what an interesting find for me (page 4)

cofty

Jonza - You still have all your work to do to show how Amalekite babies posed a threat to human salvation.

You are making up risible excuses ad hoc.

You argued that the bloodline had to be kept pure but you forgot that the bible celebrates the pollution by Moabite blood through Ruth. This is a knock-down argument against your apologetics and not surprisingly you totally ignored it.

It is beyond the comprehension of every rational and moral person how it can be good to murder thousands of innocent babies - every single one without exception - in revenge for the actions of their ancestors 400 years previously.

The bible is very explicit about the reason for the attack. You seem to think you know better than the bible. It was in revenge for a trivial incident during the exodus. The bible says so. Own it.

Your apologetics are almost identical to the twisted reasoning of the Third Reich who murdered millions of babies in order to protect the Aryan bloodline.

Christianity leads to disgusting and dangerous ethics. The strongest arguments against Jesus result from watching his disciples trying to explain the moral monster they worship.

jonza

If after 400 years they were still enemies, they'd be a high chance that the babies of the time would still grow up and continue to be enemies. For an all knowing God to know at some point these people will be a real threat to salvation, and then say to wipe them out for what they did 400 years ago still fits, as they're still just as bad as they were back then.

I agree that if the Bible is all non-sense then the reasoning would be similar to the Third Reich. But if you believe that the outcome of what happened did actually mean our salvation was secure that surely it would have been just. That, really is the only point I'm trying to make here. If you don't believe it, then you're probably right about God being an evil tyrant. Though one could still argue God works in mysterious ways and as being judge and as all have sinned he has the right to wipe out whoever he wants. Though, that's not something I'd want to argue. :)

I agree that people can use the Bible to support their twisted ethics. But I think that's only when they twist it to support what they believe, not what the Bible teaches.

cofty

if you believe that the outcome of what happened did actually mean our salvation

I am still waiting to to to explain how the babies were a threat to human salvation. Could your god not protect the bloodline without murdering innocent babies wholesale?

You were very explicit earlier that it had to do with protecting the purity of the bloodline. Why are you still ignoring the fact of Ruth the Moabitess?

I agree that if the Bible is all non-sense then the reasoning would be similar to the Third Reich

So you agree that you might be morally on a par with the Third Reich but you are pinning your hopes on the possibility that the bible might be true. That is a very big risk. How much have you done to explore that objectively?

For a start the bible is contradictory as well as being scientifically and historically inaccurate. There was no Adam, no original perfection, no fall, no original sin and no global flood. These things are beyond doubt. Whatever you believe you must at least harmonise it with reality.

But even if the bible was true you still have an impossible problem. You have to reconcile murdering innocent babies in cold blood with the christian teaching about love.

Over to you...

cofty

I agree that people can use the Bible to support their twisted ethics. But I think that's only when they twist it to support what they believe, not what the Bible teaches.

You are using it to justify the mass murder of innocent babies. It doesn't get worse than that.

jonza

cofty 4 minutes ago

I am still waiting to to to explain how the babies were a threat to human salvation. Could your god not protect the bloodline without murdering innocent babies wholesale?

I already answered:

If after 400 years they were still enemies, they'd be a high chance that the babies of the time would still grow up and continue to be enemies.

cofty
You were very explicit earlier that it had to do with protecting the purity of the bloodline.

I never once said purity. I said it was about protecting the bloodline. By stopping threats to it which could have damaged it beyond repaid. Therefore your point about Ruth is irrelevant.

I don't believe there are contradictions in the Bible, but there are things that are hard to understand. Also around creation etc I do believe a lot of what is detailed in the Bible is symbolism, so who knows how much of it actually happened. E.g. I am a firm believer in evolution.

cofty

I said it was about protecting the bloodline. By stopping threats to it which could have damaged it beyond repaid.

So your puny god was so afraid that babies would grow up and some of them might threaten one of Jesus' ancestors that he had all of them murdered while they were still helpless infants.

Is that a fair summary of your defense?

Is it the best you can do to justify murdering babies?

I never once said purity.

Yes you did. You posted a link to a very brief article that was supposed to answer my challenge. One of the main points of the article was...

the result of both the idolatry and the interbreeding would have been the failure of the prophecies that foretold of the coming Messiah which specified which the Messiah would come through.

Are you now repudiating that article and are you willing to condemn the author as a racist on a par with the Third Reich?

jonza

So your puny god was so afraid that babies would grow up and some of them might threaten one of Jesus' ancestors that he had all of them murdered while they were still helpless infants.

If you believe God knows the outcome of every possible event then he would know that those babies would grow up to threaten the bloodline. It's nothing to do with being afraid. He would have known for a fact what was going to happen if he did not do exactly what he did.

Yes you did.

No, no I didn't. Neither does the article. It states several combined factors would have led to damaging the bloodline.

cofty

Jonza - This conversation has served it's purpose for me.

Christians like you think that the mass murder of innocent babies is a moral good.

It is deplorable and repugnant.

Your worldview results in a system of ethics in which anything is permissible. Genocide, infanticide, slavery, kidnap, forced marriage/rape - all of these things are good and virtuous if your deity says they are.

You have no foundation for objective morality. Might is right, and good is whatever your capricious god decides from one moment to the next. It is exactly the same way of reasoning that has sustained the worst atrocities in human history. It is the attitude that allows members of ISIS to murder and rape while imagining they are doing god's work.

You are advocating a repulsive ideology but I don't think for one moment you actually believe a single word you have written. Behind the rote answers there is an authentic human being who knows that murdering babies is wrong - always and unequivocally wrong. I hope one day you look back and cringe at the things you have written here.

paradisebeauty

God is not unjust, for sure.

You have to remember that the world is as it is today because of Satan.

And God will be just to everyone in the end.

cofty

God is not unjust, for sure.

Yes he is, he murdered babies wholesale

You have to remember that the world is as it is today because of Satan.

So are you proposing that Satan made god do evil things like murdering innocent babies?

How puny is your god? I thought he was infinitely powerful? So Satan can do nothing that god doesn't choose to permit him to do.

Blaming Satan when god decided to murder babies is pathetic. What low expectations christians have for their omnipotent deity!

what an interesting find for me

Share this