----
The OT is God's message to Isreal, the Jews. I am not a Jew. The NT is God's message, through Jesus Christ, to the Gentiles.
----

Where does the Bible say this?


----
You mean by my unwillingness to research and find and exhaustive article that addresses and explains the information regarding Numbers 31? Did I not do that?
----

I didn't ask for someone else's apologism, I want to hear what you have to say. Which is, apparently, a whole lot of nothing using a lot of unecessary words.


----
Did you read ANY of the link I provided?
----

I read the entire thing, you obviously don't understand what I'm arguing.


----
I believe in a God that gives people the right to choose Heaven or Hell.
----

So the babies got to choose?


----
Did you also noticed that the Isrealites were judged/punished for their deceietful actions towards God?
----

I would hardly call offering sacrifices punishment when the other group is punished with death.


----
I guess I am asking for specific sources of goodness and tolerance, outside of simply "common sense". Afterall, common sense originates from somewhere. What would be an examp,e of something that common sense says is good, but a religous text does not say is good?
----

I can beat Christ's love right off the bat: You don't even have to believe in God to be a good person. I don't hold the threat of hell over people's heads. I win.

Source: My brain.


TriFloyd:

----
I think you’ve got to grant me that, when it comes to the Bible no one is objective. We’re both biased.
----

I can't grant you that at all. To me the Bible is no different than any other fiction book. You put your entire being into it; to me it's just another clump of paper and ink that just happens to dominate the culture I live in. So no, we are not "both biased". We are not opposite sides of the same coin.


----
Still, I hope we can agree that the ideas underlying this statement are some of what we’re disagreeing about during this discussion.
----

My idea of fairness is consistency.
Your idea of fairness is "whatever God does, no matter what it is".

Let's say:
Two men walk down the street eating a sandwich and they both throw the wrapper on the ground. God is watching all this happen and kills one of the men immediately and makes the other one feel a little itchy.

To me this is unfair and inconsistent because there were different punishments for the exact same crime. To you it is fair and consistent simply because God did it.

So yeah...


----
God must be true to His characteristics, but it’s important not to impute man’s limitations on God.
----

If this is the way we must operate, then god is 100% meaningless in the affairs of men. Because the entire dogmatic moral framework belief in God imposes on us must be completely inaccurate, no?

If God operates on an entirely different level, how can we say we have any idea what God is about?

Where does the Bible say this?

Jesus instructs his followers to spread the message to all, including non-Jews. First time this idea pops up. The NT is the first time, the message is to be for "Gentiles" or non-Jews.

I didn't ask for someone else's apologism, I want to hear what you have to say. Which is, apparently, a whole lot of nothing using a lot of unecessary words.

Who cares what an uneducated person (me) on the subject has to say? I'm trying to get your question answered not trying to get you to "know more about me". You don't like my answers of "I don't know", so I went to those that have a much better understanding of the situation. If I want to get questions answered about Evolution, I go to Darwin-Gould-Dawkins, etc .... not to Bill James (author on baseball statistics). Seems reasonable to me.

I was under the impression you wanted good answers, not a collection of opinions. IMO, opinions are OVER-RATED ... too often they are simply summaraizations of another's ideas that simply "sound good to them" or something they "wish to be true". I know very few people that speak of opinion from existent first-hand knowledge.

I read the entire thing, you obviously don't understand what I'm arguing.

I guess I don't. I thought you were asking, "How could God command the killing (war and post-war) and enslaving (post-war) of the Midianites?" ... to which the link I provided a link that thoroughly addressed virtually every and any aspect to the whole situation.

So the babies got to choose?

This may take the discussion toward the fringe, but my view is that babies, who never make a conscious decision to live a life away from God are not sent to Hell. The same issue comes up when someone asks "What about those that never hear of Jesus?". I believe that a Loving and Just God deals with that in a fair and merciful way.


More: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/objedex.html

I would hardly call offering sacrifices punishment when the other group is punished with death.

They also lost thousands of people in the battle. The Jews, more than any other group, have felt God's Wrath. Every time they walk away from God (surpisingly, more often than one would think), they are punished.

I can beat Christ's love right off the bat: You don't even have to believe in God to be a good person.

How is that a better example of goodness and tolerance? Who decides if a person is good?

I don't hold the threat of hell over people's heads. I win.

=) One person sees the threat of Hell, the other sees the gift of Heaven. This topic is bound to be circular. I'll leave it alone.

-------------------------------

If God operates on an entirely different level, how can we say we have any idea what God is about?

Now you see why I give Jesus's words more power than all others. When Jesus speaks, it is the Voice of God.

I wouldn't say "If God operates on an entirely different level", but that God DOES operate on a different level. The impossibility of fulling understanding God is one source of frustration of men. We seemingly demand to know, "what the heck is going on?", and furthermore ... expect an answer on our terms.

-------------------------------

A link you may be interested in. http://www.christian-thinktank.com/objedex.html

Tries to address any and all objections/complaints that people have/had about God.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

I went back through this thread to find the original question (because I was wondering why adamb did not just google search for answers at a Christian website). I feel like an idiot for spending time trying to find good answers to the questions/issues presented.

Starting on page 7, adamb jumps from talking about the 10 Commandments in public places to going on about this, "Then the Bible is useless, all it is is the thoughts of men. If the Bible is not the divine, inspired word of God and it can be trumped by modern philosophies then it is pointless. [/b][/b]

Then jumps to slavery, rape of babies, killing children, and every other subject, not looking for answers ... but to have a platform to rant about the Bible. Why?

I wish I hadn't wasted so much of my life in devotion to such a ridiculous religion, but sadly I did, and with quite a lot of fervor and study.

'Nuff said. Gotcha. Nobody's changing their mind. Therein the discussion ended. Way to go. 11 pages. Fantastic. I'm the idiot for not recognizing the situation 4 pages ago.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

----
Jesus instructs his followers to spread the message to all, including non-Jews. First time this idea pops up. The NT is the first time, the message is to be for "Gentiles" or non-Jews.
----

And a huge part of Christ's instruction is the Old Testament… so…

Why are you trying so hard to hide from your holy book?


----
Who cares what an uneducated person (me) on the subject has to say?
----

You do. And so do I.
If you did not you would not post. If I did not I would not ask you. So stop running from it and speak up on the matter yourself.
How can I take you seriously as an ambassador for Christianity if you're not willing to even make an attempt to provide your own insight into Biblical matters?


----
I was under the impression you wanted good answers, not a collection of opinions.
----

All you have provided me is a collection of opinions. I read the whole thing and there were two sentences on the slaughter of young boys, I even quoted them here to show you how woefully inadequate they were. I'll do it again!
--
• The judgment for the atrocity at Baal Peor fell both on Israel and Midian—both would have lost around 24,000 adult members of the population, and the consequences on the Midianite children (especially the boys) would have been a direct result of the choices of their parents and leaders.
• The realities of life in the ANE precluded absorption of the residual boys into the people—in keeping with realities of the time.
--

For all the words your link had to offer, this is all it does in the way of explaining the slaughter of young boys. Two sentences.


----
IMO, opinions are OVER-RATED ... too often they are simply summaraizations of another's ideas that simply "sound good to them" or something they "wish to be true".
----

That is *exactly* what your link was; an extended session of wishing, dreaming and apologizing.


----
I know very few people that speak of opinion from existent first-hand knowledge.
----

No one alive has first-hand knowledge, it's impossible.


----
to which the link I provided a link that thoroughly addressed virtually every and any aspect to the whole situation.
----

That's quite simply not true and this post is the second time I've pointed that out by actually quoting your link. And aside from that, you've provided absolutely no opinion of your own outside of it.


----
This may take the discussion toward the fringe, but my view is that babies, who never make a conscious decision to live a life away from God are not sent to Hell.
----

I didn't ask about Hell, I asked about how much choice they had in being stabbed to death at God's command.


----
They also lost thousands of people in the battle.
----

The battle that they started. The battle that they deliberately *chose* to engage in. Funny how that works, eh?

Sorry, but it's pretty obvious what's happening here.
Women have sex with men. Men offer sacrifices as punishment, women are slaughtered and so are their babies as punishment.


----
How is that a better example of goodness and tolerance? Who decides if a person is good?
----

We do.


----
One person sees the threat of Hell, the other sees the gift of Heaven.
----

The person who speaks of Heaven when asked about Hell is obviously refusing to acknowledge something put plainly right in front of his face. The topic isn't circular in nature, the apologism and intellectual cowardice of the faithful is circular.


----
Now you see why I give Jesus's words more power than all others. When Jesus speaks, it is the Voice of God.
----

You did not answer the question.

I was going to cease with this thread, but I will continue b/c there is an important point I wish to make ...

And a huge part of Christ's instruction is the Old Testament… so…

I didn't say aspects of the message changed, I said the audience did. You seem to want to debate every little thing said.

You do. And so do I.
If you did not you would not post. If I did not I would not ask you. So stop running from it and speak up on the matter yourself.

I don't care about uninformed and uneductaed opinions. I really don't. Part of me is a pitching coach. If a person did not pitch in at least high school or college (or higher) I don't really want to hear their opinion on pitching. I really don't ... and if they start to tell me, I stop them. You can see plenty of people in all fields that have zero experience, yet speak with an "authoritive" (in their mind) opinion. Same thing here. I am uneducated and uninformed on certain aspects of the Bible, aspects that I feel are secondary to the main tenets.(more coming). In other words, my opinion has less merit than the one I linked to.

How can I take you seriously as an ambassador for Christianity if you're not willing to even make an attempt to provide your own insight into Biblical matters?

Here is the point that I wanted to make, and the reason why I posted. How can you take me as an Ambassador for Christianity? Simple. You view how I live my life. You view the changes that Christ has made in my life. You observe whether I practice what I preach. You view the gentleness and patience I show to my family and to others. You observe that I try very hard to follow Jesus's "Two Greatest Commandments". You observe how I treat others, and note that without Christ in my life I may have treated these people (people I don't necessarily want to like) very differently.

You and I, seemingly, have different views, on what being an Ambassador of Christianity is. I view my #1 priority as a Christian to bring Glory to God. I view the most important way to do that is how I act ... especially how others see me act. I know too many people that do the Bible study, talk the talk, but never get around to walking the walk. You seem to view being a Christian, or an "Ambassador for Christianity" as being primarily a "Biblical Historian". I already mentioned there I things I do not know. You pointed this out as a chink in my armor, which I admit it is. But, IMO, the chink is merely a small dent.

At this time, I wish to point out that I am not the best example of a Christian that there is, and I am working on that. I've done plenty that is regretable ... and I don't take those things lightly.

----------------------

The rest of your post keeps bringing up the same views that been brought up, discusses, brought up again, etc. Go to www.theologyweb.com I've spent plenty of time there. It's great. Every discussion follows the same pattern. People (on both sides) go on and on presenting their limited opinion as fact, and each counterpoint is met with an "Aaah" and a hand-wave, and in the end everyone retains their original opinion. It's awesome. (<--sarcasm). It was time there that caused me to realize that living a Christian Life was more important than debating Biblical history.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

----
You seem to view being a Christian, or an "Ambassador for Christianity" as being primarily a "Biblical Historian".
----

That is completely untrue and you are purposefully misrepresenting what I'm saying to shield yourself from addressing a very simple concept. I never asked for the cultural mores of ancient Jews. I don't care about them. I didn't ask you to explain it to me.

I ask what your reaction is to what happened in Numbers 31. Not what other people think. Not what you imagine is a better source ("historian"), but you. Because surely you feel a certain way about it or think a certain way about it.

Stop dodging and address it.

What do you think about God using sinful men to slaughter women and children because sinful men made the choice to have sex with those women? What do you think? I don't care about your attempts to dodge this simple thing, answer it.

That is completely untrue and you are purposefully misrepresenting what I'm saying to shield yourself from addressing a very simple concept

Purposefully misrepresenting? Every criticism you have of "my personal Christianity" deals with my knowledge (or lack thereof) of a specific Old-Testament event that I view to be "low priority" in the overall scheme of being a Christian.

I ask what your reaction is to what happened in Numbers 31. Not what other people think. Not what you imagine is a better source ("historian"), but you. Because surely you feel a certain way about it or think a certain way about it.

Well, my initial thought is "Man, I don't wanna piss off God" ... to be honest. I figure God must be loving to tolerate those who are aware of God's Wrath and still choose to defy God. Scriptures indicate that those wishing/acting to lead others away from God are going to pay for it.

I think the Midianites made a deliberate act to lead Isreal away from God and attacked them repeatedly before God commanded Isreal to attack the Midianites. Did we feel justified in attacking Japan because of Pearl harbor? I feel God is justified in ordering the attack ... not that it is my place to decide. I know that means little to you, but I am convinced there is a God, and I am equally convinced that I am not it ... so I don't go around pretending if God and I are equal.

Stop dodging and address it.

Stop acting like I owe you something. Take a step back.

I never asked for the cultural mores of ancient Jews. I don't care about them.

We get it. Outside of your personal interpretation of what happened and/or why ... you don't care. I'm shocked.

What do you think about God using sinful men to slaughter women and children because sinful men made the choice to have sex with those women? What do you think? I don't care about your attempts to dodge this simple thing, answer it.

I think the same thing about God using sinful men to be charitable to women and children because of sinful men. In the case we're talking about, the women that were killed were the ones doing the decieteful acts ... using aggressive sexual tactics to lead Isreal away from God. Those women were punished and punished harshly. The rest of the killing seemed to go right along with what happened in war during those times. IMO, societies killed the young males so those young male did not grow into strong adult males ... seeking revenge. Had the same war happened today, the POW's would likely have been treated very differently ... according to our societal norms. It is easy to get emotional and ignore the situation.

In short, man is the tool of God. As the Christian song goes, "If we are the Body, why aren't His hands healing ..." Seems reasonable that when God wants something done, he uses man to get it done (supernatural miracles are the exception). We could form an infintaly long list of "Then, why doesn't God ...." type things.

Our "justice" system does a similar thing. A group of imperfect people judge another person's guilt or innocence ... somtimes deciding to kill that person (dealth penalty). What's my reaction? We all know our actions have consequences. When we choose certain actions, we choose the consequences. I guess I think "grow up and accept the consequences of your actions".

I would suppose if Isreal had lost the battle, the same things would have happened to them ... only going by the image of the Midianites as "Raiders", the women may have been forced to do things that historical culture indicates that Hebrews would not have likely done. [I freely admit I am at the mercy of my source, so if you have historical information on Henrews that indicates otherwise, please show it]

-----------------------

Now, where does the thread go from here? Is there where you tell me my opinion is wrong or disillusioned or that I am hiding my head in the sand or whatever or blah, blah. Can we basically assume, that until I share your opinion, you feel I am "missing it"? (accidently or deliberately)

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

-----
The rest of the killing seemed to go right along with what happened in war during those times. IMO, societies killed the young males so those young male did not grow into strong adult males ... seeking revenge. Had the same war happened today, the POW's would likely have been treated very differently ... according to our societal norms.
-----

So God's moral framework is determined by "our societal norms"?

Further, if lusty women was an "attack" on the Israelite men worthy of genocide, why not kill the virgin females because could they not also grow up to make sexual attacks on the poor, defenseless and unable-to-say-"no" men of Israel?

I fully realize that it was the custom of the time to behave like blood-thirsty savages. Human history does not baffle or confuse me. I understand why people would behave this way, here's the problem:
One of these groups, behaving exactly the same as all the others, claims to be led by a perfect and just God.

There is no logic to excusing one over the other, just faith that God said it was acceptable even though on its face it is obviously horrific behavior.

What is your "educated" opinion on the matter? You batter Triple for his opinion which he's given time and time again but you offer none.

Further, if lusty women was an "attack" on the Israelite men worthy of genocide, why not kill the virgin females because could they not also grow up to make sexual attacks on the poor, defenseless and unable-to-say-"no" men of Israel?

From what I understand about the culture and post-war actions is that the virgin (i.e., unmarried)females, once menstruating, would be necessary to help repopulate the society with men ... to make up for the men/soldiers lost in battle. Keep in mind the role men had in this society. Today, women would just take over the man's role as household head, shepherd, farmer, etc. Hence, the need to take "female slaves" might not be necessary.

Your insinuation/interpretation as the young females as "sex slaves" is really making me wonder about your character. I read the same verse as you, and did not interpret it that way.

-----------------------------

In this situation, you seem to keep forgetting that we are dealing with a group of people that seemingly wanted to erase Isreal from the map or at least, lead them away from God. It was not God sending Isreal out to wipe out the Midianites. As I mentioned before, I believe all of God's actions lead to the arrival of Christ.

You should see what kinds of things would happen if I could be God. Whoo-wee!

-----------------------------

Found another article the other day, "Why can't God just forgive sin, instead of demanding justice?"

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/whyjust.html

Lots of people have the same questions about God. I keep coming back to the idea that we demand to know, and we expect the answer in our terms. We forget our place. I believe that's called "Pride" .. something that was very difficult for me to overcome.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Brian286:

My opinion isn't mysterious at all:

I don't believe the Bible is true at all. I don't believe in God.
If the story in Numbers is in any way true it is pretty obvious to me that all we're seeing is the justification provided by the victors; using God as a source of moral absolution for horrifically immoral acts.

I think this because it seems obvious that even Christians seem to advocate the idea that God adapts to the social moral framework of human society; i.e. - What's acceptable in 1000BC is not acceptable in 2000AD even though God is supposedly eternal.

That's my opinion. I'm not shy with it.


TripleThreat:

------
From what I understand about the culture and post-war actions is that the virgin (i.e., unmarried)females, once menstruating, would be necessary to help repopulate the society with men ... to make up for the men/soldiers lost in battle.
------

And then...
------
Your insinuation/interpretation as the young females as "sex slaves" is really making me wonder about your character.
------

Pardon me, but did you not just make the argument that these slaves were to be used for sex?

First you tell me that the reason you only knife little baby boys and not little baby girls is so you could use them to "help repopulate the society" but then you wonder about *my* character when I insinuate that they were "sex slaves".

I'm sorry, TripleThreat, but what do you call a slave whose sole reason for survival is sex if not a "sex slave"?

That's what they were. They were kept alive (unlike the little boys) to be used for sex. That's why they were kept alive. That's the only reason. They were sex slaves. You don't have to be sold into prostitution to be a sex slave, you can just as easily be forced to have sex with your master or one of your master's sons. They can kill your entire family then force you to have sex with the men who killed your family, and it's all fine because your God said so.


------
In this situation, you seem to keep forgetting that we are dealing with a group of people that seemingly wanted to erase Isreal from the map or at least, lead them away from God.
------

I really do not understand how attempting to "lead someone away from God" is a crime worthy of the slaughter of innocent children.

I'll repeat what I said before in case you didn't catch it...

The bible has withstood the tests of every historian who has tried to discredit its authenticity. In fact there are stories of historians who did not believe in it's subject matter who in the process of trying to disprove it became believers through their findings.

I appreciate you stating your opinion. However, most historians agree that the bible is historically accurate.

Pardon me, but did you not just make the argument that these slaves were to be used for sex?

The young females would be taken into the family, raised alongside the other children, and upon menstruation would be married and start a family, or if the case may be, be impreganted by the head of the household.

So, not exactly, but I was not specific in my comments. In terms of "sex slave", as in for male enjoyment and not resulting in preganancy (repopulation) ... No. If you view, "sex slave" as being what I described above, then yes. I think the term "sex slave" for an action that is needed to replace the men of society, so that the society does not become extinct, is stretching it a little (to say the least).

I agree with this from the article I linked to,

"4. Even if we allow the age range to be older, to include girls capable of bearing children, the probability is that it was not sex-motivated, but population/economics-motivated, as Carol Meyers points out ["The Roots of Restriction: Women in Early Israel", Biblical Archaeologist, vol 41):

"Beyond this, however, the intensified need for female participation in working out the Mosaic revolution in the early Israelite period can be seen in the Bible. Looking again at Numbers 31, an exception to the total purge of the Midianite population is to be noted. In addition to the metal objects which were exempt from utter destruction, so too were the "young girls who have not known man by lying with him" (Num 31:18). These captives, however, were not immediately brought into the Israelite camp. Instead, they and their captors were kept outside the camp for seven days in a kind of quarantine period. (Note that the usual incubation period for the kinds of infectious diseases which could conceivably have existed in this situation is two or three to six days [Eickhoff 1977].) Afterward, they thoroughly washed themselves and all their clothing before they entered the camp. This incident is hardly an expression of lascivious male behavior; rather, it reflects the desperate need for women of childbearing age, a need so extreme that the utter destruction of the Midianite foes—and the prevention of death by plague—as required by the law of the herem could be waived in the interest of sparing the young women. The Israelites weighed the life-death balance, and the need for females of childbearing age took precedence."

First you tell me that the reason you only knife little baby boys and not little baby girls

No, I told you the reason (IMO) that baby boys were killed is because baby boys have this nasty little habit of growing into "big, strong boys" that tend to seek to avenge the deaths of their fathers.

Killing the baby boys is a means of preventing the next generation of Midianites from repeating the past, only maybe being more successful than their fathers were. It’s about survival.

Customs indicate that they normally would have wiped out everyone. Their situation indicated that they needed females to continue to exist. Either way, God critics, would complain. If they wipe out the Midianites, then "God killed them all", if they keep alive the females, then "God commanded sex slaves".

I really do not understand how attempting to "lead someone away from God" is a crime worthy of the slaughter of innocent children.

According to the Bible, "leading God’s Children astray" is one of the actions God hates most and punishes the most severely. The Midianites should have known that messing with (i.e., attacking repeatedly and decieving) Isreal could result in having them overtaken in battle (if Isreal won the War), and everyone would have known that their young male children would have been killed, as a result of the defeat (actually, in most situations, all of the people would have been killed). They would have done the same to the Isrealites. As I said before, you mess with the bull ... you don't start a war without knowing that if you lose, you will definately die. The Midianite baby boys were not killed because their mothers decieved the Isrealites and their fathers were raiding them. They were killed because Isreal retaliated and won the war, and baby boys were killed to ensure survival of the victors.

The killing of your enemy's young males occurs more than once in the Bible, and by people other than the Hebrews. It seems like a common way of keeping your "enemy's army small or non existent". Seems like more of a survival thing for Isreal (in this situation) rather than "God being pissed off". God was pissed at the married women who particpated in the deceit. Those women were killed.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Brian286:

-----
The bible has withstood the tests of every historian who has tried to discredit its authenticity.
-----

I'm sorry, but you are wrong.
The very first chapter of the Bible is demonstrably untrue. Genesis 1: total garbage.

What believers do is take every new discovery that shows the Bible to be wrong and spin it, usually by saying "Oh... well... that's just a metaphor!" even though it was accepted truth until independent inquiry showed it to be false.

It's nothing more than strategic retreat. Hudnah, you might call it.


TripleThreat:

-----
I think the term "sex slave" for an action that is needed to replace the men of society, so that the society does not become extinct, is stretching it a little (to say the least).
-----

How on earth does Israelite need change what was done to the innocent Midianite women, boys and girls?


-----
No, I told you the reason (IMO) that baby boys were killed is because baby boys have this nasty little habit of growing into "big, strong boys" that tend to seek to avenge the deaths of their fathers.

Killing the baby boys is a means of preventing the next generation of Midianites from repeating the past, only maybe being more successful than their fathers were. It’s about survival.
-----

Why don't we do that now?


-----
The killing of your enemy's young males occurs more than once in the Bible, and by people other than the Hebrews. It seems like a common way of keeping your "enemy's army small or non existent". Seems like more of a survival thing for Isreal rather than "God being pissed off".
-----

Yes, done by others as well, except you happen to believe that Israel was justified by God's command and the others were not.

There is a logical gap the size of the Grand Canyon whose existence you refuse to acknowledge.

You constantly offer up human justifications for the actions of God. It's baffling.

Until you are able to put up a credible defense to counter your claim the statement you just made is unfounded ignorant.

You are a non-believer. I respect that stand. However, don't allow your personal beliefs cloud the facts that are pretty much common knowledge. You may choose not to believe that the bible is not historically accurate but that belief is based on ignorance and not fact.

  

Bees view point -

"How are things going?" one bee asked another.

"Terrible," the second bee replied. "I can't find any flowers or pollen anywhere."

No problem," said the first bee. "Just fly down this street until you see all the cars. There's an outdoor bar mitzvah going on with lots of flower arrangements and fresh fruit."

Thanks!" said the second bee, buzzing off.

Later the two bees ran into one another, and the second bee thanked the first bee for the tip.

Then the first bee asked, "But what's that thing on your head?"

My yarmulke," the second bee replied. I didn't want them to think I was a wasp."

"You may choose not to believe that the bible is not historically accurate but that belief is based on ignorance and not fact."


The argument is a nonstarter. Even if the bible is historically true it still does not prove god or show a god that is nothing more than a blood thirsty self absorbed asshole.

As far as the countless godless historians who found salvation while trying to diprove the bible could you tell me how many there are?

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

I cannot tell you exactly how many but there are several.

----
Until you are able to put up a credible defense to counter your claim the statement you just made is unfounded ignorant.
----

This sentence makes no sense.
I have to put up a credible defense to counter a claim that I made? What?

The Bible has not been proven true by historians. There are things in it that are absolutely out of the realm of reality (creation story, flood story) and the entire thing is littered with wild claims with no historical proof at all (miracles, etc...).

Sure, lineage of kings has been retained, but all good propaganda is mixed with truth. The Bible is the running record of the victors, historical facts mixed in with advocacy and deity-based apologism.


----
You may choose not to believe that the bible is not historically accurate but that belief is based on ignorance and not fact.
----

How about the fact that no credible scientist takes the flood story seriously?

A worldwide flood with absolutely no scientific evidence? Pretty incredible, no?

How on earth does Israelite need change what was done to the innocent Midianite women, boys and girls?

Not following the question. The Midianite women were not innocent, they played an active part in starting this war. They lost, they died. The boys were killed in the same way boys were killed in other post-wars, and the girls were needed for repopulation (survival of Isreal). IMO, the names of the nations are irrelevant, as this would have likely occurred no matter what countries were fighting.

Essentially, the question, in whatever form, is "Why can't God be a pussyfoot, let me do whatever I want, and foot the bill for the party?" (i.e., as the article says "Why can't God jsut forgive instea dof demanding justice).

Why don't we do that now?

I don't know. Why don't we? I'd bet there are less civilized societies that still do this (Edit: Until the UN or some organization tries to stop them). Eventually, didn't countries agree on war and post-war behaviors/treatment of POW's and those survivors left behind? I'm guessing the males of both sides decided that if they died in battle, the would prefer, at least, if there families weren't killed also. I'd go for it if someone offered that proposal to me.

Yes, done by others as well, except you happen to believe that Israel was justified by God's command and the others were not.

Egypt was justified in throwing Hebrew baby boys to crocidiles in the regard that it minmiized a potential threat to Egypt.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Again...no fact to back up your rhetoric.

Face it...you don't know other than your own personal belief and limited knowledge.

You're a hack, Adam. You ask alot of others but when your asked to provide proof and answers you fall way short of the mark.

What fact did he not back up?

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

His claim that the bible isn't historically accurate.

Can you back up the claim that the bible is historically accurate?

Sure, lineage of kings has been retained, but all good propaganda is mixed with truth. The Bible is the running record of the victors, historical facts mixed in with advocacy and deity-based apologism.

Actually, if one were going to make up the Gospel acocunt in order that it would be well-received one would write it completely different than how it is written. If you studied the Bible as with as much "fervor" as you claim, you know exactly what I mean. The authors of the Gospel "did it all wrong", if they were making it up.

There is no "win-win" situation here with in regards to critics. If aspects are shown to be true, then this nuggett but all good propaganda is mixed with truth is pulled out.

I've read quite a bit regarding the non-religious person's skeptical comments regarding the Gospels, and I don't know what a believer could say in response to "Yeah, but the true stuff is just put in there to get readers to believe the supernatural stuff". What answer would suffice? How could one prove that Christ rose from the grave? An empty tomb? No, not good enough. That body was stolen. Appearance to multitudes? No, the Gospel is just making that up. Changed behavior of Peter, James, Saul/Paul, etc ... No, they're just making that up. Rapid spread of a religion based on a guy that was crucified and Resurrected ? No, those idiots would have believed anything. Really, what can a believer say that is accepted?

It's amazing that the believer's ideas require so much proof, yet no proof or even evidence is needed to believe that [1] Jesus never lived, [2] he wasn't really dead on the cross (my all-time laughable favorite), [3] his body was stolen, [4] miscellaneous.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --