Is Polygamy Wrong?

[Gary]

I see you're incapable of thinking, just like your friend Gary is. See Jimmy, he has exposed the reality that sometimes there might be a good reason to have to kill a child, such as one being loaded with explosives and set to kill lots of people. I'm not 'inferring' anything, beyond the fact you two are black/white fundy thinkers that seem to be stuck in your black/white thought process. I never said anything about killing families of terrorist just for the fun of it. If I did, go ahead and quote me where I said that or admit that I didn't and you're just making up things because you don't actually know what I believe or think. What I have actually said is that circumstances might mean you have to; not that you should specifically target them. You are aware of these differences, right?

What you are saying is that it is moral to kill a child under the guidelines of your personally concocted morality. The woman wanting an abortion to prevent suffering severe depression is following her (concocted) morality. Why should your concocted morality be any more moral than hers?

This all proves one thing: There is no such thing as moral absolutes. Moral standards change based on the circumstances.

[JimL]

I see you're incapable of thinking, just like your friend Gary is.

Everyone is capable of thinking lilpix, its just that some of us, like yourself, are unable to think outside of the box they live in.

See Jimmy, he has exposed the reality that sometimes there might be a good reason to have to kill a child, such as one being loaded with explosives and set to kill lots of people. I'm not 'inferring' anything, beyond the fact you two are black/white fundy thinkers that seem to be stuck in your black/white thought process. I never said anything about killing families of terrorist just for the fun of it. If I did, go ahead and quote me where I said that or admit that I didn't and you're just making up things because you don't actually know what I believe or think. What I have actually said is that circumstances might mean you have to; not that you should specifically target them. You are aware of these differences, right?

I'd gladly admit that you may have never said anything like that, but since I never said that you did, whats your beef? The circumstances that Gary brought up regarding YHWY and his command to murder innocent women and children doesn't fit your category of moral necessity. What I said therefore is that, for your support of that action by the israelites as being moral in nature, and your outright dismissal of Gary as a moron for bringing it up, you seem to be no different than Trump, who advocates for the killing of the families of terrorists.

[lilpixieofterror]

What you are saying is that it is moral to kill a child under the guidelines of your personally concocted morality. The woman wanting an abortion to prevent suffering severe depression is following her (concocted) morality. Why should your concocted morality be any more moral than hers?

This all proves one thing: There is no such thing as moral absolutes. Moral standards change based on the circumstances.

Can you please explain Gary, how situational ethics proves that morality isn't absolute across the board? Let's apply your logic:

2+2=4, since 3+3=6, math must not run on rules because the answer changes due to the input.



Does that make any sense? So Gary, how does applying morality to two different situations prove that morality can't be absolute? Do you even think before you say something this dumb?

[lilpixieofterror]

Everyone is capable of thinking lilpix, its just that some of us, like yourself, are unable to think outside of the box they live in.

Black/white fundy thinking for the win again. Sorry Jimmy, but you're the one that keeps proving that you're stuck in your fundy atheist thought process.

I'd gladly admit that you may have never said anything like that, but since I never said that you did, whats your beef? The circumstances that Gary brought up regarding YHWY and his command to murder innocent women and children doesn't fit your category of moral necessity. What I said therefore is that, for your support of that action by the israelites as being moral in nature, and your outright dismissal of Gary as a moron for bringing it up, you seem to be no different than Trump, who advocates for the killing of the families of terrorists.

Sorry Jimmy, but assertions are not true. You need to demonstrate innocence and that is something you haven't demonstrated, but asserted must be true. Did these people attack Israel? According to the Bible yeah they did, so is it justified to kill people, while fighting a war? Yes or no? Sorry, but I'm not advocating killing anybody beyond what is necessary to fight a war, I'm just exposing your black/white fundy thinking before all. If somebody declares war on your lands and people and goes and kills your people (such as what the terrorist have done and continue to do), is it justified to attack their homeland and possibility of killing their families, in the process? Yes or no? If you're going to declare war against a nation, you might have to face the possibility that lots of your own people (including your families) are going to get hurt your killed in the process. Welcome to reality Jimmy, where bad things happen and actions have consequences.

[Gary]

Black/white fundy thinking for the win again. Sorry Jimmy, but you're the one that keeps proving that you're stuck in your fundy atheist thought process.



Sorry Jimmy, but assertions are not true. You need to demonstrate innocence and that is something you haven't demonstrated, but asserted must be true. Did these people attack Israel? According to the Bible yeah they did, so is it justified to kill people, while fighting a war? Yes or no? Sorry, but I'm not advocating killing anybody beyond what is necessary to fight a war, I'm just exposing your black/white fundy thinking before all. If somebody declares war on your lands and people and goes and kills your people (such as what the terrorist have done and continue to do), is it justified to attack their homeland and possibility of killing their families, in the process? Yes or no? If you're going to declare war against a nation, you might have to face the possibility that lots of your own people (including your families) are going to get hurt your killed in the process. Welcome to reality Jimmy, where bad things happen and actions have consequences.

You need to reread your Bible.

The Amalekites did not attack the Israelites, they just refused to allow them to cross their land.

And get this, Yahweh, your just and benevolent God, did not order Moses/Joshua to kill the Amalekites for refusing to let the Israelites trespass on their land, when this "crime" occurred. No, Yahweh waited about 400 years and then ordered Saul to slaughter every breathing human being, and their animals, within the Amalekite territory, for the wicked, wicked, wicked sin of their ancient ancestors--- refusing to let someone trespass on their property.

It would be like killing you, your children and your pet dog for your ancestors' crime in 1716 for refusing to allow someone to trespass on their property...in 1716.

Just?
Merciful?
Good?
Moral?

No. No. No. And no.

[Adrift]

You need to reread your Bible.

The Amalekites did not attack the Israelites, they just refused to allow them to cross their land.

Exodus 17:8 Amalek came and attacked Israel in Rephidim.

Judges 3:13 Eglon formed alliances with the Ammonites and Amalekites. He came and defeated Israel, and they seized the City of Date Palm Trees.

Judges 6:3 Whenever the Israelites planted their crops, the Midianites, Amalekites, and the people from the east would attack them. They invaded the land and devoured its crops all the way to Gaza. They left nothing for the Israelites to eat, and they took away the sheep, oxen, and donkeys. When they invaded with their cattle and tents, they were as thick as locusts. Neither they nor their camels could be counted. They came to devour the land.

Judges 6:33 All the Midianites, Amalekites, and the people from the east assembled. They crossed the Jordan River and camped in the Jezreel Valley.

Judges 7:12 Now the Midianites, Amalekites, and the people from the east covered the valley like a swarm of locusts. Their camels could not be counted; they were as innumerable as the sand on the seashore.

Judges 10:12

[Gary]

Exodus 17:8 Amalek came and attacked Israel in Rephidim.

Judges 3:13 Eglon formed alliances with the Ammonites and Amalekites. He came and defeated Israel, and they seized the City of Date Palm Trees.

Judges 6:3 Whenever the Israelites planted their crops, the Midianites, Amalekites, and the people from the east would attack them. They invaded the land and devoured its crops all the way to Gaza. They left nothing for the Israelites to eat, and they took away the sheep, oxen, and donkeys. When they invaded with their cattle and tents, they were as thick as locusts. Neither they nor their camels could be counted. They came to devour the land.

Judges 6:33 All the Midianites, Amalekites, and the people from the east assembled. They crossed the Jordan River and camped in the Jezreel Valley.

Judges 7:12 Now the Midianites, Amalekites, and the people from the east covered the valley like a swarm of locusts. Their camels could not be counted; they were as innumerable as the sand on the seashore.

Judges 10:12

First off, I don't believe that the Amalekites were ever slaughtered in mass by Saul. This alleged massacre most likely never happened.

I believe this because I (and most scholars) question if any story in the OT pre-King Omri can be trusted to have any historical validity. It most likely was all invented. However, it is the fact that the Bible condones the killing of babies and toddlers for the horrible sin of refusing to allow someone to trespass on your land that I am condemning.

And if you read the Bible, it was the refusal of the Amalekites to allow the Israelites to cross their land that is the explicit rationale for your just and holy deity requiring every man, woman, teenager, child, toddler, and infant to be slaughtered.

It's sick.

I Samuel 15



Refuse to let someone trespass on your land? Consequence: Genocide/the Final Solution for your descendants four hundred years later.

Sick, by even the lowest of standards of morality.

[Adrift]

First off, I don't believe that the Amalekites were ever slaughtered in mass by Saul. This alleged massacre most likely never happened.

I believe this because I (and most scholars) question if any story in the OT pre-King Omri can be trusted to have any historical validity. It most likely was all invented. However, it is the fact that the Bible condones the killing of babies and toddlers for the horrible sin of refusing to allow someone to trespass on your land that I am condemning.

And if you read the Bible, it was the refusal of the Amalekites to allow the Israelites to cross their land that is the explicit rationale for your just and holy deity requiring every man, woman, teenager, child, toddler, and infant to be slaughtered.

It's sick.

I Samuel 15



Refuse to let someone trespass on your land? Consequence: Genocide/the Final Solution for your descendants four hundred years later.

Sick, by even the lowest of standards of morality.

The Amalekites were nomads, and desert dwellers, and they, not Israel, were the aggressors:

Source: Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible by David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, Astrid B. Beck

The Amalekite-Israelite hostility began while the Hebrews were in Sinai, with an unprovoked attack by Amalek (Exod. 17:8-16; Deut. 25:17-18; cf. 1 Sam. 15:2-3). Although Israel defeated the Amalekites (Exod. 17:13), a long period of unbroken warfare ensued. When the Israelites attempted to enter southern Canaan, they were blocked by the Canaanites and Amalekites (Num. 14:44-45; Deut. 1:44). Later, the Moabite king Eglon hired Ammonites and Amalekites to attack the Hebrews, and the raiders from Transjordan captured "the city of palms" (Judg. 3:12-14). In the days of Gideon, Amalek invaded areas as far west and north as the region of Gaza and the valley of Jezreel (Judg. 6:3-5, 33), joining forces with the Midianites and "people of the East" and attacking on camels (Judg. 6:5; 7:12).

© Copyright Original Source

Also, most scholars do NOT question if any story in the OT, pre-King Omri, can be trusted to have any historical validity (not that you would know, since you don't even read scholarship). That is a minimalist position, and even minimalists like Israel Finkelstein believes that the general outline of the story of the Amalekite aggression against the Hebrew people is accurate,

Source: The Emergence of the Monarchy by Israel Finkelstein

At this point, part of the 'classic' reconstruction of the monarchy's incipience should be accepted. The stresses and strains with the Philistines to the west, Amalek to the south and Ammon to the east required a central (especially military) leadership...Saul's military leadership rescued Israel from the dangers in the south and east, and pushed the Philistines from the heart of the hill country.

© Copyright Original Source

So, let's count all of your gaffes here

1. You were wrong about the Amalekites having land to cross, since they were a nomadic people.

2. You were wrong about Israel waiting 400 years to take revenge against the Amalekites, since Judges mentions a long history of warfare between the two (something I noticed you ignored in your reply when you were called out).

3. You were wrong about the Amalekites not attacking Israel, since, again, we see a long history of aggression by the Amalekites against the Israelites, which was initially unprovoked.

4. You were wrong about Saul slaughtering every breathing human being, and animals within the Amalekite territory, since we see them pop up later (another thing you ignored in your reply).

5. You are wrong about what "most scholars" believe. Even minimalists believe there's some truth to the story.

6. You completely ignored the point that the command to slaughter everything was common war rhetoric for this period and culture.

Furthermore, the "city of Amalek" that Saul attacks in 1 Samuel 15:5 was likely not a city at all, but a fortified camp of some sort (see Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible or David Firth's commentary on Samuel), so it's very plausible that Saul's military campaign engaged only enemy combatants.

Not that any of this matters, since you don't even think the events described in the OT ever happened. Again, this is just you impotently shaking your tiny fist at a God you claim you believe does not exist.

And at any rate, assuming God does exist, and this creator God truly is omniscient, and truly is omnibenevolent, who are you to question what he commanded, or what he allowed to come to pass over 3,000 years ago. This tribe of nomadic people were actively undermining God's plan to bring as many people as possible to salvation, and eternal life through his chosen people. And this wasn't a one time thing for this nomadic tribe. They were given opportunity after opportunity, for centuries, to leave the Israelites alone, and to live peacefully with them, but instead, they constantly harassed, stole resources, and murdered the Israelites.

That you act like you actually care what happened to a war-like people during an uncivilized period of history 3,000 years ago is all show. A big song and dance. You don't really care. You don't even believe it happened. You're just attacking your own fundamentalist strawmen. The strawmen you constructed when you called yourself a Christian, but that none of us here actually believe in.

Christians can be thankful that it was through the psychologically and physically hard commands that Israel acted obediently upon that we now live under an administration of grace through Christ Jesus where we no longer need worry about defending a small plot of land in the middle east. It is through Christ's sacrifice that the gift of life is offered to ALL who come to him, and it is because of this administration of grace that Christianity spread; Not by taking up the sword, but by the laying down of lives through non-violent martyrdom, for the sake of the Gospel.

[Gary]

The Amalekites were nomads, and desert dwellers, and they, not Israel, were the aggressors:

Source: Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible by David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, Astrid B. Beck

The Amalekite-Israelite hostility began while the Hebrews were in Sinai, with an unprovoked attack by Amalek (Exod. 17:8-16; Deut. 25:17-18; cf. 1 Sam. 15:2-3). Although Israel defeated the Amalekites (Exod. 17:13), a long period of unbroken warfare ensued. When the Israelites attempted to enter southern Canaan, they were blocked by the Canaanites and Amalekites (Num. 14:44-45; Deut. 1:44). Later, the Moabite king Eglon hired Ammonites and Amalekites to attack the Hebrews, and the raiders from Transjordan captured "the city of palms" (Judg. 3:12-14). In the days of Gideon, Amalek invaded areas as far west and north as the region of Gaza and the valley of Jezreel (Judg. 6:3-5, 33), joining forces with the Midianites and "people of the East" and attacking on camels (Judg. 6:5; 7:12).

© Copyright Original Source

Also, most scholars do NOT question if any story in the OT, pre-King Omri, can be trusted to have any historical validity (not that you would know, since you don't even read scholarship). That is a minimalist position, and even minimalists like Israel Finkelstein believes that the general outline of the story of the Amalekite aggression against the Hebrew people is accurate,

Source: The Emergence of the Monarchy by Israel Finkelstein

At this point, part of the 'classic' reconstruction of the monarchy's incipience should be accepted. The stresses and strains with the Philistines to the west, Amalek to the south and Ammon to the east required a central (especially military) leadership...Saul's military leadership rescued Israel from the dangers in the south and east, and pushed the Philistines from the heart of the hill country.

© Copyright Original Source

So, let's count all of your gaffes here

1. You were wrong about the Amalekites having land to cross, since they were a nomadic people.

2. You were wrong about Israel waiting 400 years to take revenge against the Amalekites, since Judges mentions a long history of warfare between the two (something I noticed you ignored in your reply when you were called out).

3. You were wrong about the Amalekites not attacking Israel, since, again, we see a long history of aggression by the Amalekites against the Israelites, which was initially unprovoked.

4. You were wrong about Saul slaughtering every breathing human being, and animals within the Amalekite territory, since we see them pop up later (another thing you ignored in your reply).

5. You are wrong about what "most scholars" believe. Even minimalists believe there's some truth to the story.

6. You completely ignored the point that the command to slaughter everything was common war rhetoric for this period and culture.

Furthermore, the "city of Amalek" that Saul attacks in 1 Samuel 15:5 was likely not a city at all, but a fortified camp of some sort (see Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible or David Firth's commentary on Samuel), so it's very plausible that Saul's military campaign engaged only enemy combatants.

Not that any of this matters, since you don't even think the events described in the OT ever happened. Again, this is just you impotently shaking your tiny fist at a God you claim you believe does not exist.

And at any rate, assuming God does exist, and this creator God truly is omniscient, and truly is omnibenevolent, who are you to question what he commanded, or what he allowed to come to pass over 3,000 years ago. This tribe of nomadic people were actively undermining God's plan to bring as many people as possible to salvation, and eternal life through his chosen people. And this wasn't a one time thing for this nomadic tribe. They were given opportunity after opportunity, for centuries, to leave the Israelites alone, and to live peacefully with them, but instead, they constantly harassed, stole resources, and murdered the Israelites.

That you act like you actually care what happened to a war-like people during an uncivilized period of history 3,000 years ago is all show. A big song and dance. You don't really care. You don't even believe it happened. You're just attacking your own fundamentalist strawmen. The strawmen you constructed when you called yourself a Christian, but that none of us here actually believe in.

Christians can be thankful that it was through the psychologically and physically hard commands that Israel acted obediently upon that we now live under an administration of grace through Christ Jesus where we no longer need worry about defending a small plot of land in the middle east. It is through Christ's sacrifice that the gift of life is offered to ALL who come to him, and it is because of this administration of grace that Christianity spread; Not by taking up the sword, but by the laying down of lives through non-violent martyrdom, for the sake of the Gospel.

Your superstition-based belief system which justifies the slaughter of millions of little children in the Great Flood, the Final Plague of Egypt, the Amalekites, the Midianites, and the Canaanites is the epitome of evil and immorality. Thank goodness your belief system (fundamentalist Christianity) is in its death throes in the educated West.

[Adrift]

Your superstition-based belief system which justifies the slaughter of millions of little children in the Great Flood, the Final Plague of Egypt, the Amalekites, the Midianites, and the Canaanites is the epitome of evil and immorality. Thank goodness your belief system (fundamentalist Christianity) is in its death throes in the educated West.

Fantastic rebuttal.

[One Bad Pig]

Fantastic rebuttal.

Par for the course, frankly.

[Gary]

Fantastic rebuttal.

thanks

[JimL]

Fantastic rebuttal.

The part of the story you seem to be ignoring Adrift is the immoral command of your believed in god to murder everyone including innocent women and children, not to mention animals. Focusing on who started it is childish and not the issue. Ordering men to murder women and children is tantamount to murdering them yourself, and if morality is objective, if the murder, the butchering of infants, is objectively immoral, then your god is immoral. Yeah, I know, so long as the command came from god the slaughter of women and their infants is a perfectly good and moral thing to do, correct? So much for objective morality!

[Gary]

The part of the story you seem to be ignoring Adrift is the immoral command of your believed in god to murder everyone including innocent women and children, not to mention animals. Focusing on who started it is childish and not the issue. Ordering men to murder women and children is tantamount to murdering them yourself, and if morality is objective, if the murder, the butchering of infants, is objectively immoral, then your god is immoral. Yeah, I know, so long as the command came from god the slaughter of women and their infants is a perfectly good and moral thing to do, correct? So much for objective morality!

It seems almost hopeless to get these conservative Christians to see the immorality in their thinking, Jim. I know because I used to hold the very same views and use the very same arguments to defend "God".

If every fiber of your being believes that God is good and just then no matter what you find out he did or ordered to be done in the distant past, regardless of how repulsive and abhorrent such behavior would be viewed today, you will never see his actions as wrong. Your brain will always find an excuse to explain how the most barbaric act is good and even an act of love. It is truly twisted, brainwashed thinking.

I'm not sure what can be done to help our conservative Christian friends currently commenting on this thread to see the immorality of their belief system. My hope is that Christians who have not yet been heavily indoctrinated will view these posts and a little light will go on in their brains that says, "Hey. That's wrong. Conservative Christianity is wrong."

Those who are thoroughly indoctrinated are most likely beyond any hope. We must concentrate our efforts of enlightenment on the younger generations of theists.

[JimL]

It seems almost hopeless to get these conservative Christians to see the immorality in their thinking, Jim. I know because I used to hold the very same views and use the very same arguments to defend "God".

If every fiber of your being believes that God is good and just then no matter what you find out he did or ordered to be done in the distant past, regardless of how repulsive and abhorrent such behavior would be viewed today, you will never see his actions as wrong. Your brain will always find an excuse to explain how the most barbaric act is good and even an act of love. It is truly twisted, brainwashed thinking.

I'm not sure what can be done to help our conservative Christian friends currently commenting on this thread to see the immorality of their belief system. My hope is that Christians who have not yet been heavily indoctrinated will view these posts and a little light will go on in their brains that says, "Hey. That's wrong. Conservative Christianity is wrong."

Those who are thoroughly indoctrinated are most likely beyond any hope. We must concentrate our efforts of enlightenment on the younger generations of theists.

Yes, not really their fault though, we are all indoctrinated into certain beliefs which are difficult to overcome because in a way we are what we believe. If only they could understood what being "born again" actually means.