> promptly proceed with an argument that is nothing but opinion.

That's an odd perception. That's not what I did at all. I spoke about the context, linguistics, historical milieu, cross-referencing. We can go deeper into the academics, if you wish, but I wasn't spewing opinion at all. I would love to discuss the issues further with you.

> Again all you are doing here is to say that the Bible is moral in this "historical" context and that god is justified because he is god (circular reasoning).

That's an odd perception. That's not what I did at all. I was explaining that the indictment of "rape" in Dt. 20 is a distortion and misreading of the text. I explained why, linguistically, contextually, and culturally. That's not circular reasoning. I never said, "God is justified because he is God." You edited that in on your own.

> Even if what you claim your god did

The accusation was that God commanded rape. It's fallacious and untrue. I'm not making claims about God, I'm reading the text accurately and pointing out the errors of the incrimination.

> Something that is "cultural" does not mean it is right.

I agree. I couldn't agree more.

> you are killing her family taking her home to be your "wife"

If the Bible had said, "Kill her too," you'd scream genocide. When the Bible says, "Let her live. Give her a home and a family" you scream abduction and rape. If the Bible said, "Leave her there," you'd scream cruelty and desertion." Actually, the middle choice is the most compassionate. In a time of war, if I were killed, it sure would be nice if someone took loving care of my wife and kids rather than slaughtered them too.

> The sole reason I point out the failures of the Bible

The reason I point out the truths about the Bible is because so few take the time to read it and understand it. I'd be more than happy to engage in discussion with you.

> I have absolutely no other interest in what the Bible says.

That's probably why you don't give any credence to linguistic analysis, contextual evidence, cultural corroboration, and historical information. It sounds like you don't want to be bothered with any facts, since you've already made up your mind. That's your prerogative, but I'm not convinced it's the wisest course.

> If you don't want people misinterpreting it or taking it literally, do something about it.

I do. I take my time to patiently explain the truth to people who are misinformed, underinformed, jump to conclusions, assume the worst without doing the research, and misinterpret what the Bible says. I would be glad to enter into discussion with you.

"There isn't much sense in discussing opinion," you say and promptly proceed with an argument that is nothing but opinion.

Again all you are doing here is to say that the Bible is moral in this "historical" context and that god is justified because he is god (circular reasoning). That is all your argument boils down to. Regardless of how much weight you try to give it with bits of your interpretation of history and philosophy. Even if what you claim your god did, had historical context that may make what they did understandable, it does not make it moral or justified.

For example, oh, good, you are killing her family taking her home to be your "wife". How kind of you. That is abduction and rape. Would you want that for your daughter? your wife? No, that does not make it OK. There is no moral context in which this is OK. Something that is "cultural" does not mean it is right. If your god were actually a moral example, then he would have made Biblical laws against abduction and rape.

I have heard all these apologetic arguments a million times and it never gets any better. I am really sick of them; they genuinely make me ill to hear. There is no context that makes these moral stories. I don't care what mental gymnastics you perform to justify this to yourself. The Bible should not be taken literally and should not be used as a moral guide. Interpret the Bible however you like so long as you do not use it to justify really horrible ideologies. The sole reason I point out the failures of the Bible is because there are people who take it literally and who interpret it in ways that allow them to justify hateful behavior.
I have absolutely no other interest in what the Bible says. If it is not used to justify hate or as a weapon against people, then I don't care how you interpret it. I don't care what it says beyond the horrible ideologies it enables. If you don't want people misinterpreting it or taking it literally, do something about it. If you can't do anything about misinterpretation or taking it literally, then stand aside. If you cannot control the damage it enables, I will do all I can to discredit it.

i get the feeling you didn't read a word I said.

> I don't know why you think this helps your case.

I think it helps my case because I presented a reasoned philosophical argument, cultural and biblical evidences, semantical explanation, and biblical study. And in return you give me, "Uh, more ramblings." Well, I for one am going to side with reason and research as over against opinion. I'd be glad to discuss the issues with you, but there isn't much sense in discussing opinion.

> he will kill you for having sex with someone of your own sex.

Have you ever bothered to investigate why, or are you prejudging the mandate without thought? Are you familiar with cult prostitution, ancient practices and preponderance of pederasty, or homosexual rape? Do you understand the Law of Moses as a holiness code, and its relationship to the character of God? Or have you prejudged the issue, and find a quick link to substantiate your a priori position? As the aphorism goes, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

> Yes, your god does command and endorse rape.

Deuteronomy 20. Another quick google search on your part, I assume. If you making the false assumption that verse 14 is about rape, you'll be astute to notice that God doesn't command rape in the verse, and that the verse doesn't even say anything about rape. You are assuming that "keep for yourselves" means they raped 'em (not a warranted assumption, unless they are also raping the animals and the other plunder), or you are assuming that "enjoying the spoils" means they raped 'em (again, there is nothing in the language that says or implies that; such implication is in your mind only).

Let's look at a few historical details instead of just opinion. In the ancient world, standard procedure was not to pay soldiers a wage. Their wages were what they could seize in plunder after a victory. The capture of people as well as stuff does not imply rape.

Secondly, Israelite soldiers were prohibited from raping women. In ancient Israelite society, sex was permitted only within the bounds of marital commitment. Rape in warfare was not an exception to the widely understood propriety of sexual fidelity. For anyone who knows ancient Israelite culture, the assumption is one the side of propriety, not on the side of rape.

Third, captive women were afforded certain rights and protections: Dt. 21.10-14. Rape was neither commanded nor allowed. In Dt. 10, as well as Dt. 21, the scenario is the same: if you take a woman as captive, you are taking her home to be your wife, not to rape her on the battlefield. Rape is a false and unjustifiable assumption on your part.

> You are justifying the violent acts of your god to achieve his ends

The research bears out what I've said, as opposed to your opinion. Despite your accusation, there is no foolish and superficial justification of the violent acts of which you accuse God.They are not in history or in the Bible. Sorry.

Yeah, I looked at your links. We'd have to talk about each one, for they're all as ludicrous and based on superficialities and misunderstandings, just as your Deut. 20 quote. It is incumbent on anyone who wishes to really understand the Bible to read it more than superficially. These links actually made me laugh they're so distorted. We can talk about the real facts and the truth if you're interested.

More rambling about how god is justified in his killings. I don't know why you think this helps your case.

Your god kills people just for loving someone of the same sex or for not worshiping him the way he wants them to but does not come out against slavery, incest, rape or murder.
All those things are ok, but he will kill you for having sex with someone of your own sex.

And rape?

Yes, your god does command and endorse rape: "As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

Here are more highlights, although I am sure you will cry "context" and claim that your god had the right to do what he did. You may even think that it was "OK back in those times" but I don't. None of this was right, at any time, in any culture.

You are justifying the violent acts of your god to achieve his ends and some people will listen to you, believe you, take it literally and they will commit those acts while believing they are following your god's commands. That is extremism.
http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
http://www.godhatesrapevictims.com/
http://www.answering-christianity.com/a ... d_rape.htm

Obviously I disagree, and I regret your misunderstanding and judgmentalism. Rationalization is justifying even where things are wrong or inappropriate; explanation is giving evidence with logical, plausible reasons. That's what I'm doing.

It sounds, by your way of reasoning, that you think all war is wrong, and that justifiable justice should have no leverage to punish (and I'm just assuming this from your writings). Here's what I think, and I hope this clarifies what I'm saying about the Bible and about God.

Violence is (unfortunately) part of human existence. Since violence plays to the survival of the strongest and the oppression of the weak, sometimes the only way to stop or control violence is with force, meaning that a qualified used of force is sometimes not only necessary, but justifiable. As a person who believes in objective morality, I believe that force can be a valid and moral response to violence under certain conditions. (1) Both the means and the end are pursuing truth, justice, and moral authority. (2) Force comes from a legitimate source and is used as the controlling societal discipline of truth, justice, and moral authority in action. Violence, for the sake of this discussion, I am defining as the exercise of authority without a legitimate moral basis, a subversive effort to supplant legitimate authority, or to use one's power to create unjust, immoral, or oppressive situations. The ideal of justice is the legitimate use of force to eradicate violence. In the real world, the goal of justice without the exercise of force is naive. Societies need a police force and military might; it's the only way to control the domineering and oppressive muscle of violence. The only way any society can achieve freedom and community is with the abiding moral authority of an ethical government, a moral military, and a neighborhood police force.

Some force is necessary, but only qualified by a legitimate basis and a legitimate exercise. A force that doesn't issue from justice and that is not contained by justice cannot achieve justice. Anything less than that is hypocrisy.

So saying, I believe that God, as a righteous being, exercises his rule with sometimes necessary force but always qualified by justice. As I mentioned, in the flood story, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Canaan conquest, the Bible takes pains to outline repeatedly and clearly that the subjects of God's justice were fully deserving of what they got. If you disagree (which I imagine you do), the burden of proof is on you to give historical evidence that they weren't so bad. And if you are claiming bias on the part of the Biblical writers, then you must also advance evidence to support your claim.

> just because your story book god did not like how they lived.

Hm. You must be reading a different Bible than I am. The Bible shows their violence, perversion, depravity, and immorality. This is unmistakably not an issue of "God did not like how they lived. I know—it's a debate strategy to simplify an opponent's arguments, and then easily push over the artificial effigy of your own creation.

> You are justifying genocide. You believe there is a context in which genocide is right.

There was no genocide. You are misreading the Biblical texts. What sounds like a command to genocide ("Kill them all") is actually the typical and common rhetorical warfare bravado of the ancient Near East. I can prove to your from the Scriptures, and from ancient society, that genocide was never intended, the commands were no understood as genocide, and genocide was never carried out. These sentences were idioms of speech. It's illegitimate to accuse God or the Israelites of genocidal warfare. I would be glad to share the research with you if you want to know what the real picture is.

> In fact, you think anything is OK, so long as "god did it".

Sorry, but this is a prejudicial accusation. I do not, in fact, think this. But I also read the Bible carefully and see that God, indeed, is a God of justice. I'd be glad to talk about it more.

> rape people

??? Now you're really out on a limb and cutting it off close to the trunk. It seems that you have made fierce decisions and have settled into a position of anger and offense, and you don't even understand the texts you're railing against. God never commanded anyone to rape anyone. Never.

> This is no different from the extremists of Islam.

It is a night and day difference. "Extreme" is a poor choice of terminology, since people who are uncompromising and moral, and therefore radical, are technically extreme. What distinguishes moral and malevolent extremism is the use of violence to achieve ends. There is nothing wrong with zeal and even devotion, but to use violence to compel others to turn to your religion is unjustifiable and morally repugnant. Both Muslims and Christians have good and compelling reasons to have strong and productive convictions about what is right and wrong, true and false. But to use violence to force proselytization is wrong.

When God sent the flood to the ancient Near East, it was not to convert them, but as a magistrate to judge them for incorrigible evil. There is a time for talk, a time for patience, and a time for action. So also Sodom and Gomorrah and Egypt with the 10 plagues. When he sent the Israelite army to Canaan, the plan was to drive them out of the land, not to kill them by genocide. But if the people wanted to be assimilated into the nation of Israelites, that was a choice also.

This is just a rambling rationalization for terrible stories. So the flood didn't kill everyone? That does not make it better. There is absolutely no context in which it is moral to kill entire populations just because your story book god did not like how they lived.

You are justifying genocide. You believe there is a context in which genocide is right.

In fact, you think anything is OK, so long as "god did it". You are making elaborate excuses for inexcusable behavior. It is terrible how easily and calmly you write out your belief that it is OK to kill people, rape people, enslave people, if your story book god decrees it or does it.

This is no different from the extremists of Islam. It is a hairs breath from this, to believing that your god is telling you to kill, and then doing it.

No, there is no context that makes this OK.

This is getting too huge to handle in a single post. I'll try, but some of the topics will be dealt with more superficially than is warranted.

> forgiveness

The forgiveness that God offers can be called "judicial forgiveness." While personal forgiveness can only be offered by the victim, judicial forgiveness can only be given by someone who has the right to judge and sentence others. God's forgiveness completely removes the guilt of sin and replaces it with his righteousness. It's a judicial act of imputation, not a personal one. God's forgiveness also requires justice: someone has to pay, even if it is a substitute. While this may not please some who want vindictive retribution, it's a legal option to fulfill justice. This may address, although briefly, your first three questions.

> The Amalekites

The command didn't mean "genocidal obliteration". In 1 Sam. 15, you'll notice that after the "genocidal obliteration," the Amalekites are still around (1 Sam. 27.8; 30.17-18). They were even still around 250 years later (1 Chr. 4.43). These writers are using the bravado warfare language and rhetoric of their day. Let me give you some examples (from a book by Paul Copan):

- Egypt’s Tuthmosis III (later 15th c.) boasted that “the numerous army of Mitanni was overthrown within the hour, annihilated totally, like those (now) not existent.” In fact, Mitanni’s forces lived on to fight in the 15th and 14th centuries BC.
- Hittite king Mursilli II (who ruled from 1322-1295 BC) recorded making “Mt. Asharpaya empty (of humanity)” and the “mountains of Tarikarimu empty (of humanity).”
- The “Bulletin” of Ramses II tells of Egypt’s less-than-spectacular victories in Syria (1274 BC). Nevertheless, he announces that he slow “the entire force” of the Hittites, indeed “all the chiefs of all the countries,” disregarding the “millions of foreigners,” which he considered “chaff.”
- In the Merneptah Stele (ca. 1230 BC), Rameses II’s son Merneptah announced, “Israel is wasted, his seed is not,” another premature declaration.
- Moab’s king Mesha (840/830 BC) bragged that the Northern Kingdom of “Israel has utterly perished for always,” which was over a century premature. The Assyrians devastated Israel in 722 BC.
- The Assyrian ruler Sennacherib (701-681 BC) used similar hyperbole: “The soldiers of Hirimme, dangerous enemies, I cut down with the sword; and not one escaped.”

The average person isn't going to pick up on this if you don't know ancient Near Eastern culture. These writers were using the normal warfare language of the day to assert "total victory," not genocide and annihilation. In Josh. 11.21-22, Joshua says he "utterly destroyed" Anakim, but then he gives Caleb permission to drive out the Anakites (Josh. 14.12-15). Was Joshua a liar or just stupid? Neither. He was speaking in a language that everyone in his day and culture would understand. When they say, "utterly destroy," they mean victory, not annihilation. He did not call for genocide on the Amalekites or on any people or ethnic group.

> Free will is not an excuse for evil, because there is evil and suffering without free will.

If there is evil without free will, it cannot be labeled "evil." It is then mere stimulus and response, or determinism and consequence. But it's not evil. There is no such thing without choice.

> babies who died in the 10 plagues and the flood

Certainly you understand how the socialization process works. Certainly you've seen the news from Africa about children being taught to murder and pillage. Certainly you've seen documentaries about the neo-Nazi culture that teaches even infants about hate and violence. Certainly you must realize, then, that a nation (or sub-group of people) steeped in hatred and violence, and that is systemically corrupt and morally bankrupt requires action to even the lowest levels.

> Hell isn't fire.

- Mt. 8.12 and Jude 13 speak of hell as darkness. If it's only fire, and fire brings light, darkness isn't a possible option.
- Lk. 13.27-28; 2 Thes. 1.7-9 speaks of hell as separation from God, and as a place of grief, but fire is not mentioned.
- Mt. 24.51 mentions punishment, but not fire.
- 2 Thes. 1.7-9; Rev. 20.14 say it's a place of death and destruction.

Why do we see so many references to fire then?
- It's a symbol of God's judgment.
- Fire is a stellar symbol of destruction
- Fire is an adequate metaphor for torment
- It's a timeless image. Everyone everywhere will always know what fire is.

> I have no idea on what you base the assertion that the punishment fits the crime.

Mt. 11.22-24 – “more tolerable”
Mt. 23.14 – “greater condemnation”
Rev. 20.13 – “each in proportion to his works”
Lk. 10.12 – “it will be more bearable for Sodom than for that town”
Lk. 12.47-48 – beaten with few blows or more blows

> North Korea

OK, now I at least understand the parallel you're making. The problem with the analogy is that in one case the potentate is a child with delusions of grandeur; in the other case, the potentate is a beneficent ruler who rules with love, justice, and mercy.

> What I am talking about in the case of God, is that you either join him in heaven, or face punishment in hell.

No analogy is perfect, but let me try to get close. Suppose you lived in north Japan, and it's March 10, 2011. Let's also suppose, for the sake of the analogy, that you somehow "know" that an immense tsunami is going to inundate the region in 24 hours. I'm talking to my friend, and I say, "A tsunami is coming tomorrow. You only have two choices: come with me, NOW, and we'll live, or stay here and die." And my friend says, "You're so narrow to say I only have two choices. Why can't we just (fill in the blank)." But I know the magnitude of this thing, and so I say, "There are only two choices: follow me, or die." Am I being outrageous? God knows the magnitude of life and death, and there are only two choices: align with Life and live, or refuse life and don't live. That doesn't make God narrow, or cruel, or stupid, but PLEADING. Just because there isn't a third choice doesn't mean there is "no justice at all."

> A murderer need only repent to be forgiven.

And the only one who can forgive is the victim. Even with forgiveness, a punishment ought to be carried out, or else anyone could falsely claim they repent to avoid the consequences of their actions.

> Because justice has been served and the punishment already meted out.

How so?

> The scapegoat logic is not moral if the man who takes on the penalty is unwilling, but a man who takes the penalty willingly and on the basis of his love for the guilty one is one of the pinnacles of morality.

It is moral to want to do take the punishment of others, but one cannot take the guilt from the perpetrator, and only the victim can forgive them of their crimes. Justice cannot also be served if the perpetrators receive no punishment whatsoever.

> He did NOT call a genocide on the Canaanites.

You're right, I was mistaken, it was the Amalekites God ordered a genocide on, and when the Israelites did not kill absolutely all of them, for example the old or the virgins, God punished the Israelites also.

> Read some of the rest of the thread for LONG explanations. And as far as the israelites being God's chosen people, you'll notice in the Bible that when the Israelites turned evil, God judged them too. God didn't play favorites; he was just.

If you read pro-Nazi literature, I'm sure you'll find plenty justification for why they thought what they were doing was right, and plenty of demonization of their enemies. Why should I take what is said about Canaanites and Amalekites at face value as reasons for killing them all? Why should I think the Amalekites were really evil?

> People used their free will to do what they wanted, which included all kinds of evil.

Free will is not an excuse for evil, because there is evil and suffering without free will. Unless you think the Fall ushered suffering throughout the entire planet for all animals, there is evil that does not depend at all on human free will. A good example of which would be the needless natural catastrophes God could have stopped, but did nothing to prevent.

> Do you think I never went to school???

Honestly, when having discussions on these matters I really can't assume how much a person knows about what we discovered in nature. Some are more educated than me, and some are creationists. I'm just saying, from my perspective morality seems to be the result of social animals living together, and has little to do with God.

> No babies were ever exterminated. Who TAUGHT you this stuff?

1 Samuel 15:3 "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

Then there are all the babies who no doubt died when God unleashed the 10 plagues on Egypt, as well as all the babies God drowned in the Flood.

> Maybe we need to examine God's sense of justice, since you seem to have a rather superficial view of it.

Sure.

> It's awfully difficult for you to tell me with certainty what Adam & Eve knew and what they didn't. I think you're extrapolated a little bit here.

Nobody has been able to give me a straight answer about what eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil did to Adam and Eve. Some take a more straightforward interpretation, and some interpret eating the fruit as the Neolithic revolution. Really, I think the only reason we don't all agree that this is entirely a made-up myth is that some religious people just can't accept that.

> The flood wasn't global. It was large, but not universal. It wiped out the wicked.

That's kind of like saying the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki only wiped out the wicked, isn't it?

> The 10 plagues of Egypt were addressed at the religious system of the Egyptian peoples. They confronted the lies of their false religion.

And they supposedly killed at the very least hundreds.

> Hell isn't fire. The Bible talks about it as punishment to fit the crime, appropriate to the infraction.

There are about two dozen verses in the NT likening punishment in the afterlife to fire, and about half of them saying that the fire is eternal. You can disregard them if you want, but if you do I have no idea on what you base the assertion that the punishment fits the crime.

> Seriously? Let's talk. I hardly know where to go with an aspersion like this.

It's a crime against Kim Il Sung to praise anything other than the NK regiment. It's a crime against God to praise anything other than Him. It's a crime in NK to do things that are not approved of by the NK regiment. It's a crime in the eyes of God to do things he doesn't approve of. Both 'states' if you will have thought crimes, both have absolute and total authority and control over your life, and both will punish you for not following their rules. At least you can die to escape from North Korea, but you can't with God.

> The same way we know anything about YHWH. He revealed Himself to us this way in the Bible.

You know God is holy because he said so?

> The person who hasn't done the research into the culture isn’t going to pick up on the fact that this stereotypical ancient Near Eastern language actually describes attacks on military forts or garrisons, not general populations that included women and children.

Really? Specific commands to kill men, women, children, infants, and even donkeys, is used to describe attacks on military outposts?

> It's illegitimate to do a surface reading of these verses and assume God's immorality.

It's similarly illegitimate to presuppose that the Israelites never did any of those things, when it is explicitly written that they did in the Bible, and to try, like William Lane Craig, to portray that ethnic cleansing as moral. Honestly, unless you presuppose that the Israelites were chosen by God and had all the rights, they were no different from any of the other warring tribes killing each other off at that time.

> Any German who surrendered was not shot. The war ended, and some of them even moved to America! I've met some of them. What's so unjust about that?

I'm sure we'll agree that it's myth to maintain that the allies behaved perfectly well, and that there weren't any soldiers who disregarded the surrender of German troops or tortured them. What I am talking about in the case of God, is that you either join him in heaven, or face punishment in hell. There is no third option. It's like saying to the German soldiers that they must join the US army after they surrender, or they will be tortured. It's not leaving them a third option, and that is no justice at all.

Usually when a natural cataclysm happens (earthquake, volcano, tornado, hurricane, etc.), people are very quick to ask why God is so cruel. But do such natural disasters have any benefits?

According to Dr. David Rogsta , one of the benefits from earthquakes, for instance, is "that Earth maintains the right levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere to compensate for the Sun’s increasing luminosity. This is accomplished by what is called the carbonate-silicate cycle. CO2 is removed from the atmosphere through weathering. The weathered products are eventually drawn into the Earth’s interior via plate tectonics. Processes inside the Earth’s interior release the CO2 back into the atmosphere via volcanoes. While all aspects of this mechanism are not yet fully understood, it has been instrumental in providing a stable environment for life on the Earth for billions of years."

As far as volcanoes, volcanic gases are the source of all the water (and most of the atmosphere) that we have today. The process of adding to the water and atmosphere is pretty slow, but if it hadn’t been going on for the past 4.5 billion years or so we’d be pretty miserable. Volcanoes also cool the earth by removing heat from the interior. They are also a source of geothermal energy and nutrient-rich soil. They suffocate poisonous gasses and release beneficial gases such as hydrogen and CO2.

Maybe, then, we need to understand that our earth is a "living" planet, and without these "tragedies," life as we know it could not exist. We need to approach our experiences with a sense of balanced understanding. These temporarily cataclysmic events also have beneficial long-term effects that make life possible on the planet. So I'll stick by what I said: A God of ultimate power creates a beautiful and functional world characterized by purpose and order.

"Gen. 1: A God of ultimate power creates a beautiful and functional world characterized by purpose and order"

Does this "purpose and order" include the shifting tectonic plates that cause violent earthquakes? Magma buildups that lead to volcanic eruptions that wiped out entire cities in ancient times? Freak weather events that would wipe out crops causing famine, disease, etc?