Is Polygamy Wrong?

[One Bad Pig]

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."

It would help your case if it weren't based on burning strawmen and various and sundry logical fallacies, Gary. But that's just about all I've seen from you. You are making a great case against atheism. Keep up the good work! Or not.

For a guy who "loves debate" you sure are terrible at it.

[Adrift]

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!

Apparently you missed the part where I explained that killing everyone was common war rhetoric, or the part where I pointed out that Saul likely engaged enemy combatants rather than civilians. But let's assume for a second that children were killed. Christians believe that we were all born into a broken and fallen world through Adam's disobedience. It is only through God's continued hand of protection that any of us continue to breathe. And before Christ's advent, it was only because of the continued faithfulness of a tiny remnant that God did not pull away his hand of protection completely, leaving this world to wither, and allowing Satan and his angels complete free reign. Now, imagine for a second that God is working on a bigger picture. Imagine that in order to fix this world, redeem all of mankind, and break Satan's hold over this world it was necessary for a perfect man to come into the world at the perfect time in history, and freely offer up his life for all of humanity. Imagine that in order to do so, God had to nurture and breathe on a people like a spark in kindling. A people who would remain faithful to him so that something great could come through them.

Throughout scripture we're told that God desired (and desires) everyone to come to him. Romans 1 tells us that since the beginning God's eternal power and his divine nature have been clearly seen, but that the ungodly/unrighteous turned away from God because their thoughts and hearts became darkened and they worshiped themselves and other created things. Imagine this same people actively attempting (no doubt through the influence of the Adversary) to disrupt God's greater plan to bring salvation to the entire world. Imagine that they raised their children to be jealous and spiteful to those faithful to God. That even if these people were somehow absorbed into the faithful (which they often were), they would form factions, and influence God's people to turn away from him, to worship idols, and actively suppress his bigger picture, which is redemption for all mankind. What if God gave these people a dozen, a hundred, a thousand chances, and yet they continued to persecute those he was in covenant relationship with? What if the treatment that the ancient Israelites showed to their enemies was sugar and spice compared to the treatment their contemporaries showed their enemies? These were the people that God was dealing with, and that he lifted his hand of protection off of.

Do you think Christians enjoy knowing that the lives of children may have been lost in the collateral damage that was the war for the souls of all mankind? Of course we don't. We hate it. And the reason we hate it is because God planted in us his heart, a heart of mercy, and love, and grace. A heart that loves people, and desires that all come into relationship with the creator. And it's likely that you feel the same way largely thanks to 2000 years of Christian influence. But unlike you, Christians know that there is more to life than the material world. And while to you the end of a physical life might seem like the worse thing imaginable, to the theist (and particularly the Christian) there is more to the world than this material reality. There is also a spiritual component, and the end of that spiritual life is the worse thing imaginable.

The end game is this. God has given me reason to trust him. And I trust that he knew what he was doing when he ordered the Israelites to go into war. And years of research and study of the work of our greatest Biblical scholars has proven again and again that there is far far more going on in the pages of the Bible than a simplistic, fundamentalist, black and white surface reading will give you. And I know that now that there is a new covenant through Christ Jesus between God and all people, that we no longer need concern ourselves with physical battles, but with spiritual battles instead.

Listen, like I told Gary, if you don't want to worship my God, because you think he's a monster, then don't. I don't think you're right, but I don't want you to worship someone you hate, and God doesn't desire forced worship either. So, right here, right now, I release you in the name of Jesus. Go in peace.

[Gary]

It would help your case if it weren't based on burning strawmen and various and sundry logical fallacies, Gary. But that's just about all I've seen from you. You are making a great case against atheism. Keep up the good work! Or not.

For a guy who "loves debate" you sure are terrible at it.

Thank you for the kind comments and encouragement.

[Gary]

Apparently you missed the part where I explained that killing everyone was common war rhetoric, or the part where I pointed out that Saul likely engaged enemy combatants rather than civilians. But let's assume for a second that children were killed. Christians believe that we were all born into a broken and fallen world through Adam's disobedience. It is only through God's continued hand of protection that any of us continue to breathe. And before Christ's advent, it was only because of the continued faithfulness of a tiny remnant that God did not pull away his hand of protection completely, leaving this world to wither, and allowing Satan and his angels complete free reign. Now, imagine for a second that God is working on a bigger picture. Imagine that in order to fix this world, redeem all of mankind, and break Satan's hold over this world it was necessary for a perfect man to come into the world at the perfect time in history, and freely offer up his life for all of humanity. Imagine that in order to do so, God had to nurture and breathe on a people like a spark in kindling. A people who would remain faithful to him so that something great could come through them.

Throughout scripture we're told that God desired (and desires) everyone to come to him. Romans 1 tells us that since the beginning God's eternal power and his divine nature have been clearly seen, but that the ungodly/unrighteous turned away from God because their thoughts and hearts became darkened and they worshiped themselves and other created things. Imagine this same people actively attempting (no doubt through the influence of the Adversary) to disrupt God's greater plan to bring salvation to the entire world. Imagine that they raised their children to be jealous and spiteful to those faithful to God. That even if these people were somehow absorbed into the faithful (which they often were), they would form factions, and influence God's people to turn away from him, to worship idols, and actively suppress his bigger picture, which is redemption for all mankind. What if God gave these people a dozen, a hundred, a thousand chances, and yet they continued to persecute those he was in covenant relationship with? What if the treatment that the ancient Israelites showed to their enemies was sugar and spice compared to the treatment their contemporaries showed their enemies? These were the people that God was dealing with, and that he lifted his hand of protection off of.

Do you think Christians enjoy knowing that the lives of children may have been lost in the collateral damage that was the war for the souls of all mankind? Of course we don't. We hate it. And the reason we hate it is because God planted in us his heart, a heart of mercy, and love, and grace. A heart that loves people, and desires that all come into relationship with the creator. And it's likely that you feel the same way largely thanks to 2000 years of Christian influence. But unlike you, Christians know that there is more to life than the material world. And while to you the end of a physical life might seem like the worse thing imaginable, to the theist (and particularly the Christian) there is more to the world than this material reality. There is also a spiritual component, and the end of that spiritual life is the worse thing imaginable.

The end game is this. God has given me reason to trust him. And I trust that he knew what he was doing when he ordered the Israelites to go into war. And years of research and study of the work of our greatest Biblical scholars has proven again and again that there is far far more going on in the pages of the Bible than a simplistic, fundamentalist, black and white surface reading will give you. And I know that now that there is a new covenant through Christ Jesus between God and all people, that we no longer need concern ourselves with physical battles, but with spiritual battles instead.

Listen, like I told Gary, if you don't want to worship my God, because you think he's a monster, then don't. I don't think you're right, but I don't want you to worship someone you hate, and God doesn't desire forced worship either. So, right here, right now, I release you in the name of Jesus. Go in peace.

"Do you think Christians enjoy knowing that the lives of children may have been lost in the collateral damage that was the war for the souls of all mankind?"

The Amalekite children were not killed as "collateral damage" in the literal reading of the text (the manner in which Jews and Christians have understood the text for several thousand years). They were murdered.

[Adrift]

"Do you think Christians enjoy knowing that the lives of children may have been lost in the collateral damage that was the war for the souls of all mankind?"

The Amalekite children were not killed as "collateral damage" in the literal reading of the text (the manner in which Jews and Christians have understood the text for several thousand years). They were murdered.

First of all, I don't care what Jews and Christians have understood about the text for thousands of years. I only care what the original author intended to convey, and what his original audience likely understood, and there is good evidence that the author intended exaggerated war rhetoric.

Secondly, no, YOU thought that God ordered murder (the unjust taking of life) when you called yourself a Christian. I don't know ANY Christians who believe that God ordered the unjust taking of life. I wouldn't want to know any person who called themselves a Christian who believed that. Again, that's why the picture of you, a doctor, accepting for YEARS that God commanded murder (the unjust taking of life) while you cheerfully went about your day treating patients is chilling to its core. I was not kidding when I said that that's the stuff of horror novels. I mean, that's Jack the Ripper crazy in my book.

[Christianbookworm]

Welcome to reality Gary. In which we are often faced with imperfect solutions.

Moral dilemmas aren't fun.

[Gary]

First of all, I don't care what Jews and Christians have understood about the text for thousands of years. I only care what the original author intended to convey, and what his original audience likely understood, and there is good evidence that the author intended exaggerated war rhetoric.

Secondly, no, YOU thought that God ordered murder (the unjust taking of life) when you called yourself a Christian. I don't know ANY Christians who believe that God ordered the unjust taking of life. I wouldn't want to know any person who called themselves a Christian who believed that. Again, that's why the picture of you, a doctor, accepting for YEARS that God commanded murder (the unjust taking of life) while you cheerfully went about your day treating patients is chilling to its core. I was not kidding when I said that that's the stuff of horror novels. I mean, that's Jack the Ripper crazy in my book.

Listen closely, Drifty: I believed exactly like you when I was a Christian: God can do no wrong, therefore it was not murder.

[Gary]

Moral dilemmas aren't fun.

So you and pix admit that God chose an imperfect solution to the "Amalekite problem". Therefore your God is not perfect as he claims.

[Adam]

I rather dislike your rhetoric, Adrift, and have not been reading it,
But if your logical implication is Universalism, I apologize for my impatience.

[Adrift]

Listen closely, Drifty: I believed exactly like you when I was a Christian: God can do no wrong, therefore it was not murder.

No you didn't. Going all the way back to post #12 you showed us that you didn't know the distinction between "killing" and "murder". You told us that you thought that the definition of "murder" had changed, when it had not (murder has, and always will be the unjust taking of life). Then going back to post #121 you asserted that the story of Abraham and Isaac was about a sick Canaanite deity "ordering someone to slit his child's throat and then burn his child's dead body on a burning altar". That was apparently your takeaway from Genesis 22's narrative, one you were no doubt familiar with when you called yourself a Christian, and were happy to believe in. Then you went on in post #123 to tell us that you thought that this same narrative was actually a lesson to the Israelites about sacrificing their children to their gods. I told you in #125 that that certainly wasn't OBP's takeaway of the passage, and it's certainly not mine, nor is it that of any Christian that I know of, but apparently you knew about the story, and that was your understanding of the passage. You had the nerve to call us sick? You are the sick one.

[Gary]

No you didn't. Going all the way back to post #12 you showed us that you didn't know the distinction between "killing" and "murder". You told us that you thought that the definition of "murder" had changed, when it had not (murder has, and always will be the unjust taking of life). Then going back to post #121 you asserted that the story of Abraham and Isaac was about a sick Canaanite deity "ordering someone to slit his child's throat and then burn his child's dead body on a burning altar". That was apparently your takeaway from Genesis 22's narrative, one you were no doubt familiar with when you called yourself a Christian, and were happy to believe in. Then you went on in post #123 to tell us that you thought that this same narrative was actually a lesson to the Israelites about sacrificing their children to their gods. I told you in #125 that that certainly wasn't OBP's takeaway of the passage, and it's certainly not mine, nor is it that of any Christian that I know of, but apparently you knew about the story, and that was your understanding of the passage. You had the nerve to call us sick? You are the sick one.

This is why in another post I accused you of telling untruths. If you read my posts, it is clear that what I was saying is that the definition of murder has changed. I never claimed that the ten commandments condemn all killing as murder. Secondly, I suggested that the early Hebrews may have practiced human sacrifice in their worship of Yahweh. I never said that the (imaginary) Yahweh ordered the (imaginary) Abraham to slit the throat of his (imaginary) son Isaac and burn his (imaginary) body on an (imaginary) altar.

[Christianbookworm]

So you and pix admit that God chose an imperfect solution to the "Amalekite problem". Therefore your God is not perfect as he claims.

There was no happy children's show solution. If he just took children out of bad situations, we would not learn to stop putting children in bad situations. If God played divine child protective services, we wouldn't have the chance to develop morally in that regard. Why protect children if they just disappear when something bad happens to them instead of leaving a sad reminder of why sin is bad.

[Adrift]

This is why in another post I accused you of telling untruths. If you read my posts, it is clear that what I was saying is that the definition of murder has changed.

Wow. Reading comprehension getting the best of you again. The post you JUST replied to said exactly that practically verbatim.

You told us that you thought that the definition of "murder" had changed, when it had not (murder has, and always will be the unjust taking of life).

I never claimed that the ten commandments condemn all killing as murder.

In the post you JUST replied to, I never said that you claimed that the ten commandments condemn all killing as murder. I'm not even sure how you got that out of what you just read.

Secondly, I suggested that the early Hebrews may have practiced human sacrifice in their worship of Yahweh. I never said that the (imaginary) Yahweh ordered the (imaginary) Abraham to slit the throat of his (imaginary) son Isaac and burn his body on an altar.

Yes you did. I JUST quoted you saying that directly. Here it is again in direct quotes.

Ordering someone to slit his child's throat and then burn his child's dead body on a burning altar is sick and sadistic...even if you intend to call off your "test of loyalty" at the very last second.

The Old Testament is full of sick commands from a sick Canaanite deity.

And you had the gall to call ME a liar?

[Gary]

There was no happy children's show solution. If he just took children out of bad situations, we would not learn to stop putting children in bad situations. If God played divine child protective services, we wouldn't have the chance to develop morally in that regard. Why protect children if they just disappear when something bad happens to them instead of leaving a sad reminder of why sin is bad.

So let's follow (your) God's commands to chop off the little arms, legs, and heads of the screaming, terrified little children of evil non-believers.

[Gary]

Wow. Reading comprehension getting the best of you again. The post you JUST replied to said exactly that practically verbatim.





In the post you JUST replied to, I never said that you claimed that the ten commandments condemn all killing as murder. I'm not even sure how you got that out of what you just read.




Yes you did. I JUST quoted you saying that directly. Here it is again in direct quotes.



And you had the gall to call ME a liar?

The story of Yahweh commanding Abraham to slaughter his son in a human sacrifice is a SICK story of a sick ancient deity, regardless of the fact that in the story, Yahweh never intended to allow Abraham to go through with it. It is SICK because no father should ever be tested for loyalty by ordering him to slaughter his child.

Sick.
Sick.
Sick.