Evidence for God from Science

Spock wrote:And I shall tell you to stop being needlessly rude. There are ways to communicate displeasure without barking out orders like you are the ruler over others.

I'm not being rude, I'm just telling you to stop playing games if you want to be taken seriously.

Spock wrote:You misunderstood my intent. I was not trying to be "amusing." When reviewing this thread I noticed significant levels of irrationality and many logical fallacies and misdirections, so I chose a persona that would evoke a sense of logic in the hope of elevating the conversation to something more fruitful. Most of your responses to my post seem rude and dismissive. If that is not your intent, you would do well to learn how to express yourself better.

No, sir. To come into this site with that kind of attitude shows that you came into this discussion rude and dismissive. If you think there are "significant levels of irrationality and many logical fallacies, and misdirections", then should have no problem pointing it out. Its not fruitful for someone to come here and pretend to be Spock. Would you like for me to pretend to be Steven Hawking and link you to complete replies with a soundbox? Think about it.

Spock wrote:Craig's fallacy is a false disjunction between ontology and epistemology, as I explained in the post you are responding to. It seems as if you responded before reading and comprehending my argument. Here it is again so there will be no misunderstanding. Craig's disjunction is invalid because epistemology is fundamentally dependent upon ontology. Here is how Hugh G. Gauch, Jr. explains it in his book Scientific Method in Practice:

In ordinary discourse, ontology, epistemology, and logic are reasonably distinct and recognizable topics within philosophy. But at the point where discourse begins, those topics fuse together. The reason is that epistemology presumes ontology, because what we know depends on what exists. But also ontology presumes epistemology, because what we can become aware of depends on our sensory and cognitive faculties. And logic is operating in any rational discourse.

No, sir. There is no false disjunction. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. While Ontology deals with specifically what exists. Do you understand this?

There are plenty of things that we are rational to believe in their existence, yet you are unable to prove how you know such things exist.

You say that what we become aware of depends on our sensory and cognitive faculties. You have now began to immediately argue in logical circle along with clear presuppositions that YOU MUST DEFEND.
To which I tell you that you cannot be certain about your sense experiences. Are you sure you are not just having a dream? This is a clear and major problem with your presuppositions.

Spock wrote:A complete theory of morality is no different than a complete theory of arithmetic in the sense that any complete theory must fully unify ontology, epistemology, logic, and practice.

Oh, really? So, arithmetic exists? Can you tell me where these numbers exist? You don't have any rational basis for the existence of such things. There is nothing logical, practical, and theoretically valid about what clearly is phenomenonism.

Spock wrote:My conception of objective truth is analogous to inertial frames of reference in relativistic physics. Though observers in different frames will see things differently, there are objective rules to transform from one to the other so that the objective facts concerning events in space-time can be discerned by all observers.

So, let me get this straight, motion and relativity? You're talking about the constant conjunction of physical objects. Lets make a note on that.

Spock wrote:This is what makes the Golden Rule objective.

No, it does not. Go ahead and formulate the Golden Rule. Where is this sweeping axiom that exists and is verified to be independent of us?

Spock wrote:It tells us to put ourselves in the place of the other. This is a moral symmetry

And this is objective exactly how?

Spock wrote: - any moral statement involving persons A and B must be symmetric under an interchange between those two people.

Right, THOSE TWO PEOPLE. Not a complete sweep across ALL PEOPLE. I don't think you know what the word OBJECTIVE means.

Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

Spock wrote:Simply stated, it would be logically inconsistent to apply one standard to person A and a different standard to person B, everything else being equal.

Actually, its not. Until you can prove that a standard exists INDEPENDENTLY of you, party A, party B, etc....you are logically inconsistent. You cannot claim a consistent standard. You can claim that you're consistently inconsistent. Thats as good as it gets. Maybe that what you're trying to say?

Spock wrote:The principle of moral symmetry is analogous to the symmetry principles used in physics to derive fundamental universal laws such as the conservation of angular momentum which is implied by the rotational symmetry of space by Noether's theorem.

No it is not. Physics is constant conjunction. There is no necessary connection. You're attempting to pass off physics as metaphysics. Thats invalid.

Spock wrote:This reveals the profound depth, beauty, and completeness of this theory of objective morality. It is based on the same kind of objective principles we use to derive the laws of physics.

Nope. Again, wrong. Constant conjunction.

Spock wrote:Craig does not offer a complete moral theory. A complete moral theory must unify ontology, epistemology, and practice.

He does offer a complete theory. The problem lies in the clear presuppositions you hold.

Spock wrote:It is mere assertion. It does not explain or help us understand why something is moral or immoral. It is not a moral theory at all. This is why Craig's disjunction of ontology and epistemology is fallacious. There must be a unity between the two for any moral theory to be intellectually satisfying.

Thats because helping someone understand why something is moral or immoral requires an objective basis for what is good. He hasn't made that mere assertion, he supports it. Now, you may not find it "intellectually satisfying" according to your theories (presuppositions), but that doesn't mean he is wrong or fallacious. You're just plain wrong in this respect.

You haven't answered my question. Is rape, torture, etc is OBJECTIVELY WRONG? How do YOU KNOW THAT it is or isn't? You don't have an answer because its a metaphysical question.

Spock wrote:And you obviously did not read my argument.

No, I read it. Its a poor argument. You have much to learn here.

Spock wrote:I explained it in the post to which you are responding. Here it is again:

There also seems to be an inconsistency in his examples of things that are objectively immoral. Specifically, he says "Actions like rape, torture, child abuse, and brutality are not just socially unacceptable behavior--they are moral abominations." This seems inconsistent because we see genocide (the slaughter of every man, woman, and child) commanded by God in the Bible. This appears to be a direct contradiction. If anything is objectively immoral, we must agree that genocide is objectively immoral. If we reject this proposition, would not Dr. Craig's examples of "obvious" immorality fail?

I've already explained this. You've made absolutely no valid logical argument. You've made a theology argument, and you don't understand theology.

Spock wrote:The same way you do.

Nope. This is called Tu quoque.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Spock wrote:The same way all people with a moral sense do.

Again, on my last point, you are wrong. Seriously, I can't believe you are saying that Craig doesn't intellectually satisfy you, yet THIS is acceptable to you?

Spock wrote:The Golden Rule is the root of our moral intuitions.

Again, what formulation of the Golden rule? What is the axiom? So, you say that morals are intuitive knowledge? You have a rational basis for such a claim? Or are you going to claim phenomenonism?

Spock wrote:We discern what is moral or immoral by interchanging our self with the other and asking if we would want to be subject to our own actions.

Excuse me? WE discern? In otherwords, you just admitted that your theory is a subjective moral standard.

Spock wrote:This is why the Golden Rule is objective.

Its not until you define what is Good, and show why it exists. No presuppositions.

Spock wrote:It is based on moral symmetry.

Again, no.

Spock wrote:I have explained this in detail in the last few pages of this thread. It would be good if you got up to speed.

It would be good if you actually read responses instead of begging the question.

Spock wrote:You dishonor yourself when you descend to ad hominem and the fallacy of guilt by association.

Its not an ad hominem. I'm just telling you who else has made the same argument.

Spock wrote:Nothing I wrote has anything to do with Richard Dawkins and nothing he has written appears in my argument.

You are wrong. Dawkins has made the same argument, and he was criticized for making such argument and for being a coward.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... lane-craig

Dawkins got A LOT of flak for this. Again, I'm not saying you're guilty by association. I'm saying you're guilty of making the same argument. Do you really think you're objection is unique?

Spock wrote:It is Dr. William Lane Craig who said that objective morality is "obvious" and that "we all know it."

Do you disagree with the statement? Why?

Spock wrote:It is Dr. William Lane Craig who said that "Actions like rape, torture, child abuse, and brutality are not just socially unacceptable behavior--they are moral abominations."

Right, so you agree with him?

Spock wrote:If mere child rape is a "moral abomination" what then is genocide?

Genocide is a moral abomination. Isn't it obvious?

Spock wrote:If genocide is objectively immoral, then no amount of biblical sophistry can make it moral.

Wrong. You fundamentally flip flop on your position. If you're going to accept that the judeo christian God exists, you need to have a grasp theology in order to understand why its not genocide. This is a theology objection. Not one based in logic.
To claim suddenly that the judeo christian God is sophistry, it would make your objection sophistry as well. You are either being intellectually dishonest or you are begging the question.

Spock wrote:You must deal with reality, not bury it under many words designed to misdirect.

And what is reality? You need to understand theology (at the very least you should understand ancient cultures like the Caananites), but you're historically misinformed, and biblically ignorant. Absolutely NOTHING you have to say on the subject is valid.

Spock wrote:Dr. Craig said it was OBVIOUS and I agree. Genocide is obviously a moral abomination

I am glad you agree with me. Genocide is a moral abomination.

Spock wrote:and it was commanded by Yahweh in the Bible.

No. I am sorry, but if you really believe Genocide was commanded in the bible then there is no way to put it other then you are a stubborn, and ignorant fool.

Spock wrote:Again, this is not a "Dawkins objection." According to Dr. William Lane Craig, the immorality of genocide should be self-evident to any moral being. Of course, he contradicts himself elsewhere when he attempts to justify the God of the Bible.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... lane-craig

Spock wrote:So now genocide is not defined as the slaughter of every man, woman, and child of a given group of people? Please quote a dictionary that agrees with your novel definition of genocide.

Sure thing, champ.

The deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

God didn't order extermination.

Many people have difficulty accepting the Bible’s account of Israel’s invasion of Canaan. If God is love, how could he order Israel to wipe them out? First we must see why the Bible called the Canaanites evil. Second, a study of the verses reveals a very different story. God did not issue a command for genocide, and Israel did not slay all the Canaanites.

Four hundred years before Israel the Bible first mentions the Canaanites in Genesis 15:16. God was watching their growing evil. Their behaviour and religion were both wicked. Genesis 18:16-19:29 tells the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, two cities in Canaan where gangs and swarms attacked the innocent, and RAPED THEM for fun. This evil behaviour was later picked up by the tribe of Benjamin (Judges 18:9-21). It so incensed the rest of Israel they fought a war that almost wiped out the Benjaminites.

Canaanite religion involved child sacrifice. It was a practice that increased the more their cities expanded. Unlike other ancient civilizations where such practices died out, the Canaanites perpetuated it.

Spock wrote:Dr. Craig flatly asserts that his argument is a LOGICAL argument. In the article I quoted, titled the Moral Argument, he said this:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Thats CORRECT. His argument is logical. Your argument against his position is on theology (despite how blatantly misinformed you are on the subject). NOT ONE THAT IS BASED ON LOGIC.

Spock wrote:The argument is logically valid; so if you want to deny the conclusion, you must reject one of the two premisses. So which one do you deny?

Neither one. The argument stands.

Spock wrote:Although you present your reservations as worries about (2), it’s evident that you agree that (2) is true, for you say not only that you are “morally repulsed” by child rape, but that you think “child rape should be universally condemned.” I agree.

I'm not worried about premise 2. I'm glad you agree with premise 2. Problem is that YOU don't have a rational basis for objective morals. I, on the otherhand, do have a rational basis.

Spock wrote:So if you deny that God exists, you must reject (1). But do you reject (1)? There’s nothing in your letter that suggests that you do.

No, I don't reject premise 1. Do you?

Spock wrote:Note that he presented a logical argument.

Right. Craig has presented a logical argument. You, on the otherhand, have a counter argument that is not based in logic.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:
Here is a video of Bill defending so called genocide acts in the Bible. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOgSxv37SbE

Daniel, that's a great video. Craig really makes the context clear. Without proper context, I can see how one would believe God is immoral, or at the very least, inconsistent. That's why we need to understand the context of His command regarding Canaan. God kept the Israelites enslaved for 400 years, and held out judgement on the Canaanites because of God's patience. It really is amazing that God has that much patience with us as sinners. Just think, if a nation today sacrificed their children like the Canaanites sacrificed their children to Molech. Would God still be patient as He was then? And yes, I see a parallel between canaanites sacrificing their children to their god, and Americans sacrificing their children(abortion) to their god of "self". How much longer will God be patient with us, before He uses another nation to drive us out?

There is also the issue of the "literary wording" within the bible.
The use of terms and words such as "kill all the inhabitants, men, women, children, leave no stone unturned" is quite typical ANE language to give an understanding of the scope of warfare. Much like Rome ruled all the world ( it did not and the writers knew that), or Alexander "reached the ends of the Earth" ( He didn't and the writer knew that), this way of writing was just that, a way of writing.
We still use that when we say "leave no stone unturned" or when we say "nothing was left standing" or "the whole city was flattened" and it is quite obvious that was not the case.
As we can see in the bible, the people that were "eliminated" or "wiped out" were nothing of the sort.

Butterfly wrote:
I appreciate your kind words and concern. I didn't come to the place I am at now overnight, it has been a slow journey of discovery that happened quite by surprise. My mind continues to remain open, but I will never be able to view the Bible in the same way again, as I can find no way to justify the horrible immoralities I find contained within its pages.

Thank you, Rose. I'm glad to hear that you're still open, and I pray God will lead you through healing of whatever hurts you haven't dealt with. Let me just say, and this is for you to answer to yourself, can't you hear the Holy Spirit speaking to you through all of this? God wants you to come home to rest in Him. Give Him all your burdens. Give Him all your unanswered questions. Again, Rose, no matter what happens, you have been bought and redeemed by the blood of Christ. And nothing can separate you from the love of God, in Christ Jesus. I know you are going through difficult times with your faith. God will get you through this. He promises that He will. If I have faith in anything at all, it's in the fact that as much as people fail me, and I fail myself and I fail God, God is faithful, and will not fail us as believers. He has given us His deposit(the Holy Spirit), as a guarantee in what is to come. The Holy Spirit in you is your evidence that the God you once believed in, is still with you. Don't resist His voice. He is calling you back to Him.

We tend to see through the glasses we put on.
I used to have a laundry list of issues with the bible.
Simply because it was not what I THOUGHT the bible should be.
When someone pointed out to me that just because I don't agree with something, doesn't make it wrong, I realized that it was time to take the bible for what it was and for NOT what I THOUGHT it was/should be.
While I still find some issues with a few things in the OT, I do understand them and, perhaps, more importantly I understand why I have issues with them.

B. W. wrote:

Butterfly wrote:You also twist my words to mean something other than what I intended...shame on you. You said my premise is that "Man made up the bible god to justify the oppression of women, killing of innocents, justify slavery", I said no such thing. My premise is that the Bible is biased toward the male, reflecting the same gods and male mindset present in other cultures at the time, implying that the male, tribal war god Yahweh was created in their own minds. They didn't purposely make up a god to justify anything, Yahweh just reflected their belief system of the time-period.

Explain to me the difference between: 'My (Butterfly's) premise is that the Bible is biased toward the male, reflecting the same gods and male mindset present in other cultures at the time, implying that the male, tribal war god Yahweh was created in their own minds. They didn't purposely make up a god to justify anything, Yahweh just reflected their belief system of the time-period' .... from what I said your premise was: "...Man made up the bible god to justify the oppression of women, killing of innocents, justify slavery".

You just verified what I said! after all - you did write - tribal war god Yahweh was created in their own minds. They didn't purposely make up a god to justify anything, Yahweh just reflected their belief system of the time-period

Do you see your own contradiction = 'tribal war god Yahweh was created in their own minds' = and then in same breath write: 'They didn't purposely make up a god to justify anything.' How can they create but not purposely make up a god to justify their belief system of the time-period and be calling one Yahweh?

Thank you for verifying that your premise is and was indeed this: "Man made up the bible god to justify the oppression of women, killing of innocents, justify slavery.

Sorry Mr. Admin, no matter how much you try you cannot "justify" your twisting of my words, and trying to stuff them down my throat. It is entirely different to say someone is making something up specifically to justify their actions, then to say people are creating a god to explain the way they perceive reality. I am saying that the Hebrews, like many other people living at that time-period created gods to fit their perceptions, and explain how the world was created and who created it.

B. W. wrote:

Butterfly wrote: I have nothing to apologize for, as I have accused no one of anything. My focus has been solely on the content of the Bible. I will think long and hard on whether I want to continue on such a biased forum. I thought this forum welcomed free thought, but obviously you don't like your religious views challenged, sort of like Islam?

Don't not play the victim, marytr, here. It will not work. Your are staking a claim that morals - all morals come from human experience alone. Thus, any Chrisitian man who believes the bible is a moral monster who must approve of the OT laws regrading the topic you bring up = rape, slavery, oppression of women, etc... That is how your argument paints it sister.

That is an insult to me and others here to be put on trial, declared guilty, and not even rationally hear the other sides point of view. What moral authority gives you that right to ignor what everyone who disagrees with you has wrote here?

You have insulted me and others here. We are not male chauvinist here. So stop with the insulting tone - It seems one little butterfly has opened a Pandora's box of Christian male attackers (at least 10).

Sorry brother, you can draw any implication you want from my statement that "the Bible contains moral atrocities attributed to its god, Yahweh", but that does NOT mean I said Christians who believe the Bible are moral monsters. Once again, you are twisting my words to mean something other than I intended. Why are you so defensive?

For your information, I have not ignored what others who disagree with me have said, rather I have countered their arguments. Isn't that what debates, and discussions are all about?
-

PaulSacramento wrote:We tend to see through the glasses we put on.
I used to have a laundry list of issues with the bible.
Simply because it was not what I THOUGHT the bible should be.
When someone pointed out to me that just because I don't agree with something, doesn't make it wrong, I realized that it was time to take the bible for what it was and for NOT what I THOUGHT it was/should be.
While I still find some issues with a few things in the OT, I do understand them and, perhaps, more importantly I understand why I have issues with them.

That is correct, just because I don't agree with something doesn't make it wrong...but, really that is not the issue here. The only way we humans have of discerning whether something is true, or valid is to use our reasoning and logic.

Why don't Christians believe that the Koran is true? Because they use their reasoning and logic to reject its claims. People do this all the time, so why shouldn't the same standards apply to discerning whether or not claims the Bible makes are valid or true?

-

Butterfly wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:
That is correct, just because I don't agree with something doesn't make it wrong...but, really that is not the issue here. The only way we humans have of discerning whether something is true, or valid is to use our reasoning and logic.

Why don't Christians believe that the Koran is true? Because they use their reasoning and logic to reject its claims. People do this all the time, so why shouldn't the same standards apply to discerning whether or not claims the Bible makes are valid or true?

-

Yes, it is true that the only we we can dis concern if something is true is logic and reason BUT we also have to admit to ourselves a few things:
Logic and reason are based on CURRENT understanding and limited to such.
We ALL go into something with preconceived notions of what we think it should be, we should get out of it.
We tend to get disillusioned when something isn't what we thought it should be.

We can only speak for ourselves and for no one else of course.
So...
You mention the Koran. I don't believe the Koran to be true because, having read it and studied it with a Muslim friend that is a teacher of the Koran, I found it to NOT be in line with what I see in the universe.
Of course that is 100% subjective and it most certainly works for MANY people.
When I read the bible and THOUGHT I understood what I was reading, I did not like it or agree or anything.
When I read the bible under the imporession that I KNEW what it was, I didn't like it or agree with it.
BUT never did I NOT see "reality" in it, in fact I did, I see perhaps TOO much and that is what bothered me.
So, I opened myself to the writings of those that knew far more about the0 bible than I did.
I learned what it was, what it wasn't, how it was made, why and to whom it was written.
I learned about genres and things like "context", "Historicity" and "accommodation" and things began to make sense BUT I still didn't like what I read.
So I asked the HS to guide me and to help me see, NOT because I wanted to believe in it (the bible still does NOT hold the place as Word of God for me)but because I wanted to understand it for what it was/is.
Do I still have issues with some parts? Yes of course but NOT because they happened, but because they had to happen.
When I stopped thinking that the bible should be this, that or the other thing, that it should contain THIS and nothing of THAT, that is when I began to see the truth in the bible and as the saying goes, the truth is ugly sometimes.

Why don't Christians believe that the Koran is true? Because they use their reasoning and logic to reject its claims. People do this all the time, so why shouldn't the same standards apply to discerning whether or not claims the Bible makes are valid or true?

The truth or lack there of regarding the Koran is not based on whether we like it. I agree reasoning and logic should apply. Of course let's keep in mind to that to promote logic and reasoning means we are presupposing there is a standard outside of ourselves. Saying you reject the Bible because you don't like is not a logical argument.

There are some things in the Bible where I say, "God, I'll just have to trust that Your ways are above my ways and Your thoughts beyond my thoughts." I suspect that in some cases, that will always be.

domokunrox wrote:

Spock wrote: - any moral statement involving persons A and B must be symmetric under an interchange between those two people.

Right, THOSE TWO PEOPLE. Not a complete sweep across ALL PEOPLE. I don't think you know what the word OBJECTIVE means.

Your comment reveals a gross failure to understand the most basic elements of logic. When a proposition is written that refers to "persons A and B" it is understood to be referring to two arbitrary people and therefore necessarily applies to "ALL PEOPLE." A and B are merely variables, like in an algebraic equation.

If you want this conversation to continue, you will need to show that you understand your error since it will be impossible to reason with a person who cannot grasp the elementary principles of logic.

domokunrox wrote:

Spock wrote:Simply stated, it would be logically inconsistent to apply one standard to person A and a different standard to person B, everything else being equal.

Actually, its not. Until you can prove that a standard exists INDEPENDENTLY of you, party A, party B, etc....you are logically inconsistent. You cannot claim a consistent standard. You can claim that you're consistently inconsistent. Thats as good as it gets. Maybe that what you're trying to say?

The standard of moral symmetry is independent of me and any particular individual because it is a symmetry constraint on any moral statement that involves persons A and B.

domokunrox wrote:

Spock wrote:The principle of moral symmetry is analogous to the symmetry principles used in physics to derive fundamental universal laws such as the conservation of angular momentum which is implied by the rotational symmetry of space by Noether's theorem.

No it is not. Physics is constant conjunction. There is no necessary connection. You're attempting to pass off physics as metaphysics. Thats invalid.

Your statement that "Physics is a constant conjunction" is meaningless because the word "conjunction" always refers to at at least two things. Physics is a "conjunction" with what? You didn't say. Your comment is therefore irrational.

And we see the same error in your statement "There is no necessary connection." Connection with what? Who said it was necessary? I specifically stated that moral symmetry is "analogous to the symmetry principles used in physics to derive fundamental universal laws such as the conservation of angular momentum which is implied by the rotational symmetry of space by Noether's theorem." I get the impression that this is all way over your head.

And I am not "trying to pass off physics as metaphysics." I gave an analogy that you didn't understand. That's all.

domokunrox wrote:

Spock wrote:This reveals the profound depth, beauty, and completeness of this theory of objective morality. It is based on the same kind of objective principles we use to derive the laws of physics.

Nope. Again, wrong. Constant conjunction.

If there is any "constant conjunction" it is the conjunction between your comments and the set of sentences with no meaning.

domokunrox wrote: You haven't answered my question. Is rape, torture, etc is OBJECTIVELY WRONG? How do YOU KNOW THAT it is or isn't? You don't have an answer because its a metaphysical question.

I explained but you have not understood my explanation, apparently because you don't understand basic logic that involves variables like "persons A and B."

domokunrox wrote:

Spock wrote:The Golden Rule is the root of our moral intuitions.

Again, what formulation of the Golden rule? What is the axiom? So, you say that morals are intuitive knowledge? You have a rational basis for such a claim? Or are you going to claim phenomenonism?

I have explained my argument many times in this thread. You appear oblivious to what I've written.

If you want to challenge my argument, you need to demonstrate that you can accurately represent it. If you can't do that, then it would be absurd to try to discuss it with you.

domokunrox wrote:

Spock wrote:We discern what is moral or immoral by interchanging our self with the other and asking if we would want to be subject to our own actions.

Excuse me? WE discern? In otherwords, you just admitted that your theory is a subjective moral standard.

Again, you fail to understand the most basic logic. Is the equation 1 + 2 = 3 "subjective" because "WE discern" it? Your comments make no sense at all. They are fundamentally irrational.

domokunrox wrote:

Spock wrote:It is based on moral symmetry.

Again, no.

Of course you said "no" - you don't have a clue about what moral symmetry means or why it is objective despite the fact that I've repeatedly explained it.

domokunrox wrote:

Spock wrote:and it was commanded by Yahweh in the Bible.

No. I am sorry, but if you really believe Genocide was commanded in the bible then there is no way to put it other then you are a stubborn, and ignorant fool.

Deuteronomy 2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:

So you call me a "fool" for reading and understanding the plain and obvious meaning of the text? That explains a lot. If there were any truth to your claim, you wouldn't have to descend to such false and immoral insults.

domokunrox wrote:

Spock wrote:So now genocide is not defined as the slaughter of every man, woman, and child of a given group of people? Please quote a dictionary that agrees with your novel definition of genocide.

Sure thing, champ.

The deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

God didn't order extermination.

You say "God didn't order extermination" whereas the Bible says:

Deuteronomy 7:2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

I'm sure you have some very sophisticated theological definitions of "utterly destroy them" and "show no mercy" unto them. It should be quite a hoot.

Did they "utterly destroy them" ?

PaulSacramento wrote:Did they "utterly destroy them" ?

Moses said they did. But other passages contradict what he said. So which should we believe, and why? Are you suggesting that the Bible is self-contradictory and hence unreliable?

Spock wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Did they "utterly destroy them" ?

Moses said they did. But other passages contradict what he said. So which should we believe, and why? Are you suggesting that the Bible is self-contradictory and hence unreliable?

I am suggesting UNDERSTANDING who wrote it, to whom and what genre of language was being written.
Did Alexander conquer the world? did he reach the end of the world and weep? Did thew Roman Empire stretch across all the lands?
When we now say that "no stone was left unturned, was there no stone left unturned?
When we say "kill them all and let God sort them out" do we mean kill everyone?
More close to "biblical home", when it was written that :
1 Kings 10:24
24 All the earth was seeking the presence of Solomon, ato hear his wisdom which God had put in his heart.
Did all the earth seek Solomon?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Spock wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Did they "utterly destroy them" ?

Moses said they did. But other passages contradict what he said. So which should we believe, and why? Are you suggesting that the Bible is self-contradictory and hence unreliable?

I am suggesting UNDERSTANDING who wrote it, to whom and what genre of language was being written.
Did Alexander conquer the world? did he reach the end of the world and weep? Did thew Roman Empire stretch across all the lands?
When we now say that "no stone was left unturned, was there no stone left unturned?
When we say "kill them all and let God sort them out" do we mean kill everyone?
More close to "biblical home", when it was written that :
1 Kings 10:24
24 All the earth was seeking the presence of Solomon, ato hear his wisdom which God had put in his heart.
Did all the earth seek Solomon?

Hey there Paul,

I totally agree that understanding figures of speech is utterly essential to understanding the Bible. You don't need to convince me of this fact - I learned it in Hermeneutics 101.

So let's get to the heart of the issue. Please present your case that there was no genocide commanded by God or executed by Israel.

Because it didn't happen?

If God wanted them "wiped off" the face of the planet, He certainly didn't need Israel for that (see: Sodom and Gomorrah).