -In short, I can prove the Bible so long as I prove the entire Bible
> all at once without any reference to the Bible itself whatsoever. (I'd like
> to know how they expect me to do that.) ???
>

I don't expect you to.

> Simpleton declares that D Man has refuted my post regarding murder, rape,
> etc.

I said that D Man provided an excellent response to your post, and
that Dave refuted your specific claim.

> in the OT, yet D Man has not yet touched on that part of the post.
>

Cool, then he hasn't.

> In short, today has been a day where, without addressing the main issues
> raised in my post, three atheists claim to have refuted my entire post with
> consummate ease.  

Actually, only one.

> And, in so doing, they have had no problems laying down
> rules which say how I can and cannot prove the Bible, never telling me how
> they come up with these rules or why I should follow them.
>

It is your burden, Alex. I do not recall asking you for a proof of
the bible, but if you claim that it is true, it is your burden to show
that it is, if you care that I accept it to be true.

> Now, Robert joins the conversation, asks for proof of murder, rape, etc.
> being mandated in the OT, and Simpleton tells him that all the verses can be
> found in my post.  
>

Correct. The ones by LL are quoted by you.

> Little does Simpleton know that it is there, in my post, that the proof of
> God's never having done so lies, completely intact and, to this point,
> unchallenged as conclusive evidence that what the atheists claim is false.
>

Ah, back to taunting.

No, Alex, it still won't fly.

> But they won't address even one of the passages I cover in the post.
>

Actually Dave did. Very succinctly.


Are you done playing martyr for now, or would you be continuing?

(You do realize that LL was the one who cited this issue of the many
that you now want *me* to discuss? D Man has done an excellent job,
Dave has responded to you, and I may yet, but I need to be convinced
that you'll be around)

[Alex Smith]

No martyr here (not yet at least).

I still don't get how you can assert this:

Me: (The atheists) won't address even one of the passages I cover in
the post.

Simpleton: Actually Dave did. Very succinctly.

In reality, Dave never addressed ANY of the verses.

Here is his original message as proof:

"The OT god did mandate, or order, raping, pillaging, and plundering, of
several city states that worshiped competing gods. The NT god was quiet on
the topic.
"All morals are relative, even the ones the christians claim to adhere to.
"And I hope no one was stupid enough to read your lengthy apology. It most
certainly wasn't worth the bother. The bible needs to be tossed out, not
blindly followed."

He cites none of the verses covered in my post.

Am I just missing something?

-----Original Message-----
From: Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Simpleton
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 2:53 PM
To: Atheism vs Christianity
Subject: [AvC] Re: (As promised) Murder, rape, relative morals, and the Old
Testament

[Dave]

On Jan 3, 2:30 pm, "Alex Smith" <a...@masterpiecebookends.com> wrote:

> This has been quite a day for AvC.
>
> I'm told that Dave has single handedly refuted my entire post WITHOUT EVEN
> ADDRESSING ANY OF THE VERSES I DISCUSSED IN MY POST! Quite the
> accomplishment.

I've heard all those lies before. Why bother to read them again?

> In short, today has been a day where, without addressing the main issues

> raised in my post....

You raised nothing new, original, or truthful.

[Dave]

On Jan 3, 3:16 pm, "Alex Smith" <a...@masterpiecebookends.com> wrote:
>
> Am I just missing something?

Yes. Honesty.

[Simpleton]

On Jan 3, 3:16 pm, "Alex Smith" <a...@masterpiecebookends.com> wrote:
> No martyr here (not yet at least).
>
> I still don't get how you can assert this:
>
>      Me: (The atheists) won't address even one of the passages I cover in
> the post.
>
>      Simpleton: Actually Dave did.  Very succinctly.
>

The passages in the OT regarding God condoing murder, rape, etc. were
covered by Dave very succinctly.

> In reality, Dave never addressed ANY of the verses.
>

No, he did.

> Here is his original message as proof:
>
> "The OT god did mandate, or order, raping, pillaging, and plundering, of
> several city states that worshiped competing gods. The NT god was quiet on
> the topic.

Yes, that was the long version.

> "All morals are relative, even the ones the christians claim to adhere to.
> "And I hope no one was stupid enough to read your lengthy apology. It most
> certainly wasn't worth the bother. The bible needs to be tossed out, not
> blindly followed."
>
> He cites none of the verses covered in my post.
>

He does not need to.

> Am I just missing something?
>

Obviously.

here's a small sample of this.

From your own post:

"NUMBERS 31:17-18: The second set of Scriptures in question is this
passage, which states, "And they warred against the Midianites, as
the
LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males...."


You see that "as the LORD commanded Moses"?

Do you see that phrase?

No?

Look again, it is from the bible.

Now, all the arguments as to why this is still moral or not, is not
relevant to the simple fact that God commanded Moses to it.

When you say that this is not correct, you are in disagreement with
what the bible says. This is what Dave pointed out to you succinctly.

[Dave]

On Jan 3, 4:13 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> This is what Dave pointed out to you succinctly.

Words are precious. I like to use as few as possible to get the point
across. Too many words just make room for colorful
reinterpretations. :-)

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jan 3, 1:14 pm, "Robert...@gmail.com" <bm...@rogers.com> wrote:

> Further show us WHERE God in the OT cammanded rape.. I would love to
> see your evidence because I have read through the OT more then
> once.....

What are the spoils Yahweh God has given? (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
Hint: the spoils include women.

What may one do with spoils?
One may partake (KJV says eat) of them.