Because of its length, I am sending it in two parts. I received it after 11:00 p.m., so I will have to wait until tomorrow to begin responding to it.
Perhaps some of you will be interested in a piece of the action, for, as you will see, Briggs has done nothing except churned out more of the same old question-begging stuff that inerrantists have used for years to "explain" the embarrassing Yahwistic massacres of the OT. Briggs's e-mail address is rbriggs@jax.jaxnet.com.
******************************************************************************
>I apologize for the delay in answering your message that was forwarded to me
>by Jeff Lowder, who maintains the atheist.tamu.edu lists. However, I am
>presently coping with carpal tunnel syndrome, and this necessarily restricts
>my activities at the keyboard. I'm afraid that even today I will have to be
>briefer in my response than I would like to be.
>
Ouch! Well, I appreciate your efforts! :)
>
><<I am sure that you probably know the answer to this, but were attempting
to
>place doubt in the 14 year old's mind. However, if these are your only
>objections to the belief in God, they are easily and succinctly answered
>beyond any shadow of "civility.">>
>
>Matthew instigated the correspondence by posting a message on one of the
>atheist.tamu.edu lists in which he said that a certain posting had made him
>sick or something to that effect. I sent him a brief message. He reponded
<sic>
>to it and keeps the exchange going, although he is obviously unequipped
>educationally to discuss the Bible with any depth. He replies with
>meaningless platitudes, such as, "I am praying for you," "Remember that
Jesus
>loves you," etc.
>
>You say that I am trying to place doubt in a 14 year old's mind, so I don't
>suppose that you would accept the idea that I am trying to enlighten a 14
>year old and get him to see that ancient superstitions can no longer be
>defended in a modern, technological society. You apparently see nothing
>wrong with preachers and Bible teachers filling his head with such
>superstitions, and I can assure you that I have communicated with him enough
>to see that you have succeeded. What you are apparently saying, then, is
>that you merchants of outdated superstitions should be allowed to operate
>unrestricted, but those of us who plead for rationality shouldn't.
>
The issue here is not who is right or wrong, the issue is that this 14 year old person has already stated his position, and instead of dealing with the issue he raised, you/whoever slipped into abstract discussion of an unrelated topic that you know the 14 year old is ill-equipped to defend. This is nothing more than manipulation and in a court of law would be objected (and sustained) that your response was irrelevant; it did not deal with what the 14 year old was discussing. That is what I "objected" to. Discuss all you want with the 14 year old, knock yourself out, but realize that this kid may not be able to answer all of your absurd abstract attacks. Basically what I am saying is that you should discuss and rebut (if possible) anything the kid wants, but don't stoop to changing the subject to irrelevant (to the subject!) topics of debate! If you really want to delve into the topics below, go to an expert. Someone who has devoted their entire life to studying the Word. That's all.
>You further said that my arguments can be "easily and succinctly answered
>beyond any shadow of 'civility.'" However, you are not the first clergyman
>to come to Matthew's rescue. He first referred a preacher named Jonathan to
>me, but he dropped out after admitting that I had certainly given him some
>things to think about. Now I will look at some of your "answers" to see how
>rational they are.
Ah ah... let's not loose sight of the ultimate measure here. The standard is not RATIONALITY, the standard is whether or not my answers line up with what the Bible (The ultimate guide book of Christianity) says. Ok? However, as a side note, I will tell you that Christianity necessarily employs the rational mind, Faith is not a denial of facts and reason, but a corollary of them. That is important.
>
><<Numbers 31:1-18 . . .
>Before we go into the history behind the judgement poured out on Midian in
>Numbers, I would like to comment on your final analysis of the reasons for
>the judgement which are in error. You said: "...who killed people for
>racial and other petty reasons." This is inaccurate. The account in Numbers
>31 has nothing to do with race, and Idolatry is not "petty." It is one of
>the Ten Commandments for crying out loud!>>
>
>According to the OT, Yahweh had commanded the Israelites to completely
>destroy the nations around them so that Israel itself would not be
corrupted.
> (If you want scripture citations, I can give them to you, but I'm trying to
>be as brief as possible in deference to my CTS.)
I hate to say this, but because of the complexity and nature of the Bible, I will require you to cite your references as I will. Without such safeguards, there is a tendency to misuse the Scripture by misquoting, taking out of context, and other errors that are avoided when references are cited. That way if you say the bible says one thing, I can show you that the scripture you cited was incorrectly used out of context or mis-cited etc. You see the Bible is intricately structured so that a simple overview will confuse the non-Christian. (I know this because Matthew 13:10-15 says
"And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath [ears to hear, i.e., spiritual understanding (see vs 9 if you have questions)], to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not [ears], from him shall be taken away even that he hath."
(Then he says this which speaks directly to your type...)
"Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand."
(You are intelligent, but you fail to make the necessary connections... you "hear" but don't/won't understand, you see but refuse to "SEE")
"And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."
(In other words, you've seen so much and heard/read so much and refused to take it as truth that you have in effect rejected God, and he has abided your wishes.)
Not only that, but also I Corinthians 2:14 says... "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
So, you are at a disadvantage from the start. The bible is written so that those who already have a prejudice against it are confused and the unregenerate man by nature cannot understand the things of God for they are SPIRITUALLY discerned.)
>This was a ludicrous
>notion, because the history of Israel, according to its own historians, was
>filled with corruption of the same type that was used as an excuse to
>exterminate the other nations.
Well, I am going to have to ask for your sources on this one. This brings up an interesting side point I am sure that we will get into later, but, how much weight do external "secular" historians of the time hold with you. I am anxious to hear your answer on this. (Basically because so many non- "Christian" historians verify biblical events....)
>The Medianite <sic> massacre was done under the
>pretense that the Medianites <sic> had caused the Israelites to sin in the
"matter
>of Peor," which is recorded in Numbers 25. The writer, however, couldn't
>really decide whether the women that the Israelites cavorted with on this
>occasion were Medianites<sic> (v:6) or Moabites (v:1).
Here is an error on your part. You have imagined a discrepancy that is not there. The Moabites were inhabitants of a region called Midian. ( Search your Bible for the 5 kings of Midian, you'll notice that one is the king of the Moabites. Numbers 31 provides their names, then look in the genealogy of Genesis you'll see the line of Moab and the ruler of his descendants. )The terms are interchangeable for the most part. The Israelites committed whoredom (idolatry and adultery) with the daughters of Moab, and in the course of the punishment for this, a midianitish woman was brought before the tabernacle.... What seems to be the problem?
>Be that as it may, <it is not> the
>Medianites <sic> were targeted for massacre because of the event. One
could argue
>in this case that neither racism or idolatry were involved in the massacre
>but the sin of adultery. I wonder, however, if you would take the position
>that any of the three (racism, idolatry, or adultery) were grounds for
>genicide, <sic> which included the killing of all male children and the
ravishing
>of all nonvirgin girls (Num. 31:15-18).
Let's examine these accusations....1st you ask if racism, Idolatry, or adultery were grounds for genocide. Technically, all sin is applicable to its' wages...death. God had every conceivable right to exterminate disobedient man in the Garden...though he did not. Instead he implemented a plan to redeem them back to himself while still satisfying the requirements of his holy nature. Sin required the need for someone to pay for it. ... and hopefully you know the story from there.
So, on a purely technical level, all sin, be it racism, idolatry, adultery et al. is punishable by death. There are several Biblical references for this, both Old and New Testament. (Romans 5:12;6:21,23;James 1:15;Numbers 15:30-31 etc. etc.)
So yes, the punishment of Sin is death.
2. You read your own interpretations into Numbers 31 saying that the virgins were raped. This is not the translation of the verse. The custom of all nations in the Old Testament was to take captives as slaves not whores. This is a gross mistranslation of the verse to think that God allowed Israel to ravish virgin captives at will. Please!
>Just how guilty of any of these offenses were the children?
You then make the assumption that children are born without original sin. And are therefore perfect (denying that Adam their father in whom they were born sinned. You then make the irrational assumption that a glass of fresh unpolluted water can be poured from a completely polluted gene pool.) No. Children are born in sins, as I was, as you were. Our nature is inherently sinful. Our Father, Adam, chose sin and condemned his offspring... (only problem is that he is the head of the human race! Subsequently, all humans are sinful.) There are no degrees of guilt. You are guilty or you are innocent. 1 or the other.
>When I said that racism and petty >offenses were
>the reasons for these massacres, I was speaking in terms applicable to the
OT
>Yahwistic slaughters as a whole. (If you wish, I can give you the
scriptures
>that support this premise.)
>
Yes, please.
>You say that idolatry is forbidden by "one of the ten commandments, for
>crying out loud," but my response to that is, "So what?" Are you going to
>take the position that violation of one of the 10 commandments is grounds
for
>killing? I know that the OT indicates that it is, but what about you?
You have answered your own question. The Old Testament economy was very clear. See my responses above. I completely agree with the notion that sin=death. I am grateful that God has allowed Man to live despite the many times we have Sinned against him. As I said before, Man should have died in the garden. God's grace decided to redeem us.
>I
>would hope that your morality exceeds the morality of that time. As for the
>10 commandments and the law of Moses in general, biblical scholars know that
>these were not really divinely revealed laws. Similar laws existed in the
>societies around Israel, and much of the law of Moses was patterned after
>them. The Code of Hammurabi, for example, existed centuries before Moses
>allegedly trekked up Mt. Sinai, and the laws of that code were quite similar
>to the Mosaic law.
Though the code of Hammurabi existed 3 centuries before the giving of the commandments on Sinai, this does not mean that the Commandments were not divinely revealed. No where in the Hammurabic law does it driving force reference a God, nor is it unlawful to worship another God etc. Plus the Commandments center on the Spiritual relationship of God to Man and Man to God. The laws that followed of course contained the common elements that basic societies must have to survive. You would want that God (in order to be different) make different laws that legalize theft and murder and adultery! I don't think so. No society can survive without basic laws. God used these common sense laws in his declarations. Hammurabi has no corner on the market when it comes to designing society. This is an entirely different discussion which we can focus on in a different message. There is extensive internal and external evidence to rebut your assumptions. (NOTE: No *true* bible scholars would advocate the Law as borrowed from Hammurabi's code.)
> If you found archaeological evidence that the Babylonians
>massacred people for violating the Code of Hammurabi in matters like
idolatry
>(worshiping the wrong deity), would you defend that? If you found that the
>Babylonians had completely exterminated all of the children of a nation
>because some adult women had committed adultery, would you defend that?
>
Since we are now delving into hypotheticals, If (hypothetically) the Babylonians were the true people of the Living God who created Man and society, And Hammurabi's Code was (hypothetically) the Inspired Words of that God, and it stated not to do something or you would die, and someone did that something and the Babylonians killed them, I would (hypothetically) defend that.
However, I think you will find that with any study on the matter, the Babylonians and Assyrians, were much more brutal in their battles. Study them.
>In other words, I'm suggesting to you that a thread of question begging runs
>all through your "easy, succinct" answers to this problem. You want to
>assume that if it is in the Bible, then, by golly, it must be right.
> However, I must insist that you prove your premise, i.e., massacres of
>people who practiced idolatry was morally just. If by chance, you can prove
>that, then prove that it is also morally just to kill the children of
>idolaters.
This has been proven.
><<Now. The abominable nature of the influence which the Midianites had on
>Israel in leading them into idolatry warranted the destructive judgement of
>God. (Especially in the Old Testament economy!) God dealt severely and
>decisively with this "cancer." The MORAL justification for this action is
>found in the fact that God has the sovereign right to give and take life.
>(As a separate note, technically all life and death is under the express
>control of God. He is in control of all births [which of course you do not
>credit him for] and all death.)>>
>
>What I said above applies to this, I want you to prove the moral
>justification of massacring people for "sins" like idolatry and adultery.
>(Gee, isn't it fortunate that God doesn't mete this kind of punishment today
>for the latter?)
Yes, fortunately for us we live in a section of time after the Sacrifice of
Christ has covered the Sin of Man and in an age where Grace is the dominant
rule of God. This will end with the rapture of the church when God again
begins to deal with Israel as a Nation. (Separate discussion)
>
>"God has the sovereign right to give and take life"? Let me see your proof
>of that. I have heard it before, but I have seen no proof of it. I suspect
>that you are an absolutist as far as morality is concerned. If so, I want
>you to explain how killing children and babies and ravishing young girls is
>not immoral if God does it or decrees it. After all, if killing children is
>immoral in an absolute sense, then no one--not even God--could do it without
>committing acts of immorality. If not, why not?
Good Questions...(except for the "ravishing" thing, which I have already explained your error on) here's the answers:
I sense the need here to be somewhat basic. God created existence. The universe, the galaxy, the solar system, the world and the Man that inhabits it. As it's creator, he retains sovereignty over creation. Just as if you wrote a computer program, you retain sole power over that program to run it, copyright it, erase it, modify it, sell it, you wouldn't think twice about any of those things. God gave man the free will to choose whether or not to follow him. He laid out clear rules as well. Do this and you will live, do this and you will die. Not too hard. God did not MAKE man follow him, God gave man a choice. God gave his creation the free will to choose life or death. Man chose death and disobedience. Now, you tell me. If you create a program, then give it instructions to follow for continued existence or for erasure, and then endow it with the actual capacity to think for itself and make its' own decisions, and it chooses erasure... then? It is a simple analogy. It is only that (man is more than a program etc. etc.) But it illustrates my point. Ask for proof that God has the sovereign right to give and take life...that covers it. HOWEVER, The Bible also confirms God's Sovereignty over existence. (Deuteronomy 32:39 "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.") Not only that but the Bible shows that God declares himself Lord of Heaven and Lord of Earth (Scripture: Matt 11:25, Acts 17:24, II Kings 19:25, I Chronicles 29:11, Isa 37:16, I Cor 1:16 on and on... it's almost blatant!) Therein is your "proof."
Second... God acts solely out of righteousness, every thing he does is righteous, be giving or ending a life by natural or supernatural causes. He is righteous. We can't fully comprehend his righteousness. Though, we see it in his actions. God never says that killing is wrong. He says that murder is wrong. God never murders. Murder (the Hebrew word used in thou shalt not "kill" [murder] necessarily implies the wrongful taking of a life, God never does this. God even delegates the right of nations/governments to kill and punish by death, he sometimes sanctioned the righteous killing of enemies of the Kingdom, and God has that right as Sovereign of the Universe. This is a basic concept.
>
>Before I leave this issue, let me urge you to explain the justice in
"killing
>every male" child for offenses that had been committed by adults. I say it
>was wrong; you say (apparently) that it was right. So just who is the bad
>guy here, me (the atheist) or you (the clergyman)?
Look. The killing of the males was to "cut off" the line of evil that had passed from generation to generation in their nation. God had warned them that this would happen. The judgement fell on all the Nation not just the adults. You place so much emphasis on death. Death is merely the beginning of eternity. This is the trial period, we are "in the womb" so to speak.
Our real life doesn't begin until we exit this one...It matters not whether the you or I live 100 days or a 100 years. What matters is your destination when this gestation is over. It was an act of grace to take those boys lives.
****************************************************************************** *