As a Catholic, What do you think about Hiroshima?

[jonbhorton]

Contextual reading reveals the JWD accepts Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it is because of the very fact that 1) it was war and the US wasn’t the aggressor 2) the US, despite having other options, chose the one which would affect the quickest surrender and the lowest loss of life. Yet you still blame the US government of 1945 for doing everything they could to lessen actual loss of life because they conducted a properly tactical war within accepted means? Weird.

**
This also applies to the fire bombing of Tokyo, and, yes, Dresden too.**

Having looked at the information supplied, no, it doesn’t.

And while we are on about war crimes, what about the bombing of a German Submarine displaying the White flag and Red Cross, while its captain, having radioed for assistance, took care of the survivors of a ship he had sunk. The order, which was questioned by the bomber crew, for this action, in blatant breach of the laws of war was given by the highest authority in the US government.

This would be totally on point if not for the fact that merely throwing up a red cross, particularly at the time, was also a violation of the laws of war. The situation was in a grey area and the order was given: there were implications regarding a US military installation nearby.
**
Excuses will not wash these dirty hands clean.**

“Here’s the smell of the blood still: all the
perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little
hand. Oh, oh, oh!”- Macbeth

In this case, that actually related to murder. While not bloody for this reason, our hands are certainly dirty from burying all our war dead. Dead because of the aggressor Germans, Italians, and Japanese.

**This lesson has still not been learned.
**

The lesson not yet learned in this thread is that Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and likely any other accusation levied against the US is going to be out of context, emotional, and largely devoid of necessary facts with which to extrapolate the correct information.

Americans MURDERING Osama Bin Laden, like the JEWS murdering political leaders of whom they disapprove, is still MURDER.

#1- American didn’t “murder” Osama Bin Laden. If the official story is correct, he went for a weapon. Boom! Headshot. Go, go gadget Seal Team 6.

#2- The evil Jooooos , again, do not “murder” anyone. It is war. Just because there aren’t huge battles being fought is of no consequence. Even more so, Israel is targeting people working for Iran on a bomb which is meant to, along with a bunch of its siblings, wipe Israel off the map. You really want not only a bunch of Israelis, but also a bunch of Palestinians to be nuked over an issue Iran has no business in? For religious reasons? Either Israel kills a few scientists and intelligence guys in the employ of Iran now, or a bunch of people are going to die within a year and a half in all likelihood. I don’t foresee Israel waiting much longer on a “preemptive” strike, though there is nothing preemptive about it. Iran has been waging war for years against Israel via proxy entities, as have almost all Arab-mohammedan nations.

 

[jonbhorton]

Very well then. You obviously stand for the proposition that there are some circumstances under which it is morally acceptable to deliberately kill an unborn human child (e.g., when you know for a fact that pregnant women will die in an atomic blast on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) in order to achieve a greater good (e.g., avoiding deaths of American and Allied soldiers during an invasion).

Pregnant women would have died in a land invasion. Probably many more than died in H or N. You also slant the reality of the situation in that while many American/Allied soldiers were saved by the nuke, in lieu of a land invasion, so were many more Japanese who would have died in a land invasion- and thus, saved.

A life is a life. I don’t know why you insist on obfuscating that by whether or not the life belonged to a man, woman, or child- unborn or not. The number of LIVES saved was much greater than the LIVES taken. This was done to make sure that even more extreme loss of LIFE would not be the case.

So, my question is: when else do we get to kill unborn human children? To save the life of the mother? To avoid inconvenience to the mother? To save money? For the heck of it?

Well, a pregnant suicide bomber who is obviously not going to be talked down. If she is shot, the baby could die if the vest was unable to be removed by EOD in time; or the bomb might detonate and take the baby out anyway. Either way, The greater moral imperative is that the huge crowd the pregnant human-bomb is in not be killed. While that may mean targeting the mother and baby, the responsibility of the consequence is on the person wearing the bomb.

As per your other questions, don’t be crass. I’ve argued perfectly well within consideration of the limits of Catholic doctrine and my moral conscience. I have not, do not, and never will support abortion under any circumstance. My other mother taught me the value of my life by risking death during her pregnancy with me; I later watched her nearly bleed to death internally when an ectopic pregnancy burst while she was doing housework. In both cases she knew the consequence of not “ridding” herself of a “health risk” and she chose the right thing. Don’t be a dolt and assume that because I can understand what war is, I somehow must believe in the killing of innocent people, particularly unborn babies, on purpose as the means and end. The decision was not about killing innocents on purpose, and you know that. That you keep using such a fallacious argument embarrasses me for you, for you are obviously gleeful to make such a spectacle. I’ve never argued such a thing, and if the thread was “US soldiers stabbing pregnant Japanese while they surrendered; November 29th 1950”, I’d be frothing in my condemnation of their actions. THANK GOD the war didn’t extend past mid-'45.

~ Unless I’ve misread you, of course. Perhaps you feel that the deliberate killing of unborn human children is always and everywhere immoral. If so, then Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and Dresden and Hamburg and Warsaw and Frampol and London and Liverpool and Coventry and on and on and on) were immoral. Because, rather than targeting military targets and accidentally killing innocents (a non-sinful but unfortunate event under the dual effect doctrine), they deliberately targeted innocent people (a/k/a murder, a sin).

You must absolutely hate reading the Old Testament when God commands everything in Canaan be wiped out. In other words, outside of abortion issues, there are some very heavy questions to consider and it won’t be resolved in this thread. I don’t know if it will ever be resolved in terms of human ability to make war under said conclusions. I’ll leave this paragraph comment to that.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, GKC,

I am sort of over a barrel on this … since the world’s leaders in no way model the life of St. Francis of Assisi - where disagreements can be resolved without armed conflict - it looks like truly innocent lives will be lost in our modern hostilities - what is one to do? Personally, I think that Godfollower is totally impractical - and is not using a perfectly rational approach of Double Effect - the deaths of non-combatants is not intended but rather the cessation of hostilities and the on-going killing of both combatants and non-combatants, to say nothing about our own troops.

Do you see a lesson from WWII and Hiroshima that can be applied to today - maybe with an eye to Israel and Iran … and the US … possibly squaring off in a major confrontation?

God bless

Feifer/TENNOZAN: THE BATTLE OF OKINAWA AND THE ATOMIC BOMB is gut-wrenching, and a clear outline, in miniature, of what the Ketsu-Go defense of the Home Islands would have been, had DOWNFALL been put into operation.

GKC

 

[vz71]

There was never any need for 2 bombs: one alone was more than adequate for demonstration of ability.

Your lack of historical knowledge of the events is horrifying.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

You must absolutely hate reading the Old Testament when God commands everything in Canaan be wiped out. In other words, outside of abortion issues, there are some very heavy questions to consider and it won’t be resolved in this thread. I don’t know if it will ever be resolved in terms of human ability to make war under said conclusions. I’ll leave this paragraph comment to that.

Thank G_D that at least now we know that 90% of the OT is pure man-made fiction promulgated by the Jews to to bolster their myth that they are a people apart.
All of it was written during, and post the Babylonian exhile.
The real tragedy though is that Adolf Hitler was fooled by it, and thus believing it was a matter of blood, rather than culture, his cure of elimination was by holocaust rather than education.
In this sense, that tragedy was the fault of the Jews, as much as it was of Hitler.
We must reject this poisonous propaganda, or the disaster will be repeated.
The only part of the OT with any value is that quoted by Our Lord, and a degree of scepticism has to be applied to the accounts concerning David, in which he can be seen clearly to be teasing his opponents in the arguments.
To put it crudely, he was taking the p***.
The OT belongs to the Jews, and they are welcome to it.
Our Lord gave us the NT, and Truth, and Freedom.
The Jews have the OT, and lies, and chains.
I know my choice.

 

[vz71]

Thank G_D that at least now we know that 90% of the OT is pure man-made fiction promulgated by the Jews to to bolster their myth that they are a people apart.

Source?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Voco pro Tatiano,

Thank God you got that straight … here I was - all this time thinking that the Bible was the inspired Word of God with the entire message of salvation being revealed to us through human writers. And, now I know the truth… that this is just a work of fiction, invented by a creative writers guild headquartered in a Babylonian publishing house! Who would have thought! Thanks for clarifying this matter for me!

The post you have presented is a truly and profoundly misguided view of Scripture.

God bless

Thank G_D that at least now we know that 90% of the OT is pure man-made fiction promulgated by the Jews to to bolster their myth that they are a people apart.
All of it was written during, and post the Babylonian exhile.
The real tragedy though is that Adolf Hitler was fooled by it, and thus believing it was a matter of blood, rather than culture, his cure of elimination was by holocaust rather than education.
In this sense, that tragedy was the fault of the Jews, as much as it was of Hitler.
We must reject this poisonous propaganda, or the disaster will be repeated.
The only part of the OT with any value is that quoted by Our Lord, and a degree of scepticism has to be applied to the accounts concerning David, in which he can be seen clearly to be teasing his opponents in the arguments.
To put it crudely, he was taking the p***.
The OT belongs to the Jews, and they are welcome to it.
Our Lord gave us the NT, and Truth, and Freedom.
The Jews have the OT, and lies, and chains.
I know my choice.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Source?

Sadly, dispite all the efforts of the Jews to find evidence relating to King David, or the United Israel, they have found nothing.
The archeology denies the mythical history, and the myths are clearly Babylonian in origin, just edited to remove most of the polytheism.
We can safely accept Maccabees, and most of the prophets.
The pentateuch is utter fabrication.
The rest may have traces of history buried in the myths, much as the legends of King Arthur may recall a Roman foreign Legion made up of Sarmatian knights. The Sarmatians were a Celtic race, and modern archeology places Avalon in Scotland, not far from Stirling.
There is no solid archeological support for the OT.
If you want it, and you are welcome to it, it is purely a matter of faith.
We have good archeological support for the NT, and cross reference from non-Christian sources. The like is utterly missing for the OT.

 

[GKC]

Hi, GKC,

I am sort of over a barrel on this … since the world’s leaders in no way model the life of St. Francis of Assisi - where disagreements can be resolved without armed conflict - it looks like truly innocent lives will be lost in our modern hostilities - what is one to do? Personally, I think that Godfollower is totally impractical - and is not using a perfectly rational approach of Double Effect - the deaths of non-combatants is not intended but rather the cessation of hostilities and the on-going killing of both combatants and non-combatants, to say nothing about our own troops.

Do you see a lesson from WWII and Hiroshima that can be applied to today - maybe with an eye to Israel and Iran … and the US … possibly squaring off in a major confrontation?

God bless

You’re asking for wisdom that I haven’t found in my 55 years of book collecting, but you honor me, in doing so.

What I have found is that no one, so far, maketh the wars to cease. And, that being the case, one principle I have found to be worth following is that if wars cannot be made to cease, generally, then any given war must be made to cease, expeditiously. Be parsimonious, not profligate, with death. And that was what the use of the two atomic bombs did, as opposed to any other ending of the war that one can conjecture. As my posts demonstrate, over the years.

You will recall that I do not involve myself in the discussions of the application of the teachings of the *magisterium *in any of this. My attitude toward the magisterium is one of great respect, but it is not the same as a RC must have. I deal only in historical issues, not moral ones. I have to repeat that, from time to time.

But given that: One plane. One bomb. No more war.

Good.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Source?

I think that Voco pro Tatiano has a rather esoteric, though ambitious, approach to scripture, judging from other posts.

Note his “Religion” identification, in his post header.

GKC

 

[vz71]

I think that Voco pro Tatiano has a rather esoteric, though ambitious, approach to scripture, judging from other posts.

Note his “Religion” identification, in his post header.

GKC

As well as an esoteric view of what ‘source’ means.

 

[oldbrit2009]

Thank G_D that at least now we know that 90% of the OT is pure man-made fiction promulgated by the Jews to to bolster their myth that they are a people apart.
All of it was written during, and post the Babylonian exhile.
The real tragedy though is that Adolf Hitler was fooled by it, and thus believing it was a matter of blood, rather than culture, his cure of elimination was by holocaust rather than education.
In this sense, that tragedy was the fault of the Jews, as much as it was of Hitler.
We must reject this poisonous propaganda, or the disaster will be repeated.
The only part of the OT with any value is that quoted by Our Lord, and a degree of scepticism has to be applied to the accounts concerning David, in which he can be seen clearly to be teasing his opponents in the arguments.
To put it crudely, he was taking the p***.
The OT belongs to the Jews, and they are welcome to it.
Our Lord gave us the NT, and Truth, and Freedom.
The Jews have the OT, and lies, and chains.
I know my choice.

I imagine Scott Hahn would have a few choice remarks to make about that somewhat bigoted summary of the OT.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Voco pro Tatiano,

Great job - the question was, “Source?” and look at all this verbage - with just more of your opinion. This is truly a impoverished response.

There was a time when I thought you could do better - now, I am not too sure. Maybe you would like to give us where it is you are getting your information…

God bless

Sadly, dispite all the efforts of the Jews to find evidence relating to King David, or the United Israel, they have found nothing.
The archeology denies the mythical history, and the myths are clearly Babylonian in origin, just edited to remove most of the polytheism.
We can safely accept Maccabees, and most of the prophets.
The pentateuch is utter fabrication.
The rest may have traces of history buried in the myths, much as the legends of King Arthur may recall a Roman foreign Legion made up of Sarmatian knights. The Sarmatians were a Celtic race, and modern archeology places Avalon in Scotland, not far from Stirling.
There is no solid archeological support for the OT.
If you want it, and you are welcome to it, it is purely a matter of faith.
We have good archeological support for the NT, and cross reference from non-Christian sources. The like is utterly missing for the OT.

 

[GKC]

Hi, Voco pro Tatiano,

Great job - the question was, “Source?” and look at all this verbage - with just more of your opinion. This is truly a impoverished response.

There was a time when I thought you could do better - now, I am not too sure. Maybe you would like to give us where it is you are getting your information…

God bless

He has a hobby, as far as I can tell.

GKC

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

He has a hobby, as far as I can tell.

GKC

Ok, is it possible for you to be open-minded?
Start here:
ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/12/david-and-solomon/draper-text
from:

David & Solomon, Kings of Controversy - National Geographic …
ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/12/david-and.../draper-text
Was the Kingdom of David and Solomon a glorious empire—or just a little cow town? It depends on … Search nationalgeographic.com … King Herod Revealed …

Then you might look at:
worldagesarchive.com/Reference_Links/False_Testament_%28Harpers%29.htm

Found under:
False testament: archaeology refutes the Bible’s claim to history
If the linguists of the Higher Criticism were generally skeptical in regard to the Old Testament, modern biblical archaeology as it began taking shape in the early …

Search phrase: old testament archeology

Yes, you can find contrary arguments, but they are all based on the bad archeology condemned in the article given above.
You cannot shoehorn archeology to fit your myths. Science needs open minds. Science advances by disproving alternatives. Much as Holmes is reputed to have said: When you have disproved all the alternatives, what remains is the truth.

You cannot rely on Yigal Yadin’s pseudo science.
Your start point cannot be the myths you are trying to validate.
You must actually try to destroy your myths.
If, then, they stand up to your attempts to destroy them, there remain two possibilties:
1/ You did not make a serious effort.
2/ The myths have a factual basis.

If the Sarmatian knight became the father of a royal house, the Celtic word for ‘father’ is ‘athair’, pronounced in Irish, ‘aher’. The sound is not a good match, but if read by a Saxon, then ‘arthur’ is very similar.

 

[GKC]

Ok, is it possible for you to be open-minded?
Start here:
ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/12/david-and-solomon/draper-text
from:

David & Solomon, Kings of Controversy - National Geographic …
ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/12/david-and.../draper-text
Was the Kingdom of David and Solomon a glorious empire—or just a little cow town? It depends on … Search nationalgeographic.com … King Herod Revealed …

Then you might look at:
worldagesarchive.com/Reference_Links/False_Testament_%28Harpers%29.htm

Found under:
False testament: archaeology refutes the Bible’s claim to history
If the linguists of the Higher Criticism were generally skeptical in regard to the Old Testament, modern biblical archaeology as it began taking shape in the early …

Search phrase: old testament archeology

Yes, you can find contrary arguments, but they are all based on the bad archeology condemned in the article given above.
You cannot shoehorn archeology to fit your myths. Science needs open minds. Science advances by disproving alternatives. Much as Holmes is reputed to have said: When you have disproved all the alternatives, what remains is the truth.

You cannot rely on Yigal Yadin’s pseudo science.
Your start point cannot be the myths you are trying to validate.
You must actually try to destroy your myths.
If, then, they stand up to your attempts to destroy them, there remain two possibilties:
1/ You did not make a serious effort.
2/ The myths have a factual basis.

If the Sarmatian knight became the father of a royal house, the Celtic word for ‘father’ is ‘athair’, pronounced in Irish, ‘aher’. The sound is not a good match, but if read by a Saxon, then ‘arthur’ is very similar.

Yep. A hobby. Which is ok. I have a lot of them myself. Some show up in threads like this one. And by virtue of my hobby, I can assess theories and judge claims. I’ve been immersed in the subject matter. Hobbies can be like that.

Sometimes I can be open minded. As witness that I can judge when I am qualified to judge, between a Frank and a Blackett, a Newman and a Zinn, with not merely an open, but an informed mind. I’ve noticed a lot of a lack of this, in this thread.

This is not such a case.

Looks like fascinating revisionism, though. Revisionism is always to be held suspect, until it has overcome its established contrary.

And what Holmes said was “…when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”

THE SIGN OF THE FOUR. Holmes was my first and oldest hobby, just preceding my interest in WWII, beginning over 55 years ago.

GKC

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Yep. A hobby. Which is ok. I have a lot of them myself. Some show up in threads like this one. And by virtue of my hobby, I can assess theories and judge claims. I’ve been immersed in the subject matter. Hobbies can be like that.

Sometimes I can be open minded. As witness that I can judge when I am qualified to judge, between a Frank and a Blackett, a Newman and a Zinn, with not merely an open, but an informed mind. I’ve noticed a lot of a lack of this, in this thread.

This is not such a case.

Looks like fascinating revisionism, though. Revisionism is always to be held suspect, until it has overcome its established contrary.

And what Holmes said was “…when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”

THE SIGN OF THE FOUR. Holmes was my first and oldest hobby, just preceding my interest in WWII, beginning over 55 years ago.

GKC

Your points are accepted.
What remains is this:
The NT has good archeological and witness support, even from hostile witnesses.
The OT requires special pleading.
I thus accept only parts of the OT supported directly by Our Lord’s Gospel.
Where the Gospel conflicts with the Epistles, then the authority of the Gospel has supremacy. The pupil cannot over-ride the teacher.

You cannot support arguments which are contrary to the NT by calling on the OT: the NT SUPERSEDES the OT.
The OT is illustrative background, as is Tacitus.
Tacitus is the more reliable, even as hostile witness.

 

[GKC]

Your points are accepted.
What remains is this:
The NT has good archeological and witness support, even from hostile witnesses.
The OT requires special pleading.
I thus accept only parts of the OT supported directly by Our Lord’s Gospel.
Where the Gospel conflicts with the Epistles, then the authority of the Gospel has supremacy. The pupil cannot over-ride the teacher.

You cannot support arguments which are contrary to the NT by calling on the OT: the NT SUPERSEDES the OT.
The OT is illustrative background, as is Tacitus.
Tacitus is the more reliable, even as hostile witness.

Ok by me. I pointed out, obliquely, previously, that you accounted yourself a heretic. This seems to clarify why.

GKC

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Voco pro Tatiano,

You probably have no idea how charitable GKC has been in his response to your post.

When I read your post … well … I really did find a number of basic problems. So, let’s just take a few and look at them.

The National Geographic is (or at least was) a great mag that gave photographers a place to showcase their work, Kodak a place to sell their film and cameras and arm-chair adventurers a chance to see the world. The NG popularized a number of areas and ideas - and I think there are real places for publications like this. The snag comes in with trying to pass this off as scholarship. It simply isn’t what you claim it to be. And, lest we forget - the goal of every daily, weekly or monthly publication is - to sell their publication. Every day, week and month, each and every publisher starts out with the same challenge: a blank sheet of paper - and on this sheet they are to put something that other people will buy. This is marketing and not scholarship and woe to those who are unable to make the distinction. If you fear myths - you are at the tender mercies of every publisher out there who has something else for you to buy - in an effort to disprove those ‘other’ myths!

Simply stated, claiming the Old Testament is false because of the findings of a couple of archaeologists is rash and foolhardy, indeed - unless it squares with your own preset agenda. I just really now appreciated the logo that appears at the bottom left corner of your posts. The destructive picture of having a sword through the Bible tells a lot - sorry it took me a while to catch it. Let me be quite clear about what I means by your own preset agenda by using some of your quotes:

Yes, you can find contrary arguments, but they are all based on the bad archeology condemned in the article given above.

Of course there are ‘contrary arguments’ - they would be measured by the ton rather than your sources as measured in the ounce. The claim is ALL OF THESE previous archaeologists used bad science to arrive at that their errors - while your guys have the truth. Doesn’t this strike you as being just a bit self-serving?

You cannot shoehorn archeology to fit your myths. Science needs open minds. Science advances by disproving alternatives.
Yet, you would extol the myths you present (no truth in the OT) and expect others to believe it. Science is often made to be the deciding factor of reality - and quite often we find that we have to go back and throw out the previous scientific ‘dogma’ to fit a new - and reversing - ‘dogma’. You do recall when the sun and planets orbited around the Earth - only to be replaced the Earth and the other planets orbiting around the sun? The Earth being flat giving way to the Earth being round and giving way to the Earth bulging in the middle while the poles are a bit flat. There are others - but, the idea is that the Bible (both OT and NT) is the inspired Word of God - and not a science or history book.

The World Ages Archive really does have its own agenda that they clearly spell out: worldagesarchive.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=54 They are interested in the ‘controversial’ and the, “…ill represented views and theories of when and how things happened in Antiquity”. In short, they want to sell their books and sensational ideas (just scroll on down the page and see all they have for sale) to a group who are already claiming the Bible is of no value. In short, this link does not advance scholarship - it advances controversy for the sake of profit.

And, really, what I find quite singular is that while you make a big production of trashing the OT - you seem to applaud the NT and all that Christ said and did. Many believe that the OT was totally fulfilled by the NT - Christ, Himself, did not trash the OT as you seem to do with total abandon - rather, to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (Matt 5:17).

In brief, I thank you for the references you have provided - but, you have hitched your wagon to a dead mule. It will not take you anywhere - and, it is already beginning to rot.

God bless

Ok, is it possible for you to be open-minded?
Start here:
ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/12/david-and-solomon/draper-text
from:

David & Solomon, Kings of Controversy - National Geographic …
ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/12/david-and.../draper-text
Was the Kingdom of David and Solomon a glorious empire—or just a little cow town? It depends on … Search nationalgeographic.com … King Herod Revealed …

Then you might look at:
worldagesarchive.com/Reference_Links/False_Testament_%28Harpers%29.htm

Found under:
False testament: archaeology refutes the Bible’s claim to history
If the linguists of the Higher Criticism were generally skeptical in regard to the Old Testament, modern biblical archaeology as it began taking shape in the early …

Search phrase: old testament archeology

Yes, you can find contrary arguments, but they are all based on the bad archeology condemned in the article given above.
You cannot shoehorn archeology to fit your myths. Science needs open minds. Science advances by disproving alternatives. Much as Holmes is reputed to have said: When you have disproved all the alternatives, what remains is the truth.

 

[GKC]

Hi, Voco pro Tatiano,

You probably have no idea how charitable GKC has been in his response to your post.

When I read your post … well … I really did find a number of basic problems. So, let’s just take a few and look at them.

The National Geographic is (or at least was) a great mag that gave photographers a place to showcase their work, Kodak a place to sell their film and cameras and arm-chair adventurers a chance to see the world. The NG popularized a number of areas and ideas - and I think there are real places for publications like this. The snag comes in with trying to pass this off as scholarship. It simply isn’t what you claim it to be. And, lest we forget - the goal of every daily, weekly or monthly publication is - to sell their publication. Every day, week and month, each and every publisher starts out with the same challenge: a blank sheet of paper - and on this sheet they are to put something that other people will buy. This is marketing and not scholarship and woe to those who are unable to make the distinction. If you fear myths - you are at the tender mercies of every publisher out there who has something else for you to buy - in an effort to disprove those ‘other’ myths!

Simply stated, claiming the Old Testament is false because of the findings of a couple of archaeologists is rash and foolhardy, indeed - unless it squares with your own preset agenda. I just really now appreciated the logo that appears at the bottom left corner of your posts. The destructive picture of having a sword through the Bible tells a lot - sorry it took me a while to catch it. Let me be quite clear about what I means by your own preset agenda by using some of your quotes:

Yes, you can find contrary arguments, but they are all based on the bad archeology condemned in the article given above.

Of course there are ‘contrary arguments’ - they would be measured by the ton rather than your sources as measured in the ounce. The claim is ALL OF THESE previous archaeologists used bad science to arrive at that their errors - while your guys have the truth. Doesn’t this strike you as being just a bit self-serving?

You cannot shoehorn archeology to fit your myths. Science needs open minds. Science advances by disproving alternatives.
Yet, you would extol the myths you present (no truth in the OT) and expect others to believe it. Science is often made to be the deciding factor of reality - and quite often we find that we have to go back and throw out the previous scientific ‘dogma’ to fit a new - and reversing - ‘dogma’. You do recall when the sun and planets orbited around the Earth - only to be replaced the Earth and the other planets orbiting around the sun? The Earth being flat giving way to the Earth being round and giving way to the Earth bulging in the middle while the poles are a bit flat. There are others - but, the idea is that the Bible (both OT and NT) is the inspired Word of God - and not a science or history book.

The World Ages Archive really does have its own agenda that they clearly spell out: worldagesarchive.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=54 They are interested in the ‘controversial’ and the, “…ill represented views and theories of when and how things happened in Antiquity”. In short, they want to sell their books and sensational ideas (just scroll on down the page and see all they have for sale) to a group who are already claiming the Bible is of no value. In short, this link does not advance scholarship - it advances controversy for the sake of profit.

And, really, what I find quite singular is that while you make a big production of trashing the OT - you seem to applaud the NT and all that Christ said and did. Many believe that the OT was totally fulfilled by the NT - Christ, Himself, did not trash the OT as you seem to do with total abandon - rather, to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (Matt 5:17).

In brief, I thank you for the references you have provided - but, you have hitched your wagon to a dead mule. It will not take you anywhere - and, it is already beginning to rot.

God bless

On another board, about 2 days ago, I was involved in a thread that related, curiously, to one of my hobby areas; one that I haven’t actively pursued for some years. This was a area that I labelled, in the days when I kept a data base on my books, WEIRD STUFF. It included flying saucers, crypto-zoology, historical mysteries, ancient lost civilizations, black magic, medical quackery, and, generally, what McKay in his classic work, called Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds. Sort of stuff you can find on cable TV. It also included conspiracy theories, of many sorts, some even related to my military reading. I had around 400 books in this general category; things which go against the received wisdom.

My attitude in the thread on the other board, and my attitude here, when it is not based on positive knowledge from my reading, is one of skepticism, to the out of the ordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Thus, my comment that revisionism must labor mightily, and provide such proof, to supplant established conventional wisdom. Sometimes this happens. Often it doesn’t. But my hobby interest, in Weird Stuff, makes me skeptical, enured against facile upstart claims. This is not a judgement; by definition I might not know enough to make one. It is merely caution.

GKC