God's Villainy

[PoopShoot]

Yeah, seriously. It was mainly just the two of us.

Tru Dat  

[Martin TK]

... and what if "Evil" is defined as anything done against God's will?

Then God would be incapable of Evil.

Yes?

And denial of God's will would be the ultimate Evil.

Just playing Devil's advocate,
JoeActor

...yes, I suppose you're right about that. If the alleged inventor of morals defines "evil" as that which goes against his will, then he cannot commit evil. However, it should be highly suspicious that God does not adhere to his own standards.

"Don't hurt one another...but it's cool if I do it."

Well, I think every kid had his parents say "Do as I say, not as I do."

[Jac3510]

I think it should be fairly easy to correctly translate a pronoun.  Evidently I am mistaken

Yes, but that phrase is taken from a single word and I don't speak Hebrew.  It might not be that simple.  Regardless, they ALL imply that the victory was due to god's power, meaning the defeat was a failure of god's power.  Besides, who wants to leave "he" in it when that directly implicates god as  failure.  Gotta at least TRY to make the damned book make sense.

It's has nothing to do, in this case, with the translation of a pronoun.

וַיְ×"Ö´×™ ×™Ö°×"וָ×" אֶת־יְ×"וּ×"Ö¸×" וַיֹּרֶשׁ אֶת־×"Ö¸×"ָר ×›Ö´Ö¼×™ לֹא לְ×"ֹורִישׁ אֶת־יֹשְׁ×'Öµ×™ ×"ָעֵמֶק

The important words here are ×™Ö°×"וּ×"Ö¸×" וַיֹּרֶשׁ (yehudah vayyoresh). Yehudah means "Judah." Vayyoresh is literally translated "and [he] drove out." Hebrew is like Spanish or Latin, in that the subject of the verb is built into the verb itself. If you want to be technical, this is a hiphil imperfect masculine third person singular.

The question is, who is "he." It is easy to assume that the "he" here is God, since Judah is a tribe of people and would be better referred to as "they drove out" (as the NIV renders it). However, it is important to note that in Hebrew, countries and tribes are often referred to by the masculine singular. Israel as a nation is often called "he," as are various tribes. This is, of course, because Israel is the name God gave Jacob. Judah was the name of Jacob's fourth son. Each of the twelve tribes comes from each of his twelve children (except Joseph - instead, we have the two half tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim, Joseph's two children). The point is that the "he" probably points back to the tribe of Judah, in which case, while the KJV has a more literal rendering, the NIV captures the concept in English more clearly.

As far as the supposed impotence of God, the point of the text is that God was with them despite their inability to drive out the stronger nations. It's important to remember that in the ANE mind, when two nations battled, the gods of the nations were also considered at war. Any loss would have been interpreted as either a defeat of the god or that the god had turned on the people for some reason. The author is emphasizing that even in the loss, God was still with them, contrary to what public opinion may have been. As far as why they lost, Deut 7:17 makes it clear enough - God would drive out their enemies, but only little by little. They simply went too far too fast. God doesn't expressly rebuke them for it, but He didn't just role over and give them a victory, either. The point is rather obvious - on the plains (unlike in the hills), the enemy was too strong for Judah because of their iron chariots. But it was never Judah's job to be the stronger (nor ever would it be). It was their job to simply do as God demanded, and he would take care of things as needed. It is, by the way, a good lesson for modern Christians to keep in mind, but that's another story.

[PoopShoot]

It's has nothing to do, in this case, with the translation of a pronoun.

וַיְ×"Ö´×™ ×™Ö°×"וָ×" אֶת־יְ×"וּ×"Ö¸×" וַיֹּרֶשׁ אֶת־×"Ö¸×"ָר ×›Ö´Ö¼×™ לֹא לְ×"ֹורִישׁ אֶת־יֹשְׁ×'Öµ×™ ×"ָעֵמֶק

The important words here are ×™Ö°×"וּ×"Ö¸×" וַיֹּרֶשׁ (yehudah vayyoresh). Yehudah means "Judah." Vayyoresh is literally translated "and [he] drove out." Hebrew is like Spanish or Latin, in that the subject of the verb is built into the verb itself. If you want to be technical, this is a hiphil imperfect masculine third person singular.

Assuming this is accurate, it's still a matter of translating a pronoun, but the pronoun is built into the Hebrew verb.  Yes, it's semantics, but I see no reason for you to make the statement you did other than to make your argument appear more valid due to your apparent knowledge of Hebrew (or your possession of a good concordance, whichever is more accurate).

The question is, who is "he."

Actually, as I stated before, it's pretty irrelevant.

As far as the supposed impotence of God, the point of the text is that God was with them despite their inability to drive out the stronger nations. ... The author is emphasizing that even in the loss, God was still with them, contrary to what public opinion may have been.

And of what value is this presence?  You have a god who doesn't provide his own people with victory (despite a clear indication to the contrary in the verse you just "expounded"), he doesn't answer prayers in a manner that is any more reliable or meaningful than my cat does and he doesn't even bother "making men over in his image" enough to keep christians more moral than other groups.  One of my life's running jokes is the frequency with which people "find" Jesus in prison only to lose him again when they get out.  With what little he does, it's as if he doesn't exist.  You put more work into explaining away the clear implication of the scripture mentioned than your god did in helping his own chosen people obtain the land he promised to help them obtain.  THAT'S what modern christians should really take from this verse.

[Jac3510]

It's has nothing to do, in this case, with the translation of a pronoun.

וַיְ×"Ö´×™ ×™Ö°×"וָ×" אֶת־יְ×"וּ×"Ö¸×" וַיֹּרֶשׁ אֶת־×"Ö¸×"ָר ×›Ö´Ö¼×™ לֹא לְ×"ֹורִישׁ אֶת־יֹשְׁ×'Öµ×™ ×"ָעֵמֶק

The important words here are ×™Ö°×"וּ×"Ö¸×" וַיֹּרֶשׁ (yehudah vayyoresh). Yehudah means "Judah." Vayyoresh is literally translated "and [he] drove out." Hebrew is like Spanish or Latin, in that the subject of the verb is built into the verb itself. If you want to be technical, this is a hiphil imperfect masculine third person singular.

Assuming this is accurate, it's still a matter of translating a pronoun, but the pronoun is built into the Hebrew verb.  Yes, it's semantics, but I see no reason for you to make the statement you did other than to make your argument appear more valid due to your apparent knowledge of Hebrew (or your possession of a good concordance, whichever is more accurate).

The question is, who is "he."

Actually, as I stated before, it's pretty irrelevant.

Just answering your translation question, PS. You guys were talking about why one translation had it one way and another translation another. Now you know.

As far as the supposed impotence of God, the point of the text is that God was with them despite their inability to drive out the stronger nations. ... The author is emphasizing that even in the loss, God was still with them, contrary to what public opinion may have been.

And of what value is this presence?  You have a god who doesn't provide his own people with victory (despite a clear indication to the contrary in the verse you just "expounded"), he doesn't answer prayers in a manner that is any more reliable or meaningful than my cat does and he doesn't even bother "making men over in his image" enough to keep christians more moral than other groups.  One of my life's running jokes is the frequency with which people "find" Jesus in prison only to lose him again when they get out.  With what little he does, it's as if he doesn't exist.  You put more work into explaining away the clear implication of the scripture mentioned than your god did in helping his own chosen people obtain the land he promised to help them obtain.  THAT'S what modern christians should really take from this verse.

I'm not one who values relationships based on what I get out of them. Still less is God's presence only "valuable" when He employs His power on behalf of almighty man.

There's obviously an awful lot we could talk about in this short paragraph. Theological notions like the idea of God being "with" someone (the distinction between Elohim and YHWH, the nature in which God fulfills His covenants, the relationship between Israel and God (as a suzerain-vassal), the meaning and purpose of prayer, the image of God, morality, and the place of discipleship in salvation, are important here. Most people fail to understand the OT, however, not for theological reasons, but for interpretational reasons: who is the intended audience, what is relationship of Judges to the rest of the OT (specifically the Torah),what is the central theme of Judges, etc.

I don't think I've ever met an atheist who wanted to seriously look at those kinds of things. I'm sure you'll forgive me if I don't expect you to break that streak. Most Christians aren't even interested in them. People have the silly idea that they should just be able to pick up a document written thousands of years ago in another language, another culture, in another continent, and that they should just be able to read it like their Sunday morning newspaper and just immediately "get" what it "means today." It's really quite astounding.

Again, the important point is extremely simple: the Israelites to whom this was written would have been amazed to know that God was with them even in defeat. God will give what God wants to give when God wants to give t. He had promised them the land. They could rest fully in that promise. Nothing, no matter how bleak it got, would change that. Just because they didn't get it on their terms meant God couldn't be trusted. And that, I would add, is something Israel needs to understand today. They aren't living in peace today by any stretch of the imagination. But God will make good on His promise. He is still with them. They should simply rest in Him. Someday, they will. The value of that presence . . . such a fantastic way to start my day. Thanks

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm not one who values relationships based on what I get out of them. Still less is God's presence only "valuable" when He employs His power on behalf of almighty man.

This is convenient for your faith.  For that very reason, you'd ought to question it more forcefully.

There's obviously an awful lot we could talk about in this short paragraph. Theological notions like the idea of God being "with" someone (the distinction between Elohim and YHWH, the nature in which God fulfills His covenants, the relationship between Israel and God (as a suzerain-vassal), the meaning and purpose of prayer, the image of God, morality, and the place of discipleship in salvation, are important here. Most people fail to understand the OT, however, not for theological reasons, but for interpretational reasons: who is the intended audience, what is relationship of Judges to the rest of the OT (specifically the Torah),what is the central theme of Judges, etc.

How could the Word of a Perfect God be so imperfectly translated as to result in thousands of sects which are often at each others' throats?

I don't think I've ever met an atheist who wanted to seriously look at those kinds of things. I'm sure you'll forgive me if I don't expect you to break that streak. Most Christians aren't even interested in them. People have the silly idea that they should just be able to pick up a document written thousands of years ago in another language, another culture, in another continent, and that they should just be able to read it like their Sunday morning newspaper and just immediately "get" what it "means today." It's really quite astounding.

A god who could do anything could make this a possibility.  The fact that it isn't so means that either god exists and is an obscurantist, or he doesn't exist, and those who proclaim him are the obscurantists.  Either way, those of us with unanswered questions are dissatisfied with this state of affairs, especially when we are smugly told that we don't "want to seriously look at those kinds of things".

Talking down to people rarely buttresses anything but your ego.

The value of that presence . . . such a fantastic way to start my day. Thanks

Yes, and I've heard many alcoholics make the same argument.  Still I don't intend on having my breakfast from a paper bag.

[Jac3510]

I'm not one who values relationships based on what I get out of them. Still less is God's presence only "valuable" when He employs His power on behalf of almighty man.

This is convenient for your faith.  For that very reason, you'd ought to question it more forcefully.

I question it on a regular basis, dear sir. It always comes back a bit stronger than it was before. But while it appears you were focusing on the second sentence in the above quote, the first has the emphasis. I hold this to be true even in my own marriage. It's a fantastic way to live, I promise you.

There's obviously an awful lot we could talk about in this short paragraph. Theological notions like the idea of God being "with" someone (the distinction between Elohim and YHWH, the nature in which God fulfills His covenants, the relationship between Israel and God (as a suzerain-vassal), the meaning and purpose of prayer, the image of God, morality, and the place of discipleship in salvation, are important here. Most people fail to understand the OT, however, not for theological reasons, but for interpretational reasons: who is the intended audience, what is relationship of Judges to the rest of the OT (specifically the Torah),what is the central theme of Judges, etc.

How could the Word of a Perfect God be so imperfectly translated as to result in thousands of sects which are often at each others' throats?

Because human beings aren't rational creatures, and we often let what we want to be the case get in the way of a clear knowledge of what is the case. Beyond that, do you speak any other languages? It's an honest question. Anyone who does translation of any kind will tell you that it virtually impossible to translate perfectly, and thus the old adage, "All translators are traitors."

I don't think I've ever met an atheist who wanted to seriously look at those kinds of things. I'm sure you'll forgive me if I don't expect you to break that streak. Most Christians aren't even interested in them. People have the silly idea that they should just be able to pick up a document written thousands of years ago in another language, another culture, in another continent, and that they should just be able to read it like their Sunday morning newspaper and just immediately "get" what it "means today." It's really quite astounding.

A god who could do anything could make this a possibility.  The fact that it isn't so means that either god exists and is an obscurantist, or he doesn't exist, and those who proclaim him are the obscurantists.  Either way, those of us with unanswered questions are dissatisfied with this state of affairs, especially when we are smugly told that we don't "want to seriously look at those kinds of things".

Assuming there is nothing logically contradictory in the notion, yes, He could. The question is what He did. I'd opt to say that God obscures to some and reveals to others. To quote, again, from someone better than myself:

To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,

‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive; For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.’ But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it" (Matt. 13:10-17)

In short, those who insist on coming to the notion with preconceived ideas are wasting their time. They do not and will never "get" the text. This doesn't mean you have to be an open minded Christian to understand the Bible. A few of my favorite scholarly resources are liberal non-Christians. There is, however, a view on the non-Christian side that is comparable to the fundamentalism of many Christians, namely, a (some may say rabid) devotion to the idea that the Bible must be maximally corrupt. The SAB is perhaps an extreme example of this. Rather than viewing it as a historical document, such people look at it precisely as Christians do--the "Word of God,"--only rather with the intent of learning and worship, with the intent of fault-finding and ridicule. If you can avoid either of the extremes, you will find in the Old and New Testament documents a remarkably consistent theological history of Israel and the early Christian Church.

Again, most don't want to do this hard work. And when I say that, you argue . . .

Talking down to people rarely buttresses anything but your ego.

It's  not about talking anyone down or buttressing my ego. There are few things I care about in this world less than that. It's merely a practical observation. People would rather make the very argument you have put forward, which can be simplified as "It's too hard! God should have made it easier!!!" There's not much to say about that, is there? No other discipline is easy. Why, pray tell, should the most important of all be? For certainly, if God exists as the Bible describes Him, then nothing is as important as knowing and understanding Him, for in that knowledge lies the determination of all our eternity.

But people want it easy. They are insisting God play by their rules. In the end, it is something of a divine game of chicken. I would only encourage those who insist on their rules to reconsider, because in that game, God doesn't have much of a reason to blink.

The value of that presence . . . such a fantastic way to start my day. Thanks

Yes, and I've heard many alcoholics make the same argument.  Still I don't intend on having my breakfast from a paper bag.

I'm sure ridiculing a person's most deeply held beliefs is somehow different than talking people down to buttress your own ego, but for the life of me, I don't see it quite yet. Personally, I was raised to be a bit more respectful than that.

[PoopShoot]

I'm not one who values relationships based on what I get out of them.

Bullshit.  Everyone values relationships based upon returns.  You value a wife for the love gives you, her parenting skills, cooking ability, etc (or any combination of these and/or other traits you value).  You wouldn't make a woman your wife if she offered nothing in return.  The same for friends, if the friend offers nothing in return, he will quickly be labeled "not much of a friend".  There's even a saying "a friend in need is a friend indeed", the meaning being that a person who is willing to provide you with something valuable (even if just moral support) when you need that something.  Every relationship that we foster is based entirely on what we get from it.

Still less is God's presence only "valuable" when He employs His power on behalf of almighty man.

I would agree.  The former being is improbable and the latter being is impossible.

Most people fail to understand the OT, however, not for theological reasons, but for interpretational reasons: who is the intended audience, what is relationship of Judges to the rest of the OT (specifically the Torah),what is the central theme of Judges, etc.

But of course: most people like to pretend that the OT doesn't shine a bad light on their god's poor character.

I don't think I've ever met an atheist who wanted to seriously look at those kinds of things.

I've never met very few theists who wanted to look honestly at those things.  The ones I had soon realized that their faith was empty.

People have the silly idea that they should just be able to pick up a document written thousands of years ago in another language, another culture, in another continent, and that they should just be able to read it like their Sunday morning newspaper and just immediately "get" what it "means today." It's really quite astounding.

That's funny, I was just thinking about how astounding it is that so many people think a bronze age document possibly could address modern issues.

Again, the important point is extremely simple: the Israelites to whom this was written would have been amazed to know that God was with them even in defeat.

With them how?  In what way was he with them?  He certainly wasn't ACTUALLY with them, he was in heaven.  He certainly didn't support them in their pursuit of fulfillment of his commands, indeed he left them to defeat the moment things got tough.  In what way was he "with" them?

God will give what God wants to give when God wants to give t.

And what does that even mean?

He had promised them the land. They could rest fully in that promise. Nothing, no matter how bleak it got, would change that. Just because they didn't get it on their terms meant God couldn't be trusted.

But it wasn't on THEIR terms, it was on GOD'S terms.  God was the one who commanded them to go.  God was the one who had the men executed who reported to Joshua that their promised land was filled with fierce warriors.  God was the one who told them that he would be with them and god was the one whose presence was identical to absence the moment superior firepower entered the frame.  God was the one who empowered their voices to fell the walls of the oldest city on earth, yet their god did NOTHING when faced with a slightly harder metal than the Hebrews had access to.

[The Magic Pudding]

That's funny, I was just thinking about how astounding it is that so many people think a bronze age document possibly could address modern issues.

It annoys me that I'm supposed to believe the words of people purporting to represent god.
I learnt early, people lie.
They lie often, about the important and the trivial.
Why didn't god write it himself, in a manner miraculously understandable to all people?
The much criticised Tax Act does a better job setting rules than the bible.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm not one who values relationships based on what I get out of them. Still less is God's presence only "valuable" when He employs His power on behalf of almighty man.

This is convenient for your faith.  For that very reason, you'd ought to question it more forcefully.

I question it on a regular basis, dear sir. It always comes back a bit stronger than it was before. But while it appears you were focusing on the second sentence in the above quote, the first has the emphasis. I hold this to be true even in my own marriage. It's a fantastic way to live, I promise you.

You need not promise me; I know as much myself.  Kindly don't patronize me, while you're at it.

How could the Word of a Perfect God be so imperfectly translated as to result in thousands of sects which are often at each others' throats?

Because human beings aren't rational creatures, and we often let what we want to be the case get in the way of a clear knowledge of what is the case. Beyond that, do you speak any other languages? It's an honest question. Anyone who does translation of any kind will tell you that it virtually impossible to translate perfectly, and thus the old adage, "All translators are traitors."

The question of imperfect translation is rendered irrelevant when you posit that a Perfect God made the Man, the Book, and the Language.  An omniscient god could make a testament impervious to mistranslation.  You must surrender this point, or surrender your own god's perfection.  You cannot logically have both.

A god who could do anything could make this a possibility.  The fact that it isn't so means that either god exists and is an obscurantist, or he doesn't exist, and those who proclaim him are the obscurantists.  Either way, those of us with unanswered questions are dissatisfied with this state of affairs, especially when we are smugly told that we don't "want to seriously look at those kinds of things".

Assuming there is nothing logically contradictory in the notion, yes, He could. The question is what He did. I'd opt to say that God obscures to some and reveals to others. To quote, again, from someone better than myself:

To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,

‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive; For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.’ But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it" (Matt. 13:10-17)

In short, those who insist on coming to the notion with preconceived ideas are wasting their time. They do not and will never "get" the text. This doesn't mean you have to be an open minded Christian to understand the Bible. A few of my favorite scholarly resources are liberal non-Christians. There is, however, a view on the non-Christian side that is comparable to the fundamentalism of many Christians, namely, a (some may say rabid) devotion to the idea that the Bible must be maximally corrupt. The SAB is perhaps an extreme example of this. Rather than viewing it as a historical document, such people look at it precisely as Christians do--the "Word of God,"--only rather with the intent of learning and worship, with the intent of fault-finding and ridicule. If you can avoid either of the extremes, you will find in the Old and New Testament documents a remarkably consistent theological history of Israel and the early Christian Church.

Again, most don't want to do this hard work. And when I say that, you argue . . .

I have emphasized the problematic passage.  If you honestly believe what you've written therein, I take it you've not raised your child(ren) with religion?  Because that too is a preconceived notion.

Secondly, if you assert that the reading of the Bible -- and its truth value -- rely on the attitude of the reader, you are admitting that your god is not omnipresent.  If your god is omnipresent, then he lives even in my atheist heart.  If he does not live there, your god has a limit.  

Also, what the hell is a "theological history"?  I don't care what they believed.  We're talking, you and me, man to man.  I don't care what they believed.  They also believed that pi equals three, and that bats were birds.

Talking down to people rarely buttresses anything but your ego.

It's  not about talking anyone down or buttressing my ego. There are few things I care about in this world less than that.

Actions speak louder than words. Drop the patronization, that your words might ring true.

It's merely a practical observation. People would rather make the very argument you have put forward, which can be simplified as "It's too hard! God should have made it easier!!!" There's not much to say about that, is there? No other discipline is easy.

Nonsense.  I can understand complex thought.  However, I cannot understand, say, a god who claims to be the epitome of justice, who then creates an eternal punishment for finite sin that we inherited (according to your religion) because our forebears bit an apple.  I'm not asking him to make it easy.  I'm asking him to be reasonable.

You should know that you're not lecturing a spring chicken here.  I'm accustomed to discipline, and have had a hard life.  I'm not asking for any favor from your god that I don't ask from anyone else around me:  be plain, make yourself  and your wants clear, and if I can accommodate them, I will.  Why is it that fallible humans around me can meet this simple standard, but your god cannot?  What I ask is easy, not hard, no matter your caricature.

Why, pray tell, should the most important of all be? For certainly, if God exists as the Bible describes Him, then nothing is as important as knowing and understanding Him, for in that knowledge lies the determination of all our eternity.

And if grasshoppers had tailgunners we'd eat robins every night.  Until you demonstrate this if, your remonstrations about "eternity" sound empty.  This passage here is a disguised appeal to fear.  As such, I reject it.

But people want it easy. They are insisting God play by their rules. In the end, it is something of a divine game of chicken. I would only encourage those who insist on their rules to reconsider, because in that game, God doesn't have much of a reason to blink.

This is a disguised Pascal's Wager.  I'm unafraid.  You know another thing Pascal said?  "The eternal silence of these infinite spaces makes me afraid."  I think in that quote you will find the root of his bullshit "wager".

I'm sure ridiculing a person's most deeply held beliefs is somehow different than talking people down to buttress your own ego, but for the life of me, I don't see it quite yet. Personally, I was raised to be a bit more respectful than that.

Ridicule?  All I did was point out that alcoholics look forward to their first drink of the morning as you look forward to your first chat with your god.  How is that "ridicule"? (Unless, of course, you consider alcoholics to be lesser than you.)

[PoopShoot]

it is something of a divine game of chicken. I would only encourage those who insist on their rules to reconsider, because in that game, God doesn't have much of a reason to blink.

Poorly veiled threats, anyone?

[pinkocommie]

it is something of a divine game of chicken. I would only encourage those who insist on their rules to reconsider, because in that game, God doesn't have much of a reason to blink.

Poorly veiled threats, anyone?

Turn it around and it sounds pretty preachy to me -

It is something of a reality-based game of chicken.  I would only encourage those who insist on their fantasies to reconsider, because in that game, reality doesn't have much of a reason to blink.

[Jac3510]

Bullshit.  Everyone values relationships based upon returns.  You value a wife for the love gives you, her parenting skills, cooking ability, etc (or any combination of these and/or other traits you value).  You wouldn't make a woman your wife if she offered nothing in return.  The same for friends, if the friend offers nothing in return, he will quickly be labeled "not much of a friend".  There's even a saying "a friend in need is a friend indeed", the meaning being that a person who is willing to provide you with something valuable (even if just moral support) when you need that something.  Every relationship that we foster is based entirely on what we get from it.

Maybe you value relationships based on what you get out of them. I don't. I think that is an absolutely terrible way to live and ultimately makes love impossible. I have very good friends who I get nothing in return from, and these are very dear to me. Just the opposite, anyone who valued my friendship based on what they got out of me wouldn't be much of a friend at all. A parasite? Sure. A friend? Not in the least.

But of course: most people like to pretend that the OT doesn't shine a bad light on their god's poor character.

It only shines a bad light on those who are don't understand the interpretational issues.

I've never met very few theists who wanted to look honestly at those things.  The ones I had soon realized that their faith was empty.

I can believe that. Most theists have a blind faith, unfortunately. But that doesn't change the fact that most people--at least the ones I've met, including atheists--don't want to do the hard work of doing history properly. They're more interested in their own snap judgments. There are few things more destructive to a well informed opinion than an inconvenient fact. Easier to ignore it, and easier still to never look for it.

That's funny, I was just thinking about how astounding it is that so many people think a bronze age document possibly could address modern issues.

That's quite a shame. You know what they say about those who don't know their history.

With them how?  In what way was he with them?  He certainly wasn't ACTUALLY with them, he was in heaven.  He certainly didn't support them in their pursuit of fulfillment of his commands, indeed he left them to defeat the moment things got tough.  In what way was he "with" them?

As I said before, that is one of the notions we would have to explore if you wanted to have a real discussion about this. God never left them, even in defeat. But the short answer to your question is that He would keep His promises, meaning they had nothing to worry about. I've already pointed you to Deut 7:22, where God expressly says, "You will not be allowed to eliminate them all at once."

And what does that even mean?

It's a rather simple statement. If God wants to give me something, He will give it to me when He wants to.

But it wasn't on THEIR terms, it was on GOD'S terms.  God was the one who commanded them to go.  God was the one who had the men executed who reported to Joshua that their promised land was filled with fierce warriors.  God was the one who told them that he would be with them and god was the one whose presence was identical to absence the moment superior firepower entered the frame.  God was the one who empowered their voices to fell the walls of the oldest city on earth, yet their god did NOTHING when faced with a slightly harder metal than the Hebrews had access to.

Exactly. God fulfills His promises on His terms. As noted, His own terms were that they would not receive the land all at once. They tried to defeat a people who were more powerful than them. They couldn't do it. The point is obvious. They got the land when God gave it to them, and not a second before. The Jews weren't strong enough to take the land for themselves precisely because the warriors were so fierce. Again, read Deut. 7:17-22. Those were God's terms. And it was on those terms He would fulfill His promise. No one else's.

[Sophus]

Bullshit.  Everyone values relationships based upon returns.  You value a wife for the love gives you, her parenting skills, cooking ability, etc (or any combination of these and/or other traits you value).  You wouldn't make a woman your wife if she offered nothing in return.  The same for friends, if the friend offers nothing in return, he will quickly be labeled "not much of a friend".  There's even a saying "a friend in need is a friend indeed", the meaning being that a person who is willing to provide you with something valuable (even if just moral support) when you need that something.  Every relationship that we foster is based entirely on what we get from it.

Maybe you value relationships based on what you get out of them. I don't. I think that is an absolutely terrible way to live and ultimately makes love impossible. I have very good friends who I get nothing in return from, and these are very dear to me. Just the opposite, anyone who valued my friendship based on what they got out of me wouldn't be much of a friend at all. A parasite? Sure. A friend? Not in the least.

Jac, your last few statements (underlined) bring all the words before it toppling down.

To me, it seems PS isn't necessarily talking about material things, rather in a very broad sense ("the love she gives you in return". It's just that everything we do in life and take time to engage in it's because we get something out of it. Always. From the same respect, if you were to tell a friend, "I don't really get anything out of being around you. No sense of pleasure, happiness, nothing...." They would probably say, "Oh, thanks! See ya. Have a nice life."

Enjoying the company of a friend does not make you a parasite. It's quid pro quo.

Well, I think every kid had his parents say "Do as I say, not as I do."

I think those parents also admit to not being perfect. Unlike God.  

[Jac3510]

You need not promise me; I know as much myself.  Kindly don't patronize me, while you're at it.

No patronizing, Thump. Only written in all sincerity. And I truly hope you do know what it is like to have relationships that you don't value based on what you get out of them. PS doesn't think anyone does . . . I'm sure you would agree, knowing such relationships as you do, how sad such a predicament must be.

The question of imperfect translation is rendered irrelevant when you posit that a Perfect God made the Man, the Book, and the Language.  An omniscient god could make a testament impervious to mistranslation.  You must surrender this point, or surrender your own god's perfection.  You cannot logically have both.

What, just because God doesn't do things your way He is either not omnipotent or not omniscient? That represents a claim to omniscience on your own part. Perhaps God has a perfectly good reason you aren't aware of as to why He wants people to have to work at it. Poets do so all the time.

Besides, your objection could be extended to anything. Why wouldn't God make physics easier? Maybe He has. Who knows. If God were to make certain things impossible, you would never know it. You entire objection, then, assumes knowledge you don't have access to.

[quoteI have emphasized the problematic passage.  If you honestly believe what you've written therein, I take it you've not raised your child(ren) with religion?  Because that too is a preconceived notion.

Secondly, if you assert that the reading of the Bible -- and its truth value -- rely on the attitude of the reader, you are admitting that your god is not omnipresent.  If your god is omnipresent, then he lives even in my atheist heart.  If he does not live there, your god has a limit.  

Also, what the hell is a "theological history"?  I don't care what they believed.  We're talking, you and me, man to man.  I don't care what they believed.  They also believed that pi equals three, and that bats were birds.[/quote]
Raising my daughter to believe in Jesus Christ isn't the same thing as coming to the text with preconceived notions. When the time comes for her to start studying her Bible, I'll do my best to see to it that she approaches it absolutely objectively.

Second, I have absolutely no idea how God's location (or lackthereof) has anything to do with my attitude when reading a text. That's just a non-sequitur. In any case, you've misunderstood omnipresence. Properly speaking, God isn't located anywhere. That would be a limitation, which would contradict the notion of a limitless God. The point is that all places--and all times--are equally "near" God.

Third,you had better care what the Israelites believed, because if you don't, you can't do history. In fact, you can't have any kind of conversation at all. People's words mean very different things depending on their situation, relation to the facts, and beliefs. As far as the little contradictions you point out, our current definition of pi is an approximation, as pi is itself an irrational number, just as much as their own. Finally, ancient taxonomy is functionally different from modern taxonomy. A bird is a flying animal. A fish is a swimming creature. By these definitions, bats are birds and whales are fish. The word tsippowr may be translated properly as "bird," but it doesn't mean "winged, bipedal, endothermic (warm-blooded), egg-laying, vertebrate animals" (following Wikipedia; pick your source). It just means a flying animal.

Actions speak louder than words. Drop the patronization, that your words might ring true.

Ah, the nature of text. Do forgive any patronization you see. None is intended.

Nonsense.  I can understand complex thought.  However, I cannot understand, say, a god who claims to be the epitome of justice, who then creates an eternal punishment for finite sin that we inherited (according to your religion) because our forebears bit an apple.  I'm not asking him to make it easy.  I'm asking him to be reasonable.

I'll open a thread on hell next week as I think the second argument is winding down. It's been on my list of things to do for sometime now.

You should know that you're not lecturing a spring chicken here.  I'm accustomed to discipline, and have had a hard life.  I'm not asking for any favor from your god that I don't ask from anyone else around me:  be plain, make yourself  and your wants clear, and if I can accommodate them, I will.  Why is it that fallible humans around me can meet this simple standard, but your god cannot?  What I ask is easy, not hard, no matter your caricature.

I hardly think you are a "spring chicken." You assertion, however, can hardly be applied universally. Is quantum mechanics clear? Perhaps, to those who study it. Is biology clear? Perhaps, to those who study it. There are certain aspects of QM and biology that are clear. There are some things that require deeper study. The same is true with theology. Some things are obvious--usually, the important things--God's existence, salvation by faith alone, the resurrection at the end of time, etc. Certainly you can examine each of these issues until you get to very difficult related questions, but almost all of them can be answered, and usually very clearly. You just have to be willing to do the hard work of looking those interpretational questions.

And if grasshoppers had tailgunners we'd eat robins every night.  Until you demonstrate this if, your remonstrations about "eternity" sound empty.  This passage here is a disguised appeal to fear.  As such, I reject it.

All discussion entails a level of assumption. If we have to prove every statement before we can make  it, we could never make any statement. On the assumption of Christianity, what I said is precisely true. We can continue to talk about whether or not Christianity actually is true, but I would think that you intelligent enough to look at what it would mean for various topics if it were.

As it stands, you seem to be trying to eat your cake and have it to. On the one hand, you want to say, "If God were real, He would make this clearer!" and then on the other, "You can't say what it would be like if God were real, because you haven't proven that God is real." You have to decide which conversation you want to have. Do you want to discuss what would be the case if God were real, or do you want to discuss whether or not God is real?

This is a disguised Pascal's Wager.  I'm unafraid.  You know another thing Pascal said?  "The eternal silence of these infinite spaces makes me afraid."  I think in that quote you will find the root of his bullshit "wager".

No wager intended. Read the statement again. I am talking specifically about whether or not God should make it easy. People want God to communicate on their terms, and if He doesn't do so the way they insist, then they argue He doesn't exist. The question is simply this: why should God communicate on your terms at all? Why should God do anything on your terms? If He is real, He can do whatever the heck He wants. We play on His terms, not vice versa.

So, it is like a game of chicken. You have your rules and God has His. God breaks your rules, and what price does He pay? Nothing. You break His rules, and what price do you pay? A lot. Does that mean, then, that you should believe? Of course not. Fear is no motivation for belief. But it does mean that you have no logical basis on which to make your argument. The prudent thing to do is say, "Well, if God is real, this is what is and is not possible, therefore, etc." As I've pointed out, if God is real, He has no obligation to play by your rules. You can get mad at Him all you want over that, but it won't change His obligation or lackthereof. So, who will blink first? It won't be God. It may not be you. I am just saying that if God is there, I would hate to be the one in that collision.

Ridicule?  All I did was point out that alcoholics look forward to their first drink of the morning as you look forward to your first chat with your god.  How is that "ridicule"? (Unless, of course, you consider alcoholics to be lesser than you.)

Actually, I don't consider alcoholics less than me. I do consider alcoholism, as a lifestyle, an inferior lifestyle. But with that aside, you are smart enough to see that comparing a person's faith to alcoholism is a type of ridicule (or, should I say, ridiculous). I would like to think you are a better person than that.