We all know the story told in I Kings 3. Solomon was given wisdom by God more than anyone else. To show us how wise he was Solomon issued a ruling involving two prostitutes who both claimed a particular baby was theirs. To settle the matter Solomon ordered that the child be cut in two, with each woman receiving half of him. This is supposed to be considered wise. I demurr. I think it was the dumbest judicial ruling in history, well, at least one of them. Here's why.
So let's look at what the Bible says that happened. Loftus makes it look like Solomon decides to cut the baby in half because he can't decide whose the baby's mother is. IF this was true, then maybe Loftus has a point. But before pulling the string revealing just how whacked Loftus' reasoning really is, let's see how he tried to develop his "point.
Just imagine Solomon’s so-called “wise” judgment in our day in a courtroom situation in a divorce child custody case.
How is a child custody case in a courtroom in anyway like the scenario in the Bible? In cases involving custody of children, the court knows the relationship of the people who are vying for custody to the child in question. And today with DNA, birth certificates, and all the documentation around today, it's almost impossible to not to be able to tell a child's parentage. In this case, Solomon was looking for the identity of the baby's mother given that two women claimed to be the baby's mother.
Given that people abort children without shame or conscious then maybe today both mothers could have an "as-long-as-she-doesn't-have-him "attitude, but I doubt it. I would think that a woman who goes through pregnancy and birth would so cavalierly give up her child. I mean there is that pesky little quality we call love. Even after 3000 years, I wouldn't count motherly love out. Solomon was wise enough not to ignore mothely love as a motivation for human action even if Loftus misses it.
Even the real mother might have wanted the child killed rather than have it raised by such a lying conniving pretender/thief.
Why? Why would not a mother love her child so much that she would rather see him live than die.
If this had happened then the child would have been killed since that’s what Solomon said, and he could not back out of it, could he? Any civilized judge issuing such a judgment would be thrown out of the country it’s so utterly repulsive. It’s actually the dumbest ruling that was ever made.
I think the dumbest thing is that Loftus doesn't see that Solomon was wise enough to see that the real mother would love her son so much that she'd rather live without him than die. Don't forget that love is about sacrifice.
Unlike John Loftus, some atheists are honest. While I disagree with the conclusion the commenter draws on the Bible, he at least correctly states what the Bible does say..
Solomon was wise enough to know that in the situation he orchestrated he would not have to kill the baby because her knew the baby's mother would rather give him up than for him to die. It's nice to see that a person can be honest with the Bible although they don't believe it. As of posting this, I have not seen any response from Loftus. I hope that he's own up and just apologize for his blunder. Not sure if he's wise enough to see that.
Debunking Christianity: Solomon's Decision Was the Dumbest Judicial Ruling in History
Why? Why would not a mother love her child so much that she would rather see him live than die.
ReplyDeleteYou're not well read are you? Read Euripides. But in any case, you and High-may seemed to have missed the point of this post.
Another dishonest atheist tap-dancing around the issue of explaining what the Bible says and criticizing the Bible correctly. And throwing another atheist under the bus who accurately understands the story without twisting it....classy.
ReplyDeleteSo you are saying no mother ever killed her child?
ReplyDeleteNo. I never said that no mother has ever killed her child. The point is that it's unlikely that mother would knowingly kill her living baby today and even more unlikely given the context of ancient Israel. Even today people are repulsed by the idea of a mother killing her baby and it is not normative or expected. Counting on motherly instinct to protect her child is far more likely to pan out than just assume that she'd rather not be bothered. But again considering how prevalent abortion is today and your reasoning that it could be more likely for a mother to kill her own child I may be giving our culture way too much credit.
ReplyDeleteActually, as a child, statistically, you are more likely to be murdered by your own mother than you are by a stranger. Not even factoring in abortions, obviously...
ReplyDelete...is far more likely to pan out than just assume that...
And that is John's entire point... Wise judges don't do that gamble like that...
But don't worry, it's just an allegory anyway.
Actually, as a child, statistically, you are more likely to be murdered by your own mother than you are by a stranger. Not even factoring in abortions, obviously...
ReplyDeleteSo you would really argue that in ancient Israel as well as today it is far more likely that a mother would kill her baby? I wouldn't given that born babies are the least likely to be murdered...so your point is not in context.
And that is John's entire point... Wise judges don't do that gamble like that...
Yeah, Mr Probability. It was wise of Solomon and stupid of you and Loftus to miss that human nature would mean that the mother of the child would seek to protect her baby and any other outcome would be a statistical outliar and aberrant behavior.
But don't worry, it's just an allegory anyway.
Sure would like you to prove that it is just an allegory. That would be hilarious to see you try to do that. What is it an allegory for? And if it is only meant to be an allegory then Loftus can't use it to discredit the Bible and we are wasting a lot of time. Do you know what you are saying?
So you would really argue that in ancient Israel as well as today it is far more likely that a mother would kill her baby?
ReplyDeleteHuman nature seems to be human nature, today or yesterday, and given the value of human life in the ANE and in the Old Testament specifically, unless demonstrated otherwise, I have no reason to assume that the culture of whoever wrote 1st Kings 400 years after the events portrayed was any different.
I wouldn't given that born babies are the least likely to be murdered.
What does this even mean? I suspect you are not following...
What is it an allegory for?
The division of the Israel into two kingdoms...
And if it is only meant to be an allegory then Loftus can't use it to discredit the Bible and we are wasting a lot of time.
He can use it to discredit idiots like you who have some need to take the whole thing literally...
...it is far more likely that a mother would kill her baby?
ReplyDeleteOh! I see where you went off the rails. Go back and reread. It is not more likely that a mother will kill her child than not. That simple makes no sense.
IF a child is murdered, it is statistically more likely that the mother killed him or her than a stranger (or even aunt, hint hint...).
Human nature seems to be human nature, today or yesterday, and given the value of human life in the ANE and in the Old Testament specifically, unless demonstrated otherwise, I have no reason to assume that the culture of whoever wrote 1st Kings 400 years after the events portrayed was any different.
ReplyDeleteThere is no reason to think that most mothers in antiquity would not value the life of their babies and you would have to prove that the Old Testament puts no value on human life. Thinking that proves that you don't understand what you read.
The division of the Israel into two kingdoms...
If you think that there was an ancient kingdom of Israel to be divided it would have been before the time you allege that this was written. And you have no reason to conclude that Solomon is not historical or that the story is not historical.
He can use it to discredit idiots like you who have some need to take the whole thing literally...
He can use it to discredit idiots like you who have some need to take the whole thing literally...
I'd say that the idiot is the one who thinks that discrediting me is the same as discrediting the Bible.
IF a child is murdered, it is statistically more likely that the mother killed him or her than a stranger (or even aunt, hint hint...).
And just how many babies do you think are murdered? And where do you get your numbers from? Come to think of it, I don't even see why you think murder statistics are even relative here given that the mother of the Baby before Solomon was attempting to preserve the baby's life. Would your mother not give you up to spare your life? If you think that most mothers would not, then I don't think you understand human nature as well as you think you do.
If you think that there was an ancient kingdom of Israel to be divided it would have been before the time you allege that this was written.
ReplyDeleteUm, yes...
I don't even see why you think murder statistics are even relative here given that the mother of the Baby before Solomon was...
Again, for the learning impaired, in the story, he didn't know which one was the mother, why do you think he "knew" the actual mother wasn't like Medea or any number of women who have murdered their own children?
But it was a lucky guess, and that's not "wisdom".
If you think that most mothers would not...
I do think most mothers would protect their children. Again, that's not the point and you do not understand what the statistics are saying at all. I think the evidence is pointing to you being nearly innumerate as well as nearly illiterate.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAgain, for the learning impaired, in the story, he didn't know which one was the mother, why do you think he "knew" the actual mother wasn't like Medea or any number of women who have murdered their own children?
ReplyDeleteMore ignorance. Madea does not describe a mother who would murder her own children. Solomon knew that the real mother would do anything to protect her baby no matter what even if it meant giving him up.
I do think most mothers would protect their children. Again, that's not the point and you do not understand what the statistics are saying at all. I think the evidence is pointing to you being nearly innumerate as well as nearly illiterate.
If you think that most mothers would protect their children then pointing out this useless statistic doesn't help Loftus' argument. It's useless because you admit that it doesn't make sense to think that the real mother would not want to protect her baby. The illiterate one is you.
Why do you think Medea did not kill her own children?
ReplyDeleteSolomon knew that the real mother would do anything to protect her baby no matter what even if it meant giving him up.
He didn't actually "know" it... And that's the point...
You seem to not know the difference between wisdom and knowledge. There is a difference.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't think that Medea killed her children because there are more than one ending to her myth and why you think that her story(ies) even remotely connect to Solomon's. Pathetic.
Just how many variants to Solomon's story of choosing between the two women and the baby are there? I'd say there are no variants so it is one reason to think think that the Solomon story is true more than the Medea.
And I don't think that Medea killed her children because there are more than one ending to her myth and why you think that her story(ies) even remotely connect to Solomon's. Pathetic.
ReplyDeleteUm... she's fictional, and surely you've read the play by Euripides, which does describe a mother who would murder her own children.
I think we may have just witnessed some ignorance, followed by a Wikipedia search on your part...
Did you think I was talking about Tyler Perry?
Um... shUm... she's fictional, and surely you've read the play by Euripides, which does describe a mother who would murder her own children.
ReplyDeleteNo, I haven't read that play. There have been several mothers who have killed their children and they were condemned for their actions. This is never looked upon as favorable and does nor help yours or Loftus' argument being fictional.
I think we may have just witnessed some ignorance, followed by a Wikipedia search on your part...
Yup, I admit my ignorance. Too bad you are too pathetic to admit your own.
Did you think I was talking about Tyler Perry?
Yup I did think that you were talking about Tyler Perry's character "Madea" and that you just misspelled it. Madea has just as much to do with this as "Medea" does.
Marcus, I wanted to apologize for being an asshole. Everyone believes something for some reason and I'm sure your reasons are just as valid as anyone else's.
ReplyDeleteTake care and Segen fur sie.