Alledged absudities of Samson

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

What is being discussed is its credibility. If it had more credibility perhaps it could be accepted as a "fact". To base a system of morality on such shoddy self-serving "methodology" and surmise and then lecture and judge others by it, strikes me as being rather unethical. Believe what you want, but if you come out with a load of bogus intellectualizing, passing off the dissection of folk tales as historical analysis - and heap moral analysis on top of that [i.e. upside down morality... justifying mass murder, genocide, slavery etc. etc.] then any member of this community has every right to "discuss it".

Originally posted by FMF
What is being discussed is its credibility. If it had more credibility perhaps it could be accepted as a "fact". To base a system of morality on such shoddy self-serving "methodology" and surmise and then lecture and judge others by it, strikes me as being rather unethical. Believe what you want, but if you come out with a load of bogus intellectualizing, passin ...[text shortened]... ide, slavery etc. etc.] then any member of this community has every right to "discuss it".

If you don't believe what it says, then there is really nothing to discuss. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
If you don't believe what it says, then there is really nothing to discuss. 😏

Why should I believe that the Hebrews' enemies can be compared to the Nazis? Believe it if you want. What is being discussed is the legitimacy of the intellectual process that comes up with the attempted discussion-suffocating comparison.

Originally posted by FMF
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 ...[text shortened]... ing on this matter withstands intellectual scrutiny? Do you believe your methodology is ethical?

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?

You seem annoyed that I would compare the Philistines with the Nazis. This was only meant to show generally that the Hebrews were under cruel oppression from the Philistines.

Jews surely groaned under the crushing oppression of the Nazis and some thought to fight back by killing some, I'm sure. Do you disagree ? Judges tells us that the Isrealites groaned and the crushing oppression of their enemies during the time of the Judges.

I suspect the "blowhard" denial of this is your partisan problem not mine.
It is not necessary that Philistines and German Nazis be compared in all things. The Jews have had plenty of oppressors. I could have used religious Christians as the culprit and the argument would have been the same.

So if the Nazi illustration of oppression you don't like substitute Middle Age persecution by religious Christianity.

For the purposes of examining some poster's allegation of absurdities in the Samson story in Judges my contribution is mainly to explore Judges to see why he would say that.

You seem to want to open up another debate that Judges is not to be taken as historically accurate. Then again it serves your propogandizing the perhaps no book of the Bible is historically accurate.

Your charge of Judges being self serving could be examined. I don't think many writers wanting to portray their nation in terms of "God on ourside " self grandizement would propogandize by way of such an unflattering account of themselves as contained in Judges.

False propoganda would seek to eliminate potentially embaressing information.
There will always be another book one could read. Eventually you have to decide to put your trust in somebody. Paul Copan's book "Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God" has ample backround historical study to refer me to further study on many sides of various issues it discusses.

My comparison of Philistines to another oppressive regime was my own idea.
Basically you're saying that you won't trust the book of Judges.

If you think you have reason to think the Jews and the Philistines at that time had a more amiable relationship which would not call for them fighting each other, and Judges is fiction in that regard, what's your source ?

I'll only go examine it, as I take the time to do so, and see what others have to say about that.

Originally posted by sonship
You seem annoyed that I would compare the Philistines with the Nazis. This was only meant to show generally that the Hebrews were under cruel oppression from the Philistines.

I am not annoyed at all. I am just debating your methods and perhaps your ethics. So you compare the Philistines to the Nazis. I see. What's your source? Who was it written by?

Originally posted by sonship
Jews surely groaned under the crushing oppression of the Nazis and some thought to fight back by killing some, I'm sure. Do you disagree ?

Are you introducing the possibility that I might be denying that the Jews suffered "crushing oppression" at the hands of the Nazis? Is that what you played the Nazi Card for?

Originally posted by FMF
I am not annoyed at all. I am just debating your methods and perhaps your ethics. So you compare the Philistines to the Nazis. I see. What's your source? Who was it written by?

I told the readers more than once, and just informed you that in this line of discussion I have gotten help from Paul Copan's book.

"Is God a Moral Monster?" specifically written to counter charges of men like Sam Harris, Chris Hitchens and other "new arthiests" popularizing the moral attack on the Bible.

I know you would find more objective a non apologetic volume. Like I said, eventually you have to trust somebody.

Not all the ideas I write here are from that book. I think for myself also and can add up two and two. And when some skeptic says something that doesn't add up, I have the right to call him on it.

Originally posted by sonship
If you think you have reason to think the Jews and the Philistines at that time had a more amiable relationship which would not call for them fighting each other, and [b]Judges is fiction in that regard, what's your source ?[/b]

What makes you think the Philistines weren't the victims of the Hebrews?

Originally posted by sonship
I told the readers more than once, and just informed you that in this line of discussion I have gotten help from Paul Copan's book.

Does Paul Copan play the Nazi Card against any of the Hebrews' historical opponents too? What's Paul Copan's source?

Originally posted by sonship
[b]"Is God a Moral Monster?" specifically written to counter charges of men like Sam Harris, Chris Hitchens and other "new arthiests" popularizing the moral attack on the Bible.[/b]

I am questioning the evidence you offer and your credibility as you present it. You feel under "moral attack"?

Originally posted by FMF
Are you introducing the possibility that I might be denying that the Jews suffered "crushing oppression" at the hands of the Nazis? Is that what you played the Nazi Card for?

You're going to think whatever it is you want to think FMF.

Substitute Christianity's oppression of Jews rather than Nazi.
My point is that the killing of the oppresors is their fighting an enemy in
Judges.

It seems realistic to me. The poster was driving the line of thought that these were cold blooded murders.

Okay, any war contains "cold blooded murder" in some regard. I can't argue with that. In other words, the guy had a little point there. But, hey, not that big of a point.

Originally posted by sonship
Substitute Christianity's oppression of Jews rather than Nazi.

Why did you ask me whether or not I agreed that the Jews had been oppressed by the Nazis?

I think we could perhaps get to address the thrust of your rhetorical tactics here.

Originally posted by FMF
Why did you ask me whether or not I agreed that the Jews had been oppressed by the Nazis?

I think we could perhaps get to address the thrust of your rhetorical tactics here.

I see you as the one using faulty rhetorical tactics here. But I have learned from past experience that you are that type of person, so I should not be surprised, even though I had hoped for a change of heart.

Originally posted by sonship

My views are not relevant in a discussion of a man who commits 30 cold blooded murders and is held up to little children as a religious hero.
Heck, he even did the suicide thing at the end.

This is a rather circular and self contradictory statement.
It is like "There are no English sentences more than three words long."

You say your views are not relevant and then you strongly express your views.

you are mistaken. he expresses other views. what he believes is irrelevant to the discussion at hand and the discussion at hand is whether or not killing 30 people in cold blood to steal their clothes count as murder. As i type this, i can't believe i am having a debate on this topic, that can ever be any doubt that someone who kills 30 people to rob them of their clothes is in fact a murderer.


Bear in mind that most likely he didn't find those people all gathered in one place and he just lost his mind. This is a thought out course of action, taken over several days in which he understood the situation he was in (being in debt), and after looking for a solution, he found the most sociopath thing imaginable to do: kill a bunch of strangers, then he proceeded to find people with nice enough clothes, kill them, strip them. presumably while onlookers looked at him in horror. he could have killed the ones he had a debt to, it would have simply been evil, instead of evil and insane.

we have here a human with incredible strength, effectively a superhuman, unrestrained by conscience or possible consequences. and he would inflict himself upon unsuspecting civilians to satisfy any of his desires. taking this one step further, delilah, perhaps one of the most reviled women in the bible could have been an innocent woman, scared to say no to him, and what she did after could be thought of as the actions of a kidnapped(and raped) victim. she is the innocent in this story. (that's another aspect of the awesome that is samson)

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] 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. D ...[text shortened]... mine it, as I take the time to do so, and see what others have to say about that.

the jews where under cruel oppression from the philistines according to the jews. what other sources do you have that they suffered so much?

for example, referring to another bible story, some view ahab and jezebel as quite progressive rulers, allowing freedom of religion, and elijah (or eli, i mix the english version of their names) the madman that tried to mess up the society they were trying to build.