responding to common objections to bible part 4

[Ironside]

Deuteronomy 25
yes isreal had no army at this pint,they just left as slaves from Egypt.

17 Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. 18 When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and attacked all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God.

those that lagged behind would be old,young,sick etc. i am pretty sure that time they had guard [if any at time] in front.

They had enough military force to have a field battle that lasted until the evening. That also means that the Amalekites did attack in large enouh numbers for it to be more than a raid so the military number needs to be quite large. The Amalekites were certainly the aggressor in this particular battle, so in this case it's self-defense certainly.

you said "To be clear, as long as you're moving together with a group that constitutes a military threat, you're not defenseless even if you count as a civilian and the defenses around you are insufficient. "

please support this with anything,they are not in the land of the Amalekites at this time.

Pretty much every older army had civilians with it and following it. So any attack that would involve those in any way (like attacking the luggage train or supplies)would be an attack on civilians. That would make most battles in history fall into "attacking the innocent and defenseless".

defense
i said they were attacked first, that is true, i said they meant to pass through land and peace doing so, that is true, i said they were attacked first and later fought back [counter attack] that is true. That is what i have said from beginning. Its like saying england should have never invaded nazi germany because that would be offensive war and attacking. Especially when they would continue attacks.

In this world, England ran articles about about conquering Germany in a way that would strike fear in the rest of the world by 1938.
Also, I take it you know that Germany claimed self defense when attacking Poland? They used the old tradition of a phoney attack. And that's the thing, if you make an offer you know they'll refuse, even if it appear nice on the surface, it's not an honest offer. And if you're expecting to conquer their entire nation before they've done anything because you already know that they will refuse your "fair" offer, then you can't really claim self-defense.

It's murder, pretending to be self-defense so you can get away with it.

you said
"And here the result. Taking all towns and wiping out the entire Amorite population. Killing the entire population, leaving no survivors of an entire people constitutes as genocide correct?"


I agree fully, but this is not what god ordered or what happened. Please read my op or post 92.

That's a gem.To paraphrase "those passages contains the language of the time and/or hyperbole".

Ahem, "the Bible as a summary of old contradicting texts that contains lies, hyperboles and propaganda, with some small grains of truth." Prove me wrong. Also refering to archeological findings falls under "small grains of truth".

To be clear, for you to get any arguments out of this, we have to pretend that it isn't totally ridiculous that they walked 40 years a distance you can walk in less than 40 weeks by walking 1 hour a day. That this absolutly gigantic group of people, walking from water hole to water hole (when they got drained), never needing outside food wasn't stuff of legend and that simply showing off the manna thing would convert any disbelievers.

That means that even if the divine wonders of God were true, people didn't act like people. So there's not even internal consistancy.

But since you do decide to open the door of making parts of the Bible questionable...

Your later comment are about justification, not self defense and it contains "the language of the time as well as hyperbole".