"Choose your enemies wisely..."

Apparently, you've chosen hardcore evangelicals.

Good lord, dude, just stop. You're embarrasing yourself all over the place.

You go on to AGREE with me on all of that (among what you agree being that you misrepresented me multiple times in that thread).

So either you're didn't get it back then, are incapable of keeping your past understanding or you just don't give a **** about actually being truthful. Neither is very flattering.

You should know better by now, anyway. I never wasted a second on "bible contradictions" or anything of that sort when I debated Christians, as the fact is that they are inevitably going to be more motivated than you, and have more resources at their disposal, and by default-- they are going to walk away from the exchange feeling justified, while you walk away feeling frustrated.

Indeed, 4 and 10 contain precisely the pattern I have identified.

Look at 4 first:

We learn that god is just being oh so restrained in his "justice" that he only does "it" 4 generations back. God is nice the rest of the time it is only this one thing he does 4 generations back. And paying many generations back is not always bad, as the holocaust survivors show. A familiar pattern by many interested not in biblical exegesis for its own sake, but in defending any criticism of the bible....in this case that the "it" is not so bad because it could have been worse in going back more generations or apply to more situations.

While he doesn't exactly say this, it is clear what happens next. He goes on Bibleworks and searches for the passage. He finds out that the word can also have other connotations beside punish:
Of course, if god is merely "visiting" the 4th generation for the sins of the great great grandfather, there is hardly any need to comment on the "restraint" of god's "justice" since he isn't doing any punishing that needs restraint.

As I indicated in my first post ITT, my criticism was not even constrained to freteloo but to the tendancies to come up with a myriad different defenses every time a rather uncomfortable passage in the bible comes up. Freteloo just has a particular methodology he likes to use in this defense, and rather falsely, imo, trumps it up as nothing but biblical exogesis.

You may think I know what you are talking about when you say "Originally Posted by fretelöo
blabla (read it up yourself)" but I really don't.

The point that Aaron (and apparently you?) repeatedly missed is that in that thread I was never attempting to do biblical exegesis like you were. Indeed, I find the selective attempt to try to find alternate meanings when there is a passage that appears troublesome is rather terrible. And in general I will point how how you can't just go and try to change meanings (whether you were aiming to do this - I accept you claim you were not in the first thread, you make no such claim in this one) by looking up alternate connotations like how worker desires a job for a passage seemingly about sex.

It means that you may use the link provided next to my name to go back to the original post to learn what I - and more importantly: you - actually said. As it was rather lenghty, including a number of cites from you, I chose not to replicate it.

You do realize that the scriptures record that the people willingly entered into this covenant with God, right?

Look back one chapter to Exodus 19: The whole chapter describes a kind of negotiation between two parties, with Moses going back and forth. Maybe you see this one particular concept as being "barbaric," but it was not you who just had your sons' and daughters' lives saved by God-- who miraculously drowned the Egyptians just weeks before. My guess is that they they did not see it as barbaric, but were thankful.

Now, my point is not argue the historical reality of these things, but that "context matters" and your cultural context is very different in many orders of degree from the people who held fast to these beliefs.

Furthermore, whenever Christ listed or referenced the ten commandments, he left this one out (as well as a few others that concerned legalistic things). Because *we* are under a new covenant (and live within a different context.)

I maintain that your position in that thread had numerous contradictions and changes throughout, which I documented, in particular a massive shift right at the end which - when pointed out - resulted in your abandoning thread. But no matter. As cute as Aaron's attempt to find a contradiction in me was, there is little need to dwell on that past argument.

Sorry, you asked for it...

You neglect that I explicitely state that I have:
I wasn't lying about the breakfast or the need to consult a book. But since you find my entire approach dishonest, I suppose you don't believe that.

Not what I said:

Also not what I said:
Not what I said: Just so were clear, Bibleworks is a program, not a website. Below you'll find a screenshot, Here is the website
Also not true: Here's an actual screenshot: The verb in question is highlighted and to the right you see meanings the verb has (bible citations of that particular meaning are also provided) from Holladay Hebrew Dictionary. Somehow I can't screengrab the mouseover, which gives a grammatical analysis of the verb (replicated on top of the dictionary section). You'll notice that it's not me who's "finding out that the word can have other connotations BESIDES punishing" but rather the opposite: besides its many connotations it can also mean punish.

I believe that what I wrote is justified by what the screenshot shows:
You may continue your ravings now. Clearly, you're quite untroubled by reality.

I very much agree with the last paragraph. Indeed, if a god had just committed mass murder on my behalf I would probably bow down as well (out of sheer fear, if nothing else). Thankfully there is no reason to believe any of this actually happened.

However, by today's standards I think it is not just barbaric, but unquestionably so. If people want to move on from this religion whose canonical text is full of such barbarism, as it no longer applies today, that would be great by me. But they still cling to it, and more importantly do things like try to deny basic rights to others because of it.

Sure sweetheart, whatever you say.

I'm sorry, but after every one of your "not what I said" seems to be exactly what I just said you said. Sure, I spoke in a sarcastic tone, and you didn't. But you DID make the point that god was reserved by only going back 4 generations and you DID make the point that this response only was given fro this sin, and you DID point out the (presumably good example) of holding present germans accountable for the holocaust.

You can quibble over my exact wording as I mock these points, but the general content is accurate. And what it shows is that your first inclination in this thread was a smorgasboard of firing possible explanations that took the sting, as it were, out of the quote. You can call them scribbles all you want, but it is pretty telling of your tendency to try and make bad bible passages seem less bad with any and every back of the napkin idea you can come up.

And then you do the bibleworks thing (as I correctly guessed). Although now I am confused a bit:

Perhaps I will just ask plainly: do you believe the correct connotation is one of "punishment" for the passage as quoted?

It is all well documented.

Yeah, that's the problem. Apparently you still don't get that. Be that as it may, I'll just ignore you for now. If you post crap about the bible, I'll slap you around in the fashion you should've become familiar with by now, so don't try it. Other than that, you don't seem like someone I should spend time on that I could spend "doing the Bibleworks thing." Cheers.

You can't come in here and make statements such as this and just pretend that you did not. Defend the "face-value" interpretation of the passage, then. Demonstrate how fret's analysis is faulty. Show how and why this concept is wicked and/or barbaric. Just saying that 'oh, you guys always do this' is not a defense of your position, which you have quite clearly laid out above.

The fact is that people who study the bible do deal with difficult passages with some kind of exegesis of some sort. They often disagree.

So, you just assert over and over that 'this god could not exist,' and make moral judgments on 'this god.' Fine. I find that absurd, myself. What solidified me in Christ was the fact that his teachings confirmed themselves in my heart as something a generic 'God of Goodness' would teach. It agreed with my inner-child, so to say: 'Love your neighbor as yourself. Bind up the wounds of your enemy if he has fallen. Live for heavenly treasures, and not earthly rewards. Pay no mind to the speck in your brother's eye before you deal with the beam in your own. Pray for those who persecute you. Turn the other cheek. Offer your shirt along with your shoes.' And so on.

That you find yourself constantly reading, quoting and debating verses and texts that are found in the oldest and most ancient parts of the bible should clue you in on something: that maybe you are not being honest in your interpretation of the overall scriptures and their worth, validity and contemporary value.

Sure, and if you try to defend barbaric passages of the bible by first listing off a list of off the cuff defenses before breakfast only to go searching bible works for a non negative connotation to make the barbaric passage seem less barbaric, I will slap you around just like I slapped you into submission ITT.

For clarity, my position ITT has never been that a particular passage ought to be interpreted in a particular way. This applies generally; as I have no reason to suspect the bible is actually true in its central claims, I don't have any preference for whether a text ought to be interpreted one way or another. I am quite happy to modulate my criticisms of people based on what they say they believe. That said, there is a troubling pattern by which the "bad" parts of the bible get apologized away by theists in a myriad of different ways. And that process of just interpreting the bible in whatever way you want just to make it sound nice ought to be pointed out, which is what I did in this thread.

I didn't realize I had to explain why punishing 4 generations back was barbaric. I presumed since nobody yet seems to be defending that this is actually happening (I think I best like NotReady's claim that God might just be lieing about this), that it is agreed that it is barbaric. If you really don't see why I would think this, let me know and I will be happy to explain it.

That bibleworks program looks awesome, btw, but a little out of my price range. Are there any cheaper alternatives that you know of?

God is just because he will punish sin - the punishment is what is due to the sinner, it isn't arbitrary the way you represent it, but deserved.

God is loving because he provides the way to avoid the punishment, even for the guilty. He sent his son to the cross to provide forgiveness for sin with the only requirement being that you accept the gift.

Imagine a holocaust survivor whose entire family was wiped out in the camps. Then imagine that he has Hitler at gunpoint and says, "If you repent I not only will not shoot you but you will have joy forever."

Every sin offends God more that any human has ever suffered. He is under no obligation to save anyone but could justly wipe us all out. Instead, he provides the way to escape punishment, to be transformed spiritually, and to exist in joy for all eternity.

Then its a trick question. There can only be text. Pretty convenient.

And for the rest, an eternity of suffering.

I tend toward the annihilationist view - but if I'm wrong, God is right.

Of course. That is the starting assumption.

l shouldn't talk about the OT because you think I don't know what the word 'genre' means? I could do what you just did with the OT to the Lord of the Rings but I'm not going to, that would be silly. In any case, I'm not comparing the two (although the LoTR is much better writing), I was using it as an analogy to demonstrate the narrow focus required to choose the OT over all the other books that exist.

The OT is a very specific choice from the vast world of literature, very very specific.

'egregious' was a spellchecker correction for my mistyping of 'religion' that I clearly didn't edit in time.

Nope, that's not my definition (it's a strawman). I said that I think many more people will have a religious reason than people who are studying purely because it's literature. although when a christian chooses the OT and claims it purely for academic interest, that might make me rub my chin a bit.

The irony here is that I think the OT is just literature and not the word of a god. So, when asked what literature I would study intensely for three years, I would have a hard time choosing but I almost certainly wouldn't' choose the first part of one specific book to limit my studies to (a collection of short stories too...). From what I've seen, the bible is a pretty amateurish effort, I doubt it would get published today.

No, I don't but google does. http://christianity.about.com/od/bib...lesoftware.htm Often you can also get access to older versions of BW through universities. And I fould a few versions on ebay too.

That a question has only one answer doesn't make it a trick question. Furthermore, given how the question was phrased (and the preceeding discussion) I thought it was quite clear that text is NOT an option. If anything that suggests that the question was one imposing too strict conditions on what a divine message should or shouldn't be.

Your ignorance is truly staggering. But go on.