I thought the answer was obvious. No, of course not--I don't have the right even if I wanted to, which I don't, and anyway, God has other plans for reaching people. But why are you being so offensive in your posts? If you really do have an open mind, as all educated people should, you shouldn't be afraid to consider the existence of a loving God who is available to you, if you look for him. Are you afraid to even consider it? And don't say that it's prima facie ridiculous, because millions of educated people are experiencing that relationship every day. Well, every day that we let him in.

Doesn't sound like you're a very good Christian then. When you stand before the gates of heaven how are you going to justify the 1000 souls you chose not to save? Doesn't the bible pretty much command you to deal harshly (i.e. death) with heathens, even without the perk of saving of souls I threw in? The reason I press the issue is because it sounds to me like you have to be either a pretty terrible Christian or a pretty terrible human being.

Why am I being offensive? I'm just asking questions. It sounded to me earlier like you were pretty clearly OK with committing Genocide if the alternative was straying from God. For some reason I find this bothersome.

To answer your final question, I absolutely accept the possibility of a loving God. I absolutely reject the possibility he's anything like yours.

No, YJ, the Bible never once commands the slaying of heathens. Even in the OT, there is no general command to kill heathens, only occasional specific enemies (the Jews were commanded to be hospitable and kind to foreigners and travellers). In the NT, both teaching such as the parable of the tares (among many others) and the behavior of the early apostles make clear that killing the unrepentant is out of the question as a means to spread the Gospel. Needless to say, there would be no virtue in flagrantly violating one set of commands in order to "obey" others by means far different than was intended.

If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the Lord gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the Lord your God in violation of his covenant, 3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars in the sky, 4 and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, 5 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. 6 On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. 7 The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting that person to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you.

Let me guess, I'm "interpreting it wrong?"

Indeed. That was manifestly talking of the covenant people themselves. There's a difference between being a member of God's covenant people (the Jews) and turning away from him (which would get you stoned) and being somebody from another country/religion who was never in a covenant relationship with God. There was no general command to kill the latter.

you got to put it in context, but people don't like context around here. Basically this is saying if a Jew woships idols he is dead meat. It has nothing to do with heathens.

OK, I actually did find an alternative translation that said "breaking covenant," so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here - not that I see stoning somebody who only USED to follow you as any better.

What about the whole Jericho thing? It seems God commands/rewards you all to totally wreck this city and kill everything living inside?

God commanded them to destroy a _specific_ city. It was not a general command (or even permission) to destroy any heathen city they wanted.

No I got that, I think that's clear, but it's still pretty jacked up, right?

And we could certainly argue it paved the way for some rather embarrassingly similar incidences that have occurred since?

And we can argue that is a crock of shit and that such stories are hardly exclusive to the bible.

Yeah YJ, I think the latter post is a little bit of grasping. As for the former -- well, it's sobering, that's for sure. God makes it clear at various places prior to then that the destruction of the Canaanites is a punishment for their extreme wickedness (presumably violence and idol worship, among other things). Indeed, it's even made clear that they were _not_ allowed to be killed earlier, because they were not sufficiently wicked.

No question, the Israelites acting as God's executioners was a solemn and historically unique event (and you'll notice in that story, by the way, that they didn't actually directly kill anybody, as they did in some other instances -- God was quite clear that they were to be the mere instigators of a miraculous destruction). Anyway, the point of relevancy to this particular discussion is that such a thing was not warranted without God's specific directive, and that it has been made clear in the NT that it will not happen again in this age. So, to address your example, it would never be up to a Christian to decide that some tribe had been so wicked in its obstruction that it should be destroyed.

Really, SC, Tu quoque AND begging the question in defense of the Bible (sorry, I'm on a fallacy kick lately)

"....and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys."

I don't follow, Semck. How can you say they didn't kill anybody directly?

Ah, fair point YJ, I should have read the story more recently (like before responding, lol). Just call me obi. Anyway, as I indicated in my parenthesis, they did directly kill in other instances anyway, so fortunately my main points didn't rest on this.

OK YJ whats the falacy that says if something predates something similar, it automatically means the former caused or "paved the way" for the latter. Massacres and genocides are as old as human history and are endemic in cultures far removed from judeo christian influence.

My "Tu quoque" was pointing out that you made an assertion with absolutely no evidence or supporting logic.

SC, I believe you are accusing me of false causality and I think I'm in the clear so far because I said "the argument could be made that....," not, "thus, clearly...:" Merely stating that an attempt at causality could be made is proof of causality (as Semck pointed out) and I certainly agree.

However, I'd maintain that your "these bad things are hardly exclusive to the bible" line is an obvious example of tu quoque.

... could be made is *NOT* proof of....

is what I meant

SC, I believe you are accusing me of false causality and I think I'm in the clear so far because I said "the argument could be made that....,"

And I showed the argument could be made the other way too, so i guess Im in the clear as well if that is the magic bullet that wipes away all fallacies. This is expecially true when my point is that you can make any argument its how you support it.

"
However, I'd maintain that your "these bad things are hardly exclusive to the bible" line is an obvious example of tu quoque. "

How so? Saying that your sweeping passive statement that "it could be argued" the jericho account paved the way for genocide in general doesn't take into account the fact that massacres and genocides are featured prominently in greek roman and god knows how many other cultures is a fallacy? Why are your fallacies ok and mine are beyond the pale? You have to explain this a bit more. Do I have to put an obscuring statement in the passive voice to protect myself from such fallacies?

OK: Your use of "we could argue" didn't seem to me to be used in the same spirit I used it, since it was referencing no previous argument and the only followup was "that's a crock of shit." I don't think you meant it as truly a "we could argue" type thing, more of a "fuck you Jack that's a crock of shit," type thing. Maybe I'm wrong. If you want the benefit of the doubt you got it :P


Even beyond that,

"Such stories are hardly exclusive to the bible" was not included under the "umbrella" of "we can argue," since it is prima facie true (no argument is necessary).

Since tu quoque is defined as "indicating that the opposing side made the same error," I don't really think you can argue that's not exactly what you were doing. What you said is FACTUAL, but the implication via tu quoque that the fact that "other stories do it badly too," somehow lessens the culpability of the Bible is a fallacy.

The argument could be made that everyone on WebDip is an idiot, including me. I'm in the clear though because I didn't say that's what I really believe. Which I don't. :-)

BTW thanks for the "tu quoque" information. I guess it goes to credibility.

The Bible reading for October 20, 2012, is Genesis 38.
New Living Translation (NLT)
Judah and Tamar

38:1 About this time, Judah left home and moved to Adullam, where he stayed with a man named Hirah. 2 There he saw a Canaanite woman, the daughter of Shua, and he married her. When he slept with her, 3 she became pregnant and gave birth to a son, and he named the boy Er. 4 Then she became pregnant again and gave birth to another son, and she named him Onan. 5 And when she gave birth to a third son, she named him Shelah. At the time of Shelah’s birth, they were living at Kezib.

6 In the course of time, Judah arranged for his firstborn son, Er, to marry a young woman named Tamar. 7 But Er was a wicked man in the Lord’s sight, so the Lord took his life. 8 Then Judah said to Er’s brother Onan, “Go and marry Tamar, as our law requires of the brother of a man who has died. You must produce an heir for your brother.”

9 But Onan was not willing to have a child who would not be his own heir. So whenever he had intercourse with his brother’s wife, he spilled the semen on the ground. This prevented her from having a child who would belong to his brother. 10 But the Lord considered it evil for Onan to deny a child to his dead brother. So the Lord took Onan’s life, too.

11 Then Judah said to Tamar, his daughter-in-law, “Go back to your parents’ home and remain a widow until my son Shelah is old enough to marry you.” (But Judah didn’t really intend to do this because he was afraid Shelah would also die, like his two brothers.) So Tamar went back to live in her father’s home.

12 Some years later Judah’s wife died. After the time of mourning was over, Judah and his friend Hirah the Adullamite went up to Timnah to supervise the shearing of his sheep. 13 Someone told Tamar, “Look, your father-in-law is going up to Timnah to shear his sheep.”

14 Tamar was aware that Shelah had grown up, but no arrangements had been made for her to come and marry him. So she changed out of her widow’s clothing and covered herself with a veil to disguise herself. Then she sat beside the road at the entrance to the village of Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah. 15 Judah noticed her and thought she was a prostitute, since she had covered her face. 16 So he stopped and propositioned her. “Let me have sex with you,” he said, not realizing that she was his own daughter-in-law.

“How much will you pay to have sex with me?” Tamar asked.

17 “I’ll send you a young goat from my flock,” Judah promised.

“But what will you give me to guarantee that you will send the goat?” she asked.

18 “What kind of guarantee do you want?” he replied.

She answered, “Leave me your identification seal and its cord and the walking stick you are carrying.” So Judah gave them to her. Then he had intercourse with her, and she became pregnant. 19 Afterward she went back home, took off her veil, and put on her widow’s clothing as usual.

20 Later Judah asked his friend Hirah the Adullamite to take the young goat to the woman and to pick up the things he had given her as his guarantee. But Hirah couldn’t find her. 21 So he asked the men who lived there, “Where can I find the shrine prostitute who was sitting beside the road at the entrance to Enaim?”

“We’ve never had a shrine prostitute here,” they replied.

22 So Hirah returned to Judah and told him, “I couldn’t find her anywhere, and the men of the village claim they’ve never had a shrine prostitute there.”

23 “Then let her keep the things I gave her,” Judah said. “I sent the young goat as we agreed, but you couldn’t find her. We’d be the laughingstock of the village if we went back again to look for her.”

24 About three months later, Judah was told, “Tamar, your daughter-in-law, has acted like a prostitute. And now, because of this, she’s pregnant.”

“Bring her out, and let her be burned!” Judah demanded.

25 But as they were taking her out to kill her, she sent this message to her father-in-law: “The man who owns these things made me pregnant. Look closely. Whose seal and cord and walking stick are these?”

26 Judah recognized them immediately and said, “She is more righteous than I am, because I didn’t arrange for her to marry my son Shelah.” And Judah never slept with Tamar again.

27 When the time came for Tamar to give birth, it was discovered that she was carrying twins. 28 While she was in labor, one of the babies reached out his hand. The midwife grabbed it and tied a scarlet string around the child’s wrist, announcing, “This one came out first.” 29 But then he pulled back his hand, and out came his brother! “What!” the midwife exclaimed. “How did you break out first?” So he was named Perez.[a] 30 Then the baby with the scarlet string on his wrist was born, and he was named Zerah.[b]
Footnotes:

1. Genesis 38:29 Perez means “breaking out.”
2. Genesis 38:30 Zerah means “scarlet” or “brightness.”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2038&version=NLT

What you said is FACTUAL, but the implication via tu quoque that the fact that "other stories do it badly too," somehow lessens the culpability of the Bible is a fallacy.

That wasn't my argument at all. My argument was that you were making a false link between the bible and later genocides. Bringing up other genocides and possible causes shows that the Bible didn't necessarily "pave the way" to later genocides.

SC that may very well have been your main point, but your "such stories are hardly exclusive to the bible" addendum was unnecessary and distracting, while also totally irrelevant to your main point (which was possibly quite valid).

Stop fighting it. Commiting a logical fallacy doesn't mean you are wrong (we all do it). It just means that the argument you made doesn't apply or is irrelevant to the greater discussion. In this case, your claim that "other stories do it" is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not I made a false link.

OK?

Genesis 39 is the Bible reading for October 21, 2012.
New Living Translation (NLT)
Joseph in Potiphar’s House

39 When Joseph was taken to Egypt by the Ishmaelite traders, he was purchased by Potiphar, an Egyptian officer. Potiphar was captain of the guard for Pharaoh, the king of Egypt.

2 The Lord was with Joseph, so he succeeded in everything he did as he served in the home of his Egyptian master. 3 Potiphar noticed this and realized that the Lord was with Joseph, giving him success in everything he did. 4 This pleased Potiphar, so he soon made Joseph his personal attendant. He put him in charge of his entire household and everything he owned. 5 From the day Joseph was put in charge of his master’s household and property, the Lord began to bless Potiphar’s household for Joseph’s sake. All his household affairs ran smoothly, and his crops and livestock flourished. 6 So Potiphar gave Joseph complete administrative responsibility over everything he owned. With Joseph there, he didn’t worry about a thing—except what kind of food to eat!

Joseph was a very handsome and well-built young man, 7 and Potiphar’s wife soon began to look at him lustfully. “Come and sleep with me,” she demanded.

8 But Joseph refused. “Look,” he told her, “my master trusts me with everything in his entire household. 9 No one here has more authority than I do. He has held back nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How could I do such a wicked thing? It would be a great sin against God.”

10 She kept putting pressure on Joseph day after day, but he refused to sleep with her, and he kept out of her way as much as possible. 11 One day, however, no one else was around when he went in to do his work. 12 She came and grabbed him by his cloak, demanding, “Come on, sleep with me!” Joseph tore himself away, but he left his cloak in her hand as he ran from the house.

13 When she saw that she was holding his cloak and he had fled, 14 she called out to her servants. Soon all the men came running. “Look!” she said. “My husband has brought this Hebrew slave here to make fools of us! He came into my room to rape me, but I screamed. 15 When he heard me scream, he ran outside and got away, but he left his cloak behind with me.”

16 She kept the cloak with her until her husband came home. 17 Then she told him her story. “That Hebrew slave you’ve brought into our house tried to come in and fool around with me,” she said. 18 “But when I screamed, he ran outside, leaving his cloak with me!”

Joseph Put in Prison

19 Potiphar was furious when he heard his wife’s story about how Joseph had treated her. 20 So he took Joseph and threw him into the prison where the king’s prisoners were held, and there he remained. 21 But the Lord was with Joseph in the prison and showed him his faithful love. And the Lord made Joseph a favorite with the prison warden. 22 Before long, the warden put Joseph in charge of all the other prisoners and over everything that happened in the prison. 23 The warden had no more worries, because Joseph took care of everything. The Lord was with him and caused everything he did to succeed.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2039&version=NLT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

Genesis 40 is the Bible reading for October 22, 2012.
New Living Translation (NLT)
Joseph Interprets Two Dreams

40:1 Some time later, Pharaoh’s chief cup-bearer and chief baker offended their royal master. 2 Pharaoh became angry with these two officials, 3 and he put them in the prison where Joseph was, in the palace of the captain of the guard. 4 They remained in prison for quite some time, and the captain of the guard assigned them to Joseph, who looked after them.

5 While they were in prison, Pharaoh’s cup-bearer and baker each had a dream one night, and each dream had its own meaning. 6 When Joseph saw them the next morning, he noticed that they both looked upset. 7 “Why do you look so worried today?” he asked them.

8 And they replied, “We both had dreams last night, but no one can tell us what they mean.”

“Interpreting dreams is God’s business,” Joseph replied. “Go ahead and tell me your dreams.”

9 So the chief cup-bearer told Joseph his dream first. “In my dream,” he said, “I saw a grapevine in front of me. 10 The vine had three branches that began to bud and blossom, and soon it produced clusters of ripe grapes. 11 I was holding Pharaoh’s wine cup in my hand, so I took a cluster of grapes and squeezed the juice into the cup. Then I placed the cup in Pharaoh’s hand.”

12 “This is what the dream means,” Joseph said. “The three branches represent three days. 13 Within three days Pharaoh will lift you up and restore you to your position as his chief cup-bearer. 14 And please remember me and do me a favor when things go well for you. Mention me to Pharaoh, so he might let me out of this place. 15 For I was kidnapped from my homeland, the land of the Hebrews, and now I’m here in prison, but I did nothing to deserve it.”

16 When the chief baker saw that Joseph had given the first dream such a positive interpretation, he said to Joseph, “I had a dream, too. In my dream there were three baskets of white pastries stacked on my head. 17 The top basket contained all kinds of pastries for Pharaoh, but the birds came and ate them from the basket on my head.”

18 “This is what the dream means,” Joseph told him. “The three baskets also represent three days. 19 Three days from now Pharaoh will lift you up and impale your body on a pole. Then birds will come and peck away at your flesh.”

20 Pharaoh’s birthday came three days later, and he prepared a banquet for all his officials and staff. He summoned[a] his chief cup-bearer and chief baker to join the other officials. 21 He then restored the chief cup-bearer to his former position, so he could again hand Pharaoh his cup. 22 But Pharaoh impaled the chief baker, just as Joseph had predicted when he interpreted his dream. 23 Pharaoh’s chief cup-bearer, however, forgot all about Joseph, never giving him another thought.
Footnotes:
1. Genesis 40:20 Hebrew He lifted up the head of.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2040&version=NLT

A brief pause from Genesis: The Bible reading for 10-23-2012 is Psalm 23.
New Living Translation (NLT)

Psalm 23
A psalm of David.

1 The Lord is my shepherd;
I have all that I need.
2 He lets me rest in green meadows;
he leads me beside peaceful streams.
3 He renews my strength.
He guides me along right paths,
bringing honor to his name.
4 Even when I walk
through the darkest valley,[a]
I will not be afraid,
for you are close beside me.
Your rod and your staff
protect and comfort me.
5 You prepare a feast for me
in the presence of my enemies.
You honor me by anointing my head with oil.
My cup overflows with blessings.
6 Surely your goodness and unfailing love will pursue me
all the days of my life,
and I will live in the house of the Lord
forever.

Footnotes:a.Psalm 23:4 Or the dark valley of death.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%2023&version=NLT