Alledged absudities of Samson

Originally posted by sonship
The Philistines in the book of Judges should be considered as wartime enemies of Israel.

They were among the [b]"plunderers" who alternately oppressed the generation of Jews following the death of Joshua.

" Then the anger of Jehovah burned against Israel, and He delivered them into the hands of plunderers, and they plundered them. And He s ...[text shortened]... ad been under the Philistine's crushing oppression for about 40 years [b](13:1).[/b]

how refreshing to see the use of Gods name!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
how refreshing to see the use of Gods name!

He must be an old King's James Bible user that is keeping with that tradition of using the wrong name for God. 😏

Originally posted by caissad4
So, Samson murdered 30 people because of weaknesses. Is coldblooded murder justifiable because of weaknesses ? Are you saying that Samson was a holy and god-abiding man who had a weakness which makes it okay that he committed 30 cold-blooded murders ? Now that is absurd.

This is what you asked:

And why was Samson preparing to marry one of these enemies ?

I said this was his weakness.

I answered you about the weakness of his wanting a wife among the oppressors and enemies of Israel.

Now the "30 cold-blooded murders" so called, I regard as his national resistance in time of warfare.

Ie. Suppose the Jews were able to kill 30 Nazis during the holocaust. Okay, one might say in one sense this is murder - even cold blood.

In another sense it is fighting back under cruel military occupation.
In context of the history of Israel in Canaan, I take it mostly as the latter.

However, the manner of his killing them probably should have been more coordinated with a resistance army as seen in Gideon and other judges of the same book.

Originally posted by sonship
Now the "30 cold-blooded murders" so called I regard as his national resistance in time of warfare.

Ie. Suppose the Jews were able to kill 30 Nazis during the holocaust. Okay, on in one sense this is murder - even cold blood.

What other historical sources have you used, apart from the Hebrews own literature, to arrive at your comparison of their opponents to "Nazis during the holocaust"?

Originally posted by FMF
What other historical sources have you used, apart from the Hebrews own literature, to arrive at your comparison of their opponents to "Nazis during the holocaust"?

Relying on the Bible is not a "no, no".

Originally posted by sonship
Relying on the Bible is not a "no, no".

But you presume to lecture us on history. You have compared the Hebrews' enemies to the Nazis. What is your method as a historian?

Originally posted by FMF
But you presume to lecture us on history. You have compared the Hebrews' enemies to the Nazis. What is your method as a historian?

I don't claim to be a professional historian.

The problem is that some critics don't really want to read the Bible in context. They want to hunt out a passage here or there to choke on.

What did God TELL the Hebrews would happen to them if they followed the customs of the Canaanites ?

No need for a Phd. in History. Just go back and read the previous few books. Ie. Deuteronomy.

The Canaanites that you leave undispersed will be a real problem to you, Israel. So the book of Judges shows the Philistines were right on time as God and Moses had warned them.

Extra biblical info is interesting. It is not really necessary here in exposing the alledged "absudities" of Samson in the book of Judges.

But you presume to lecture us on history.

Typical Internet skeptic.

You can dish out lecture after lecture on the social wrongs of the Christian gospel.

Let someone tell you something you don't want to hear, and you're being forced to sit through a "lecture."

Originally posted by sonship
I don't claim to be a professional historian. [...] No need for a Phd. in History. Just go back and read the previous few books. Ie. Deuteronomy.

You are making purportedly historical claims based on one self-serving source and then extrapolating lessons from those allegations and then making excuses for mass murder based on those supposed lessons. Blowhard partisan demonizing of a perceived enemy I can understand, sonship. But you clearly seek to give your propagandizing an academic veneer. Do you really believe your lecturing on this matter withstands intellectual scrutiny? Do you believe your methodology is ethical?

Originally posted by sonship
You can dish out lecture after lecture on the social wrongs of the Christian gospel.

I am asking you about your one-source "historical" method and how you use it to compare people to the Nazis.

Originally posted by FMF
I am asking you about your one-source "historical" method and how you use it to compare people to the Nazis.

There seems to be little other written historical sources other than they are believed to be people that also repeatedly attack Egypt from Eqyptian historical sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines

Originally posted by RJHinds
There seems to be little other written historical sources other than they are believed to be people that also repeatedly attack Egypt from Eqyptian historical sources.

It's not really good enough if one is to base a purportedly moral justification for mass murder and genocide on such things. sonship has thrown "the Nazis and the holocaust" into the discussion so I will use them as an example, although I am not comparing the Jews to the Nazis. What if, in say 300 years from now, the only available historical sources on the mid-20th century holocaust were Nazi writings and their anti-semitic propaganda materials. Would it be academically valid or ethical to base our "history" of the Jews in the mid-20th century and the justification for the genocide against them on just that one source? No.

Originally posted by FMF
It's not really good enough if one is to base a purportedly moral justification for mass murder and genocide on such things. sonship has thrown "the Nazis and the holocaust" into the discussion so I will use them as an example, although I am not comparing the Jews to the Nazis. What if, in say 300 years from now, the only available historical sources on the mid- ...[text shortened]... th century and the justification for the genocide against them on just that one source? No.

We have to do the best with what we have now. I did give you a link to an article on the Philistines that indicate that these people are likely the same people indicated in eqyptian writings to have repeatedly attacked Eqypt. If so, that would be two sources that indicate what type of people these were. So I see no need to dismiss the historical account in the Holy Bible, because we do not have any other sources on these attacks on Israel.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If so, that would be two sources that indicate what type of people these were.

What type of people were the Hebrews? We know they carried out genocide that their defenders still defend thousands of years later using literature written by the Hebrews. A "We have to do the best with what we have now" is hardly an adequate basis for extrapolating moral or supposedly "divine" lessons from assertions based on claims based on allegations extracted from folk stories taken from a single biased 'autobiographical' source.

Originally posted by FMF
What type of people were the Hebrews? We know they carried out genocide that their defenders still defend thousands of years later using literature written by the Hebrews. A "We have to do the best with what we have now" is hardly an adequate basis for extrapolating moral or supposedly "divine" lessons from assertions based on claims based on allegations extracted from folk stories taken from a single biased 'autobiographical' source.

We either accept them as fact or we don't. If you don't, then there is no need to discuss it.