Is a god who orders the killing of his children a monster?

[_harmony]

In addition, the position of the Canaanites as God's children in no way changes any of the considerations in my argument.

And that is why you lose. You don't know what you don't know and you refuse to listen and learn. I'm trying to help you, and instead you attack me.

The position that the Canaanites and every other soul who ever walked the earth were/are God's children too is the basis for the entire refutation of your argument. Because a god who favors one set of children over another is not God. He cannot be God. And you know why. The entire basis of your argument rests on your contention that he is. And Guy's rests on the idea that he can't be. The reasons why are pointed out by Roger. Even I tried to help you see what is wrong with your argument, but of course you ignored me, called me ignorant, and a host of other attacks.

If you were listening to the people who were trying to interact with you on this thread, you'd learn something. But you're too wrapped up in your argument to see what others have readily seen: the god of the Old Testament is not God. Cannot be God. Is far removed from God. And therefore, the Old Testament can only be exactly what Guy and I and Roger have said: a collection of manmade myths handed down from generation to generation as they tried to explain their world. Why? Because the Canaanites were God's children too!

[_maklelan]

And that is why you lose. You don't know what you don't know and you refuse to listen and learn. I'm trying to help you, and instead you attack me.

So the following is supposed to be reaching out to me?

Actually, he's already won the argument, Maklelan. How? By handing you your 'religion' in a hankie, all tied up, while you're still sputtering that he's not playing by the r-u-u-les. Because he lives his 'religion', and you don't even understand yours. . . He wiped the floor with you, and you don't know enough to realize he did it. . . you're a wet-behind-the-ears wannabe and he's just shown you that your argument isn't an argument at all, since you misread the basic text (that would be the Old Testament, in case you forgot). Go back to the drawing board, and next time, try to leave off with the BYU attitude you so markedly project. It does you no favors.

Only an idiot would see this as anything other than pure infantile patronization. What a pathetic attempt to rationalize away your poor and weak post.

The position that the Canaanites and every other soul who ever walked the earth were/are God's children too is the basis for the entire refutation of your argument. Because a god who favors one set of children over another is not God. He cannot be God. And you know why. The entire basis of your argument rests on your contention that he is.

Explain how this is the case. As you're no doubt aware, God is no respecter of persons, and God has killed his fair share of Israelites. Whatever "favor" you perceive is just the consequence of obedience or the lack thereof.

And Guy's rests on the idea that he can't be. The reasons why are pointed out by Roger. Even I tried to help you see what is wrong with your argument, but of course you ignored me, called me ignorant, and a host of other attacks.

I did? Let's review. Your first post:

It's not the ones that God supposedly commanded Moses to kill that bother me. What bothers me is the one he wasn't commanded to kill, but he did it anyway, then hid it, and then ran away. And this is the man God chose to lead his people out of bondage? Thou Shalt Not Kill... and yet the man God delivered those commandments to had already unjustifiably killed a man with his bare hands?

No, the Old Testament is a layered mass of myth, edited by men with a particular agenda, passed down from generation to generation with a particular goal in mind (preserving the tribe at all costs), and with each passing, adding another layer, and moving another step away from the truth.

The stories themselves have value, as insights into ancient customs, as interesting artifacts, but as arbitrators of truth, of God's will for mankind? No more than Aesop's Fables.


Oh, and welcome back, maklelan. You were missed.

My response:

It's not the ones that God supposedly commanded Moses to kill that bother me. What bothers me is the one he wasn't commanded to kill, but he did it anyway, then hid it, and then ran away. And this is the man God chose to lead his people out of bondage? Thou Shalt Not Kill... and yet the man God delivered those commandments to had already unjustifiably killed a man with his bare hands?

But there was no real law at that point.

Oh, and welcome back, maklelan. You were missed.

Hey, I appreciate that.

No ignoring there. Oh, and did you bother to respond to my rebuttal of your argument? No. Your next post:

I HATE THAT! (I just lost another post to the cyberspace monster).

One more time:

The Old Testament is a collection of stories that ancient men used to try to explain what happened in their lives. A flood that kills lots of people? God did it because man was so evil. A lunar or solar eclipse? God ate the sun. People die and it's not fair? No problem... God just took them home. People get sick from eating inadequately cooked pork? God says to not eat pork.

The Old Testament is simply man trying figure out the unknowable, and what they came up with is: God did it, God said so, God... God... God...

Now, we know many more answers than they did, so our questions list has shrunk, and we think some of their answers are weird, strange, or downright pathelogical.

Not in any way addressing my answer to your questions. You just throw out some more accusations, but let's see if I ignored them:

I HATE THAT! (I just lost another post to the cyberspace monster).

One more time:

The Old Testament is a collection of stories that ancient men used to try to explain what happened in their lives. A flood that kills lots of people? God did it because man was so evil. A lunar or solar eclipse? God ate the sun. People die and it's not fair? No problem... God just took them home. People get sick from eating inadequately cooked pork? God says to not eat pork.

The Old Testament is simply man trying figure out the unknowable, and what they came up with is: God did it, God said so, God... God... God...

Now, we know many more answers than they did, so our questions list has shrunk, and we think some of their answers are weird, strange, or downright pathelogical.

That's a wonderful thesis, now please provide the body of your argument.

Nope. It turns out I did respond to them, and I asked you for some kind of evidence for your broad generalizations. Next!

Yes. They had just left Egypt and needed a place to settle. The closest place had people dwelling in it, and when people came passing through they were automatically assumed to be the enemy. A preemptive strike is not an illogical or immoral course of action in the ancient Near East. You might want to take a look at the book I cited in my response to guy. It talks about the modern perception of a defensive and offensive war and how that dichotomy did not exist before Hellenization.

Why are the needs of the ancient Isrealites of more importance than the needs of the ancient Canaanites? So what if they needed a place to settle! That doesn't give them the right to invade another group's territory.

You asked me a few questions without at all responding to my earlier request that you provide an argument for your broad generalizations. These questions are fair enough, though. Did I ignore them?

Why are the needs of the ancient Isrealites of more importance than the needs of the ancient Canaanites?

More important to whom?

So what if they needed a place to settle! That doesn't give them the right to invade another group's territory.

There was no rule of law back then. You had whatever rights you could keep by force. You're still projecting your own morals into a society where that means nothing.

Nope, it turns out I answered them to the best of my ability. One of the broad questions you asked required further details. Let's see if you provide them or respond to my rebuttal of your argument:

Actually, he's already won the argument, Maklelan. How? By handing you your 'religion' in a hankie, all tied up, while you're still sputtering that he's not playing by the r-u-u-les. Because he lives his 'religion', and you don't even understand yours. And he calls a spade a spade (or as in your case, a "pretentious would-be know-it-all with an over inflated sense of your knowledge and argumentation skills.", which I thought was both remarkably astute and funny at the same time) And he's right. He wiped the floor with you, and you don't know enough to realize he did it. You're a student in a school he taught in for years; you're a wet-behind-the-ears wannabe and he's just shown you that your argument isn't an argument at all, since you misread the basic text (that would be the Old Testament, in case you forgot). Go back to the drawing board, and next time, try to leave off with the BYU attitude you so markedly project. It does you no favors.

And yes, I'm aware that you're going to disregard everything I said, just as you didn't understand what I was talking about earlier in the thread. by the way, the Canaanites were God's children too.

Nope, you've just moved on to your regurgitation of the last gasp of a scrupleless antagonist with no clue as to how to conduct proper research. I don't see any attacks, only pleas for rational and cogent debate.

If you were listening to the people who were trying to interact with you on this thread, you'd learn something. But you're too wrapped up in your argument to see what others have readily seen: the god of the Old Testament is not God. Cannot be God. Is far removed from God. And therefore, the Old Testament can only be exactly what Guy and I and Roger have said: a collection of manmade myths handed down from generation to generation as they tried to explain their world. Why? Because the Canaanites were God's children too!

On the contrary, I've responded to every single post I've come across that was addressed to me, and I've not ignored you at all, despite the fact that you accuse me of just that. You've again only reasserted a position above without a shred of evidence or logic to back it up. As I've said before, and as you continue to prove, you're a joke.

[_maklelan]

I agree with the thinking in your final sentence, but I have a different conclusion.

Were the children of Israel doing things that were especially barbarous for the time? No. Were they particularly benevolent compared to anyone else? No.

If every other tribe was slaughtering their neighbor and stealing his land, while worshiping a dumb idol of the sun god, then it just makes sense that the children of israel were doing the same thing for the same reason. Not because their peculiar god commanded them to, but because that was the way of life in those sad and violent times.

Like every other tribe on the face of the earth, the children of israel made a god in their own image, after their own thinking, and that is reflected in the Old Testament. Violent people = violent god (not the other way around, because god is powerless or non-existent... same thing, really). Peaceful people of later times molded that god into a new image, a loving benevolent father, and that's closer to what you see in the New Testament, and what you hear about in churches today.

Morality has changed. God didn't change. God has always been powerless to influence or non-existent ... same thing. People put words into their god's mouth to justify and enforce their morality.

So my conclusion: A god who orders the killing of his children is a monster, but no god has ever ordered such a thing. Not the god of Israel, or Islam, or medieval christianity, or Nephi, or the Lafferty brothers.

I apologize for having missed your post, Duderino, I guess I skipped right over it.

After reviewing your post, it seems you're leaning on an assumption that you've decided not to address. In that the question addressed by the thread seeks to argue an entirely different argument for the existence of God, your assumption is not constructive.

[_Dr. Shades]

[MODERATOR POST: Please remember, folks, to keep it 100% Celestial here in the Celestial Forum. I hereby urge everyone to remember that, no matter what opinion your interlocutor holds, he/she is loved by God* just as much as the Caananites were.

More to the point, sentences such as "He wiped the floor with you, and you don't know enough to realize he did it. . . you're a wet-behind-the-ears wannabe" and "Only an idiot would see this as anything other than pure infantile patronization" just don't feel truly Celestial to me. Perhaps the above sentences could've been better worded as "His argument was superior to yours, but I believe your inexperience with this topic has rendered you unable to see it as such" and "Most people would view that response as a form of patronization," respectively.

As a rule of thumb, when disagreeing with someone in the Celestial forum, your words and phrases should be as though you were disagreeing with your beloved grandmother.



*assuming God exists and assuming he/she/it has the characteristics that believers in the New Testament ascribe to him/her/it.]

[_harmony]

[MODERATOR POST: Please remember, folks, to keep it 100% Celestial here in the Celestial Forum. I hereby urge everyone to remember that, no matter what opinion your interlocutor holds, he/she is loved by God* just as much as the Caananites were.

More to the point, sentences such as "He wiped the floor with you, and you don't know enough to realize he did it. . . you're a wet-behind-the-ears wannabe" and "Only an idiot would see this as anything other than pure infantile patronization" just don't feel truly Celestial to me. Perhaps the above sentences could've been better worded as "His argument was superior to yours, but I believe your inexperience with this topic has rendered you unable to see it as such" and "Most people would view that response as a form of patronization," respectively.

As a rule of thumb, when disagreeing with someone in the Celestial forum, your words and phrases should be as though you were disagreeing with your beloved grandmother.



*assuming God exists and assuming he/she/it has the characteristics that believers in the New Testament ascribe to him/her/it.]

Sorry, Shades.

[_Jason Bourne]

Ok, I’m tired of trying to do the cut and paste quote thing. So let me just finish here.

Now you have provided answers. And I find your answers deplorable. I find you moral philosophy (or what of it than can be gleaned) abohorrent.

Just like the other posters: that's a wonderful thesis, now where's the body of your argument?

You are a true apologist in that you defend the otherwise immoral.

And you have utterly failed to show that you at all comprehend ancient morality or modern perceptions of it.

You then attempt to shift the burden by trying to portray those taking moral positions as unreasonable. If you tried to take this argument outside the comfy confines of Mormon apologetics (or more broadly outside the realm of Christian fundamentalism), your moral philosophy would be widely acknowledged as the barbarity that it is.

Some of this seems like common sense.

One would expect the creator to be at least as moral as its creations. The God of the Old Testament does not reflect those morals in many cases. If we expect that God will reflect the morals of the age in which those who write about God hold then maybe this demonstrates that God is created in mans image.

Also, I like the idea that God's agent should stand for something more then the cultural norms. If God is the ultimate moral then one would expect God's agent to stand out against the poor culture of the time.

As one studies about God it often does seem He changes with the day and age.

I have pondered the idea of agency. As I finished watching a lengthy mini series about WWII I wondered why agency was such a primacy, at least in the LDS view, that the agency of really one man, created untold suffering for millions. This seemed immoral. In LDS thought God could/would not step in to take away Hitler's agency. Not sure what orthodox Christianity says about this. But I thought, well why not? I means really, why didn't God just kill Hitler before he came to power? It seems that is a foreordained prophet choses evil that God can raise someone else to take his place. Some Mormons seem to believe God caused a volcano to erupt which created an unusually cold series of years that thus prompted Joseph Smith Senior to move from Vermont to Palmyra NY where the plates for the Book of Mormon were buried. As I ponder about things like WWII and Hitler I wondered if God intervened in Joseph Smith Senior's agency, albeit indirectly, why did He not do this to Hitler in order to eliminate the tragic things that resulted from one little man's evil choices?

Makes no sense to my pea brain.

[_Jason Bourne]

but because that was the way of life in those sad and violent times.

THe Dude, I'm sorry, but you really think we are living in better times now? (perhaps you don't and I am mis-reading you)

Yes, I do think times are better, in most parts of the world. Think of an issue like racism or women's rights, and how much things have changed in the western world in just the last 150 years. And even though there are countries like Saudi Arabia that have institutionalized inequalities, they are going to have to change too, for social and economic reasons.

I hope that in 2000 years we will have wars licked. It could happen, if global warming or an asteroid doesn't wipe us out first.

Yea the world still sucks, but it sucks less then it used to.

We are still pretty barbaric though in many ways.

Another thing I read in TIME recently. There is a series on the Brain. The comment of one philosopher was essentially when we understand that perhaps consciences is a result of the BIO matter in our mind and how it works, and then realize that other guy has the same bio matter we may be a bit kinder. If we believe that this is really the only world we and life we have and that there is not really a better next life, maybe we will be better to each other here. You know, the old "life is short" saying that we often take into account when trying to get over some grudge.

Well this fellow said it better then that. It was in TIME last week.

[_harmony]

And that is why you lose. You don't know what you don't know and you refuse to listen and learn. I'm trying to help you, and instead you attack me.

So the following is supposed to be reaching out to me?

I didn't say you'd view it as constructive help. I like you; I'm trying to help you. That you don't want my help is obvious, but that doesn't mean you don't need it.

Only an idiot would see this as anything other than pure infantile patronization. What a pathetic attempt to rationalize away your poor and weak post.

I leave the heavy duty arguing to those who understand and have background in the subject. My contribution so far is to trying, without success I might add, to help you.

The position that the Canaanites and every other soul who ever walked the earth were/are God's children too is the basis for the entire refutation of your argument. Because a god who favors one set of children over another is not God. He cannot be God. And you know why. The entire basis of your argument rests on your contention that he is.

Explain how this is the case. As you're no doubt aware, God is no respecter of persons, and God has killed his fair share of Israelites. Whatever "favor" you perceive is just the consequence of obedience or the lack thereof.

That is not Guy's point (at least, I think that's not Guy's point). What I think he's trying to say, and what you aren't seeing, is that God would not order one group of his children to kill another group of his children, just like God would not kill all of his children. If God is consistent (and God cannot be inconsistent), God would not slaughter us. So Guy's conclusion is that the god of the Old Testament is not God, but is an invention of the men at the time, trying to explain the unexplanable to their friends and families. In other words, men invented the god of the Old Testament, told stories about him, and eventually wrote down those stories, which are and were myth, not truth. They contain some truth, but they are not a list of God's interactions with his children, because God cannot do what the Old Testament god supposedly did.

[snip]

No ignoring there. Oh, and did you bother to respond to my rebuttal of your argument? No.

Because your rebuttal had nothing to do with my argument. You were arguing about law? I was pointing out how the Old Testament came about.

[snip]

Not in any way addressing my answer to your questions.

You didn't answer my questions. You answered your interpretation of my questions.

[snip confusing garbled responses]

Nope, you've just moved on to your regurgitation of the last gasp of a scrupleless antagonist with no clue as to how to conduct proper research. I don't see any attacks, only pleas for rational and cogent debate.

So now Guy is scrupleless and an antagonist who, despite his many years of published research (and your none), has no clue as to how to conduct proper research? And you can say this from your exalted throne of "STUDENT", all the while ignoring his status as "FORMER PROFESSOR NOW IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR"? And you don't see this as an attack? And you don't understand the absurdity of your words? I'd say something pertinent right here about the level of education at your university (and your own ability to learn), but Shades would again be justified in calling me on the carpet for non-Celestial language. As I am trying to reform, I'll just say I think you're wasting your money.

If you were listening to the people who were trying to interact with you on this thread, you'd learn something. But you're too wrapped up in your argument to see what others have readily seen: the god of the Old Testament is not God. Cannot be God. Is far removed from God. And therefore, the Old Testament can only be exactly what Guy and I and Roger have said: a collection of manmade myths handed down from generation to generation as they tried to explain their world. Why? Because the Canaanites were God's children too!

On the contrary, I've responded to every single post I've come across that was addressed to me, and I've not ignored you at all, despite the fact that you accuse me of just that. You've again only reasserted a position above without a shred of evidence or logic to back it up. As I've said before, and as you continue to prove, you're a joke.

That's not what I meant. You respond to each post, but you aren't responding to what's being said. You're responding to what you think is being said, but you're missing the point of the post again and again, because you're too blinded by what you think is the world's greatest argument. A great debater isn't in love with his own argument to the extent that he can't see what the other guy is saying. You're in love with your argument and you refuse to open your eyes enough to see that your argument doesn't hold water. Guy told you why. He lost patience and bailed. I can't blame him. I'm not trying to argue that your argument, such as it is, is correct or not; I'm trying to show you that Guy was trying to tell you that your basic premise is wrong. Your platform is wrong, because you interpret your primary source as God-breathed, while Guy interprets your primary source as Man-created.

You say the Bible says God kills his children. Guy says that's man putting words in God's mouth. Do you not see how your argument holds no water, if your primary source is suddenly suspect? If the provence of your primary source is in doubt (God-breathed or man-created), your entire argument is moot.

On the other point you make: I may be a joke, I have that privilege. I am not taking on a world-class expert in a debate when I'm too green to know I'm overwhelmingly outgunned. You, on the other hand, are taking on a learned man who has taken time away from his family and his career to teach you something you're too green to realize you need to know. You should be thanking your lucky stars he condescends to even respond to you, since you're responses to him have not been as respectful as they need to be, given the forum and the person. You're lucky he only called you a... whatever it was he called you. In his shoes, I wouldn't have been that nice.

[_maklelan]

Some of this seems like common sense.

But can common sense teach us ancient history?

One would expect the creator to be at least as moral as its creations. The God of the Old Testament does not reflect those morals in many cases. If we expect that God will reflect the morals of the age in which those who write about God hold then maybe this demonstrates that God is created in mans image.

Also, I like the idea that God's agent should stand for something more then the cultural norms. If God is the ultimate moral then one would expect God's agent to stand out against the poor culture of the time.

This is a common response, and I have offered an explanation for it and no one has ever responded to it, so I'll ask you what you think. Let's say God does decide that amidst this world of conquest and wanton killing God decides he's gonna have his people live the higher law just to be examples. In one year the entire culture is wiped clean off the map. They were easy pickins. Of course God could have stopped them, but he has promised to leave everyone to their agency, so doing so would violate his most important promise to us. So now we have a moral people that has become extinct. What good does that do God?

As one studies about God it often does seem He changes with the day and age.

Does he change or does he just change his message to us? I have stated that I see his commandments to us as his morals projected through a filter of human pragmatism. Our growth changes the degree to which his personal morals come through the filter. Does that really mean God is changing?

I have pondered the idea of agency. As I finished watching a lengthy mini series about WWII I wondered why agency was such a primacy, at least in the LDS view, that the agency of really one man, created untold suffering for millions. This seemed immoral.

Immoral on who's part? IF it were immoral on God's part then you are saying that Hitler's agency was controlled by God. At the same time, one man cannot run a country without support. Hitler rose to power because he got things done. His progress in Germany before he went out of his mind is actually one of the most impressive examples in the 20th century of initiative.

In LDS thought God could/would not step in to take away Hitler's agency. Not sure what orthodox Christianity says about this. But I thought, well why not? I means really, why didn't God just kill Hitler before he came to power? It seems that is a foreordained prophet choses evil that God can raise someone else to take his place. Some Mormons seem to believe God caused a volcano to erupt which created an unusually cold series of years that thus prompted Joseph Smith Senior to move from Vermont to Palmyra NY where the plates for the Book of Mormon were buried. As I ponder about things like WWII and Hitler I wondered if God intervened in Joseph Smith Senior's agency, albeit indirectly, why did He not do this to Hitler in order to eliminate the tragic things that resulted from one little man's evil choices?

Makes no sense to my pea brain.

And I didn't understand why my parents didn't let me watch R rated moveis until I was thriteen. Now I understand. One day things will make sense to us, but denying the existence of God on the grounds that his will doesn't make sense to one of his creations is a little presumptuous. One must be able to fully understand a person to udnerstand his motivations and to be able to judge his actions. Can one of God's creations comprehend him enough to decide that he's motivated by the wrong ideals?

[_maklelan]

I didn't say you'd view it as constructive help. I like you; I'm trying to help you. That you don't want my help is obvious, but that doesn't mean you don't need it.

So misguided insults and generalizations are supposed to be constructive and I'm supposed to be thankful for them?

I leave the heavy duty arguing to those who understand and have background in the subject. My contribution so far is to trying, without success I might add, to help you.

So how do you presume to tell me in which direction the argument is going? No one here has demonstrated at all that they've ever cracked a book on this subject and yet you all glare down your snouts at my misjudgments?

That is not Guy's point (at least, I think that's not Guy's point). What I think he's trying to say, and what you aren't seeing, is that God would not order one group of his children to kill another group of his children, just like God would not kill all of his children.

This is a thesis statement, and I am quite aware that guiy subscribes to this idea. What he has failed to do is provide any logical reason why this thesis statement holds true.

If God is consistent (and God cannot be inconsistent), God would not slaughter us.

The protasis and apodosis in this statement are completely unrelated. This is the very definition of a false inference.

So Guy's conclusion is that the god of the Old Testament is not God, but is an invention of the men at the time, trying to explain the unexplanable to their friends and families. In other words, men invented the god of the Old Testament, told stories about him, and eventually wrote down those stories, which are and were myth, not truth. They contain some truth, but they are not a list of God's interactions with his children, because God cannot do what the Old Testament god supposedly did.

Again, an oft repeated thesis statement with not a syllable of logic or evidence to back it up. If you would like to prove this statement to be true then be my quest, but merely reasserting the same statement a dozen times does nothing to further the argument.

Because your rebuttal had nothing to do with my argument. You were arguing about law? I was pointing out how the Old Testament came about.

Oh, really?

And this is the man God chose to lead his people out of bondage? Thou Shalt Not Kill... and yet the man God delivered those commandments to had already unjustifiably killed a man with his bare hands?

This was your question. The bold represents a reference to a law. Your problem rests with reconciling that law with Moses' actions. If the law condemns murder, how could God have chosen a murderer to lead the people of Israel is another way to present your question. My post dealt perfectly with the heart of your question, and its uninformed nature.

You didn't answer my questions. You answered your interpretation of my questions.

Then please explain it to me like I'm a three year old so I cannot misinterpret it.

So now Guy is scrupleless and an antagonist who,

No, you are. I never addressed guy at all in my last post. The whole thing was addressed to you.

despite his many years of published research (and your none), has no clue as to how to conduct proper research?

I was talking to you.

And you can say this from your exalted throne of "STUDENT", all the while ignoring his status as "FORMER PROFESSOR NOW IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR"?

Professor of what? If it's anything but Ancient History then it has absolutely nothing at all to do with this subject. That's a straw man.

And you don't see this as an attack? And you don't understand the absurdity of your words? I'd say something pertinent right here about the level of education at your university (and your own ability to learn), but Shades would again be justified in calling me on the carpet for non-Celestial language. As I am trying to reform, I'll just say I think you're wasting your money.

And you have every right to think that.

That's not what I meant. You respond to each post, but you aren't responding to what's being said. You're responding to what you think is being said, but you're missing the point of the post again and again, because you're too blinded by what you think is the world's greatest argument. A great debater isn't in love with his own argument to the extent that he can't see what the other guy is saying. You're in love with your argument and you refuse to open your eyes enough to see that your argument doesn't hold water. Guy told you why. He lost patience and bailed. I can't blame him. I'm not trying to argue that your argument, such as it is, is correct or not; I'm trying to show you that Guy was trying to tell you that your basic premise is wrong. Your platform is wrong, because you interpret your primary source as God-breathed, while Guy interprets your primary source as Man-created.

My primary source is ancient history, and if you had read anything I've said or actually comprehended the problem to begin with you would see that absolutely nothing I've said up to this point rests on any appeal to scripture. I am using ancient history to show that the God of the Old Testament is consistent with history. None of that makes any appeal to scripture.

You say the Bible says God kills his children. Guy says that's man putting words in God's mouth. Do you not see how your argument holds no water, if your primary source is suddenly suspect? If the provence of your primary source is in doubt (God-breathed or man-created), your entire argument is moot.

But the whole argument is about that provenance of that source. You can't say "Your argument about the divine origin of the Bible is moot because I don't believe in the divine origin of the Bible." This is a joke.

On the other point you make: I may be a joke, I have that privilege.

And you exercise it.

I am not taking on a world-class expert in a debate when I'm too green to know I'm overwhelmingly outgunned.

World calss? Are you joking? World class expert on what? If it's anything other than ancient history then it has absolutely no bearing on this discussion. A nuclear physicist does not use his degree to try to win an argument about literature. To appeal to his education in somethign entirely foreign to the subject matter at a Trump card is utterly ludicrous. I cannot believe I'm having this conversation.

Please, is there anyone else in this forum who actually agrees with this person??? Are you all silent because you just hope her asinine litany will shut me up, or do you all actually agree with her? I cannot comprehend how this person can seriosuly think she is adding anything besides confusion to this discussion. Someone please tell me if what she is saying is making any sense to you.

You, on the other hand, are taking on a learned man who has taken time away from his family and his career to teach you something you're too green to realize you need to know. You should be thanking your lucky stars he condescends to even respond to you, since you're responses to him have not been as respectful as they need to be, given the forum and the person. You're lucky he only called you a... whatever it was he called you. In his shoes, I wouldn't have been that nice.

Holy crap! Someone tell me this person is not serious. Guy, do you really think this is constructive or even relative? Someone PLEASE respond so I know these posts are not some surreal nightmare!