Is Polygamy Wrong?

[lilpixieofterror]

Not as bad as the men who wrote ancient mythology.

Yep, racism, religious bigotry, and chronological snobbery is the fundy atheist way. Thanks for admitting it.

[Adrift]

Adrift, try using your own brain. If god didn't actually communicate through the prophets exactly what the bible says he communicated, if the prophets are just making it up, then what is the point in believing anything at all that the prophets said about god? And really now, if god did not communicate to the prophets exactly what the bible says he communicated, then how on earth do you know the difference between what he communicated to the prophets and what they made up? And your analogy of a football coach's motivating speech with that of a prophesy from god is so weak, I can't believe that even you buy it. Seriously, tell me, when the bibls says "Thus sayeth the lord blah blah blah blah, how do you decipher between that which god actually communicated and that which the prophets made up? Well actually, I think I can answer that for you. You cherry pick out those parts that don't fit your ideal notion of god and fault the vessel of communication.



You only need a good hermeneutic for that which is not clearly understood, otherwise it is called spin.



Then tell us Adrift, what was "don't spare them, kill the men and women, infant and nursing child" an anology for? Besides that, the next verse contradicts the argument of both you and lilpix. Saul killed all the Amaleks, excepting the animals and was reproved for that disobedience. Apparently god was upset that the innocent animals weren't murdered as well.

No, my aim is to not allow the virus that was given to us to be passed on to others by you. It may be that you are a lost cause, that the infection has metastasised the cerebral cortex, but there is always hope.

Your first paragraph is mostly a strawman of the argument I've put forward. The use of figures of speech and common cultural expressions do not imply that "the prophets made it up", or that God did not communicate what he intended to communicate. The rest of your questions have already been answered in my previous posts. Reread them. Better yet, pick up a few decent commentaries on 1 Samuel, maybe think about taking those literary courses at your local community college. You're allowed to think you've "won" this conversation as well if you'd like.

[Sea of red]

Sorry, but one can compose a list, just like the one you presented, of smart and important people doing cocaine too or are you starting with the assumption that smart people can't do dumb things too? Besides, I thought smoking dope was illegal and could land you in jail, so how is smoking pot an intelligent decision?

Not everyone that smokes marijuana is some moron. Plenty of us are otherwise law-abiding citizens that cause no trouble for anybody - which goes for other recreational drug users too. Do some people take things too far? Sure, I've been down that road myself, and I'm glad I stopped. But we all have a different way of 'taking the edge off' in life, and if it doesn't involve others in a way that effects their freedom negatively, I honestly think it's nobodies business.

[lilpixieofterror]

Not everyone that smokes marijuana is some moron. Plenty of us are otherwise law-abiding citizens that cause no trouble for anybody - which goes for other recreational drug users too. Do some people take things too far? Sure, I've been down that road myself, and I'm glad I stopped. But we all have a different way of 'taking the edge off' in life, and if it doesn't involve others in a way that effects their freedom negatively, I honestly think it's nobodies business.

Still doesn't change the fact that you're taking part in an illegal activity that can land you in jail for years.

[lilpixieofterror]

Your first paragraph is mostly a strawman of the argument I've put forward. The use of figures of speech and common cultural expressions do not imply that "the prophets made it up", or that God did not communicate what he intended to communicate. The rest of your questions have already been answered in my previous posts. Reread them. Better yet, pick up a few decent commentaries on 1 Samuel, maybe think about taking those literary courses at your local community college. You're allowed to think you've "won" this conversation as well if you'd like.

We both know that he'll just declare victory and pretend he won something because understanding isn't on his agenda.

[Sea of red]

Still doesn't change the fact that you're taking part in an illegal activity that can land you in jail for years.

For use of marijuana? Um, no.

I've bailed friends out and it's only like a day max.

[JimL]

Your first paragraph is mostly a strawman of the argument I've put forward. The use of figures of speech and common cultural expressions do not imply that "the prophets made it up", or that God did not communicate what he intended to communicate. The rest of your questions have already been answered in my previous posts. Reread them. Better yet, pick up a few decent commentaries on 1 Samuel, maybe think about taking those literary courses at your local community college. You're allowed to think you've "won" this conversation as well if you'd like.

No, you didn't answer this question specifically, because that is the first time I asked it. You say the prophets didn't make it up, and yet you assert that it didn't come from god, so where then did the command, said, according to the bible, to be the word of god, to kill infants and nursing children come from? So, we both agree then that that particular command, the command to murder women and children, came from the prophets own minds, their own rhetoric, not directly from god. But if that command, or rhetoric if you will, came from the prophets own minds, then what was the actual command that was given by god, and how could you know what it was, or that it came from god, and not from the prophets own minds. I mean specifically, what was gods ultimate goal in unleashing the tribe to murder the descendents for the supposed crimes of their ancestors? How is that moral in your mind?
Btw, still think you should have a few puffs. I find that it heightens my empathy. Then try reading the O.T again, it might shock you into reality.

[Adrift]

No, you didn't answer this question specifically, because that is the first time I asked it.

I never stated that you asked them, I stated that I answered them. Go back and reread my posts #246, #248, #257 and #352.

You say the prophets didn't make it up, and yet you assert that it didn't come from god, so where then did the command, said, according to the bible, to be the word of god, to kill infants and nursing children come from?

What this sentence tells me is that you haven't the foggiest what a figure of speech is. That you have no idea what it means to use rhetoric. This is something those introductory literary courses can probably teach you. I'd offer another analogy like I did the sports one, but apparently that was too deep for you. I honestly do not know how to break it into smaller pieces for you. You'll just have to trust me when I say that it's possible for one to receive a command, and then put that command in one's own words (perhaps to add emphasis, or to make it more relatable, or whatever) when relaying it to others. If what you're really trying to ask is "where did this style of rhetoric come from", then the answer is simply from the vernacular of the region and period. We see all of Israel's contemporaries (Egyptians, Assyrians, Moabites, etc.) using similar language. As renown Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen puts it,

Source: On the Reliability of the Old Testament by Kenneth Kitchen

The type of rhetoric in question was a regular feature of military reports in the second and first millennia, as others have made very clear. We can thus be brief here. In the later fifteenth century Tuthmosis III could boast "the numerous army of Mitanni was overthrown within the hour, annihilated totally, like those (now) non-existent" - whereas, in fact, the forces of Mitanni lived to fight many another day, in the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries. Some centuries later, about 840/830, Mesha king of Moab could boast that "Israel has utterly perished for always" - a rather premature judgment at that date, by over a century! And so on, ad libitum.

© Copyright Original Source

In the writings of this period, no one thought of these sorts of contradictory claims untruthful. They would often talk about how they utterly destroyed an entire people, down to the women, children, and animals, and then, in the next few lines of text, talk about how they had dealings with them again.

So, we both agree then that that particular command, the command to murder women and children, came from the prophets own minds, their own rhetoric, not directly from god. But if that command, or rhetoric if you will, came from the prophets own minds, then what was the actual command that was given by god, and how could you know what it was, or that it came from god, and not from the prophets own minds.

This was already answered in previous posts. Reread posts #246, #248, #257 and #352. For the cliff notes version, just as in the sports example I offered, it simply means to have victory over your enemy. Of course, in Israel's case they weren't playing football.

I mean specifically, what was gods ultimate goal in unleashing the tribe to murder the descendents for the supposed crimes of their ancestors? How is that moral in your mind?

I reject your loaded question. Reread posts #246, #248, #257 and #352 for my opinion on the morality of 1 Samuel.

Btw, still think you should have a few puffs. I find that it heightens my empathy. Then try reading the O.T again, it might shock you into reality.

I've smoked plenty of weed. Drank plenty of booze. Dropped plenty of acid. Shrooms. Opium. Pills. Glue. Whippets. Crack. Meth. and a number of other drugs. Have had my friends go crazy. Lose everything. Two friends died of heroin overdoses (one just last year). I've found that it was all highly overrated. A shock into reality is about the furthest thing I've ever gained from those experiences.

[Secular Liberation]

Yep, racism, religious bigotry, and chronological snobbery is the fundy atheist way. Thanks for admitting it.

How on earth is it racism to question the scientific and literary capabilities of the people who wrote the Bible?

[lilpixieofterror]

For use of marijuana? Um, no.

I've bailed friends out and it's only like a day max.

They are lucky they are not in the military.

[lilpixieofterror]

How on earth is it racism to question the scientific and literary capabilities of the people who wrote the Bible?

You mean beyond calling them savages? Do tell Circular Balloonist, is it racist to call a bunch of brown people savages? Yes or no?

[Christianbookworm]

Couldn't resist!

[lilpixieofterror]

Couldn't resist!

Remember, it's only racist if white Christians say it, but atheist are allowed to say it and not be racist.

[JimL]

I never stated that you asked them, I stated that I answered them. Go back and reread my posts #246, #248, #257 and #352.

You give the same foolish answers, commanding the murder of innocent women and nursing infants, not to mention innocent animals, is not common war rhetoric except in the biased mind of a believer who can't bear to face the evil truth about that which he has invested his life in. Besides that, your rationalization, your spin, is contradicted by the bible itself. Saul is reproved by god because, though he killed all of the Amalekites, and says so himself, he disobeyed god and spared the animals. God then regrets making Saul king because he did not keep his command to kill everything. God was angered at Saul for not keeping his commandment to kill everything. So there it is, clear as day, clear as the nose on your face. Now rationalize that one away, tell us again how this command didn't come from god, that it was just the common rhetoric of war? Maybe now you will try to argue that god being upset with Saul for his disobedience in not killing everything like "god commanded him to" isn't factual either, heh?

What this sentence tells me is that you haven't the foggiest what a figure of speech is. That you have no idea what it means to use rhetoric. This is something those introductory literary courses can probably teach you. I'd offer another analogy like I did the sports one, but apparently that was too deep for you. I honestly do not know how to break it into smaller pieces for you. You'll just have to trust me when I say that it's possible for one to receive a command, and then put that command in one's own words (perhaps to add emphasis, or to make it more relatable, or whatever) when relaying it to others. If what you're really trying to ask is "where did this style of rhetoric come from", then the answer is simply from the vernacular of the region and period. We see all of Israel's contemporaries (Egyptians, Assyrians, Moabites, etc.) using similar language. As renown Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen puts it,

Source: On the Reliability of the Old Testament by Kenneth Kitchen

The type of rhetoric in question was a regular feature of military reports in the second and first millennia, as others have made very clear. We can thus be brief here. In the later fifteenth century Tuthmosis III could boast "the numerous army of Mitanni was overthrown within the hour, annihilated totally, like those (now) non-existent" - whereas, in fact, the forces of Mitanni lived to fight many another day, in the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries. Some centuries later, about 840/830, Mesha king of Moab could boast that "Israel has utterly perished for always" - a rather premature judgment at that date, by over a century! And so on, ad libitum.

© Copyright Original Source

In the writings of this period, no one thought of these sorts of contradictory claims untruthful. They would often talk about how they utterly destroyed an entire people, down to the women, children, and animals, and then, in the next few lines of text, talk about how they had dealings with them again.

You can't use the fact that rhetoric exists, that rhetoric is a form of human speech, as evidence in and of itself, that this particular command was itself mere rhetoric. Read the passage in context, it is very clear, the command was specific, it came from god, and Saul was reproved by god for not obeying it to the T. The proof of my case is in the following verses wherein God regrets making Saul king for the very reason that he disobeyed the command. Take your blinders off Adrift, face the facts and deal with them.

This was already answered in previous posts. Reread posts #246, #248, #257 and #352. For the cliff notes version, just as in the sports example I offered, it simply means to have victory over your enemy. Of course, in Israel's case they weren't playing football.

Yeah right Adrift. Whatever makes you feel better. Answer the question above then. If god did not give the command to kill everything, including the animals, then why was god angered at Saul, regretting making him king, for not following through with that command? Will you now argue that God wasn't really angered, that that was also made up by the prophets. Seems to me that you don't believe much about what the prophets say concerning god.

I reject your loaded question. Reread posts #246, #248, #257 and #352 for my opinion on the morality of 1 Samuel.

You reject it only because you haven't the nerve to be objective and face the facts. I give you another chance. Explain in what sense it is morally right to slaughter the descendents for the crimes of their ancestors. And if you say that that is not what was happening, then read your bible again. Here is the reason spelled out for you. 1 Samuel 15:2 - "This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt." So, explain how killing people for the crimes of their ancestors is moral?

I've smoked plenty of weed. Drank plenty of booze. Dropped plenty of acid. Shrooms. Opium. Pills. Glue. Whippets. Crack. Meth. and a number of other drugs. Have had my friends go crazy. Lose everything. Two friends died of heroin overdoses (one just last year). I've found that it was all highly overrated. A shock into reality is about the furthest thing I've ever gained from those experiences.

In all that you do be moderate my friend, if you can't do that then just stay away. But the only reason, imo, that you don't find the bible shocking in its immorality is because you read it with the presupposed notion that it is the word of god, not of men. How under those circumstances can you do anything other than to rationalize away its otherwise obvious immoral nature.

[Adrift]

Besides that, your rationalization, your spin, is contradicted by the bible itself. Saul is reproved by god because, though he killed all of the Amalekites, and says so himself, he disobeyed god and spared the animals. God then regrets making Saul king because he did not keep his command to kill everything. God was angered at Saul for not keeping his commandment to kill everything. So there it is, clear as day, clear as the nose on your face. Now rationalize that one away, tell us again how this command didn't come from god, that it was just the common rhetoric of war? Maybe now you will try to argue that god being upset with Saul for his disobedience in not killing everything like "god commanded him to" isn't factual either, heh?

Reread the posts I told you to. Saul didn't kill all of the Amalekites.