Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Butterbean on April 10, 2008, 06:42:27 AM
-
Comments from gotquestions.org
Question: "Is God cruel?"
Answer: There are atheists and agnostics who argue that the God who is presented in the Bible is cruel. By labeling God as cruel, they are appealing to our human, moral sensibilities. The word “cruelty” is defined as "callous indifference to, or pleasure in, causing pain and suffering.” The question before us now is: Is God cruel? To answer in the affirmative, we would have to allow that God either doesn’t care about pain and suffering, or He actually enjoys watching His creatures suffer.
The atheists / agnostics who claim that God is cruel have a large burden of proof. They are not merely claiming to know about the actions of God; they are also claiming to sufficiently know the circumstances in which He performed those actions, as well as His motivations. Additionally, they are claiming to know the very mind of God, ascribing to Him the attitudes of indifference and/or sadistic pleasure necessary to define Him as cruel. Quite frankly, this is beyond the skeptic’s ability to demonstrate—they can’t possibly know the mind of God. “’For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the LORD. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts’” (Isaiah 55:8-9).
There is no doubt that God both allows and, at times, causes pain and suffering, but God’s goodness cannot be impugned because He commits an act that appears cruel to us. While we can’t claim to know His reasoning in every circumstance, we do know several reasons for actions that can appear to us to be cruel, especially if we don’t know—or don’t bother to find out—the circumstances:
1. Just punishment - If a punishment is just, can it be said to be cruel? What critics usually do not understand is that God’s love is not diminished when He brings punishment on people. God is able to bring judgment on an evil group of people in order to spare those who are devoted to Him. To allow evil and wrongdoing to go unpunished would indeed be cruel and would indicate a callousness toward the innocent. When God caused the Red Sea to close, drowning Pharaoh’s entire army, He was punishing Pharaoh’s rebellion against Him and preserving His chosen people from certain slaughter and annihilation (Exodus 14). Wrongdoing that does not result in punishment inevitably results in greater and greater wrongdoing, which benefits no one and is detrimental to the common good. Even when God told the Israelites to completely destroy the enemies of God, including women and children, He knew that to let them live would ensure the existence of future generations devoted to evil idolatrous practices—including in some cases child sacrifices on the altars of false gods.
2. To bring about a greater good - Pain and suffering that produce a greater good sometimes can be brought about by no other means. The Bible tells us that trials and difficulties produce stronger, better Christians, and we should “count it all joy” (James 1:2) when we encounter them. God brings these about for our benefit, in order to refine us like gold in the fire of affliction. The Apostle Paul saw his own suffering—beatings, stonings, shipwrecks, hunger, thirst, cold, imprisonments—as a means of ensuring that he would be ever conscious of his own weakness, would remember always that the power at work in him was from God, not himself, and would never be deluded into relying on his own power (2 Corinthians 1:8-10; 4:7-12). Against nonbelievers, God's justice is vindicated when he causes pain and suffering to them because they deserve it. He demonstrates His mercy to them by warning them repeatedly of the consequences of sin. When through their own rebellion, they bring upon themselves calamity, this is just punishment, not cruelty. The fact that He lets rebels go on shaking their fists at Him as long as He does indicates His mercy and patience, not cruelty.
3. To glorify Himself - God is glorified by the exhibition of His attributes. We all agree that He looks pretty good to us when His love and mercy are on display, but since each and every attribute is holy and perfect, even the exhibition of His wrath and anger bring Him glory. And that is the ultimate goal—His glory, not ours. Our tiny finite brains can't even adequately imagine Him, much less call Him into question.
All these are worthy, valid, noble causes for pain and suffering. Contrary to the claims of skeptics, there are good reasons for God’s allowing evil and suffering in this world. We are privileged to know some of those reasons, but we do not always know why God allows evil and suffering. To trust God in spite of not knowing the reasons is not a blind leap of faith. Rather, we trust Him with the things we don’t understand because we see His faithfulness in those actions which we do understand.
If we read the Bible carefully, rather than seeing God act out of cruelty, we see Him acting out of His love for us. For example, the book of Job is often pointed to as an example of God’s sadistic actions against an innocent man. The book declares that Job was innocent of the suffering that came upon him, which appears to favor the claim of the atheist. But to claim that it proves God is sadistic betrays a very superficial understanding of the book of Job.
In the Near East during the time of the patriarchs, a common belief was that God always blessed the righteous and brought suffering on the unrighteous. The book of Job is a polemic against that theology. The story shows that man’s view of God’s justice needed to be modified. We need to understand that God is not limited to using suffering as a means of retribution. He also uses it to tear people away from the earthly things that so easily entice them. Additionally, Job brings people closer to understanding God’s work of atonement on the cross. If mankind continued to think that God couldn’t allow an innocent man to suffer, then we would have missed God’s plan for redeeming the world. For God allowed the suffering of a perfectly innocent Man (Jesus Christ) in order to bring His own to salvation. So this book ends up being an invaluable contribution to the history of redemption.
So in summary, the skeptic must bear a very large burden of proof in claiming that God’s actions are characterized by cruelty. In context, the biblical passages which appear to paint God as cruel actually do no such thing. In fact, with a proper understanding of the Scriptures, we see that God’s actions are always motivated by, and consistent with, His holy and perfect character.
-
FALSE
-
The mere definition of the word cruelty negates anything synonymous with God. Good stuff, Ro.
-
Point 3: God inflicts pain and suffering on us to glorify himself... What an insecure megalomaniac!
-
God's killed more people than Cecil B. DeMille.
He's devastated entire towns--men, women and children.
There is no way to answer this question. Even the author of the article is wrong.
Even if there is a God, there is no way of knowing divine purpose. I love it how people can blithely state the qualification's of divine love, mercy and retribution.
The God of the Old Testament, as a literary figure, is not only cruel but sadistic.
-
God's killed more people than Cecil B. DeMille.
He's devastated entire towns--men, women and children.
There is no way to answer this question. Even the author of the article is wrong.
Even if there is a God, there is no way of knowing divine purpose. I love it how people can blithely state the qualification's of divine love, mercy and retribution.
The God of the Old Testament, as a literary figure, is not only cruel but sadistic.
If you think that was bad, wait until He returns! :o Don't know about you, but...I don't plan on being here to see the devastation.
-
The God identified in the Bible is cruel and more like a man complete with emotional traits.
-
Hang on a sec here - there is no god.
Hope this helps.
-
Comments from gotquestions.org
Question: "Is God cruel?"
Answer: There are atheists and agnostics who argue that the God who is presented in the Bible is cruel. By labeling God as cruel, they are appealing to our human, moral sensibilities. The word “cruelty” is defined as "callous indifference to, or pleasure in, causing pain and suffering.” The question before us now is: Is God cruel? To answer in the affirmative, we would have to allow that God either doesn’t care about pain and suffering, or He actually enjoys watching His creatures suffer.
The atheists / agnostics who claim that God is cruel have a large burden of proof. They are not merely claiming to know about the actions of God; they are also claiming to sufficiently know the circumstances in which He performed those actions, as well as His motivations. Additionally, they are claiming to know the very mind of God, ascribing to Him the attitudes of indifference and/or sadistic pleasure necessary to define Him as cruel. Quite frankly, this is beyond the skeptic’s ability to demonstrate—they can’t possibly know the mind of God. “’For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the LORD. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts’” (Isaiah 55:8-9).
There is no doubt that God both allows and, at times, causes pain and suffering, but God’s goodness cannot be impugned because He commits an act that appears cruel to us. While we can’t claim to know His reasoning in every circumstance, we do know several reasons for actions that can appear to us to be cruel, especially if we don’t know—or don’t bother to find out—the circumstances:
1. Just punishment - If a punishment is just, can it be said to be cruel? What critics usually do not understand is that God’s love is not diminished when He brings punishment on people. God is able to bring judgment on an evil group of people in order to spare those who are devoted to Him. To allow evil and wrongdoing to go unpunished would indeed be cruel and would indicate a callousness toward the innocent. When God caused the Red Sea to close, drowning Pharaoh’s entire army, He was punishing Pharaoh’s rebellion against Him and preserving His chosen people from certain slaughter and annihilation (Exodus 14). Wrongdoing that does not result in punishment inevitably results in greater and greater wrongdoing, which benefits no one and is detrimental to the common good. Even when God told the Israelites to completely destroy the enemies of God, including women and children, He knew that to let them live would ensure the existence of future generations devoted to evil idolatrous practices—including in some cases child sacrifices on the altars of false gods.
2. To bring about a greater good - Pain and suffering that produce a greater good sometimes can be brought about by no other means. The Bible tells us that trials and difficulties produce stronger, better Christians, and we should “count it all joy” (James 1:2) when we encounter them. God brings these about for our benefit, in order to refine us like gold in the fire of affliction. The Apostle Paul saw his own suffering—beatings, stonings, shipwrecks, hunger, thirst, cold, imprisonments—as a means of ensuring that he would be ever conscious of his own weakness, would remember always that the power at work in him was from God, not himself, and would never be deluded into relying on his own power (2 Corinthians 1:8-10; 4:7-12). Against nonbelievers, God's justice is vindicated when he causes pain and suffering to them because they deserve it. He demonstrates His mercy to them by warning them repeatedly of the consequences of sin. When through their own rebellion, they bring upon themselves calamity, this is just punishment, not cruelty. The fact that He lets rebels go on shaking their fists at Him as long as He does indicates His mercy and patience, not cruelty.
3. To glorify Himself - God is glorified by the exhibition of His attributes. We all agree that He looks pretty good to us when His love and mercy are on display, but since each and every attribute is holy and perfect, even the exhibition of His wrath and anger bring Him glory. And that is the ultimate goal—His glory, not ours. Our tiny finite brains can't even adequately imagine Him, much less call Him into question.
All these are worthy, valid, noble causes for pain and suffering. Contrary to the claims of skeptics, there are good reasons for God’s allowing evil and suffering in this world. We are privileged to know some of those reasons, but we do not always know why God allows evil and suffering. To trust God in spite of not knowing the reasons is not a blind leap of faith. Rather, we trust Him with the things we don’t understand because we see His faithfulness in those actions which we do understand.
If we read the Bible carefully, rather than seeing God act out of cruelty, we see Him acting out of His love for us. For example, the book of Job is often pointed to as an example of God’s sadistic actions against an innocent man. The book declares that Job was innocent of the suffering that came upon him, which appears to favor the claim of the atheist. But to claim that it proves God is sadistic betrays a very superficial understanding of the book of Job.
In the Near East during the time of the patriarchs, a common belief was that God always blessed the righteous and brought suffering on the unrighteous. The book of Job is a polemic against that theology. The story shows that man’s view of God’s justice needed to be modified. We need to understand that God is not limited to using suffering as a means of retribution. He also uses it to tear people away from the earthly things that so easily entice them. Additionally, Job brings people closer to understanding God’s work of atonement on the cross. If mankind continued to think that God couldn’t allow an innocent man to suffer, then we would have missed God’s plan for redeeming the world. For God allowed the suffering of a perfectly innocent Man (Jesus Christ) in order to bring His own to salvation. So this book ends up being an invaluable contribution to the history of redemption.
So in summary, the skeptic must bear a very large burden of proof in claiming that God’s actions are characterized by cruelty. In context, the biblical passages which appear to paint God as cruel actually do no such thing. In fact, with a proper understanding of the Scriptures, we see that God’s actions are always motivated by, and consistent with, His holy and perfect character.
You post a quote from a site.
I have to assume you believe in it, since you leave the quote without comments.
When God caused the Red Sea to close, drowning Pharaoh’s entire army, He was punishing Pharaoh’s rebellion against Him and preserving His chosen people from certain slaughter and annihilation (Exodus 14).
God is almighty, and could easily have chosen to find a way to stop the rebellion without the slaughtering of thousands of Egyptians.
Wrongdoing that does not result in punishment inevitably results in greater and greater wrongdoing, which benefits no one and is detrimental to the common good.
Jesus seems to disagree. He says to turn the other cheek and to give the cloak. Is this website you believe in more right than Jesus?
Even when God told the Israelites to completely destroy the enemies of God, including women and children, He knew that to let them live would ensure the existence of future generations devoted to evil idolatrous practices—including in some cases child sacrifices on the altars of false gods.
STella, how can you even begin to defend the murdering of children?
I gotta say that I'm quite surprised.
-
God's probably playful. The world wouldn't be any fun if there was good vs. bad and no way of knowing how the good will get the best of the bad in the end. If God is all that is, and there is suffering in the world, he is doing it to himself, after all.
-
Hedge points out something that is important to this debate, namely, the fact that god could easily have found alternatives if he is all wise and powerfull rather then slaughter. Combined with the fact he knows the future, then he already knew he would be killing those people before he made them.
how ridiculous is it that grown people beleive in magic, seriously. Why has there been no more magic?
-
how can you even begin to defend the murdering of children?
Here's how some of how the defense goes:
- They would have grown up to be evil like their parents
- They would have starved to death
- A parents sin will affect those whose are innocent
It's still unbelievable that anyone could even attempt to justify the killing of children, but for all the good Christians do, the ones who believe the bible is the word of God believe this is something God would do and therefore is justified.
-
Here's how some of the defense goes:
- They would have grown up to be evil like their parents
- They would have starved to death
- A parents sin will affect those whose are innocent
It's still unbelievable that anyone could even attempt to justify the killing of children, but for all the good Christians do, the ones who believe the bible is the word of God believe this something God would do and therefore is justified.
Great point. Brainwashing is brainwashing in my book. Anything can be reasoned out.
-
Hedge points out something that is important to this debate, namely, the fact that god could easily have found alternatives if he is all wise and powerfull rather then slaughter. Combined with the fact he knows the future, then he already knew he would be killing those people before he made them.
how ridiculous is it that grown people beleive in magic, seriously. Why has there been no more magic?
There has been. I play Dungeons & Dragons, how about you? ;D
-
You post a quote from a site.
I have to assume you believe in it, since you leave the quote without comments.
Jesus seems to disagree. He says to turn the other cheek and to give the cloak. Is this website you believe in more right than Jesus?
We've been over the turning the other cheek thing a few times and you don't seem to comprehend my side.
I do pretty much agree w/the above quote from that site but no, I don't believe everything that site always states so I will try to remember to add some comments in the future so as not to confuse you.
Even when God told the Israelites to completely destroy the enemies of God, including women and children, He knew that to let them live would ensure the existence of future generations devoted to evil idolatrous practices—including in some cases child sacrifices on the altars of false gods.
STella, how can you even begin to defend the murdering of children?
The killing of children is a very hard thing to try to get your mind around. The only thing I can really say about it is that I guess you've got to have faith that God - who is all knowing - knew what He was doing.
I gotta say that I'm quite surprised.
Aren't you pro-abortion?
-
God is not cruel.
No Christian will tell you that he/she supports the murder of children, or the murder of anybody for that matter.
God passing judgement on entire nations, including children, in the Old Testament is not considered murder by Orthodox Jews or by Christians. To us it is considered capital punishment. It is just as a judge and the state are not considered murderers for executing a criminal sentenced to death.
So the debate is not whether Christians and Jews support the murder of children. Again, we do not support the murder of children, or the murder of anybody for that matter. The debate is whether or not God's capital punishment in the Old Testament on entire nations, including children is murder. And this debate has gone on for years and will continue for years to come.
As for turning the other cheek in the New Testament, this is necessary in order to peacefully win your enemies over to Jesus Christ. This is part of the new covenant.
-
God is not cruel.
No Christian will tell you that he/she supports the murder of children, or the murder of anybody for that matter.
God passing judgement on entire nations, including children, in the Old Testament is not considered murder by Orthodox Jews or by Christians. To us it is considered capital punishment. It is just as a judge and the state are not considered murderers for executing a criminal sentenced to death.
So the debate is not whether Christians and Jews support the murder of children. Again, we do not support the murder of children, or the murder of anybody for that matter. The debate is whether or not God's capital punishment in the Old Testament on entire nations, including children is murder. And this debate has gone on for years and will continue for years to come.
As for turning the other cheek in the New Testament, this is necessary in order to peacefully win your enemies over to Jesus Christ. This is part of the new covenant.
So again you fall back on the mystery of Divine Will as final arbiter in the matter. God had a good reason for killing the children therefore that killing is not murder. Judge, jury and executioner this God is.
What crime did those children commit warranting their death penalties at the hands of God the Father?
-
So again you fall back on the mystery of Divine Will as final arbiter in the matter. God had a good reason for killing the children therefore that killing is not murder. Judge, jury and executioner this God is.
Yes
What crime did those children commit warranting their death penalties at the hands of God the Father?
None. Their parents committed the crime. The children were punished by God for the sins of their parents. But only God can do this. We are not God and we can't punish children for the sins of their parents, though punishment aside, children do suffer for the bad choices of their parents or even for bad choices of generations before them. We all suffer now for the sin of Adam and Eve.
-
Yes
None. Their parents committed the crime. The children were punished by God for the sins of their parents. But only God can do this. We are not God and we can't punish children for the sins of their parents, though punishment aside, children do suffer for the bad choices of their parents or even for bad choices of generations before them. We all suffer now for the sin of Adam and Eve.
I cannot accept that. I think God made a mistake.
-
I cannot accept that. I think God made a mistake.
You believe there is a God?
-
God is not cruel.
No Christian will tell you that he/she supports the murder of children, or the murder of anybody for that matter.
God passing judgement on entire nations, including children, in the Old Testament is not considered murder by Orthodox Jews or by Christians. To us it is considered capital punishment. It is just as a judge and the state are not considered murderers for executing a criminal sentenced to death.
So the debate is not whether Christians and Jews support the murder of children. Again, we do not support the murder of children, or the murder of anybody for that matter. The debate is whether or not God's capital punishment in the Old Testament on entire nations, including children is murder. And this debate has gone on for years and will continue for years to come.
As for turning the other cheek in the New Testament, this is necessary in order to peacefully win your enemies over to Jesus Christ. This is part of the new covenant.
Good post thank you loco.
-
Good post thank you loco.
Thanks STella! ;D
-
You believe there is a God?
Yes. But certainly not a personal god like in the bible.
-
Yeah, i was walking down the street the other day and saw a child sitting there on a bench with his parents. I approached the child and firmly backhanded him across the face. the child was is pain and the parents demanded an explanation.
I told them i was on a mission from god who told me to punish people for the sins of Adam and Eve and any sins they the parents committed.
The parents didn't buy it
The police didn't buy it
The anger management counselors didn't buy it
My Mom didn't buy it
The judge didn't buy it
The community service people didn't buy it
The Child protective services people didn't buy it
The people on the city didn't buy it.
i was punished for my crime but was counseled by a conservative Christian who told me:
Their parents committed the crime. The children were punished by God for the sins of their parents. But only God can do this. We are not God and we can't punish children for the sins of their parents, though punishment aside, children do suffer for the bad choices of their parents or even for bad choices of generations before them. We all suffer now for the sin of Adam and Eve.
So as long i was acting on God's orders it was ok.
-
Yeah, i was walking down the street the other day and saw a child sitting there on a bench with his parents. I approached the child and firmly backhanded him across the face. the child was is pain and the parents demanded an explanation.
I told them i was on a mission from god who told me to punish people for the sins of Adam and Eve and any sins they the parents committed.
The parents didn't buy it
The police didn't buy it
The anger management counselors didn't buy it
My Mom didn't buy it
The judge didn't buy it
The community service people didn't buy it
The Child protective services people didn't buy it
The people on the city didn't buy it.
i was punished for my crime but was counseled by a conservative Christian who told me:
So as long i was acting on God's orders it was ok.
Why did you do this OzmO? Did God really tell you to do it or did you make that up?
-
Why did you do this OzmO? Did God really tell you to do it or did you make that up?
What if God told me to do it?
-
What if God told me to do it?
Why did you do it? Did or didn't God tell you to do it?
-
Why did you do it? Did or didn't God tell you to do it?
What if God told me to do it?
-
What if God told me to do it?
If you enjoy smacking kids for no reason and on top of that making up a story that God told you to do it, then you got what you deserve.
Do you believe there is a God? Do you believe that God is NOT cruel? Why?
-
If you enjoy smacking kids for no reason and on top of that making up a story that God told you to do it, then you got what you deserve.
Do you believe there is a God? Do you believe that God is NOT cruel? Why?
Still can't answer my question can you Loco? What if God told me to do it?
And do you really think I'd go up to a child a smack them in the face? ::)
-
Still can't answer my question can you Loco? What if God told me to do it?
And do you really think I'd go up to a child a smack them in the face? ::)
God did not tell you to do it. God would not tell you to do it. God has not told anybody to smack a kid in the face.
Do you believe there is a God? Do you believe that God is NOT cruel? Why?
-
God did not tell you to do it. God would not tell you to do it. God has not told anybody to smack a kid in the face.
Do you believe there is a God? Do you believe that God is NOT cruel? Why?
So now you decided what God does and doesn't do? You speak for God?
answer the question loco what if god told me to do it?
-
So now you decided what God does and doesn't do?
answer the question loco what if god told me to do it?
You know I go by what the Bible says.
What did the kid do?
Do you believe there is a God? Do you believe that God is NOT cruel? Why?
-
Yes. But certainly not a personal god like in the bible.
So there is a God, but
1. He is not personal
2. He is not the God of the Bible
Why?
-
You know I go by what the Bible says.
What did the kid do?
Do you believe there is a God? Do you believe that God is NOT cruel? Why?
If you know what the bible says then how do you know he didn't tell me?
-
You know I go by what the Bible says.
What did the kid do?
Do you believe there is a God? Do you believe that God is NOT cruel? Why?
What does it matter what the kid did or didn't do? It didn't matter to the GOD of the OT.
answer the Question loco. what if God told me to do it?
-
If you know what the bible says then how do you know he didn't tell me?
How do I know God didn't tell you to smack a random kid in the face because of Adam's and Eve's sin? Well, first of all the Bible says that kid, like all of us is already paying and will continue to pay for Adam's sin, death, sickness, suffering etc. So God wouldn't directly tell you to go smack him because of Adam's sin. That's ridiculous.
Now, if Adam had not sinned, there wouldn't be crazy child abusers in this world that would go up to a kid at the park and smack him in the face and then say that God told him to smack the kid because of Adam's sin. Therefore, in a way, the kid who got smacked by the crazy child abuser is indeed suffering, indirectly, as a consequence of Adam's sin.
Do you believe that God is NOT cruel? Why?
-
How do I know God didn't tell you to smack a random kid in the face because of Adam's and Eve's sin? Well, first of all the Bible says that kid, like all of us is already paying and will continue to pay for Adam's sin, death, sickness, suffering etc. So God wouldn't directly tell you to go smack him because of Adam's sin. That's ridiculous.
Now, if Adam had not sinned, there wouldn't be crazy child abusers in this world that would go up to a kid at the park and smack him in the face and then say that God told him to smack the kid because of Adam's sin. Therefore, in a way, the kid who got smacked by the crazy child abuser is indeed suffering, indirectly, as a consequence of Adam's sin.
Do you believe that God is NOT cruel? Why?
No more ridiculous than god Telling me or a group of Jews to kill children.
But since you speak for God, what if God told me to do it?
P.S. do you really think I'd randomly hit a child? ::)
-
No more ridiculous than god Telling me or a group of Jews to kill children.
But since you speak for God, what if God told me to do it?
P.S. do you really think I'd randomly hit a child? ::)
Your analogy of yourself targeting a random kid at the park, not for anything his/her parents did, but for Adam's sin is terrible. No offense. You'll have to come up with one that at least comes close to parallel with the Old Testament.
In the Old Testament, God told Israel to destroy wicked nations, along with their children. God did not tell Israel to go kill only the children. God did not tell Israel to go kill children because of Adam's sin. See how your analogy is not good?
I don't speak for God. If you really think that I do, then you either have not read the Bible or simply forgot what it says. God speaks for Himself.
You believe there is a God, but that He is not cruel. Why? If there is a God and if He is cruel, He will not cease to exist and He will not cease to be cruel just because you don't like it.
As for children suffering for the sins of the parents, it happens everyday. You have mocked Christians and you have mocked the God of the Bible before because casual sex is a sin. Tell me, does casual sex not have consequences? Tell me, in millions of cases do children not suffer because of their parent's casual sex? What did this children do? Yet they suffer because of their parent's sin. What answer have you or the God that you believe in for this? Is your God cruel?
-
Your analogy of yourself targeting a random kid at the park, not for anything his/her parents did, but for Adam's sin is terrible. No offense. You'll have to come up with one that at least comes close to parallel with the Old Testament.
In the Old Testament, God told Israel to destroy wicked nations, along with their children. God did not tell Israel to go kill only the children. God did not tell Israel to go kill children because of Adam's sin. See how your analogy is not good?
I don't speak for God. If you really think that I do, then you either have not read the Bible or simply forgot what it says. God speaks for Himself.
You believe there is a God, but that He is not cruel. Why? If there is a God and if He is cruel, He will not cease to exist and He will not cease to be cruel just because you don't like it.
As for children suffering for the sins of the parents, it happens everyday. You have mocked Christians and you have mocked the God of the Bible before because casual sex is a sin. Tell me, does casual sex not have consequences? Tell me, in millions of cases do children not suffer because of their parent's casual sex? What did this children do? Yet they suffer because of their parent's sin. What answer have you or the God that you believe in for this? Is your God cruel?
Still can't answer the question (what if God told to do it) other than to say God wouldn't say that followed by your denial of saying that you speak for God.
Your reaction and responses speak volumes.
-
Still can't answer the question (what if God told to do it) other than to say God wouldn't say that followed by your denial of saying that you speak for God.
Your reaction and responses speak volumes.
OzmO, what makes you so "superior" and who put you in such high position over me that you can ask me questions and demand answers all the while ignoring my questions? Are you not going to answer my questions?
-
The bible is full of the God-condoned mass murder of men, women, children, babies in the most barbaric fashion, including the dashing of babies against rocks, ripping open the bellies of pregnant women (does that constitute abortion?) savage rape and multiple rape (gangbangs), the wholesale slaughter of animals, slavery, kidnapping, etc... the list goes on endlessly.
Cruelty is a human word. How can you ascribe human emotion/logic to the Creator of all? I guess if you believe, you just have to follow the rules and not interpret or question the motives, since it would be beyond the comprehension of any human to know the "mind" of God.
Figgs had an interesting point a lot earlier in the thread.
-
The bible is full of the God-condoned mass murder of men, women, children, babies in the most barbaric fashion, including the dashing of babies against rocks, ripping open the bellies of pregnant women (does that constitute abortion?) savage rape and multiple rape (gangbangs), the wholesale slaughter of animals, slavery, kidnapping, etc... the list goes on endlessly.
Cruelty is a human word. How can you ascribe human emotion/logic to the Creator of all? I guess if you believe, you just have to follow the rules and not interpret or question the motives, since it would be beyond the comprehension of any human to know the "mind" of God.
Figgs had an interesting point a lot earlier in the thread.
Hey Deedee! God did order the destruction of wicked nations, including their children.
But please do show me where in the Bible God orders "the dashing of babies against rocks, ripping open the bellies of pregnant women, savage rape and multiple rape (gangbangs". I'm not just asking you to please show me where in the Bible this happened, but where exactly in the Bible does God order or condone the above. Just because it's in the Bible doesn't automatically mean that God approves of it.
-
OzmO, what makes you so "superior" and who put you in such high position over me that you can ask me questions and demand answers all the while ignoring my questions? Are you not going to answer my questions?
So now we've sunk to defecting the issue have we?
It was a simple question with a good point.
You can't answer it and i understand why.
It is a sad thing that you have to defend this alleged god's word in this way that it cannot stand up to simple questions with out you having to use debate tactics to deflect from the issue. Must not be all that great of a "word" if it has to be defended like this.
And you should be ashamed of yourself to presume you speak for god and can decide what he does or does not say.
-
Hey Deedee! God did order the destruction of wicked nations, including their children.
But please do show me where in the Bible God orders "the dashing of babies against rocks, ripping open the bellies of pregnant women, savage rape and multiple rape (gangbangs". I'm not just asking you to please show me where in the Bible this happened, but where exactly in the Bible does God order or condone the above. Just because it's in the Bible doesn't automatically mean that God approves of it.
how do you think they killed them loco? Gave them sleeping pills? ::)
-
So now we've sunk to defecting the issue have we?
It was a simple question with a good point.
You can't answer it and i understand why.
It is a sad thing that you have to defend this alleged god's word in this way that it cannot stand up to simple questions with out you having to use debate tactics to deflect from the issue.
And you should be ashamed of yourself to presume you speak for god and can decide what he does or does not say.
Why is it so hard for you to answer my questions? You're so good at mocking other people's faith, but when asked simple questions, you can't answer.
So what if God asked you to smack a little kid at the park? What do you want me to answer? Would you do it? That's only for you to answer. I guess the answer is yes, you would do it.
-
how do you think they killed them loco? Gave them sleeping pills? ::)
I don't know, and neither do you. The Bible doesn't say. Beheading probably.
-
The killing of children is a very hard thing to try to get your mind around. The only thing I can really say about it is that I guess you've got to have faith that God - who is all knowing - knew what He was doing.
How do you defend the killing of children STella?
How do you tell yourself it was ok for God to kill all those young babies, and those little boys and girls who were only a few years old.
We recently had one 7 year old killed and sexually assaulted here in Sweden. She was lost for several days before found. The whole nation is mourning.
Her name: Engla (a Swedish form of Angel)
Consider that one little girl. And her murder multiplied by thousands.
And done by God?
How is the act justified?
How is it right?
And most importantly:
STella, why do you follow a God who murders so many babies and children?
-
Why is it so hard for you to answer my questions? You're so good at mocking other people's faith, but when asked simple questions, you can't answer.
So what if God asked you to smack a little kid at the park? What do you want me to answer? Would you do it? That's only for you to answer. I guess the answer is yes, you would do it.
that's just it, i was trying to answer your question:
Why did you do this OzmO? Did God really tell you to do it or did you make that up?
First you assumed i did hit a child to the point you asked if i did it.
Then you asked: Did God really tell you to do it or did you make that up?
I replied what if god told me to do it? Which you still haven't answered.
-
that's just it, i was trying to answer your question:
First you assumed i did hit a child to the point you asked if i did it.
Then you asked: Did God really tell you to do it or did you make that up?
I replied what if god told me to do it? Which you still haven't answered.
To which I did answer that the God of the Bible won't tell you to smack a child in the face. First of all, you don't even believe in the God of the Bible. Second of all, the God of the Bible already told Christians to turn the other cheek in order to win non-Christians over to Jesus Christ.
-
To which I did answer that the God of the Bible won't tell you to smack a child in the face. First of all, you don't even believe in the God of the Bible. Second of all, the God of the Bible already told Christians to turn the other cheek in order to win non-Christians over to Jesus Christ.
He did tell that to the Jews..... well he told them to kill them.
And we are back to speaking for God. Saying what he can and cannot do.
-
He did tell that to the Jews..... well he told them to kill them.
And we are back to speaking for God. Saying what he can and cannot do.
Your point?
-
You post a quote from a site.
I have to assume you believe in it, since you leave the quote without comments.
When God caused the Red Sea to close, drowning Pharaoh’s entire army, He was punishing Pharaoh’s rebellion against Him and preserving His chosen people from certain slaughter and annihilation (Exodus 14).
God is almighty, and could easily have chosen to find a way to stop the rebellion without the slaughtering of thousands of Egyptians.
Of course, you forget the whole "free will" factor, specifically that of Pharoah using the other NINE chances he had to release Israel, before that tenth plague hit. When the firstborn (including his own son) died, it finally hit home and Pharoah submitted.
And, there's also the matter that the Egyptians, who followed Israel's lead and did the Passover thing, were spared.
Wrongdoing that does not result in punishment inevitably results in greater and greater wrongdoing, which benefits no one and is detrimental to the common good.
Jesus seems to disagree. He says to turn the other cheek and to give the cloak. Is this website you believe in more right than Jesus?
He also said, "Vengeance is Mine. I will repay".
Even when God told the Israelites to completely destroy the enemies of God, including women and children, He knew that to let them live would ensure the existence of future generations devoted to evil idolatrous practices—including in some cases child sacrifices on the altars of false gods.
STella, how can you even begin to defend the murdering of children?
I gotta say that I'm quite surprised.
Here's how some of how the defense goes:
- They would have grown up to be evil like their parents
- They would have starved to death
- A parents sin will affect those whose are innocent
Yep!!! The last sentence pretty much covers the rest. As I've stated numerous times, the worst part about sinful behavior is that those who commit aren't the only ones who pay the price for it.
I'll go out on a limb and say that EVERYONE ON THIS THREAD (Christian or not) has been hurt (adversely affected) by someone else's wrongdoing. And EVERYONE ON THIS THREAD had done something wrong that has hurt (adversely affected) someone else.
-
OzmO,
I answered your questions. Are you going to answer my questions?
Do you believe that God is NOT cruel? Why?
As for children suffering for the sins of the parents, it happens everyday. You have mocked Christians and you have mocked the God of the Bible before because casual sex is a sin. Tell me, does casual sex not have consequences? Tell me, in millions of cases do children not suffer because of their parent's casual sex? What did this children do? Yet they suffer because of their parent's sin. What answer have you or the God that you believe in for this? Is your God cruel?
-
So there is a God, but
1. He is not personal
2. He is not the God of the Bible
Why?
The mathematical elegance of the universe coupled with the idea that something exists instead of nothing leaves me inclined to believe God exists.
He is not a personal God b/c that is the creation of people afraid of the dark--the avuncular benevolent ruler watching over us always.
The Bible was written by men to codify a way to live. God was the enforcer in the OT--a killer of monstrous proportions for those not living according to the rules set out.
-
The mathematical elegance of the universe coupled with the idea that something exists instead of nothing leaves me inclined to believe God exists.
He is not a personal God b/c that is the creation of people afraid of the dark--the avuncular benevolent ruler watching over us always.
The Bible was written by men to codify a way to live. God was the enforcer in the OT--a killer of monstrous proportions for those not living according to the rules set out.
For the most part, the only codifying in the Bible occurs in the Pentateuch (the 5 books of Moses: Genesis-Deuteronomy). All the other instructions are offshoots of these law, based on the Ten Commandments.
-
The very existence of this thread is a testament to the fact that homo sapiens has not advanced nearly as much as he is inclined to believe. Isn't it 2008?! :o
As for you deists; I don't get you, you may as well be atheists.
-
For the most part, the only codifying in the Bible occurs in the Pentateuch (the 5 books of Moses: Genesis-Deuteronomy). All the other instructions are offshoots of these law, based on the Ten Commandments.
The whole bible is a catalog of how the people fail to live up to God's covenants--Abrahamic, Davidic, Mosaic etc.
-
The very existence of this thread is a testament to the fact that homo sapiens has not advanced nearly as much as he is inclined to believe. Isn't it 2008?! :o
It's a testament to the fact that, much to the chagrin of certain atheists, belief in God is still relevant and active.
As for you deists; I don't get you, you may as well be atheists.
Not quite. atheism is the belief that there is NO supreme being or supernatural entity. As long as you believe that such exists, you are not an atheist.
-
How do you defend the killing of children STella?
How do you tell yourself it was ok for God to kill all those young babies, and those little boys and girls who were only a few years old.
We recently had one 7 year old killed and sexually assaulted here in Sweden. She was lost for several days before found. The whole nation is mourning.
Her name: Engla (a Swedish form of Angel)
Consider that one little girl. And her murder multiplied by thousands.
And done by God?
How is the act justified?
How is it right?
And most importantly:
STella, why do you follow a God who murders so many babies and children?
That's terrible about Engla Zack and I know it matters not to you but I'm praying for her family.
I'm unsure if you think that God ordered her rape and death but I can tell you that no, I believe He did NOT.
As for the "murder" of many babies by God in the O.T. you should know that I don't believe God allowing/ordering/orchestrating/causing the death of anyone is "murder." I believe He is the Creator/Sustainer/TAker of life and the Righteous Judge of the Universe.
Of course we all would like to think that there was another way He could have accomplished what He deemed necessary - but I also keep in mind that I am not omniscient.
So in answer to your question I don't believe what God did is murder and I suppose I accept His reasons for doing what He did. Much like you may accept reasons of pregnant women to end the lives of their babies.
(To clarify I don't think decisions to end the lives of babies is taken lightly or in an absence of anguish)
-
The Bible was written by men to codify a way to live.
He is not a personal God b/c that is the creation of people afraid of the dark--the avuncular benevolent ruler watching over us always.
The whole bible is a catalog of how the people fail to live up to God's covenants--Abrahamic, Davidic, Mosaic etc.
But if it was written by men alone merely to "codify a way to live" why is there so much talk of "grace through faith and not of works so that no one can boast? (Eph 2:8,9)" Why does it show that no one can live up to God's law so He sent them a Savior who provides us a free gift of forgiveness? Why would it tell us that once we believe nothing can "snatch us out of His hand?"
-
I'll go out on a limb and say that EVERYONE ON THIS THREAD (Christian or not) has been hurt (adversely affected) by someone else's wrongdoing. And EVERYONE ON THIS THREAD had done something wrong that has hurt (adversely affected) someone else.
Agree
-
OzmO,
Do you believe that God is NOT cruel? Why?
Cruel is a matter of perception. So that's very difficult to answer. But regarding the issues of killing innocent children as a cruelty that God enacted through Jewish soldiers; that i do not believe is God. I do not believe that is the act of a divine being.
As for children suffering for the sins of the parents, it happens everyday. You have mocked Christians and you have mocked the God of the Bible before because casual sex is a sin. Tell me, does casual sex not have consequences?
Every action has consequences when those actions are done with the absence of responsibility. Responsible casual sex has infrequent consequences. The same infrequent consequences one would have driving down the street responsibly.
Tell me, in millions of cases do children not suffer because of their parent's casual sex?
Yes they suffer, but by whose hand? But God's deliberate actions? Or by the actions of their parents who acted irresponsibly?
Do those parents have the power to chose to act responsibly and take care of their children born from casual sex?
Did God have the power to spare the lives of innocent children who were ordered to by him to be killed?
Is God of the OT acting irresponsibly by not taking care of the innocent children he orphaned by his actions?
What answer have you or the God that you believe in for this? Is your God cruel?
It's not my god or you god. god is god.
In addition to the already answering the above questions: You comparison to the consequences of casual sex are almost laughable in comparing that to killing innocent children. At the very least even though those children born of casual sex do suffer they are not BEheaded on this Alleged God's orders. They still have a chance in life, just as a responsible less ego manic, less jealous, less nut job, less rage-aholic god in the OT would have done.
-
Cruel is a matter of perception. So that's very difficult to answer. But regarding the issues of killing innocent children as a cruelty that God enacted through Jewish soldiers; that i do not believe is God. I do not believe that is the act of a divine being.
Every action has consequences when those actions are done with the absence of responsibility. Responsible casual sex has infrequent consequences. The same infrequent consequences one would have driving down the street responsibly.
Yes they suffer, but by whose hand? But God's deliberate actions? Or by the actions of their parents who acted irresponsibly?
Do those parents have the power to chose to act responsibly and take care of their children born from casual sex?
Did God have the power to spare the lives of innocent children who were ordered to by him to be killed?
Is God of the OT acting irresponsibly by not taking care of the innocent children he orphaned by his actions?
It's not my god or you god. god is god.
In addition to the already answering the above questions: You comparison to the consequences of casual sex are almost laughable in comparing that to killing innocent children. At the very least even though those children born of casual sex do suffer they are not BEheaded on this Alleged God's orders. They still have a chance in life, just as a responsible less ego manic, less jealous, less nut job, less rage-aholic god in the OT would have done.
One thing is for sure: if you ever got in a fight with Yahweh, you could beat him senseless with a rod of iron; it's his one weakness.
-
Your point?
Who are you to speak for god? That's my point.
Additionally, Going back to the original story about the kid on the bench that i slapped, (i hope you now fully realize this is just a hypothetical story), Had "God" told me to do it would it have been ok?
-
One thing is for sure: if you ever got in a fight with Yahweh, you could beat him senseless with a rod of iron; it's his one weakness.
huh? Did you talk about this earlier in the thread?
-
Cruel is a matter of perception. So that's very difficult to answer. But regarding the issues of killing innocent children as a cruelty that God enacted through Jewish soldiers; that i do not believe is God. I do not believe that is the act of a divine being.
Every action has consequences when those actions are done with the absence of responsibility. Responsible casual sex has infrequent consequences. The same infrequent consequences one would have driving down the street responsibly.
Yes they suffer, but by whose hand? But God's deliberate actions? Or by the actions of their parents who acted irresponsibly?
Do those parents have the power to chose to act responsibly and take care of their children born from casual sex?
Did God have the power to spare the lives of innocent children who were ordered to by him to be killed?
Is God of the OT acting irresponsibly by not taking care of the innocent children he orphaned by his actions?
It's not my god or you god. god is god.
In addition to the already answering the above questions: You comparison to the consequences of casual sex are almost laughable in comparing that to killing innocent children. At the very least even though those children born of casual sex do suffer they are not BEheaded on this Alleged God's orders. They still have a chance in life, just as a responsible less ego manic, less jealous, less nut job, less rage-aholic god in the OT would have done.
In other words, yes, children suffer for the bad choices of the parents. It happens all the time.
And if there really is a God, and if He is the only God, and if this God really did order Israel to destroy wicked nations, along with their children, so what? If this is true, it is true whether you and I believe it or not. It is true whether you and I like it or not. I don't like death, but all my loved ones will die, and so will I, whether I like it or not, whether I believe it or not.
I have faith in Jesus Christ, who constantly quoted the Old Testament and said it is Truth.
-
huh? Did you talk about this earlier in the thread?
And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
— Judges 1:19
-
Who are you to speak for god? That's my point.
Who's speaking for God?
Additionally, Going back to the original story about the kid on the bench that i slapped, (i hope you now fully realize this is just a hypothetical story), Had "God" told me to do it would it have been ok?
What? If God told you to smack a kid in the face and you do it, would it be okay with God? Yes. Why wouldn't it be okay with God when God is the one who ordered you to do it?
I don't get your point and your analogy is still terrible.
-
In other words, yes, children suffer for the bad choices of the parents. It happens all the time.
Yeah, i said that. But they don;t get behead by the entity who has the power NOT to order others to punish them.
That's why your argument in response to the killing of innocent children in the OT on God's orders is so ridiculous.
And if there really is a God, and if He is the only God, and if this God really did order Israel to destroy wicked nations, along with their children, so what? If this is true, it is true whether you and I believe it or not. It is true whether you and I like it or not. I don't like death, but all my loved ones will die, and so will I, whether I like it or not, whether I believe it or not.
Lot of If's there. So what? You identify with a God that killed innocent children. I don't.
I have faith in Jesus Christ, who constantly quoted the Old Testament and said it is Truth.
So what?
BTW, i see you didn't answer my questions. figures.
-
But if it was written by men alone merely to "codify a way to live" why is there so much talk of "grace through faith and not of works so that no one can boast? (Eph 2:8,9)" Why does it show that no one can live up to God's law so He sent them a Savior who provides us a free gift of forgiveness? Why would it tell us that once we believe nothing can "snatch us out of His hand?"
Grace? Right thinking and right action. I don't see the mystery. What about all the dietary admonitions, the rules for proper worship/sacrifice, the 10 commandments, the covenants: These all look like 'how to' instructions to me. The artisitic license to embellish this 'how to' book with an enforcer--god and all his attendant magics such as grace and miracles and such are examples of artistic license. Once a member of the right thinking right acting club, you're in it for good.
-
Yeah, i said that. But they don;t get behead by the entity who has the power NOT to order others to punish them.
That's why your argument in response to the killing of innocent children in the OT on God's orders is so ridiculous.
Lot of If's there. So what? You identify with a God that killed innocent children. I don't.
So what?
BTW, i see you didn't answer my questions. figures.
Or an iron sword maybe....and iron sword and shield and you can give old Yahweh a nice beat down!
-
Yeah, i said that. But they don;t get behead by the entity who has the power NOT to order others to punish them.
That's why your argument in response to the killing of innocent children in the OT on God's orders is so ridiculous.
Lot of If's there. So what? You identify with a God that killed innocent children. I don't.
So what?
BTW, i see you didn't answer my questions. figures.
Yes. So what?
What questions?
-
Who's speaking for God?
You are.
What? If God told you to smack a kid in the face and you do it, would it be okay with God? Yes. Why wouldn't it be okay with God when God is the one who ordered you to do it?
I don't get your point and your analogy is still terrible.
No it's actually a beautiful analogy, becuase while God tells me to smack a child for the sins of others long dead, the rest of the world would condemn my actions based on the fact that it wrong to punish an innocent child for someone else's sins.
That's how stupid your argument about killing innocent children is becuase of the sins of their parents and it is another great example of how pathetically outdated and barbaric the OT is and is certainly not anywhere near God but instead a history of primitive superstitious people that even today people are dumb enough to think is a 100% testament and word of God.
-
Yes. So what?
What questions?
I even bolded the question marks. ::)
-
I even bolded the question marks. ::)
Where? Just ask the question and stop playing chilidish games.
-
And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
— Judges 1:19
Oh yeah, i bought this up a while ago on this forum and was told that the only explanation is that the lord was not with Judah when they went into the valley even though it is essentially in the same sentence.............lol
-
You are.
I'm not. How so?
No it's actually a beautiful analogy, becuase while God tells me to smack a child for the sins of others long dead, the rest of the world would condemn my actions based on the fact that it wrong to punish an innocent child for someone else's sins.
No, it's a terrible analogy.
And just because the rest of the world condemns an action doesn't automatically mean that the rest of the world is right. If God tells you to smack the kid in the face and you do it, then it is okay with God because it is God who ordered you to do it.
That's how stupid your argument about killing innocent children is becuase of the sins of their parents and it is another great example of how pathetically outdated and barbaric the OT is and is certainly not anywhere near God but instead a history of primitive superstitious people that even today people are dumb enough to think is a 100% testament and word of God.
Maybe my argument is stupid. So what? I have faith that the OT is the word of God and that God has His good reasons for doing what He does.
-
I'm not. How so?
You decide whether God would or would not speak to me.
No, it's a terrible analogy.
And just because the rest of the world condemns an action doesn't automatically mean that the rest of the world is right. If God tells you to smack the kid in the face and you do it, then it is okay with God because it is God who ordered you to do it.
So the rest of the world isn't right when they denounce innocent children ordered to be killed for the sins of their parents? ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
that's almost on the same twisted level radical Islam is.
Maybe my argument is stupid. So what? I have faith that the OT is the word of God and that God has His good reasons for doing what He does.
That's the difference between conservative Christians like yourself and me. I see no good reason or justification for it and sensibly see the OT for it is: A book of stories written by primitive men.
-
Hey Deedee! God did order the destruction of wicked nations, including their children.
But please do show me where in the Bible God orders "the dashing of babies against rocks, ripping open the bellies of pregnant women, savage rape and multiple rape (gangbangs". I'm not just asking you to please show me where in the Bible this happened, but where exactly in the Bible does God order or condone the above. Just because it's in the Bible doesn't automatically mean that God approves of it.
Hiya Loco, missed you! :)
The bible is written by the hand of God, therefore he condones/approves of its contents. If you are saying that parts of it, or the bible in its entirety, is man-created, then that throws everything out the window doesn't it? We can discard what we don't like since man's perception is open to fallacy.
Here are a few examples Loco. There are many but I don't want to spam the board. :) I can post a link with the full list of atrocities (by modern human standards).
Numbers
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
31:35 And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.
They got 32,000 virgins :o - after watching their children, babies, husbands, fathers, mothers butchered, these women were then raped, and kidnapped, by order of God.
Deut.
20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
(20:13-14) In the cities that god "delivers" to you, kill all the males (including old men, boys, and babies) with "the edge of the sword.... But the women ... shalt thou take unto yourself."
Holy War and the Holy Father: the Bible vs the Quran
20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
20:15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.
20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
(20:16-17)"Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth ... as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee." Kill the old men and women, the sick and the dying, the blind and the lame, pregnant mothers, nursing mothers, infants, toddlers, and babies.
20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
Again, butchering of masses of people, including children, babies, old sick people, pregnant women, men, etc... And again, kidnapping and mass raping of virgins.
Hosea 13:15 -18
"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled
against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be
dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open." (Hosea 13:16)
"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is
joined unto them shall fall by the sword.
Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their
houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:15,16)
"Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they
shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare
children." (Isaiah 13:18)
2 Kings 15:16
Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.
It's all there Loco, and much, much more. Those who don't believe look at these stories as an oral history put into writing that chronicles an ancient civilization as it struggled to survive. Those who believe, simply trust, and I'm guessing you fall into that family. One thing for sure, if God's tactics were employed today, the war in Iraq would've been settled within 6 months. :)
Loco, as an aside, turning the other cheek has little to do with seducing non-believers or promoting a pacifist attitude. It was more of an admonishment to the people not to take justice into their own hands, but to allow the governments to administer it.
-
how do you think they killed them loco? Gave them sleeping pills? ::)
;D
-
Hiya Loco, missed you! :)
The bible is written by the hand of God, therefore he condones/approves of its contents. If you are saying that parts of it, or the bible in its entirety, is man-created, then that throws everything out the window doesn't it? We can discard what we don't like since man's perception is open to fallacy.
Here are a few examples Loco. There are many but I don't want to spam the board. :) I can post a link with the full list of atrocities (by modern human standards).
Numbers
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
Moses tells the Israelites to kill every male and all the non-virgin females, but to keep the virgins for themselves.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
31:35 And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.
They got 32,000 virgins :o - after watching their children, babies, husbands, fathers, mothers butchered, these women were then raped, and kidnapped, by order of God.
Deut.
20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
(20:13-14) In the cities that god "delivers" to you, kill all the males (including old men, boys, and babies) with "the edge of the sword.... But the women ... shalt thou take unto yourself."
Holy War and the Holy Father: the Bible vs the Quran
20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
20:15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.
20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
(20:16-17)"Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth ... as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee." Kill the old men and women, the sick and the dying, the blind and the lame, pregnant mothers, nursing mothers, infants, toddlers, and babies.
20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
Again, butchering of masses of people, including children, babies, old sick people, pregnant women, men, etc... And again, kidnapping and mass raping of virgins.
Hosea 13:15 -18
"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled
against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be
dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open." (Hosea 13:16)
"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is
joined unto them shall fall by the sword.
Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their
houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:15,16)
"Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they
shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare
children." (Isaiah 13:18)
2 Kings 15:16
Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.
It's all there Loco, and much, much more.
Thanks Deedee, but you injected your own words and your own interpretation into the Bible above and to one who has not read the Bible it would appear that your words are in the Bible.
Those who don't believe look at these stories as an oral history put into writing that chronicles an ancient civilization as it struggled to survive. Those who believe, simply trust, and I'm guessing you fall into that family. One thing for sure, if God's tactics were employed today, the war in Iraq would've been settled within 6 months. :)
I agree, those who have faith simply trust God. And yes, I do fall into that family and so do all Christians who believe that the Bible is the word of God.
Loco, as an aside, turning the other cheek has little to do with seducing non-believers or promoting a pacifist attitude. It was more of an admonishment to the people not to take justice into their own hands, but to allow the governments to administer it.
Defending yourself is not necessarily considered unlawful or vengeful. Governments don't demand that we turn the other cheek. Turning the other cheek is unnatural and unexpected, and characteristic of one like Jesus. Running away or hitting back is expected, but not turning the other cheek to be struck again. Jesus was all about spreading the Gospel, with our words and with our actions.
-
You decide whether God would or would not speak to me.
No I don't.
So the rest of the world isn't right when they denounce innocent children ordered to be killed for the sins of their parents? ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Would the rest of the world be right if they decided that all Jews must die?
that's almost on the same twisted level radical Islam is.
That's the difference between conservative Christians like yourself and me. I see no good reason or justification for it and sensibly see the OT for it is: A book of stories written by primitive men.
You sure beat around the bush to make your point. So biblical Christianity and Orthodox Judaism is "almost on the same twisted level radical Islam is" ::)
OzmO,
Don't you think that what multitudes believe would affect how they act? Christians and Jews do not associate with a cruel, murderous god. If we did, don't you think it would show in our actions? How is it harmful for Christians and Jews to believe that the OT is the word of God? Look at the Salvation Army, George Muller, Lottie Moon, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Jim Elliot, Sir Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, just to name a few who believe the OT is the word of God. You are going to put us all in the same level as radicals Islam? ::)
-
One thing is for sure: if you ever got in a fight with Yahweh, you could beat him senseless with a rod of iron; it's his one weakness.
Iron sure helped the Amalekites, didn’t they?
-
The bible is written by the hand of God, therefore he condones/approves of its contents. If you are saying that parts of it, or the bible in its entirety, is man-created, then that throws everything out the window doesn't it?
Deedee,
The Bible is not written by the hand of God, except for the 10 commandments and some words in the book of Daniel. The rest was "dictated" by God in some cases such as with Moses and other prophets. Other parts were "inspired" by God, as is the case with David, Solomon, etc.
And no, God does not automatically condone or approve of every action of every person that was recorded in the Bible.
-
No I don't.
Would the rest of the world be right if they decided that all Jews must die?
You sure beat around the bush to make your point. So biblical Christianity and Orthodox Judaism is "almost on the same twisted level radical Islam is" ::)
That's not the point I'm making at all. Maybe you are doing that thing again where you deflect or redirect to another issue. Re-read our whole exchange and re-read the word "almost".
Would the rest of the world be right if they decided that all Jews must die?
Of course not. And we are talking about innocent children not all Jews.
OzmO,
Don't you think that what multitudes believe would affect how they act?
Yes.
Christians and Jews do not associate with a cruel, murderous god.
Is killing innocent children not cruel and murderous? (I wonder if you will answer this question or will you do like the other ones i asked and ignore them and then complain i don;t answer yours ::))
If we did, don't you think it would show in our actions?
It does becuase in the face of this evil act you still say it is god who told those soldiers to kill innocent children.
How is it harmful for Christians and Jews to believe that the OT is the word of God?
VERY! Because those who would believe "god" told a group of Jews to kill innocent children and and cannot see the evil in it and believe that GOD is not morally accountable are vulnerable to manipulations of others who would use religion and alleged divine inspiration/guidence to justify unwarranted and immoral violent actions.
My point was proven well when you said if God told me to slap the child then god must have had a good reason for it.
Look at the Salvation Army, George Muller, Lottie Moon, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Jim Elliot, Sir Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, just to name a few who believe the OT is the word of God. You are going to put us all in the same level as radicals Islam?
No. Not even close to the same level. But you and they share some similarities which i outlined earlier.
-
that's almost on the same twisted level radical Islam is.
You said it, now you are backtracking.
When was the last time you saw Orthodox Jews and Christians killing children on orders from God? ::)
-
You said it, now you are backtracking.
When was the last time you saw Orthodox Jews and Christians killing children on orders from God? ::)
I never saw it. I wasn't alive then. But if it's the truth as you say. I read about it.
re-read again: ALMOST on the same level....
re-read this too:
So the rest of the world isn't right when they denounce innocent children ordered to be killed for the sins of their parents?
-
Thanks Deedee, but you injected your own words and your own interpretation into the Bible above and to one who has not read the Bible it would appear that your words are in the Bible.
Voopsie... got carried away with the bolding. However, these do illustrate a few of the cruelties depicted in the bible and as condoned or ordained by God. Taken purely in context of what was written. What was actually in the mind of God, if you believe, is not to be fathomed by not-even-mere specs in the universe. That's why these feel good articles are only that, and nothing more.
God of the OT is an extremely cruel god, or at least amazingly capricious, if his actions/whims are judged by today's human standards. That's why I used the Iraq analogy. Certainly God is on the side of western sensibilities, many Americans believe that God has in fact communicated through G.W., but even so, we would NEVER employ the OT tactics God ordered in the bible. Can you imagine?
I think that's the point Ozmo is trying to make to you.
Defending yourself is not necessarily considered unlawful or vengeful. Governments don't demand that we turn the other cheek. Turning the other cheek is unnatural and unexpected, and characteristic of one like Jesus. Running away or hitting back is expected, but not turning the other cheek to be struck again. Jesus was all about spreading the Gospel, with our words and with our actions.
But "turning the other cheek" as admonished by Jesus was to avoid vigilanteism among the people. He was saying to leave the meting out of justice to the elders, the governing bodies, not take matters into their own hands. A little bit of a difference from what you're implying.
-
I never saw it. I wasn't alive then. But if it's the truth as you say. I read about it.
re-read again: ALMOST on the same level....
re-read this too:
So you are afraid Orthodox Jews and Christians are one day going to come kill your children on orders from God? ::)
You are so easily scared, border line paranoid. There are plenty of real threats out there for you to fear. No need to create threats that aren't real and to put Orthodox Jews and Christians on the same level of radical Islam.
-
Deedee,
The Bible is not written by the hand of God, except for the 10 commandments and some words in the book of Daniel. The rest was "dictated" by God in some cases such as with Moses and other prophets. Other parts were "inspired" by God, as is the case with David, Solomon, etc.
And no, God does not automatically condone or approve of every action of every person that was recorded in the Bible.
Oh well then you run into problems, if that's what you believe. It certainly seems that whatever displeases God is written in no esoteric or abstract way. What he doesn't like... is pretty plain. When I said written, I meant dictated, same diff. And if parts of the bible are simply inspired, and are the musings of mere men, then why would anyone take it at face value? What if they were wrong, or injecting their own human perceptions and prejudices? What a shame it would be if all this time people committed terrible acts believing it to be in the name of God when in reality it wasn't.
You could then go a step further and say that so much suffering has occurred these thousands of years simply because a bunch of elders sitting around the fire one night, bemoaning the lack of hut building caused by too much wanton fornication, came up with the concept of Yahweh.
-
One thing is for sure: if you ever got in a fight with Yahweh, you could beat him senseless with a rod of iron; it's his one weakness.
Apparently, you missed Judges 4. Iron chariots didn't help this guy, Sisera:
Verses 2-4:
And the LORD sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan, that reigned in Hazor; the captain of whose host was Sisera, which dwelt in Harosheth of the Gentiles. And the children of Israel cried unto the LORD: for he had nine hundred chariots of iron; and twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel. And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.
Verses 13-16:
And Sisera gathered together all his chariots, even nine hundred chariots of iron, and all the people that were with him, from Harosheth of the Gentiles unto the river of Kishon. And Deborah said unto Barak, Up; for this is the day in which the LORD hath delivered Sisera into thine hand: is not the LORD gone out before thee? So Barak went down from mount Tabor, and ten thousand men after him. And the LORD discomfited Sisera, and all his chariots, and all his host, with the edge of the sword before Barak; so that Sisera lighted down off his chariot, and fled away on his feet. But Barak pursued after the chariots, and after the host, unto Harosheth of the Gentiles: and all the host of Sisera fell upon the edge of the sword; and there was not a man left.
Maybe, all the situation needed was a woman's touch. Can I get an "AMEN", STella?
-
Voopsie... got carried away with the bolding. However, these do illustrate a few of the cruelties depicted in the bible and as condoned or ordained by God. Taken purely in context of what was written. What was actually in the mind of God, if you believe, is not to be fathomed by not-even-mere specs in the universe. That's why these feel good articles are only that, and nothing more.
God of the OT is an extremely cruel god, or at least amazingly capricious, if his actions/whims are judged by today's human standards. That's why I used the Iraq analogy. Certainly God is on the side of western sensibilities, many Americans believe that God has in fact communicated through G.W., but even so, we would NEVER employ the OT tactics God ordered in the bible. Can you imagine?
I disagree. The God of the OT shows mercy, justice and love too. So He is either cruel or He is not.
I think that's the point Ozmo is trying to make to you.
You think? Yes, OzmO needs all the help he can get to explain himself. ;)
But "turning the other cheek" as admonished by Jesus was to avoid vigilanteism among the people. He was saying to leave the meting out of justice to the elders, the governing bodies, not take matters into their own hands. A little bit of a difference from what you're implying.
Guess we'll agree to disagree here.
-
So you are afraid Orthodox Jews and Christians are one day going to come kill your children on orders from God? ::)
You are so easily scared, border line paranoid. There are plenty of real threats out there for you to fear. No need to create threats that aren't real and to put Orthodox Jews and Christians on the same level of radical Islam.
Doing everything you can to defect from the issue of God killing innocent Children again aren't you?
Aside form that you running from my questions you are desperately attempting to make more of what i said, ignoring the some of the words i used, in hopes to change the direction of the discussion.
Maybe you need to break out your English dictionary.
You think? Yes, OzmO needs all the help he can get to explain himself. Wink
No need. the problem is not me needing help to explain myself, it's me and others needing help to show how undivine killing innocent children is to you.
-
Oh well then you run into problems, if that's what you believe. It certainly seems that whatever displeases God is written in no esoteric or abstract way. What he doesn't like... is pretty plain. When I said written, I meant dictated, same diff. And if parts of the bible are simply inspired, and are the musings of mere men, then why would anyone take it at face value? What if they were wrong, or injecting their own human perceptions and prejudices? What a shame it would be if all this time people committed terrible acts believing it to be in the name of God when in reality it wasn't.
You could then go a step further and say that so much suffering has occurred these thousands of years simply because a bunch of elders sitting around the fire one night, bemoaning the lack of hut building caused by too much wanton fornication, came up with the concept of Yahweh.
Deedee,
It is not that this is what I believe, but that is what the Bible says. Being God inspired and being hand written by God is not the same difference. The Koran for example, I'm told, was written, not inspired, by God.
Yes, men wrote the Bible, inspired by God. And yes, God allowed them to write what God inspired them to write in the mood the author happen to be in at that moment, using his talent(song, poem, etc.), but the message throughout the Bible is the same. I am aware that you do not believe this, but I do have faith that what they wrote was inspired by God and that it is God's word and not the word of men.
-
Doing everything you can to defect from the issue of God killing innocent Children again aren't you?
Aside form that you running from my questions you are desperately attempting to make more of what i said, ignoring the some of the words i used, in hopes to change the direction of the discussion.
Maybe you need to break out your English dictionary.
No need. the problem is not me needing help to explain myself, it's me and others needing help to show how undivine killing innocent children is to you.
Way to ignore my posts and my questions. And what's this about "break out your English dictionary"? Is that supposed to be a racist insult against Hispanics? ::)
-
I disagree. The God of the OT shows mercy, justice and love too. So He is either cruel or He is not.
Says you. :) You are speaking in human terms about a non-human entity. That's kind of presumptuous. And if you look at figgs' early comment that since the Creator Of All is within every living thing, even the raped virgins, the slashed up pregnant women, the dashed to pieces babies and murdered sick old people... he's committing these acts against "Himself" as well... that puts a different spin on all of what's being discussed here. Maybe cruelty is simply capriciousness, playfulness, or omniscient masochism.
Guess we'll agree to disagree here.
Of course... and it should be so. We're all just flapping our pieholes here ;D and if anyone would be seriously swayed from their beliefs by what anyone says on a message board... they need help.
But, it doesn't hurt to look at different points of views, and here's a link. I know you hate wikipedia, but it's all succinct here, and basically reiterates what my own pastor explained to me years ago, so it's a valid thinkpoint, I think. There's no shame in Jesus having spoken those words for something other than pacifism. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_the_other_cheek
-
Deedee,
It is not that this is what I believe, but that is what the Bible says. Being God inspired and being hand written by God is not the same difference. The Koran for example, I'm told, was written, not inspired, by God.
Yes, men wrote the Bible, inspired by God. And yes, God allowed them to write what God inspired them to write in the mood the author happen to be in at that moment, using his talent(song, poem, etc.), but the message throughout the Bible is the same. I am aware that you do not believe this, but I do have faith that what they wrote was inspired by God and that it is God's word and not the word of men.
Lol, then we agree. God allowed them to write what they did, means He condones what is within its pages. It IS the word of God.
-
Way to ignore my posts and my questions. And what's this about "break out your English dictionary"? Is that supposed to be a racist insult against Hispanics? ::)
Boy, you are sure desperate today loco.
Of course it's not racist. My point is English isn't your first language and you aren't reading what i wrote correctly as you keep on making what i said into something it's not.
GO back and re-read it again!
-
Says you. :) You are speaking in human terms about a non-human entity. That's kind of presumptuous.
Well, isn't that what you are doing when you said that the God of the Bible is "extremely" cruel?
And if you look at figgs' early comment that since the Creator Of All is within every living thing, even the raped virgins, the slashed up pregnant women, the dashed to pieces babies and murdered sick old people... he's committing these acts against "Himself" as well... that puts a different spin on all of what's being discussed here. Maybe cruelty is simply capriciousness, playfulness, or omniscient masochism.
The creator of all is withing every living thing? Says who?
Of course... and it should be so. We're all just flapping our pieholes here ;D and if anyone would be seriously swayed from their beliefs by what anyone says on a message board... they need help.
But, it doesn't hurt to look at different points of views, and here's a link. I know you hate wikipedia, but it's all succinct here, and basically reiterates what my own pastor explained to me years ago, so it's a valid thinkpoint, I think. There's no shame in Jesus having spoken those words for something other than pacifism. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_the_other_cheek
I actually do like wikipedia, as long as the articles do include citation of reputable references. Thanks for the link. I will read it, but you will agree with me that just because wikipedia says it, and just because your own pastor said it, that doesn't make it valid.
And again, I never said turning the other cheek was about pacifism. I said it is about saving the soul of the person who stroke you instead of striking back.
-
Boy, you are sure desperate today loco.
Whatever you say OzmO.
My point is English isn't your first language and you aren't reading what i wrote correctly as you keep on making what i said into something it's not.
That is an insult, but that's okay. I'm used to your condescending attitude.
-
Well, isn't that what you are doing when you said that the God of the Bible is "extremely" cruel?
I said his actions are extremely cruel, or at least capricious, when judged by today's human standards. I doubt that many American soldiers would mass murder civilians, slash up pregnant women, crush the skulls of babies, if they were asked to do so in Iraq, even though it would bring about the end of war and vanquish the enemy very quickly and efficiently. Because that would be morally reprehensible. Also, I don't believe in God so it's simple for me to muse and give my opinion. If I DID believe, I wouldn't be so quick to interpret my Creator's will.
The creator of all is withing every living thing? Says who?
He isn't? :o I'm surprised you would imply this. Don't you believe that God is capable of creating both miracles and wreaking great devastation, should he choose? If he has created "all" wouldn't that "all" be a part of him?
btw, no, just because my pastor or wiki said so or provides content, doesn't mean anything's true or valid. :) Just something to think about within a historical context.
-
Whatever you say OzmO.
That is an insult, but that's okay. I'm used to your condescending attitude.
You need to start taking a little responsibility for how you interpret things.
I was in no way intending to insult you.
What i was doing was pointing out the fact that becuase of English is a second language that might be why you were and still are interpreting that i was putting Radical Islam and Christianity on the same level. So what i kept telling you do was go back and re-read it and finally thought that you needed to consult you English dictionary becuase you seem to have failed to understand the meaning of the word "almost."
Again i see this whole thing from you now as another deflection to avoid the issue.
But if it's truly not. I apologized to you for any perceived insult. It was not my intention.
to save you time here's the definition of "almost"
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
al·most Audio Help /ˈɔlmoʊst, ɔlˈmoʊst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[awl-mohst, awl-mohst] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adverb
very nearly; all but: almost every house; almost the entire symphony; to pay almost nothing for a car; almost twice as many books.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
al·most Audio Help (ôl'mōst', ôl-mōst') Pronunciation Key
adv. Slightly short of; not quite; nearly: almost time to go; was almost asleep; had almost finished. See Usage Note at none.
and loco at least have the decency to take into consideration all the words i use in a sentence and how they lend to it's meaning before you accuse of something i didn't mean.
-
Hiya Loco, missed you! :)
The bible is written by the hand of God, therefore he condones/approves of its contents. If you are saying that parts of it, or the bible in its entirety, is man-created, then that throws everything out the window doesn't it? We can discard what we don't like since man's perception is open to fallacy.
Here are a few examples Loco. There are many but I don't want to spam the board. :) I can post a link with the full list of atrocities (by modern human standards).
Numbers
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
31:35 And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.
They got 32,000 virgins :o - after watching their children, babies, husbands, fathers, mothers butchered, these women were then raped, and kidnapped, by order of God.
Where does this alleged raping occur? More importantly, why the emphasis on sparing females who "have not known a man by lying with him", as opposed to not sparing those who had known a man?
The answer lies in the scenario. These were the Moabites, whose king wanted to conquer the Israelites, because their numbers were increasing and he fear a hostile takeover. Initially, he hired a prophet, Balaam, to curse Israel, in hopes that would stop them.
Numbers 22:
And the children of Israel set forward, and pitched in the plains of Moab on this side Jordan [by] Jericho. And Balak the son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites. And Moab was sore afraid of the people, because they were many: and Moab was distressed because of the children of Israel. And Moab said unto the elders of Midian, Now shall this company lick up all that are round about us, as the ox licketh up the grass of the field. And Balak the son of Zippor was king of the Moabites at that time.
He sent messengers therefore unto Balaam the son of Beor to Pethor, which is by the river of the land of the children of his people, to call him, saying, Behold, there is a people come out from Egypt: behold, they cover the face of the earth, and they abide over against me: Come now therefore, I pray thee, curse me this people; for they are too mighty for me: peradventure I shall prevail, that]we may smite them, and that I may drive them out of the land: for I wot that he whom thou blessest is blessed, and he whom thou cursest is cursed.
Keep in mind that word had spread about what went down, during the Exodus from Egypt and Israel's tangle with the Amorites. The Moabite king knew that (as long as God was with Israel) if he went head up with the Israelites, his troops would get beat down. Balaam couldn't curse Israel, as Balak had wanted. However, to avoid the wrath of the Moabite ruler and to keep all that loot he got, Balaam came up with a Plan B, to get Israel out of favor with God.
What's the one thing that would get God's protection taken from Israel? IDOLATRY (worshipping other gods).
And what was THE most effective way to get Israel's men to practice idolatry? Seduce them with their WOMEN, to engage in sex rituals as acts of pagan worship.
Moses explains that in verses 15 and 16:
And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
John (quoting an angel he sees in a vision) also makes reference to this in Revelation, when describing false prophets, "But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication."
This was mentioned earlier in Numbers (and, apparently, the Midianites got in on the act, too).
Chapter 25, verses 1-3:
And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods. And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel.
So, if any "raping" was being done, it was during this period, NOT when Moses gave the order to clean house.
The virgins weren't spared for the purposes of being "fresh meat" for Israel. On the contrary, they were spared, because they weren't enticing Israel into sin and idolatry. If the Israelite males were really on a raping rampage, I'd doubt they'd be making any distinction, between virgins and non-virgins.
-
You need to start taking a little responsibility for how you interpret things.
I was in no way intending to insult you.
What i was doing was pointing out the fact that becuase of English is a second language that might be why you were and still are interpreting that i was putting Radical Islam and Christianity on the same level. So what i kept telling you do was go back and re-read it and finally thought that you needed to consult you English dictionary becuase you seem to have failed to understand the meaning of the word "almost."
Again i see this whole thing from you now as another deflection to avoid the issue.
But if it's truly not. I apologized to you for any perceived insult. It was not my intention.
to save you time here's the definition of "almost"
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
al·most Audio Help /ˈɔlmoʊst, ɔlˈmoʊst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[awl-mohst, awl-mohst] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adverb
very nearly; all but: almost every house; almost the entire symphony; to pay almost nothing for a car; almost twice as many books.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
al·most Audio Help (ôl'mōst', ôl-mōst') Pronunciation Key
adv. Slightly short of; not quite; nearly: almost time to go; was almost asleep; had almost finished. See Usage Note at none.
and loco at least have the decency to take into consideration all the words i use in a sentence and how they lend to it's meaning before you accuse of something i didn't mean.
Que? No hablo Ingles. ::)
-
Que? No hablo Ingles. ::)
::)
run Forrest run.
-
I said his actions are extremely cruel, or at least capricious, when judged by today's human standards. I doubt that many American soldiers would mass murder civilians, slash up pregnant women, crush the skulls of babies, if they were asked to do so in Iraq, even though it would bring about the end of war and vanquish the enemy very quickly and efficiently. Because that would be morally reprehensible. Also, I don't believe in God so it's simple for me to muse and give my opinion. If I DID believe, I wouldn't be so quick to interpret my Creator's will.
No, you did say that the God of the OT is extremely cruel:
God of the OT is an extremely cruel god, or at least amazingly capricious, if his actions/whims are judged by today's human standards.
So when I responded by saying that I believe that the God of the Bible also shows mercy, justice and love, therefore He is not extremely cruel, you said
Says you. :) You are speaking in human terms about a non-human entity. That's kind of presumptuous.
So I said you do the same by saying that "God of the OT is an extremely cruel god".
Now, if you mean that God is extremely cruel only if we judge God's actions in the Bible by today's moral standards, then it follows that if we judge God's many merciful, loving and just actions in the Bible by today's moral standards God is NOT extremely cruel, but just, merciful and loving?
He isn't? :o I'm surprised you would imply this.
The God of the Bible is inside everything and everyone? Do you have a Bible quote to support that? I did not know Biblical Christianity believed this. Sounds more like New Age to me.
Don't you believe that God is capable of creating both miracles and wreaking great devastation, should he choose?
Yes
If he has created "all" wouldn't that "all" be a part of him?
No, not necessarily.
btw, no, just because my pastor or wiki said so or provides content, doesn't mean anything's true or valid. :) Just something to think about within a historical context.
Understood. ;D
-
::)
run Forrest run.
Give me a choice between denying my faith and death and see if I run. I will not give up my faith that the OT is the word of God and I will not give up my faith in Jesus. So you'll just have to kill me OzmO.
I'm not kidding. The day is coming when Orthodox Jews and Christians will be put to death, and people like you spewing ignorance out of fear and paranoia does not help matters....equating Orthodox Jews and Christians to radical Muslims. ::)
-
Maybe, all the situation needed was a woman's touch. Can I get an "AMEN", STella?
Didn't Sisera later get a woman's touch w/a tent peg :o
-
Give me a choice between denying my faith and death and see if I run. I will not give up my faith that the OT is the word of God and I will not give up my faith in Jesus. So you'll just have to kill me OzmO.
I'm not kidding. The day is coming when Orthodox Jews and Christians will be put to death, and people like you spewing ignorance out of fear and paranoia does not help matters....equating Orthodox Jews and Christians to radical Muslims. ::)
Oh brother ::)
Save the judgmental rant.
The second you get challenged about the killing of children as it relates to God all you've done is deflect. And when i draw a comparison to how radical muslims justify their violence with the comments you made about people denouncing the killing of innocent children even on the orders of God, you jump all over it like white on rice trying to make my comparison into something it's not.
this is what you said:
And just because the rest of the world condemns an action doesn't automatically mean that the rest of the world is right. If God tells you to smack the kid in the face and you do it, then it is okay with God because it is God who ordered you to do it.
Guess what? radical Muslims feel the same way as they strap tnt to their bodies and run into a crowded Market.
That's the extent of my comparison. do you get it now? Probably not. and then you thought i was being paranoid..... ;D how stupid.
You will not answer my questions becuase you can't or you are afraid. You will deflect this issue over and over and try to put words in my mouth or get all preachy because you cannot admit for one second that their can be any possibility that the OT is exactly what it is: A book of stories.
Because the cold hard fact is: The God of the OT is a child murderer. And any amount of deflection, rationalization or whining concerning that coming from you or any conservative Christian is the true display of ignorance.
And another thing, I'm not asking to make a choice between denying your faith and running and me having to "kill" you.....OMG how overly dramatic.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
Oh brother ::)
Save the judgmental rant.
The second you get challenged about the killing of children as it relates to God all you've done is deflect. And when i draw a comparison to how radical muslims justify their violence with the comments you made about people denouncing the killing of innocent children even on the orders of God, you jump all over it like white on rice trying to make my comparison into something it's not.
this is what you said:
Guess what? radical Muslims feel the same way as they strap tnt to their bodies and run into a crowded Market.
That's the extent of my comparison. do you get it now? Probably not. and then you thought i was being paranoid..... ;D how stupid.
You will not answer my questions becuase you can't or you are afraid. You will deflect this issue over and over and try to put words in my mouth or get all preachy because you cannot admit for one second that their can be any possibility that the OT is exactly what it is: A book of stories.
Because the cold hard fact is: The God of the OT is a child murderer. And any amount of deflection, rationalization or whining concerning that coming from you or any conservative Christian is the true display of ignorance.
And another thing, I'm not asking to make a choice between denying your faith and running and me having to "kill" you.....OMG how overly dramatic.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
He's nonexistent as well which makes him a whole lot more likeable! ;D
-
I wish I lived during bloody old testament times.... it'd be awesome, kicking ass and taking babes.
-
I wish I lived during bloody old testament times.... it'd be awesome, kicking ass and taking babes.
Oh really...
-
Oh really...
STFU, runt.
-
STFU, runt.
Define runt...by height...
-
Define runt...by height...
Anyone under 1.8m.
-
Anyone under 1.8m.
I guess I am a runt then...and so are many, many others.
-
I guess I am a runt then...and so are many, many others.
Yeah, well, so don't rain on non-runt's fantasies. just get your own, like being Socrates or John Adams or something.
-
Guess what? radical Muslims feel the same way as they strap tnt to their bodies and run into a crowded Market.
Bravo, OzmO! Bravo...A+ in spewing ignorance and spreading hate, equating Orthodox Jews and Christians to radical Muslims. ::)
And another thing, I'm not asking to make a choice between denying your faith and running and me having to "kill" you.....OMG how overly dramatic.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Overly dramatic? You must be living in a bubble or in a dream world. ::)
http://www.prisoneralert.com/vompw_persecution.htm
-
Bravo, OzmO! Bravo...A+ in spewing ignorance and spreading hate, equating Orthodox Jews and Christians to radical Muslims. ::)
Overly dramatic? You must be living in a bubble or in a dream world. ::)
http://www.prisoneralert.com/vompw_persecution.htm
Loco, I think you're blinded by your argument with Ozmo. :o Do you mean to say that you honestly think radical muslims don't fervently believe that what they do, that suicide bombings, etc... aren't done in the name of Islam, and that they don't believe themselves to be martyrs for Allah? Come on now.
Why do you keep mentioning Orthodox jews? What about Conservative jews? Do they count at all? And it's surprising that you also persist in lumping jews and christians together, when in fact, down through the centuries christians haven't exactly been welcoming toward the jews... have you heard of these things called pogroms, the holocaust? Many persecutions by christians against the jews have been committed in the name of God. Do you not know this?
-
Where does this alleged raping occur? More importantly, why the emphasis on sparing females who "have not known a man by lying with him", as opposed to not sparing those who had known a man?
The answer lies in the scenario. These were the Moabites, whose king wanted to conquer the Israelites, because their numbers were increasing and he fear a hostile takeover. Initially, he hired a prophet, Balaam, to curse Israel, in hopes that would stop them.
Numbers 22:
And the children of Israel set forward, and pitched in the plains of Moab on this side Jordan [by] Jericho. And Balak the son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites. And Moab was sore afraid of the people, because they were many: and Moab was distressed because of the children of Israel. And Moab said unto the elders of Midian, Now shall this company lick up all that are round about us, as the ox licketh up the grass of the field. And Balak the son of Zippor was king of the Moabites at that time.
He sent messengers therefore unto Balaam the son of Beor to Pethor, which is by the river of the land of the children of his people, to call him, saying, Behold, there is a people come out from Egypt: behold, they cover the face of the earth, and they abide over against me: Come now therefore, I pray thee, curse me this people; for they are too mighty for me: peradventure I shall prevail, that]we may smite them, and that I may drive them out of the land: for I wot that he whom thou blessest is blessed, and he whom thou cursest is cursed.
Keep in mind that word had spread about what went down, during the Exodus from Egypt and Israel's tangle with the Amorites. The Moabite king knew that (as long as God was with Israel) if he went head up with the Israelites, his troops would get beat down. Balaam couldn't curse Israel, as Balak had wanted. However, to avoid the wrath of the Moabite ruler and to keep all that loot he got (In the NT, Peter and John compare false teachers to Balaam who led people astray as he "loved the wages of unrighteousness") as , Balaam came up with a Plan B, to get Israel out of favor with God.
What's the one thing that would get God's protection taken from Israel? IDOLATRY (worshipping other gods).
And what was THE most effective way to get Israel's men to practice idolatry? Seduce them with their WOMEN, to engage in sex rituals as acts of pagan worship.
Moses explains that in verses 15 and 16:
And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
This was mentioned earlier in Numbers (and, apparently, the Midianites got in on the act, too).
Chapter 25, verses 1-3:
And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods. And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel.
So, if any "raping" was being done, it was during this period, NOT when Moses gave the order to clean house.
The virgins weren't spared for the purposes of being "fresh meat" for Israel. On the contrary, they were spared, because they weren't enticing Israel into sin and idolatry. If the Israelite males were really on a raping rampage, I'd doubt they'd be making any distinction, between virgins and non-virgins.
I understand what you're saying MCWAY. However, I'll go ahead and point to this anyway... that the so-called "women-children" were in fact referred to as "booty" along with the other spoils of war that were divied up among the vanquishers. It's doubtful that old women were guilty of seducing men into idol worshipping with their charms :) or that young boys or baby boys were implicated in any such moral crimes either. Yet they were executed. The only people of any worth were virgins, to be used as sexual consorts, so it seems fair to say that they were considered "fresh meat."
There are other troubling passages like:
13Therefore I will make the heavens tremble,
and the earth will be shaken out of its place,
at the wrath of the Lord of hosts
on the day of his fierce anger.
14Like a hunted gazelle,
or like sheep with no one to gather them,
all will turn to their own people,
and all will flee to their own lands.
15Whoever is found will be thrust through,
and whoever is caught will fall by the sword.
16Their infants will be dashed to pieces
before their eyes;
their houses will be plundered,
and their wives ravished.
When I made reference to "rape" I was referring to the terrible experiences of the "women-children." Look at any young female in your family and think, what if you and all the members of your family were violently butchered before her eyes and she was forcibly carried off by an enemy, destined to sexually service and wait on him until the end of her days? Although they lived a crude, mostly harsh existence, from a female perspective, I'm certain they suffered greatly.
I guess non-believers would ask, why did the Creator, with all of his bottomless powers, not utilize more merciful methods. He could easily have mesmerized these simple people with feats of magic and avoided the suffering and bloodshed.
-
Loco, I think you're blinded by your argument with Ozmo. :o Do you mean to say that you honestly think radical muslims don't fervently believe that what they do, that suicide bombings, etc... aren't done in the name of Islam, and that they don't believe themselves to be martyrs for Allah? Come on now.
You can't put Jews and Christians on the same level as radical Muslims. Look at what Jews and Christians do today moved by their faith, then look at what radical Muslims do today moved by their faith.
Why do you keep mentioning Orthodox jews? What about Conservative jews? Do they count at all? And it's surprising that you also persist in lumping jews and christians together, when in fact, down through the centuries christians haven't exactly been welcoming toward the jews... have you heard of these things called pogroms, the holocaust? Many persecutions by christians against the jews have been committed in the name of God. Do you not know this?
OzmO is the one lumping together everyone who believe the OT is the word of God and putting them on the same level as radical Muslims.
-
It's doubtful that old women were guilty of seducing men into idol worshipping with their charms :)
As it is doubtful that any soldier would be interested in raping old women.
There are other troubling passages like:
13Therefore I will make the heavens tremble,
and the earth will be shaken out of its place,
at the wrath of the Lord of hosts
on the day of his fierce anger.
14Like a hunted gazelle,
or like sheep with no one to gather them,
all will turn to their own people,
and all will flee to their own lands.
15Whoever is found will be thrust through,
and whoever is caught will fall by the sword.
16Their infants will be dashed to pieces
before their eyes;
their houses will be plundered,
and their wives ravished.
Deedee,
Why didn't you list the book and chapter? Isn't this passage talking about what will happen to Israel at the hands of their enemies as a result of Israel's disobedience?
When I made reference to "rape" I was referring to the terrible experiences of the "women-children."
Where in the Bible does it say that those virgins were later raped by the Israeli soldiers? Are you sure the Israeli soldiers didn't take them as wives? Sure, it's terrible for an Israeli soldier to take a virgin as his wife after he killed her people, but that is far from rape. As a wife, she was subject to the laws that applied to any Israeli wife.
Look at any young female in your family and think, what if you and all the members of your family were violently butchered before her eyes and she was forcibly carried off by an enemy, destined to sexually service and wait on him until the end of her days? Although they lived a crude, mostly harsh existence, from a female perspective, I'm certain they suffered greatly.
That's what the Amalekites did to Israel for 300 years.
I guess non-believers would ask, why did the Creator, with all of his bottomless powers, not utilize more merciful methods. He could easily have mesmerized these simple people with feats of magic and avoided the suffering and bloodshed.
And if God had done nothing, or if God had done what you suggest, I guess non-believers would ask why God is so unjust and did not take revenge on the Amalekites for what they did to Israel for 300 years.
-
Brevity is the soul of having your posts actually read.
-
Bravo, OzmO! Bravo...A+ in spewing ignorance and spreading hate, equating Orthodox Jews and Christians to radical Muslims. ::)
Overly dramatic? You must be living in a bubble or in a dream world. ::)
http://www.prisoneralert.com/vompw_persecution.htm
You can't put Jews and Christians on the same level as radical Muslims. Look at what Jews and Christians do today moved by their faith, then look at what radical Muslims do today moved by their faith.
OzmO is the one lumping together everyone who believe the OT is the word of God and putting them on the same level as radical Muslims.
I'll say it again, and I'm sure you'll play the victim once more:
Get out your English dictionary and go back and re-read everything i wrote. Because right now, it's either your ignorance or your lack of understanding of the English language that's showing.
And yes you are being overly dramatic when you tell me: "you're going just have to kill me"
You got 2 speeds loco, preachy or victim.
-
Get out your English dictionary and go back and re-read everything i wrote. Because right now, it's either your ignorance or your lack of understanding of the English language that's showing.
Yeah, God bless you too, OzmO!
-
Yeah, God bless you too, OzmO!
Oh yeah i forgot deflection and avoidance when cornered or pinned down.
God bless you too, loco!
-
God bless us everyone!
-
God bless us everyone!
yeah, let's have a bless-a-thon so we don't have to deal with the truth. All we have to do is deal with what ever beliefs that make us feel better.
God doesn't kill children......... ::)
-
Brevity is the soul of having your posts actually read.
Really? :P
-
As it is doubtful that any soldier would be interested in raping old women.
Exactly my point. Off with their heads. :)
Deedee,
Why didn't you list the book and chapter? Isn't this passage talking about what will happen to Israel at the hands of their enemies as a result of Israel's disobedience?
So? Violence is violence as prescribed by God.
Where in the Bible does it say that those virgins were later raped by the Israeli soldiers? Are you sure the Israeli soldiers didn't take them as wives? Sure, it's terrible for an Israeli soldier to take a virgin as his wife after he killed her people, but that is far from rape. As a wife, she was subject to the laws that applied to any Israeli wife.
Interesting point. Why do we slam 50-year-old Muslim men for forcibly marrying 12-year-old girls then? :)
We do because we look at it with modern, Western attitudes. That's my point. Many scenarios played out in the OT are despicable to us today, and we wouldn't dream of indulging in such behavior.
You've misread my posts. All I said was that cruelty is a human word and can't be applied to the all-knowing, all-seeing Creator.
And yes, a blessing on everyone's head!!!
-
Exactly my point. Off with their heads. :)
No, I meant why would soldiers be interested in raping old virgins? The passage simply specifies virgins, but nothing about rape, the virgin's age, body weight, body shape or looks.
So? Violence is violence as prescribed by God.
That was actually an honest question.
Interesting point. Why do we slam 50-year-old Muslim men for forcibly marrying 12-year-old girls then? :)
We do because we look at it with modern, Western attitudes. That's my point. Many scenarios played out in the OT are despicable to us today, and we wouldn't dream of indulging in such behavior.
You've misread my posts. All I said was that cruelty is a human word and can't be applied to the all-knowing, all-seeing Creator.
How old were these virgins? How old were the Israelli soldiers?
-
yeah, let's have a bless-a-thon so we don't have to deal with the truth. All we have to do is deal with what ever beliefs that make us feel better.
God doesn't kill children......... ::)
You must have lost your mind OzmO. First you quoted me answering your questions to use my answers to slander anyone who believes that the OT is the word of God and put us all at the same level of radical Muslims. Then you follow that by saying that I avoid answering your questions and dealing with the truth? ::)
God has killed children. When did I deny that?
-
You must have lost your mind OzmO. First you quoted me answering your questions to use my answers to slander anyone who believes that the OT is the word of God and put us all at the same level of radical Muslims. Then you follow that by saying that I avoid answering your questions and dealing with the truth? ::)
God has killed children. When did I deny that?
Still playing the victim i see.
God bless you loco.
And when you have the courage to start answering questions and talk about the real issues without getting judgmental or failing to comprehend basic English or act like a cry baby or drama queen, we can continue our debate/discussion.
-
Still playing the victim i see.
God bless you loco.
And when you have the courage to start answering questions and talk about the real issues without getting judgmental or failing to comprehend basic English or act like a cry baby or drama queen, we can continue our debate/discussion.
Way to avoid my post. Who is running now? Who lacks the courage to start answering questions now? Who is the drama queen now, OzmO?
Why do you keep saying that I'm avoiding your questions right after you quoted me answering your questions to use my answers to slander anyone who believes that the OT is the word of God and put us all at the same level of radical Muslims?
God has killed children. When did I deny that? Where do you get that I'm denying the truth?
-
Way to avoid my post. Who is running now? Who lacks the courage to start answering questions now? Who the drama queen now, OzmO
Why do you keep saying that I'm avoiding your questions right after you quoted me answering your questions to use my answers to slander anyone who believes that the OT is the word of God and put us all at the same level of radical Muslims?
God has killed children. When did I deny that? Where do you get that I'm denying the truth?
Go back to your melt down. :'( A few pages back.
In fact go back to where i put question marks in bold.
Just becuase you think you got me pinned down on the "God doesn't kill children comment ::), so now you are all ready to jump in and argue.
How pathetic.
Coward.
-
Go back to your melt down. :'( A few pages back.
In fact go back to where i put question marks in bold.
Just becuase you think you got me pinned down on the "God doesn't kill children comment ::), so now you are all ready to jump in and argue.
How pathetic.
Coward.
I already answered your questions. Why don't you have the courage to answer mine? Talk about coward. ::)
-
Didn't Sisera later get a woman's touch w/a tent peg :o
Yep, and an iron one at that!!!
However, I was referring the judge and prophetess, Deborah, who declared that Israel would be delivered from the king of Canaan and his captain of the guard, Sisera (iron chariots and all) 8)
-
I already answered your questions. Why don't you have the courage to answer mine? Talk about coward. ::)
No you didn't.
And ever since you pitched a fit about me not answering questions i've answered yours and you conveniently ignored mine.
Go back to where i told you go and start there.
Until then all you are doing is another one of your avoidance and deflection games becuase you can't handle the truth of the OT:
God is a murderer.
-
You must have lost your mind OzmO. First you quoted me answering your questions to use my answers to slander anyone who believes that the OT is the word of God and put us all at the same level of radical Muslims. Then you follow that by saying that I avoid answering your questions and dealing with the truth? ::)
God has killed children. When did I deny that?
Seriously loco, OPEN UP YOUR ENGLISH DICTIONARY!
THE POST WASN'T EVEN DIRECTED AT YOU!
Talk about paranoid.
-
No you didn't.
And ever since you pitched a fit about me not answering questions i've answered yours and you conveniently ignored mine.
Go back to where i told you go and start there.
Until then all you are doing is another one of your avoidance and deflection games becuase you can't handle the truth of the OT:
God is a murderer.
Yeah, that's really mature and courageous of you. My "avoidance and deflection games"? Right after you yourself quoted me answering your questions? Right after you used my answers to slander all who believe that the OT is the word of God?
Yes, God has killed children. Where do you get that I'm avoiding the truth? Why won't you answer my questions? Why do you keep ignoring my questions?
Very mature and courageous, OzmO! ::)
-
Seriously loco, OPEN UP YOUR ENGLISH DICTIONARY!
THE POST WASN'T EVEN DIRECTED AT YOU!
Talk about paranoid.
Sure, dumb Hispanics can't understand your posts because they are in English. ::)
-
Sure, dumb Hispanics can't understand your posts because they are in English. ::)
What a cry baby!
Now you are taking my pointing of your inablilty to comprehend what i said and turning into a racist thing again?
Ahh you poor victim.
-
Yeah, that's really mature and courageous of you. My "avoidance and deflection games"? Right after you yourself quoted me answering your questions? Right after you used my answers to slander all who believe that the OT is the word of God?
Yes, God has killed children. Where do you get that I'm avoiding the truth? Why won't you answer my questions? Why do you keep ignoring my questions?
Very mature and courageous, OzmO! ::)
No point in going on with you , Mr. Drama Queen, until you have the courage to go back to where you originally melted down and avoided my questions.
Until then it's your basic "loco the drama queen game time."
-
No point in going on with you , Mr. Drama Queen, until you have the courage to go back to where you originally melted down and avoided my questions.
Until it's your basic "loco the drama queen game time."
Yeah, yeah...I'm a drama queen...whatever! Let's move on.
OzmO,
Why do you keep saying that I'm avoiding your questions right after you quoted me answering your questions to use my answers to slander anyone who believes that the OT is the word of God and put us all at the same level of radical Muslims?
God has killed children. When did I deny that? Where do you get that I'm denying the truth?
How exactly are Jews and Christians a threat to society today simply for believing the OT is the word of God?
How exactly are Jews and Christians today remotely close to radical Muslims?
-
No, I meant why would soldiers be interested in raping old virgins? The passage simply specifies virgins, but nothing about rape, the virgin's age, body weight, body shape or looks.
That was actually an honest question.
How old were these virgins? How old were the Israelli soldiers?
What you're forgetting, Loco, is that this whole issue revolves around Israel's idolatry and sexual misconduct. Again, the virgins females were spared, because they weren't part of Balak's plan (as guided by the rogue prophet, Balaam) to get Israel to backsliding.
-
loco, here's the point I think Ozmo is making to you. I think.
Radical muslims behave no differently today than many of the characters in the OT behaved, which includes many barbaric, ostensibly God-condoned acts. Many Christians don't see from whence we came. And that does NOT condone what radical muslims do in today's world, just points out certain similarities between our own humble beginnings and their current behavior.
-
No, I meant why would soldiers be interested in raping old virgins? The passage simply specifies virgins, but nothing about rape, the virgin's age, body weight, body shape or looks.
That was actually an honest question.
How old were these virgins? How old were the Israelli soldiers?
What does "women children" mean to you? To me it means young girls.
I doubt they conducted surveys or took sworn statements. They may have conducted forced gynecological exams (ech) or simply took the young girls and were done with it.
What you're forgetting, Loco, is that this whole issue revolves around Israel's idolatry and sexual misconduct. Again, the virgins females were spared, because they weren't part of Balak's plan (as guided by the rogue prophet, Balaam) to get Israel to backsliding.
Neither were old women, unborn children (there were surely some pregnant women who were slain) young boys, male babies. It was just a harsh world.
-
OzmO and loco, I know you both respect each other. I also think you like each other but this is of course a tender subject.
Maybe if we all take a deep breath it will help out :)
Or you could all tell me to p*** off :'(
-
What you're forgetting, Loco, is that this whole issue revolves around Israel's idolatry and sexual misconduct. Again, the virgins females were spared, because they weren't part of Balak's plan (as guided by the rogue prophet, Balaam) to get Israel to backsliding.
Thanks MCWAY! I read your other post about this. Very good! I just don't understand where skeptics get that the virgins in this passage were raped by the Israeli soldiers.
-
OzmO and loco, I know you both respect each other. I also think you like each other but this is of course a tender subject.
Maybe if we all take a deep breath it will help out :)
Or you could all tell me to p*** off :'(
Well, I do hope you are not angry at me OzmO! If I insulted you in any of my posts, I apologize!
Thanks, STella, for keeping the peace!
-
Yeah, yeah...I'm a drama queen...whatever! Let's move on.
Ok for the sake of continuing we'll re-start here. ::) Even though you still haven't answered my questions.... Which is business as usual for you.
Why do you keep saying that I'm avoiding your questions right after you quoted me answering your questions to use my answers to slander anyone who believes that the OT is the word of God and put us all at the same level of radical Muslims?
I didn't say they were on the same level. I said almost on the same level. see below for further explanation.
God has killed children. When did I deny that? Where do you get that I'm denying the truth?
When did i say you said that? I was talking to someone else.
How exactly are Jews and Christians a threat to society today simply for believing the OT is the word of God?
I answered that question already. go back and re-read like i've been suggesting you to do!
How exactly are Jews and Christians today remotely close to radical Muslims?
Because they both seem to believe that if God tells you to do something its ok regardless of the rest of the world thinks. You supported that belief:
And just because the rest of the world condemns an action doesn't automatically mean that the rest of the world is right. If God tells you to smack the kid in the face and you do it, then it is okay with God because it is God who ordered you to do it.
Radical Muslims do the same thing in principle. Now, Christians DO NOT do the same things in practice as radical muslims do like, suicide bomb markets, hijack planes, etc... But the principle is the same: They feel they are justified by orders from God.
-
loco, here's the point I think Ozmo is making to you. I think.
Radical muslims behave no differently today than many of the characters in the OT behaved, which includes many barbaric, ostensibly God-condoned acts. Many Christians don't see from whence we came. And that does NOT condone what radical muslims do in today's world, just points out certain similarities between our own humble beginnings and their current behavior.
No, that is not his point obviously. Read above.
-
"And just because the rest of the world condemns an action doesn't automatically mean that the rest of the world is right. If God tells you to smack the kid in the face and you do it, then it is okay with God because it is God who ordered you to do it."
"Radical Muslims do the same thing in principle. Now, Christians DO NOT do the same things in practice as radical muslims do like, suicide bomb markets, hijack planes, etc... But the principle is the same: They feel they are justified by orders from God."
I think loco is saying if God truly told you to smack the kid. Not if someone just truly 'believes' that God told them to smack the kid.
I think general thinking is that yes, Radical Muslims may think that they are really doing their God's will by blowing up people but most of us do not believe that it is really God's will. We believe they are mistaken.
-
Ok for the sake of continuing we'll re-start here. ::) Even though you still haven't answered my questions.... Which is business as usual for you.
I didn't say they were on the same level. I said almost on the same level. see below for further explanation.
When did i say you said that? I was talking to someone else.
I answered that question already. go back and re-read like i've been suggesting you to do!
Because they both seem to believe that if God tells you to do something its ok regardless of the rest of the world thinks. You supported that belief:
Radical Muslims do the same thing in principle. Now, Christians DO NOT do the same things in practice as radical muslims do like, suicide bomb markets, hijack planes, etc... But the principle is the same: They feel they are justified by orders from God.
Are you suggesting that Christians and Jews some how must force ourselves to stop having faith in the OT just because of today's radical Muslims' actions? Today's radical Muslims' actions dictate what Christians and Jews can and cannot believe?
If "Christians DO NOT do the same things in practice as radical Muslims", then where is the harm? How are Christians a threat to today's society simply for believing the OT is the word of God?
-
"And just because the rest of the world condemns an action doesn't automatically mean that the rest of the world is right. If God tells you to smack the kid in the face and you do it, then it is okay with God because it is God who ordered you to do it."
"Radical Muslims do the same thing in principle. Now, Christians DO NOT do the same things in practice as radical muslims do like, suicide bomb markets, hijack planes, etc... But the principle is the same: They feel they are justified by orders from God."
I think loco is saying if God truly told you to smack the kid. Not if someone just truly 'believes' that God told them to smack the kid.
I think general thinking is that yes, Radical Muslims may think that they are really doing their God's will by blowing up people but most of us do not believe that it is really God's will. We believe they are mistaken.
Correct!
-
Are you suggesting that Christians and Jews some how must force themselves to stop having faith in the OT just because of today's radical Muslims' actions? Today's radical Muslims' actions dictate what Christians and Jews can and cannot believe?
no not suggesting that at all and no on the second question.
If "Christians DO NOT do the same things in practice as radical Muslims", then where is the harm?
The harm is only potentially and not the same way as with Radical muslims.
Here's what i asked you to re-read:
Because those who would believe "god" told a group of Jews to kill innocent children and and cannot see the evil in it and believe that GOD is not morally accountable are vulnerable to manipulations of others (now added:politicians and leaders) who would use religion and alleged divine inspiration/guidance to justify unwarranted and immoral violent actions.
-
Thanks MCWAY! I read your other post about this. Very good! I just don't understand where skeptics get that the virgins in this passage were raped by the Israeli soldiers.
Loco, I know that you know that in today's world, if some remote village was vanquished and young girls were divied up as spoils of war, forced to become concubines or wives of the enemy, it would be seen as tantamount to kidnapping, slavery and rape. Our western sensibilities would decry it. :)
But back then times were simpler. Again, all I was saying is that what we might see in our current world as cruelty, from a human perspective, doesn't apply when speaking of God or the OT.
-
no not suggesting that at all and no on the second question.
The harm is only potentially and not the same way as with Radical muslims.
Here's what i asked you to re-read:
Because those who would believe "god" told a group of Jews to kill innocent children and and cannot see the evil in it and believe that GOD is not morally accountable are vulnerable to manipulations of others (now added:politicians and leaders) who would use religion and alleged divine inspiration/guidance to justify unwarranted and immoral violent actions.
The potential you speak of applies to many things and to many people, including people who do not believe in the Bible, or don't even believe in God for that matter. There is just as much, if not more, potential for anybody who does not believe in "divine inspiration/guidance" to be vulnerable to manipulations by politicians and leaders. Evidence of this is Nationalism, Social Darwinism, The Great Leap Forward, The Great Purge, just to name a few secular ideals which have claimed far more lives in modern times than any "alleged divine inspiration/guidance" justified actions by any religious group.
-
The potential you speak of applies to many things and to many people, including people who do not believe in the Bible, or don't even believe in God for that matter. There is just as much, if not more, potential for anybody who does not believe in "divine inspiration/guidance" to be vulnerable to manipulations by politicians and leaders. Evidence of this is Nationalism, Social Darwinism, The Great Leap Forward, The Great Purge, just to name a few secular ideals which have claimed far more lives in modern times than any "alleged divine inspiration/guidance" justified actions by any religious group.
I've heard the saying that Stalin killed more people in one year than the Crusaders did in a decade. Bascially, that amount to the "god" in question being the state/government. And since he ran the state/government, the "god" was, in effect, Stalin himself.
-
I've heard the saying that Stalin killed more people in one year than the Crusaders did in a decade. Bascially, that amount to the "god" in question being the state/government. And since he ran the state/government, the "god" was, in effect, Stalin himself.
Someone told me the book of Martyrs has the Catholic church killing 50 million. But that's just hearsay and i think Stalin was in the 20 million range.
-
I think loco is saying if God truly told you to smack the kid. Not if someone just truly 'believes' that God told them to smack the kid.
That's the one of the issues stella, how is anyone to know if God truly tells anyone?
I bet the percentage of people who think god has spoken to them at some point in there lives is higher than we think.
I believe he's spoken to me on 2 occasions.
Take the Jews who were instructed by God to kill children. How do we know they actually were told by god?
I don't believe they were told by God becuase killing innocent children is an evil thing to do and god is not evil. (making it more than obviously the OT is not the 100% WOG, therefore God did not commit an evil act)
But yet, nations will act on what someone, who they believe is the voice of God, says to do.
Hasn't Bush even said something to the effect he's been guided by God or talks to him or something?
Thiis s the kind of thing that leads to righteousness. Isn't righteous something Jesus warns us about?
I think general thinking is that yes, Radical Muslims may think that they are really doing their God's will by blowing up people but most of us do not believe that it is really God's will. We believe they are mistaken.
Sure we do. Because we are at the very least a modern civilization. But at the religious core we are not becuase many still believe the OT is the 100% WOG and see no moral inequity or accountability on God's part for killing children. Our religious roots are planted, as DeeDee said, in a time of complete barbarism. that gives us the potential to fall into the same "almost" the same level of righteousness that caused grown men to kill innocent children because they believe who ever ordered them to was told by God to do it.
-
The potential you speak of applies to many things and to many people, including people who do not believe in the Bible, or don't even believe in God for that matter.
But the potential is still there. I believe it's better for people to believe in God in regards to doing the right thing even though people inheritly know right from wrong at some basic level. Especially when it comes to killing children, innocent or not.
There is just as much, if not more, potential for anybody who does not believe in "divine inspiration/guidance" to be vulnerable to manipulations by politicians and leaders. Evidence of this is Nationalism, Social Darwinism, The Great Leap Forward, The Great Purge, just to name a few secular ideals which have claimed far more lives in modern times than any "alleged divine inspiration/guidance" justified actions by any religious group.
I agree. That's why anything that is evil, such as killing children, should be denounced, especially scripture that allows "god" to do the dirty deed without accountability. (making it more than obviously the OT is not the 100% WOG, therefore God did not commit an evil act)
-
When this all came to a peak earlier i had my boss sitting right in front of me. And i couldn't get him interested in the debate! :D
I apologize and hope you are not angry at me and take heated debates on a forum for what they are.
-
I've heard the saying that Stalin killed more people in one year than the Crusaders did in a decade. Bascially, that amount to the "god" in question being the state/government. And since he ran the state/government, the "god" was, in effect, Stalin himself.
Bad analogy MCWAY. The NAZIS, STALIN, POL POT had modern techonology at their disposal. You can bet money that the RCC (and the other sects) would have done the same had that same technology presented itself centuries ago.
-
I've heard the saying that Stalin killed more people in one year than the Crusaders did in a decade. Bascially, that amount to the "god" in question being the state/government. And since he ran the state/government, the "god" was, in effect, Stalin himself.
What does Stalin has to do with people being murdered in the name of God?
Are you, in some perverted way, trying to justifying one horrible act by another evil crime?
Then perhaps Hitler was justified.
Some say he didn't kill as many as Stalin either.
Or Saddam.
Or Pol Pot.
Or who-fcuking-ever.
-
What does Stalin has to do with people being murdered in the name of God?
Are you, in some perverted way, trying to justifying one horrible act by another evil crime?
Then perhaps Hitler was justified.
Some say he didn't kill as many as Stalin either.
Or Saddam.
Or Pol Pot.
Or who-fcuking-ever.
No. He is employing one of the three ways to claim his religion is true; there are only 3 ways.
1. Said religion is true.
2. Said religion is useful.
3. Atheism is a religion and/or dogmatic (cites Stalin/Pol POt, etc.), hence said religion is better.
Those are basically the only three ways the faithful rise to the defence of their silliness.
-
Bad analogy MCWAY. The NAZIS, STALIN, POL POT had modern techonology at their disposal. You can bet money that the RCC (and the other sects) would have done the same had that same technology presented itself centuries ago.
So modern religious leaders are more civilized than modern secular leaders? :)
-
I believe he's spoken to me on 2 occasions.
God has never spoken to me.
-
So modern religious leaders are more civilized than modern secular leaders? :)
Huh?! How did you jump there?
-
God has never spoken to me.
I could have bet on that.
-
But the potential is still there. I believe it's better for people to believe in God in regards to doing the right thing even though people inheritly know right from wrong at some basic level. Especially when it comes to killing children, innocent or not.
I agree. That's why anything that is evil, such as killing children, should be denounced, especially scripture that allows "god" to do the dirty deed without accountability. (making it more than obviously the OT is not the 100% WOG, therefore God did not commit an evil act)
You agree? Then if "the potential is still there" regardless of wheather or not a person believes the OT is the word of God, and If "Christians DO NOT do the same things in practice as radical Muslims", then where is the harm?
-
Huh?! How did you jump there?
Bad analogy MCWAY. The NAZIS, STALIN, POL POT had modern techonology at their disposal. You can bet money that the RCC (and the other sects) would have done the same had that same technology presented itself centuries ago.
It's not like the RCC and other religious organizations and leaders ceased to exist before the Nazis, Stalin, etc. came into the picture. They have been around and have had access to the same technology, yet we have seen just as much devastation in modern times, if not more, by the secular ideals I mentioned above.
-
I could have bet on that.
Good! ;D
-
It's not like the RCC and other religious organizations and leaders ceased to exist before the Nazis, Stalin, etc. came into the picture. They have been around and have had access to the same technology, yet we have seen just as much devastation in modern times, if not more, by the secular ideals I mentioned above.
Come on Loco, you are smarter than this. The RCC and others DID NOT have the same level of power and authority that they once did. When one compares the 14th century Church with early 1940's Germany this becomes clear. Had they has access to modern technology at the apex of their power, there is little doubt they would have used it to devastating effect. The medieval pograms against Jews are a large indication of this. Imagine what they (Good Christians) could have done with poison gas, machine guns and mass transport....
-
Come on Loco, you are smarter than this. The RCC and others DID NOT have the same level of power and authority that they once did. When one compares the 14th century Church with early 1940's Germany this becomes clear. Had they has access to modern technology at the apex of their power, there is little doubt they would have used it to devastating effect. The medieval pograms against Jews are a large indication of this. Imagine what they (Good Christians) could have done with poison gas, machine guns and mass transport....
Well, thanks for the compliment, Deicide! ;D
Okay, so these modern secular leaders are just as barbaric and uncivilised as those 14th century religious leaders? My only point here is that the possibility for people to be controlled and manipulated by politicians and leaders has nothing to do with being religious or secular. It has nothing to do with believing or not believing in the OT.
-
Well, thanks for the compliment, Deicide! ;D
Okay, so these modern secular leaders are just as barbaric and uncivilised as those 14th century religious leaders? My only point here is that the possibility for people to be controlled and manipulated by politicians and leaders has nothing to do with being religious or secular. It has nothing to do with believing or not believing in the OT.
Correct. It has everything to do with accepting unfalsifiable dogma, be it religious or secular; claims without evidence. The OT has more than its share and it is so babaric by today's standards that it should be flushed down the toilet.
-
Correct. It has everything to do with accepting unfalsifiable dogma, be it religious or secular; claims without evidence. The OT has more than its share and it is so babaric by today's standards that it should be flushed down the toilet.
You highlight "It has nothing to do with believing or not believing in the OT." in my post, tell me that I am correct, then say the OT should be flushed down the toilet? ???
-
God has never spoken to me.
God has never inspired you to make the right decision?
You have never felt guidance from somewhere outside your physical senses?
-
God has never inspired you to make the right decision?
You have never felt guidance from somewhere outside your physical senses?
"Inspired" me? Yes. "Guided" me? Yes. "Spoken" to me? No.
God has "spoken" to people before, but God has never "spoken" to me, and I'm okay with that.
-
You agree? Then if "the potential is still there" regardless of wheather or not a person believes the OT is the word of God, and If "Christians DO NOT do the same things in practice as radical Muslims", then where is the harm?
The harm is more potential in that a reason exists. The OT is something some people take a the literal word of God and do not recognize the evil in god killing children. but is there direct harm at the moment? Of course not.
But, if you have attitudes like this:
And just because the rest of the world condemns an action doesn't automatically mean that the rest of the world is right. If God tells you to smack the kid in the face and you do it, then it is okay with God because it is God who ordered you to do it.
Then you have to wonder how all the Jewish soldiers received their orders and how vulnerable some are now to being convinced someone has been spoken to by God.
And, take the whole 72 virgins thing out of Islam. Do you think we'd see as many suicide bombers? The sales job wouldn't be as effective.
And who knows? The roles could get reversed in the next 100 years.
P.S.:
You also have to wonder about this: And just because the rest of the world condemns an action doesn't automatically mean that the rest of the world is right.
Umm, when it comes to killing innocent children being wrong the rest of the world is right and the scripture is not the WOG.
-
"Inspired" me? Yes. "Guided" me? Yes. "Spoken" to me? No.
God has "spoken" to people before, but God has never "spoken" to me, and I'm okay with that.
I wasn't trying to imply that you weren't ok with that.
-
The harm is more potential in that a reason exists.
Are you saying that there is more potential for somebody who believes in the OT to be manipulated by politicians than somebody who does not believe in the OT? What are you basing this statement on? I just brought to your attention that people can and have already been manipulated in modern times, just as much if not more, by secular ideals.
The OT is something some people take a the literal word of God and do not recognize the evil in god killing children.
The killing of children by God in the OT is not a direct command from God to us, but it is recorded as events in the history of Israel. "Thou shall not murder" is a direct command from God. So to say that a Christian could use Israel's recorded history today to justify killing children is stretching the truth, not to mention that it is not happening today anyway. So there is nothing to back that up.
but is there direct harm at the moment? Of course not.
Of course there is no harm in believing the OT is the word of God.
But, if you have attitudes like this:
Then you have to wonder how all the Jewish soldiers received their orders and how vulnerable some are now to being convinced someone has been spoken to by God.
And, take the whole 72 virgins thing out of Islam. Do you think we'd see as many suicide bombers? The sales job wouldn't be as effective.
That's a bold assumption. There is no guarantee that removing the 72 virgins from Islam will stop suicide bombers. The Kamikaze's suicide attacks simply because to them it was "an honor to die for Japan and the Emperor" had nothing to do with 72 virgins or with the OT.
And who knows? The roles could get reversed in the next 100 years.
What is that supposed to mean?
P.S.:
You also have to wonder about this:
Umm, when it comes to killing innocent children being wrong the rest of the world is right and the scripture is not the WOG.
P.S.:
I believe killing innocent children is wrong and I think it's good that you believe so too. But do you think so just because "the rest of the world" thinks so?
You have to wonder when an individual bases his morality on what "rest of the world condemns" or on what "the rest of the world" considers moral or immoral.
-
Are you saying that there is more potential for somebody who believes in the OT to be manipulated by politicians than somebody who does not believe in the OT? What are you basing this statement on? I just brought to your attention that people can and have already been manipulated in modern times, just as much if not more, by secular ideals.
Yeah i do. For the mere fact it's not denounced. Now how much more potential? Right now, in this time in the world? Not much. But society can change as it has before.
On top of that, believing in a book like the OT can limiting for a society in the long run. I was reading last night, that there are as many engineers in South Korea as there are in the USA. That's scary, the article talks about Saudi Arabia too, where so much funding has been directed to religious studies, putting that country further behind technologically hurting them and making them ore dependent on other countries. I'd hate to see that happen to America. But if South Korea has as many engineers as we do, that's scary. I'm not saying that belief in the OT is the reason we are slipping behind. But believing in a book that's obviously not 100% of God and talks about magical things and brutal violence and fear does not help.
The killing of children by God in the OT is not a direct command from God to us, but it is recorded as events in the history of Israel. "Thou shall not murder" is a direct command from God. So to say that a Christian could use Israel's recorded history today to justify killing children is stretching the truth, not to mention that it is not happening today anyway. So there is nothing to back that up.
I agree. As of right now. But again, IMO, the problem is that it's not denounced. It's considered by some as the will and word of GOD, which is an evil act and not possible of GOD.
Of course there is no harm in believing the OT is the word of God.
Individually no. I agree. But, for societies, yes. There is a good potential. The nice thing is we are civilized beyond the OT, beyond the alleged WOG in the case of killing children.
That's a bold assumption. There is no guarantee that removing the 72 virgins from Islam will stop suicide bombers. The Kamikaze's suicide attacks simply because it was an honor to die for Japan and the Emperor had nothing to do with 72 virgins or with the OT.
Removing the rewards of martyrdom will have an effect on suicide bombers and Kamkazi's. The ideas were similar in that there was the reward of Honor or virgins.
What is that supposed to mean?
If Christians were in the same boat many of these muslims are you'd see little radical secs pop up and advocate violence in the name of God.
P.S.:
I believe killing innocent children is wrong and I think it's good that you believe so too. But do you think so just because "the rest of the world" thinks so?
You have to wonder when an individual bases his morality on what "rest of the world condemns" or on what "the rest of the world" considers moral or immoral.
I agree with your premise there for the most part. "the world" or a culture can have it wrong. You highlighted that issue well with 300 b.c. Greece. However not in the case of killing children. And we as a species are still very young and have not matured. Society now considers killing children very evil were as it was not in the OT. In time, i pray, we will survive to mature not to commit homicide, invade an area for it's resources, steal, etc...
I think god gave us the ability to know right from wrong. Many choose to ignore that, unfortunately. It really all begins with considering if our actions will result in a victim(s).
-
What a benchmark... comparing the Creator of all, the inventor our DNA and all the exists around us, with a mere human despot, a little spec in the grand scheme of things... Stalin, to say, oh well, God was better than he. Incredible. ;D
Consider all the children, babies, sick, retarded, the defenseless, innocent animals God personally killed in the Flood... estimated at about 30,000,000 (people). The bible is filled with God ordered killings, He personally even annihilated people for complaining... maybe it's just better to acknowledge that yes, it happened, but must have been for a reason we can't fathom. How can you deny the written word? It's plain as day.
-
Are you saying that there is more potential for somebody who believes in the OT to be manipulated by politicians than somebody who does not believe in the OT? What are you basing this statement on? I just brought to your attention that people can and have already been manipulated in modern times, just as much if not more, by secular ideals.
Loco you keep trying to put a positive spin on this stuff. :) Wish you would post up some stats of your claims... because the fact is that up until very recently most people living in the christian world used the word of God in every facet of their lives. Forget about all the wars fought in the name of God. Much suffering has been handed down through the centuries due to the mis-interpretations, both willful and not, of his word. Education is a thing of recent years. ;) Good thing you weren't an illegitimate child born in the 1600's, or an orphan living in the 1800s. Or a village woman stuck with her physically abusive husband. Or God forbid, suffered from a mysterious illness, were born with a deformity, etc... because you would have been shunned or far worse being as how you'd be the living manifestation of your family's "sins."
-
What a benchmark... comparing the Creator of all, the inventor our DNA and all the exists around us, with a mere human despot, a little spec in the grand scheme of things... Stalin, to say, oh well, God was better than he. Incredible. ;D
Consider all the children, babies, sick, retarded, the defenseless, innocent animals God personally killed in the Flood... estimated at about 30,000,000 (people). The bible is filled with God ordered killings, He personally even annihilated people for complaining... maybe it's just better to acknowledge that yes, it happened, but must have been for a reason we can't fathom. How can you deny the written word? It's plain as day.
According to scripture....and i might not be exact here........ they were all wicked.
-
According to scripture....and i might not be exact here........ they were all wicked.
Yes, I think that's correct.
Ozmo, there were good reasons for the killing of babies back then. What Loco doesn't realize is that those OT obliterations of entire enemy cities, including babies and young children, were really the early, barbaric examples of "Social Darwinism" or Eugenics. Lineage was everything back then and by assimilating enemy children into the fold you sully future generations with evil/weak bloodlines. Women were just birth vessels, so keeping the virgins was okay as they would be bearing children of your own blood, thereby keeping the purity of the generations to come intact.
-
Yes, I think that's correct.
Ozmo, there were good reasons for the killing of babies back then. What Loco doesn't realize is that those OT obliterations of entire enemy cities, including babies and young children, were really the early, barbaric examples of "Social Darwinism" or Eugenics. Lineage was everything back then and by assimilating enemy children into the fold you sully future generations with evil/weak bloodlines. Women were just birth vessels, so keeping the virgins was okay as they would be bearing children of your own blood, thereby keeping the purity of the generations to come intact.
When you say "good" reasons do you mean you agree or do you mean they considered them good reasons?
The rest of what you said makes perfect sense, not that i agree....
-
When you say "good" reasons do you mean you agree or do you mean they considered them good reasons?
The rest of what you said makes perfect sense, not that i agree....
Lol, :) no I meant they considered them good reasons. It was a tribal mentality back then, survival of your own sometimes required harsh actions.
I love my cushy modern day life, don't you? :)
-
Yes, I think that's correct.
Ozmo, there were good reasons for the killing of babies back then. What Loco doesn't realize is that those OT obliterations of entire enemy cities, including babies and young children, were really the early, barbaric examples of "Social Darwinism" or Eugenics. Lineage was everything back then and by assimilating enemy children into the fold you sully future generations with evil/weak bloodlines. Women were just birth vessels, so keeping the virgins was okay as they would be bearing children of your own blood, thereby keeping the purity of the generations to come intact.
Interesting "theory". Does Bible say anything about evil/weak bloodlines? Does the Bible not say that we are all one blood, one human race, all created in God's image?
-
Lol, :) no I meant they considered them good reasons. It was a tribal mentality back then, survival of your own sometimes required harsh actions.
I love my cushy modern day life, don't you? :)
If they considered them good reasons back then and if that was a tribal mentality back then, then why the need for them to "justify it by claiming God told them to do it"?
-
If they considered them good reasons back then and if that was a tribal mentality back then, then why the need for them to "justify it by claiming God told them to do it"?
Likely, not everyone was as barbaric as the history was written to show.
Or maybe they knew what they were doing was evil and used God as an excuse.
-
Likely, not everyone was as barbaric as the history was written to show.
Or maybe they knew what they were doing was evil and used God as an excuse.
If Israel considered them good reasons back then and if that was a tribal mentality back then, as Deedee pointed out, then how did they know that what they were doing was evil?
-
If Israel considered them good reasons back then and if that was a tribal mentality back then, as Deedee pointed out, then how did they know that what they were doing was evil?
You seem to be looking it Israel as a single entity or applying these issues as if the Jews were a single entity. Look at groups, nations, societies and cultures to today. All them carry different view points of morality. Take the United states for example: there are many that believe to shoot first and ask questions later while there are many who believe to negotiate and only go to war at the very last resort.
-
You seem to be looking it Israel as a single entity or applying these issues as if the Jews were a single entity. Look at groups, nations, societies and cultures to today. All them carry different view points of morality. Take the United states for example: there are many that believe to shoot first and ask questions later while there are many who believe to negotiate and only go to war at the very last resort.
Deedee said that Israel had "good reasons" for killing the children of their enemies because back then "they" considered those good reasons and that was a tribal mentality back then.
-
Deedee said that Israel had "good reasons" for killing the children of their enemies because back then "they" considered those good reasons and that was a tribal mentality back then.
Are you trying to argue that Dee Dee believes Israel is a single entity? Or are you using what she said (not fully knowing what she meant) to make your argument?
-
Are you trying to argue that Dee Dee believes Israel is a single entity? Or are you using what she said (not fully knowing what she meant) to make your argument?
Who is arguing? Deedee made her comment and I asked her a question about it. Let's wait for her answer.
-
Loco you keep trying to put a positive spin on this stuff. :) Wish you would post up some stats of your claims... because the fact is that up until very recently most people living in the christian world used the word of God in every facet of their lives. Forget about all the wars fought in the name of God. Much suffering has been handed down through the centuries due to the mis-interpretations, both willful and not, of his word. Education is a thing of recent years. ;) Good thing you weren't an illegitimate child born in the 1600's, or an orphan living in the 1800s. Or a village woman stuck with her physically abusive husband. Or God forbid, suffered from a mysterious illness, were born with a deformity, etc... because you would have been shunned or far worse being as how you'd be the living manifestation of your family's "sins."
WWI(1914 - 1918): 19,772,701
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties#References
WWII(1930s – 1945): 62,000,000
- World War II: Combatants and Casualties (1937 — 1945). Retrieved on 2007-04-20.
- Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm. Retrieved on 2007-04-20.
- World War II Fatalities. Retrieved on 2007-04-20.
Great Leap Forward(1958 - 1960): 43,000,000
- Peng Xizhe (彭希哲), "Demographic Consequences of the Great Leap Forward in China's Provinces," Population and Development Review 13, no. 4 (1987), 639-70.
Great Purge(1937 -1938): 1,200,000
- Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments by Historian Michael Ellman, 2002
Pol Pot's agrarian collectivization (1975 -1979): 1,700,000
- Sophal Ear (May 1995). The Khmer Rouge Canon 1975-1979: The Standard Total Academic View on Cambodia. Retrieved on 2007-11-02.In Chapter 1: Introduction
- The Cambodian Genocide Program. Retrieved on 2007-11-02.
That's what? 127,672,701 casualties for just these few, that's not counting the emotional, cultural, economic trauma, etc. Keep in mind that the above did not happen in ancient times. It was done by "modern civilized people", moved by secular ideologies.
Deedee,
You are missing the point for me bringing this up. OzmO pointed out that there is harm in believing that the OT is the word of God because that makes us "more" vulnerable to manipulations from politicians. He said that there is "more potential" for believers in the OT to be manipulated into killing.
But as you can see, anybody whether secular or religious has as much potential to be manipulated or is just as vulnerable to be manipulated into killing. People can be manipulated by ideals, whether they believe in the OT or not, whether those ideals are secular or religious. To say that if nobody today believed in the OT is going to make people less vulnerable to such manipulations is naive.
There is no harm in Christians believing that the OT is the word of God.
-
Education is a thing of recent years. ;) Good thing you weren't an illegitimate child born in the 1600's, or an orphan living in the 1800s. Or a village woman stuck with her physically abusive husband. Or God forbid, suffered from a mysterious illness, were born with a deformity, etc... because you would have been shunned or far worse being as how you'd be the living manifestation of your family's "sins."
Recent years, huh? No, good thing you weren't an unfortunate Russian as recent as 1937 -1938, or an unfortunate Chinese in 1958 - 1960, or an unfortunate Cambodian in 1975 -1979.
-
Who is arguing? Deedee made her comment and I asked her a question about it. Let's wait for her answer.
So you do you or do not agree?
Deedee said that Israel had "good reasons" for killing the children of their enemies because back then "they" considered those good reasons and that was a tribal mentality back then
Argument in the non-negative way. ;D
-
Recent years, huh? No, good thing you weren't an unfortunate Russian as recent as 1937 -1938, or an unfortunate Chinese in 1958 - 1960, or an unfortunate Cambodian in 1975 -1979.
So true, but in the 1600's and back, just about the whole world was still quite barbaric.
-
So you do you or do not agree?
Argument in the non-negative way. ;D
Uh? ???
-
So true, but in the 1600's and back, just about the whole world was still quite barbaric.
Did you see the stats I just posted? Looks to me like the world is still quite barbaric.
-
Interesting "theory". Does Bible say anything about evil/weak bloodlines? Does the Bible not say that we are all one blood, one human race, all created in God's image?
Holey moley Loco, haven't you had any religious instruction? Maybe I had too much!!! :D
You seem to vacillate between God having dictated the whole OT, and the notion that some of it is just history. Take your pick.
1. God created a covenant with certain tribes and wanted to ensure that the bloodlines remained intact.
2. The elders wanted to conquer other peoples and used God as an excuse to rouse their warriors.
Starting from the viewpoint that God created a covenant designed to keep bloodlines of his beloved tribes intact:
1 When the Lord thy God shall have brought thee into the land, which thou art going in to possess, and shall have destroyed many nations before thee, the Hethite, and the Gergezite, and the Amorrhite, and the Chanaanite, and the Pherezite, and the Hevite, and the Jebusite, seven nations much more numerous than thou art, and stronger than thou: 2 And the Lord thy God shall have delivered them to thee, thou shalt utterly destroy them. Thou shalt make no league with them, nor show mercy to them: 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them. Thou shalt not give thy daughter to his son, nor take his daughter for thy son: 4 For she will turn away thy son from following me, that he may rather serve strange gods, and the wrath of the Lord will be kindled, and will quickly destroy thee. 5 But thus rather shall you deal with them: Destroy their altars, and break their statues, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven things. 6 Because thou art a holy people to the Lord thy God. The Lord thy God hath chosen thee, to be his peculiar people of all peoples that are upon the earth. 7 Not because you surpass all nations in number, is the Lord joined unto you, and hath chosen you, for you are the fewest of any people: 8 But because the Lord hath loved you, and hath kept his oath, which he swore to your fathers: and hath brought you out with a strong hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, out of the hand of Pharao the king of Egypt. 9 And thou shalt know that the Lord thy God, he is a strong and faithful God, keeping his covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments, unto a thousand generations: 10 And repaying forthwith them that hate him, so as to destroy them, without further delay immediately rendering to them what they deserve. 11 Keep therefore the precepts and ceremonies and judgments, which I command thee this day to do.
Also, have you never read Judges... the story of the gangbanged dead concubine who was chopped into pieces, of which one was sent to each of the other tribes? The ensuing war and the whole hooplah required so that new women could be obtained to replenish the vanquished tribe without breaking a covenant?
There are also many, many references to maintaining purity in the OT.
-
By the way, that whole hooplah required kidnapping women. :P
-
Did you see the stats I just posted? Looks to me like the world is still quite barbaric.
Oh yeah, there are places it is, but there are far more places now it isn't barbaric as compared to just 100 years ago.
Uh? ???
I'm just saying that, me saying you are arguing, is not in the context of a "heat argument" but rather a point of disagreement.
-
Holey moley Loco, haven't you had any religious instruction? Maybe I had too much!!! :D
Holey moley, Deedee, talk about condescending and arrogant! You are better than that, Deedee.
You seem to vacillate between God having dictated the whole OT, and the notion that some of it is just history. Take your pick.
What? ??? How so?
1. God created a covenant with certain tribes and wanted to ensure that the bloodlines remained intact.
2. The elders wanted to conquer other peoples and used God as an excuse to rouse their warriors.
Starting from the viewpoint that God created a covenant designed to keep bloodlines of his beloved tribes intact:
1 When the Lord thy God shall have brought thee into the land, which thou art going in to possess, and shall have destroyed many nations before thee, the Hethite, and the Gergezite, and the Amorrhite, and the Chanaanite, and the Pherezite, and the Hevite, and the Jebusite, seven nations much more numerous than thou art, and stronger than thou: 2 And the Lord thy God shall have delivered them to thee, thou shalt utterly destroy them. Thou shalt make no league with them, nor show mercy to them: 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them. Thou shalt not give thy daughter to his son, nor take his daughter for thy son: 4 For she will turn away thy son from following me, that he may rather serve strange gods, and the wrath of the Lord will be kindled, and will quickly destroy thee. 5 But thus rather shall you deal with them: Destroy their altars, and break their statues, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven things. 6 Because thou art a holy people to the Lord thy God. The Lord thy God hath chosen thee, to be his peculiar people of all peoples that are upon the earth. 7 Not because you surpass all nations in number, is the Lord joined unto you, and hath chosen you, for you are the fewest of any people: 8 But because the Lord hath loved you, and hath kept his oath, which he swore to your fathers: and hath brought you out with a strong hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, out of the hand of Pharao the king of Egypt. 9 And thou shalt know that the Lord thy God, he is a strong and faithful God, keeping his covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments, unto a thousand generations: 10 And repaying forthwith them that hate him, so as to destroy them, without further delay immediately rendering to them what they deserve. 11 Keep therefore the precepts and ceremonies and judgments, which I command thee this day to do.
What does this have to do with your post about "blood lines"? Foreigners were allowed to join Israel, to be circumcised and to marry Israeli women.
As for the passage above, it has nothing to do with "blood line". Read it again. The reason is right there:
"Thou shalt make no league with them, nor show mercy to them: 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them. Thou shalt not give thy daughter to his son, nor take his daughter for thy son: 4 For she will turn away thy son from following me, that he may rather serve strange gods"
That's why, and not because they had evil/weak blood like you said.
Also, right there in the passage you posted:
"The Lord thy God hath chosen thee, to be his peculiar people of all peoples that are upon the earth. 7 Not because you surpass all nations in number, is the Lord joined unto you, and hath chosen you, for you are the fewest of any people"
So it clearly says that Israel was not superior in any way to their enemies, or that Israel had good/strong blood and their enemies did not.
Also:
Deuteronomy 9:5
It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the LORD your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
So there you go, it is not because Israel had a superior blood line or because of their righteousness. It was not because their enemies had an inferior blood line, but because of their wickedness.
Also, have you never read Judges... the story of the gangbanged dead concubine who was chopped into pieces, of which one was sent to each of the other tribes? The ensuing war and the whole hooplah required so that new women could be obtained to replenish the vanquished tribe without breaking a covenant?
There are also many, many references to maintaining purity in the OT.
Yes, I've read the whole Bible, and read and study it daily, but I don't have it memorized and I'm not a Bible scholar like my father.
You did not answer my questions:
Interesting "theory". Does Bible say anything about evil/weak bloodlines? Does the Bible not say that we are all one blood, one human race, all created in God's image?
-
Um... when I said evil/weak I meant intermingling with those who would turn them away from their faith. The "weak" idol worshippers. Exactly as you bolded. I thought it was clear.
Sorry if I sounded arrogant. Didn't mean to at all!
Loco, either you believe the OT was completely dictated by God, in which case the seemingly, and may I stress SEEMINGLY, cruel acts were God-condoned, or ordered... or the OT wasn't completely dictated by God, and certain parts of it are simply a chronicle of their lives. You seem to believe that the portions related to atrocities or barbaric acts are simply the added notations of man. If I'm wrong, then again, I apologize. But which is it then? It makes it easier to have a discussion.
-
Interesting "theory". Does Bible say anything about evil/weak bloodlines? Does the Bible not say that we are all one blood, one human race, all created in God's image?
??? Apparently God did make distinctions. See the quote above again which you yourself bolded. This is getting confusing. You're cherry picking.
Have you read Judges? There were strict rules for tribal intermingling.
"And the people had compassion on Benjamin because The Lord had made a breach in the tribes of Israel. Then the elders of the congregation said, "What shall we do for wives for those who are left, since the women are destroyed out of Benjamin?" And they said, "There must be an inheritance for the survivors of Benjamin, that a tribe be not blotted out from Israel. Yet we cannot give them wives of our daughters." For the people of Israel had sworn, "Cursed be he who gives a wife to Benjamin." So they said, "Behold, there is the yearly feast of The Lord at Shiloh, which is north of Bethel, on the east of the highway that goes up from Bethel to Shechem, and south of Lebonah."
And they commanded the Benjaminites, saying, "Go and lie in wait in the vineyards, and watch; if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in the dances, then come out of the vineyards and seize each man his wife from the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin. And when their fathers or their brothers come to complain to us, we will say to them, 'Grant them graciously to us; because we did not take for each man of them his wife in battle, neither did you give them to them, else you would now be guilty.'"
And the Benjaminites did so, and took their wives, according to their number, from the dancers whom they carried off; then they went and returned to their inheritance, and rebuilt the towns, and dwelt in them.
-
Holey moley, Deedee, talk about condescending and arrogant! You are better than that, Deedee.
How is DeeDee being condescending and arrogant if she puts a smiley face after:
Holey moley Loco, haven't you had any religious instruction? Maybe I had too much!!! :D
-
You highlight "It has nothing to do with believing or not believing in the OT." in my post, tell me that I am correct, then say the OT should be flushed down the toilet? ???
I highlighted it because as a guide for morality and life, the OT is horrible. It is babaric, cruel, tyrannical and just plain antiquated; old Yahweh the angry is a very uncool deity. I prefer Dagda or Thor. As mythology, pseudo-history and a work of literature the OT is ok. If someone wants to use it as a guide to living (as in killing children who talk back to you or beating them with rods), then yes, it should be thrown into a pile of sewer filth as in this regard it truly belongs there.
-
I highlighted it because as a guide for morality and life, the OT is horrible. It is babaric, cruel, tyrannical and just plain antiquated; old Yahweh the angry is a very uncool deity. I prefer Dagda or Thor. As mythology, pseudo-history and a work of literature the OT is ok. If someone wants to use it as a guide to living (as in killing children who talk back to you or beating them with rods), then yes, it should be thrown into a pile of sewer filth as in this regard it truly belongs there.
And this verse about killing children who talk back to you would be located where?
-
And this verse about killing children who talk back to you would be located where?
"Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs 23:13-14)
So in Proverbs Yahweh tells us to beat children to save their souls, but not kill them (very nice of him).
But then Yahweh changes his mind...
Illustrated just for you MCWAY...
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z25/Todesfick/dt21_18a.jpg)
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z25/Todesfick/dt21_18b.jpg)
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z25/Todesfick/dt21_18c.jpg)
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z25/Todesfick/dt21_19.jpg)
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z25/Todesfick/dt21_20.jpg)
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z25/Todesfick/dt21_21.jpg)
Deuteronomy 21:21
'All the men of the town must then stone him to death. You must banish this evil from among you.'
-
"Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs 23:13-14)
So in Proverbs Yahweh tells us to beat children to save their souls, but not kill them (very nice of him).
In other words, spank them, take them to the woodshed, etc. We call that corporal punishment.
But then Yahweh changes his mind...
Illustrated just for you MCWAY...
Deuteronomy 21:21
'All the men of the town must then stone him to death. You must banish this evil from among you.'
The LEGO thing was cute. Unfortunately, this one is just as accurate as your blurb about iron chariots, as it appears you did not consider the context of this verse.
Here's the full passage on this matter, starting from verse 18.
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them. Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
The passage reads, "if a man has a stubborn and rebellious son". NOWHERE does it indicate that the son in question is a child.
In fact, the later verses describes the son as a glutton and a drunkard, terms used for ADULT misconduct. It appears that you're forgetting that men stayed with their parents, until they married, and then got a place of their own. Hence, we have the verses, For this reason shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife Prime examples are the patriarchs of the Jewish people: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, all of whom stayed with their parents as ADULTS.
The point is that this is for serious grievances. It has NOTHING to do with stoning little Obadiah for not eating all his manna or leaving his G.I. Jehosephat action figures all over the floor.
So, once again, where's the part about killing children?
-
lol
nice touch with the legos ;D
-
Prime examples are the patriarchs of the Jewish people: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, all of whom stayed with their parents as ADULTS.
Living with our parents as adults until marriage!? More barbarism of the Old Testament!! >:(
;D
-
Living with our parents as adults until marriage!? More barbarism of the Old Testament!! >:(
;D
That just brings about some bad assumptions to today's age.... ;D
-
Sounds like a quaint custom for dealing with 16-year-old unmarriageable bad boys. Whatever happened to it?
-
How is DeeDee being condescending and arrogant if she puts a smiley face after:
I was mostly laughing at myself. :)
But I can see where maybe loco would get offended.
-
I was mostly laughing at myself. :)
But I can see where maybe loco would get offended.
That's how i took it..... I wouldn't get offended at all on a statement like that, but that's the issue with a spoken word versus the written word.
-
Sounds like a quaint custom for dealing with 16-year-old unmarriageable bad boys. Whatever happened to it?
All 16-years old were "unmarriageable" back then, as the legal age for male adulthood was 20. Again, this was about serious misconduct that brought shame, dishonor, and (in some cases) disease and death to families.
If little Obadiah talked back to his parents, he likely got a healthy dose of the rod to his behind.
-
All 16-years old were "unmarriageable" back then, as the legal age for male adulthood was 20. Again, this was about serious misconduct that brought shame, dishonor, and (in some cases) disease and death to families.
If little Obadiah talked back to his parents, he likely got a healthy dose of the rod to his behind.
I've heard the saying that Stalin killed more people in one year than the Crusaders did in a decade. Bascially, that amount to the "god" in question being the state/government. And since he ran the state/government, the "god" was, in effect, Stalin himself.
What does Stalin has to do with people being murdered in the name of God?
Are you, in some perverted way, trying to justifying one horrible act by another evil crime?
Then perhaps Hitler was justified.
Some say he didn't kill as many as Stalin either.
Or Saddam.
Or Pol Pot.
Or who-fcuking-ever.
-
What does Stalin has to do with people being murdered in the name of God?
It has to do with agreeing with Loco's point: that people have had such things happen, regardless of whether "the name of God" has been used or not.
Are you, in some perverted way, trying to justifying one horrible act by another evil crime?
First of all, who's defining "good and evil" here?
If that someone is God, then (as the Creator of life) He has the right to do what He wants with His creation. And, if He decides that time's up for a certain group of people (i.e. the Amalekites for their persecuting Israel, among others, for over 300 years), then the Amalekites are as good as gone, period.
-
That's the one of the issues stella, how is anyone to know if God truly tells anyone?
I bet the percentage of people who think god has spoken to them at some point in there lives is higher than we think.
I believe he's spoken to me on 2 occasions.
Take the Jews who were instructed by God to kill children. How do we know they actually were told by god?
I don't believe they were told by God becuase killing innocent children is an evil thing to do and god is not evil. (making it more than obviously the OT is not the 100% WOG, therefore God did not commit an evil act)
But yet, nations will act on what someone, who they believe is the voice of God, says to do.
Hasn't Bush even said something to the effect he's been guided by God or talks to him or something?
Thiis s the kind of thing that leads to righteousness. Isn't righteous something Jesus warns us about?
Sure we do. Because we are at the very least a modern civilization. But at the religious core we are not becuase many still believe the OT is the 100% WOG and see no moral inequity or accountability on God's part for killing children. Our religious roots are planted, as DeeDee said, in a time of complete barbarism. that gives us the potential to fall into the same "almost" the same level of righteousness that caused grown men to kill innocent children because they believe who ever ordered them to was told by God to do it.
Accountability to WHOM, Ozmo? Who exactly is going to hold God accountable for doing His will with HIS creation?
We discussed this a while back, specifically as it relates to the Amalekites. The order was that, due to Amalek's constantly terrorizing Israel (among others) for over three centuries. The whole issue with Saul came, not because he had a problem destroying the enemies of Israel, but because he was greedy and wanted to keep the spoils of war, despite strict orders to spare no one and nothing.
It's as Samuel told the Amalekite king: Since Agag's sword made women childless, so his mother (and by extension, those of his people) would be made childless. They had three centuries to straighten up, fly right, and make amends. They did not but got worse. Therefore, it's judgment time. And the evil of Amalek's king cursed his entire people, not just him or his family.
Again, I refer you to World War II. When the A-bomb dropped on Hiroshima, it didn't single out the male members of the Japanese military. Anyone and everyone within range of the A-bomb met their end. Japan had the opportunity to cease fire and atone for Pearl Harbor. But, it didn't.....you know the rest.
As for your other question, Jesus did warn about righteousness. He also said, "Vengeance is Mine; I'll will repay" or make recompense. In other words, He will decide when and how judgment and justice will be metted to those who break His laws and oppress His people. And in Amalek's case, it was death via the sword of Saul. Unfortunately Saul, in his pride and greed, didn't heed God's full instruction, resulting in a curse on himself, his family, and later on Israel.
-
God is only cruel to Christians. Atheists don't believe in him so that don't count. But for a Christian couple who devotes their life, life savings, and all their worldly possessions to honor him and pray to have a child, but can't...............well how mighty can God be if he can't help those who love him.
Science tells the female why she can't have a baby.........God should be able to fix that if he weren't cruel.
-
God is only cruel to Christians. Atheists don't believe in him so that don't count. But for a Christian couple who devotes their life, life savings, and all their worldly possessions to honor him and pray to have a child, but can't...............well how mighty can God be if he can't help those who love him.
Science tells the female why she can't have a baby.........God should be able to fix that if he weren't cruel.
Look at the thread on this board for prayers.
You have people here believing that somehow God will sometimes intervene.
So he would be graceful enough to let a person dieing of cancer stay alive long enough to say goodbye to his beloved?
Why is God not graceful enough to save all those people in the Twin Towers long enough for them to say farewell, or how about the Tsunami?
Or why isn't he flat out saving them period if he's able to intervene?
If a couple who aren't able to get babies suddenly are able to, some may say it is the Lord.
But if it they never are able to then it is again the Lord, telling them that it is not for them.
Either way, God can't lose.
Christians tend to fit their Faith to the reality.
Instead of actually trying to put their Faith to the test, see if it holds up.
I've yet to see one who's done that.
-
Accountability to WHOM, Ozmo? Who exactly is going to hold God accountable for doing His will with HIS creation?
We discussed this a while back, specifically as it relates to the Amalekites. The order was that, due to Amalek's constantly terrorizing Israel (among others) for over three centuries. The whole issue with Saul came, not because he had a problem destroying the enemies of Israel, but because he was greedy and wanted to keep the spoils of war, despite strict orders to spare no one and nothing.
It's as Samuel told the Amalekite king: Since Agag's sword made women childless, so his mother (and by extension, those of his people) would be made childless. They had three centuries to straighten up, fly right, and make amends. They did not but got worse. Therefore, it's judgment time. And the evil of Amalek's king cursed his entire people, not just him or his family.
Again, I refer you to World War II. When the A-bomb dropped on Hiroshima, it didn't single out the male members of the Japanese military. Anyone and everyone within range of the A-bomb met their end. Japan had the opportunity to cease fire and atone for Pearl Harbor. But, it didn't.....you know the rest.
As for your other question, Jesus did warn about righteousness. He also said, "Vengeance is Mine; I'll will repay" or make recompense. In other words, He will decide when and how judgment and justice will be metted to those who break His laws and oppress His people. And in Amalek's case, it was death via the sword of Saul. Unfortunately Saul, in his pride and greed, didn't heed God's full instruction, resulting in a curse on himself, his family, and later on Israel.
Then the god of the OT is a hypocrite. Killing children is an evil act. what we did in Japan dropping those bombs is an evil act. Unfortunately it was the lesser of 2 evils in our case as we didn't have the plethora of options God has at his disposal.
dismissing the act of ordering jewish soldiers to kill children by saying the children were God's creation and he can do anything he wants with them with out moral accountability but yet we are held to the same accountability is a cop out from addressing an evil act.
It shows a desperate attempt to make sense of killing children and maintaining the WOG beliefs that barely holds one's faith from conflict.
-
Then the god of the OT is a hypocrite. Killing children is an evil act. what we did in Japan dropping those bombs is an evil act. Unfortunately it was the lesser of 2 evils in our case as we didn't have the plethora of options God has at his disposal.
dismissing the act of ordering jewish soldiers to kill children by saying the children were God's creation and he can do anything he wants with them with out moral accountability but yet we are held to the same accountability is a cop out from addressing an evil act.
It shows a desperate attempt to make sense of killing children and maintaining the WOG beliefs that barely holds one's faith from conflict.
What's up bro? I'm just lurking awhile before hitting the gym.
-
Then the god of the OT is a hypocrite. Killing children is an evil act. what we did in Japan dropping those bombs is an evil act. Unfortunately it was the lesser of 2 evils in our case as we didn't have the plethora of options God has at his disposal.
dismissing the act of ordering jewish soldiers to kill children by saying the children were God's creation and he can do anything he wants with them with out moral accountability but yet we are held to the same accountability is a cop out from addressing an evil act.
Again, WHO is going to hold God morally accountable? We are held accountable to Him, when we do wrong, because He is the ultimate authority on the matter. We can't destroy His creation and be blameless, UNLESS He authorizes it (as was the case with the Amalekites).
God has many options at His disposal. With the Amalekites, He chose Saul as the agent of judgment. So be it. His not picking the option that you or I would have preferred DOES NOT make His choice an evil one. Regardless of the medium used, God was going to bring judgment on the Amalekites, PERIOD.
It shows a desperate attempt to make sense of killing children and maintaining the WOG beliefs that barely holds one's faith from conflict.
There's no desparation involved. It was a drastic act to deal with a drastic problem. The making sense part is simple (harsh at times, but simple): Sinful behavior causes suffering. And (once again) the worst part about sin is that the transgressors aren't the only ones who pay the price.
The book of Esther gives a great example. Israel was once again persecuted by the Amalekites and would have been completely exterminated, had it not been for this heroic woman. Of course, the reason she had to do all of this was because a certain numb-skulled Israelite king didn't follow God's instructions.
-
All 16-years old were "unmarriageable" back then, as the legal age for male adulthood was 20. Again, this was about serious misconduct that brought shame, dishonor, and (in some cases) disease and death to families.
If little Obadiah talked back to his parents, he likely got a healthy dose of the rod to his behind.
Just surmising. Children were contracted into marriage at 13 so I split the difference, figuring the kid must have been completely useless if the parents wanted him executed before they could rid their house of him through marriage. Btw, what was the legal drinking age back then? You assume only 20-year-olds were permitted to do so... that's modern day thinking. And didn't God admonish parents to execute children who cursed them? Does that come under rebellious behavior?
Deicide is absolutely right though. The OT is outdated as a model for living, and many of the condoned acts in it would land you in prison for life, if not with a needle in the arm. Killing infants and ripping open the bellies of pregnant women is abhorrent to us. Men do not hide behind bushes waiting for cheerleading practice to be over so they can grab a wife. Rape means a prison term. Slavery is outlawed. Complaining people are not put to death. Women are not executed the day after their wedding night for not being a virgin (regardless if they had conceived that night) Jealous men don't get to feed their wives poison as a trial by fire to judge their faithfulness (and abort a child if they happen to be pregnant). Blah Blah Blah.
But I agree with you and said so from the start of this thread. If you believe in God, he is certainly justified in doing with his creation what he will, and so ascribing human traits like cruelty to Him, is not logical.
-
Again, WHO is going to hold God morally accountable? We are held accountable to Him, when we do wrong, because He is the ultimate authority on the matter. We can't destroy His creation and be blameless, UNLESS He authorizes it (as was the case with the Amalekites).
God has many options at His disposal. With the Amalekites, He chose Saul as the agent of judgment. So be it. His not picking the option that you or I would have preferred DOES NOT make His choice an evil one. Regardless of the medium used, God was going to bring judgment on the Amalekites, PERIOD.
It's still a cop out and GOD is morally accountable to himself otherwise he's a hypocrite. You can on and on trying to justify it, but it doesn't change a thing he allegedly did, kill innocent children.
And the only reason I bring up options, is becuase you bought up Horoshima which is a ridiculous analogy. Options or not killing children is evil. The whole world agrees. Except for the few conservative Christians who don;t have the courage to face the truth.
There's no desparation involved. It was a drastic act to deal with a drastic problem. The making sense part is simple (harsh at times, but simple): Sinful behavior causes suffering. And (once again) the worst part about sin is that the transgressors aren't the only ones who pay the price.
A drastic problem doesn't justify a drastic solution if it involves killing children. And the "right" thing to do, or the "Godly" thing to do is find a way to spare any of those who do not deserve punishment ESPECIALLY if it is within your power.
Again dismissing it as either not being morally accountable or other poeple pay the price for someone else's sins is a plain cop out to avoid a conflict of faith.
The book of Esther gives a great example. Israel was once again persecuted by the Amalekites and would have been completely exterminated, had it not been for this heroic woman. Of course, the reason she had to do all of this was because a certain numb-skulled Israelite king didn't follow God's instructions.
None of that matters. How is God teaching anything when he tells someone to kill children? And there we go again justifying the killing of children" "well if they had just done what he said to do....." ::)
-
None of that matters. How is God teaching anything when he tells someone to kill children? And there we go again justifying the killing of children" "well if they had just done what he said to do....." ::)
Sadly, not much. I'm trying to think of some point in history where the love of God and the teachings of the OT averted a war, rather than provide the justification for it.
-
What's up bro? I'm just lurking awhile before hitting the gym.
Not much man. Doing alot of video editing these days. I 'll tell you this, I'll never buy a PC again. Mac's are the best.
-
If you believe in God, he is certainly justified in doing with his creation what he will, and so ascribing human traits like cruelty to Him, is not logical.
I agree.
-
Just surmising. Children were contracted into marriage at 13 so I split the difference, figuring the kid must have been completely useless if the parents wanted him executed before they could rid their house of him through marriage. Btw, what was the legal drinking age back then? You assume only 20-year-olds were permitted to do so... that's modern day thinking. And didn't God admonish parents to execute children who cursed them? Does that come under rebellious behavior?
I didn't assume that 20-year old males were permitted to marry, because of modern-day thinking. Again, I make reference to the verse, For this reason shall MAN leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. In the Old Testament, a male was considered a man, when he reached the age of 20. Look at the census of Israel, shortly after they left Egypt. It counts all the men, who are defined as males at least 20 years old. That changed later, through the Jewish culture (hence the Bar Mitsvah thing at 13).
Deicide is absolutely right though. The OT is outdated as a model for living, and many of the condoned acts in it would land you in prison for life, if not with a needle in the arm. Killing infants and ripping open the bellies of pregnant women is abhorrent to us. Men do not hide behind bushes waiting for cheerleading practice to be over so they can grab a wife. Rape means a prison term. Slavery is outlawed. Complaining people are not put to death. Women are not executed the day after their wedding night for not being a virgin (regardless if they had conceived that night) Jealous men don't get to feed their wives poison as a trial by fire to judge their faithfulness (and abort a child if they happen to be pregnant). Blah Blah Blah.
It would help if you provided the verses to these claims, because I think some context is left out of a lot of your statements. For example:
"Rape means a prison sentence" - In OT times, rape was a capital offense (i.e. DEATH to the rapist), depending on the marital status of the victim. The principle behind this was ensuring a material care system for the victim. If there was none in place (unmarried victim), the rapist became that. If there was such in place (married/bethroed victim), rapist gets executed. Contrary to what some may believe, a rape victim was NOT forced to marry her assailant. If the victim was unmarried/unbethroed, the rapist had to (at the very least) cough up the bride price for that young lady or become a slave to the victim's family to pay off the debt. And, if I'm not mistaken, unlike other debts that got canceled every 7 years, this was PERMANENT (he had to care for the rape victim FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE!!!).
That doesn't happen today. If a guy rapes somebody, he gets put in jail (with the possibility of early release/parole) and, upon completion, we declare that he's "paid his debt to society". Problem with that is "society" didn't get raped. The victim may have physical/emotional/financial woes that last her ENTIRE LIFETIME. But, the rapist will not be accountable for that, beyond his prison sentence, say 5-10 years. He doesn't have to pay her medical bills, fund her psychiatric care, reimburse her for lost wages, etc.
Heck, in Vermont, a dude raped a little girl for over FOUR YEARS but got only three years in jail for that (and that only happened because the case appears on the show of Bill O'Reilly, who inform viewers that pressured the judge to bump up the sentence from a mere TWO MONTHS). That girl will be scarred for life, but this guy will not be accountable to anyone (on Earth, at least), the instant he gets out of prison.
-
It's still a cop out and GOD is morally accountable to himself otherwise he's a hypocrite. You can on and on trying to justify it, but it doesn't change a thing he allegedly did, kill innocent children.
And the only reason I bring up options, is becuase you bought up Horoshima which is a ridiculous analogy. Options or not killing children is evil. The whole world agrees. Except for the few conservative Christians who don;t have the courage to face the truth.
Once again, you have not addressed the questions. "Evil" according to what? and WHO is going to hold God "accountable for doing His will with His creation?
A drastic problem doesn't justify a drastic solution if it involves killing children. And the "right" thing to do, or the "Godly" thing to do is find a way to spare any of those who do not deserve punishment ESPECIALLY if it is within your power.
Again dismissing it as either not being morally accountable or other poeple pay the price for someone else's sins is a plain cop out to avoid a conflict of faith.
What you forget is that He (not you or I) decides who deserves what. The judgment on the Amalekites was His call to make. Whether you like or not makes no difference in the matter.
Your accusations of a conflict in faith are false. There's no conflict on my end, because (as sad as it is), sinful behavior adversely affects other people. You've committed sin, that has affected other people who "didn't deserve it" and so have I. As I said before (using another analogy), your kids don't deserve to be thrown out on the street, because you get fired and can't pay your rent/mortgage. But, that's exactly what will happen. However, that doesn't make the landlord/bank foreclosure folks evil, because your kids end up homeless.
None of that matters. How is God teaching anything when he tells someone to kill children? And there we go again justifying the killing of children" "well if they had just done what he said to do....." ::)
What God teaches is the responsibility we have to govern our actions and our behavior, because the people under our authority can be blessed or cursed by such.
If you're a husband, your behavior affects your family. If you own a business, your behavior affects your employees (ask the folks who worked at Enron). And, if you're a king, your behavior affects your kingdom and its subjects. Righteous behavior blesses them; unrighteous behavior curses them.
-
I didn't assume that 20-year old males were permitted to marry, because of modern-day thinking. Again, I make reference to the verse, For this reason shall MAN leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. In the Old Testament, a male was considered a man, when he reached the age of 20. Look at the census of Israel, shortly after they left Egypt. It counts all the men, who are defined as males at least 20 years old. That changed later, through the Jewish culture (hence the Bar Mitsvah thing at 13).
I meant you were assuming the child was older because you made reference to his being a drunkard.
It would help if you provided the verses to these claims, because I think some context is left out of a lot of your statements. For example:
"Rape means a prison sentence" - In OT times, rape was a capital offense (i.e. DEATH to the rapist), depending on the marital status of the victim. The principle behind this was ensuring a material care system for the victim. If there was none in place (unmarried victim), the rapist became that. If there was such in place (married/bethroed victim), rapist gets executed. Contrary to what some may believe, a rape victim was NOT forced to marry her assailant. If the victim was unmarried/unbethroed, the rapist had to (at the very least) cough up the bride price for that young lady or become a slave to the victim's family to pay off the debt. And, if I'm not mistaken, unlike other debts that got canceled every 7 years, this was PERMANENT (he had to care for the rape victim FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE!!!).
That doesn't happen today. If a guy rapes somebody, he gets put in jail (with the possibility of early release/parole) and, upon completion, we declare that he's "paid his debt to society". Problem with that is "society" didn't get raped. The victim may have physical/emotional/financial woes that last her ENTIRE LIFETIME. But, the rapist will not be accountable for that, beyond his prison sentence, say 5-10 years. He doesn't have to pay her medical bills, fund her psychiatric care, reimburse her for lost wages, etc.
Please don't ask me to go back and find verses. :P The context doesn't really matter since our laws and rules as a society today don't condone these acts no matter what the context is. Parents don't have their children executed for being drug addicts or drunkards. I think most rape victims today would prefer a prison sentence over marrying their assailant. Kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach and causing a miscarriage carries more than a fine as penalty. Women who touch the genitals of a man when breaking up a fight between him and her husband don't get their hands chopped off. It goes on and on. The point is simply we don't live by those rules anymore.
Btw, I remember that Vermont case, and the judge's ruling was taken totally out of context. He was angry that the rapist would only get a prison sentence, no counseling, since the rate of recidivism among those who receive no help is huge. He felt in this case the rapist could have been set on the right track. (There was more to the case than the headlines made out) He was trying to make a point. As he said, he was tired of seeing the same faces over and over.
-
Attributes of God that unbelievers will never understand:
Wisdom: “Wisdom is the ability to devise perfect ends and to achieve these ends by the most perfect means.” In other words, God makes no mistakes. He is the Father who truly knows best, as Paul explains in Romans 11:33: “Oh, how great are God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge! How impossible it is for us to understand His decisions and His ways!”
Infinitude: God knows no boundaries. He is without measure. This attribute by definition impacts all of the others. Since God is infinite, everything else about Him must also be infinite.
Sovereignty: This is “the attribute by which He rules His entire creation.” It is the application of His other attributes of being all-knowing and all-powerful. It makes Him absolutely free to do what He knows to be best. God is in control of everything that happens. Man still has a free will, and is responsible for his choices in life.
Holiness: This is the attribute that sets God apart from all other created beings. It refers to His majesty and His perfect moral purity. There is absolutely no sin or evil thought in God at all. His holiness is the definition of that which is pure and righteous in all the universe. Wherever God has appeared, such as to Moses at the burning bush, that place becomes holy just for God having been there.
Omniscience: “God possesses perfect knowledge and therefore has no need to learn. God has never learned and cannot learn.” Omniscience means all-knowing. God knows everything, and His knowledge is infinite. It is impossible to hide anything from God.
Faithfulness: Everything that God has promised will come to pass. His faithfulness guarantees this fact. He does not lie. What He has said in the Bible about Himself is true. Jesus even said that He is the Truth. This is extremely important for the followers of Jesus because it is on His faithfulness that our hope of eternal life rests. He will honor His promise that our sins will be forgiven and that we will live forever with Him.
Love: Love is such an important part of God’s character that the apostle John wrote, “God is love.” This means that God holds the well-being of others as His primary concern. For a full definition of love, read 1 Corinthians 13. To see love in action, study the life of Jesus. His sacrifice on the cross for the sins of others is the ultimate act of love. God’s love is not a love of emotion but of action. His love gives freely to the object of its affection, those who choose to follow His son Jesus.
Omnipotence: Literally this word means all-powerful. Since God is infinite and since He possesses power, He possesses infinite power. He does allow His creatures to have some power, but this in no way diminishes His own. “He expends no energy that must be replenished.” When the Bible says God rested on the seventh day, it was to set an example for us and our need for rest, not because He was tired.
Self-existence: When Moses asked who he was talking to in the burning bush, God said, “I AM THE ONE WHO ALWAYS IS.” God has no beginning or end. He just exists. Nothing else in all the universe is self-caused. Only God. In fact, if anything else had created Him, that thing would be God. This is a difficult concept for our minds since everything else we will ever encounter comes from something other than itself. The Bible says, “In the beginning, God.” He was already there.
Self-sufficiency: The Bible says that God has life in Himself (see John 5:26). All other life in the universe is a gift from God. He has no needs and there is no way He can improve. To God, nothing else is necessary. He does not need our help with anything, but because of His grace and love, He allows us to be a part of advancing His plan on earth and being a blessing to others. We are the ones who change, but never God. He is self-sufficient.
Justice: The Bible says that God is just, but it is His character that defines what being just really is. He does not conform to some outside criteria. Being just brings moral equity to everyone. When there are evil acts, justice demands there be a penalty. Since God is perfect and has never done evil, no penalty would ever be necessary; however, because of His love, God paid the penalty for our evil deeds by going to the cross Himself. His justice needed to be satisfied, but He took care of it for all who will believe in Jesus.
Immutability: This simply means that God never changes. It is why the Bible says, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
Mercy: “Mercy is the attribute of God which disposes Him to be actively compassionate.” Since God’s justice is satisfied in Jesus, He is free to show mercy to all those who have chosen to follow Him. It will never end since it is a part of God’s nature. Mercy is the way He desires to relate to mankind, and He does so unless the person chooses to despise or ignore God at which time His justice becomes the prominent attribute.
Eternal: In some ways, this fact about God is similar to His self-existence. God always has been and will forever be, because God dwells in eternity. Time is His creation. It is why God can see the end from the beginning, and why He is never surprised by anything. If He were not eternal, God’s promise of eternal life for those who follow Jesus would have little value.
Goodness: “The goodness of God is that which disposes Him to be kind, cordial, benevolent, and full of good will toward men.” This attribute of God is why He bestows all the blessing He does on His followers. God’s actions define what goodness is, and we can easily see it in the way Jesus related to the people around Him.
Gracious: God enjoys giving great gifts to those who love Him, even when they do not deserve it. Grace is the way we describe that inclination. Jesus Christ is the channel through which His grace moves. The Bible says, “The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”
Omnipresence: This theological term means “always present.” Since God is infinite, His being knows no boundaries. So, clearly He is everywhere. This truth is taught throughout the Bible as the phrase “I am with you always” is repeated 22 times in both the Old and New Testaments. These were even Jesus’ words of assurance just after giving the challenge to His disciples to take His message to the entire world. This is certainly a comforting truth for all who follow Jesus.
God willing; hope this helps the unbelievers.
HMIC
-
That's great stuff HM, but as far as the Ot goes, you should add:
Vicious
Vindictive
Cruel
Jealous
Paranoid
Controlling
Evil
Violent
Egotistical
Hypocritical
Vengeful
Bias
Unfair
Angry
Vain
Murderer
-
That's great stuff HM, but as far as the Ot goes, you should add:
Vicious
Vindictive
Cruel
Jealous
Paranoid
Controlling
Evil
Violent
Egotistical
Hypocritical
Vengeful
Bias
Unfair
Angry
Vain
Murderer
Please provide biblical references because the list you provided contains attributes of an unholy God and we all know the God (Father, Son & Holy Spirit) of the bible (OT&NT) is holy and just!
Maybe this will help as well:
Romans 9:14-22
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!
15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.
17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"
20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'
21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?
Hard sayings yes but they are from the NT. I thought you might want me to give an example to refute the OT remark you made about God in the OT.
-
Please provide biblical references because the list you provided contains attributes of an unholy God and we all know the God (Father, Son & Holy Spirit) of the bible (OT&NT) is holy and just!
Maybe this will help as well:
Romans 9:14-22
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!
15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.
17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"
20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'
21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?
Hard sayings yes but they are from the NT. I thought you might want me to give an example to refute the OT remark you made about God in the OT.
I could i guess, but i don't have the time now to go digging through it all.
But ordering the killing of children should encompass much of it.
-
I meant you were assuming the child was older because you made reference to his being a drunkard.
Not quite. The point I was making to Deicide is that the passage (Deut 21:18-21) makes reference to a rebellious son. But, nothing indicates that this son is a child. On the contrary, the context of the verses would suggest that this is a grown man (which, by OT law, means he's at least 20).
Please don't ask me to go back and find verses. :P The context doesn't really matter since our laws and rules as a society today don't condone these acts no matter what the context is. Parents don't have their children executed for being drug addicts or drunkards. I think most rape victims today would prefer a prison sentence over marrying their assailant.
In the ancient world, the family made the call. The assailant wasn't forced to marry the rapist. And, the whole purpose was to ensure care for the victim. That's for unmarried ones. For those who already had husbands to care for them, the rapist got executed. I'm sure many rape victims would prefer that to a prison sentence (subject to reduction, based on "good behavior"). Again, a rape victim may have a host of wounds (physical, psychological, and financial), because of the crime. The assailant isn't responsible for any of that, either in prion or upon his release. Is that necessarily a better way to handle the situation? And, if there are other means to take care of those things for the victim (married or single), why is the rapist still alive?
I'll go out on a limb and say that, if we were talking about Catholic priests or other religious leaders molesting people, some of our non-religious buddies wouldn't have such a problem with the death penalty for rapists.
Kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach and causing a miscarriage carries more than a fine as penalty. Women who touch the genitals of a man when breaking up a fight between him and her husband don't get their hands chopped off. It goes on and on. The point is simply we don't live by those rules anymore.
Indeed, context is important when comparing laws then and now. (i.e. causing a miscarriage in a pregnant woman was yet another capital offense in OT times). Take also the case of theft. If someone stole livestock; he had to return at least double of what he took. If you get your car stolen, the thief simply gets chucked in jail and (if you're lucky) you get your property back in one piece. You don't get two cars for the trouble.
Btw, I remember that Vermont case, and the judge's ruling was taken totally out of context. He was angry that the rapist would only get a prison sentence, no counseling, since the rate of recidivism among those who receive no help is huge. He felt in this case the rapist could have been set on the right track. (There was more to the case than the headlines made out) He was trying to make a point. As he said, he was tired of seeing the same faces over and over.
Exactly what was stopping the judge from ordering counseling for this guy? And why would getting him such require a two-month jail sentence? Perhaps, he could have been set on the right course. But, the judge gave him 60 days and that would have been it, had O'Reilly not interjected himself into the situation.
-
I could i guess, but i don't have the time now to go digging through it all.
But ordering the killing of children should encompass much of it.
What are the attributes of your god?
Does your god have any laws?
What happens to those that break his laws?
Does your god have any moral standards and if so; what are they?
What pleases your god e.g., good works?
How do you communicate with your god and how does he communicate with you?
Has your god ever did anything that you did not approve of and if so what? And what were you able to do about it?
What's his name?
Where did he come from?
Who are the followers of your god?
What is the purpose of your god?
What is his purpose for you?
HMIC
-
I could i guess, but i don't have the time now to go digging through it all.
But ordering the killing of children should encompass much of it.
That doesn't encompass it any more than my analogy of your children being thrown out on the street, because (due to sinful behavior) you lost your job and couldn't pay your rent/mortgage.
You are responsible for their well-being. Therefore, your sin affects their lives, too.
-
That doesn't encompass it any more than my analogy of your children being thrown out on the street, because (due to sinful behavior) you lost your job and couldn't pay your rent/mortgage.
You are responsible for their well-being. Therefore, your sin affects their lives, too.
Not when it comes to some one ordering their death.
Another cop out again.
-
What are the attributes of your god?
Does your god have any laws?
What happens to those that break his laws?
Does your god have any moral standards and if so; what are they?
What pleases your god e.g., good works?
How do you communicate with your god and how does he communicate with you?
Has your god ever did anything that you did not approve of and if so what? And what were you able to do about it?
What's his name?
Where did he come from?
Who are the followers of your god?
What is the purpose of your god?
What is his purpose for you?
HMIC
God is God. There is no my God vs. your God deflective crapola
But i do assume God is good, not evil; and good doesn't kill children.
-
Look at the thread on this board for prayers.
You have people here believing that somehow God will sometimes intervene.
So he would be graceful enough to let a person dieing of cancer stay alive long enough to say goodbye to his beloved?
Why is God not graceful enough to save all those people in the Twin Towers long enough for them to say farewell, or how about the Tsunami?
Or why isn't he flat out saving them period if he's able to intervene?
If a couple who aren't able to get babies suddenly are able to, some may say it is the Lord.
But if it they never are able to then it is again the Lord, telling them that it is not for them.
Either way, God can't lose.
Christians tend to fit their Faith to the reality.
Instead of actually trying to put their Faith to the test, see if it holds up.
I've yet to see one who's done that.
Then, perhaps, you haven't been around that many Christians.
It works both ways. When people testify that God has favorably answered their prayers, non-believers try and "explain away" the situation.
A prime example of this came when I brought up an article from FLEX magazine about Marcus Haley. In this article, Haley states that his mother was strung out on dope and did some unsavory things to him (which he didn't detail in the article). Despite Haley's professional and personal successes, he still struggled with the issues in his life from that abuse. His mother had an aneurysm and the doctors told him to make preps for funeral arrangements. Haley states that his simple prayer was to keep his mother alive long enough, so that he could personally forgive her for the hurt she caused.
The docs told Haley that his mother, for reasons they couldn't explain, was fully recovered and conscious asking them for his whereabouts. Haley believes the Lord answered his prayers. Of course, at least one non-believer here had a problem with Haley's account and tried to rationalize it.
And, that's how some non-believers roll. If God doesn't heal or cure someone, then He's being cruel. Yet, when He does (or at least, when believers claim He does), then it's "Oh, it was really this or that; but God didn't really do that" or "Well, if God cured Mr. X, why didn't He cure Ms. Y?".
Same goes for the judgment of God. If God seemingly does nothing, we hear from non-believers, "Where is God, now?". Yet, when He's had enough of certain folks' wickedness and it's judgment time, now cries of "OH, God is so cruel, so mean, so vindictive", etc. thunder from their lips.
-
God is God. There is no my God vs. your God deflective crapola
But i do assume God is good, not evil; and good doesn't kill children.
David proclaimed the goodness of God, and he lost his child, because of his adulterous act with Bathsheba.
And, with regards to those pesky Amalekites, you claimed that Jews made up the account. But, you've yet to explain how that makes any sense, based on the parameters involved. Again, Saul is punished for NOT finishing the job and keeping the choice livestock, gold, and silver.
From a human standpoint, defeating your enemies, making sport with their king, and walking away with their loot is a magnificent accomplishment. Yet, Saul got cursed, instead of blessed for his actions. And many Israelites, for generations to come, would suffer as a result of Saul's disobedience, starting with the members of his own family (none from the house of Saul inherited the throne of Israel, not even David's offspring from Saul's daughter).
-
Ozmo go to this website.
http://www.ligonier.org/
Scroll down to the tab titled "Latest" and click on the audio broadcast "When towers fall" dated 4/21/2008
Please listen to this broadcast about "why does God let innocent people die" I think this might help you with the issue of why children died at the hand of God.
HMIC
-
Not quite. The point I was making to Deicide is that the passage (Deut 21:18-21) makes reference to a rebellious son. But, nothing indicates that this son is a child. On the contrary, the context of the verses would suggest that this is a grown man (which, by OT law, means he's at least 20).
Point taken. However, it still stands that in today's world, no one is having their children executed for rebellious behavior. Can you imagine?
In the ancient world, the family made the call. The assailant wasn't forced to marry the rapist. And, the whole purpose was to ensure care for the victim. That's for unmarried ones. For those who already had husbands to care for them, the rapist got executed. I'm sure many rape victims would prefer that to a prison sentence (subject to reduction, based on "good behavior"). Again, a rape victim may have a host of wounds (physical, psychological, and financial), because of the crime. The assailant isn't responsible for any of that, either in prion or upon his release. Is that necessarily a better way to handle the situation? And, if there are other means to take care of those things for the victim (married or single), why is the rapist still alive?
I'll go out on a limb and say that, if we were talking about Catholic priests or other religious leaders molesting people, some of our non-religious buddies wouldn't have such a problem with the death penalty for rapists.
I notice you've discarded many of my other examples to focus on this one. Are those just incidental? I'll go out on a limb and say that many non-religious people would favor the death penalty for rapists regardless of whether or not they are religious leaders. However, those are simply not the laws of today.
Please see Deuteronomy 22:23-25. Where does it say the victim may refuse her assailant? As well, in today's world a rape victim wouldn't be executed for "not screaming."
Indeed, context is important when comparing laws then and now. (i.e. causing a miscarriage in a pregnant woman was yet another capital offense in OT times). Take also the case of theft. If someone stole livestock; he had to return at least double of what he took. If you get your car stolen, the thief simply gets chucked in jail and (if you're lucky) you get your property back in one piece. You don't get two cars for the trouble.
Far as I remember, causing a miscarriage only carried the penalty of death if the woman was grievously harmed or died as a result. If not, the assailant paid a fine and that was that.
Theft is generally a non-violent crime, both then and now, and we were talking about violent, seemingly barbaric punishment or acts based on today's sensibilities.
Exactly what was stopping the judge from ordering counseling for this guy? And why would getting him such require a two-month jail sentence? Perhaps, he could have been set on the right course. But, the judge gave him 60 days and that would have been it, had O'Reilly not interjected himself into the situation.
The prosecution/state. They felt the rapist was at low risk for re-offending, so no in-house counseling, which pissed off the Judge. The judge thought he was dangerous and needed counseling in addition to jail time. The rapist didn't get a two-month sentence. He got 10 years to life with all of it suspended but for 60 days provided he complete out-patient counseling, which he wasn't going to get in jail. If he failed to comply it was back to the big house. Was it a brilliant move? No, and you're talking about one isolated case here. Sounds like after 25 years on the bench, the Judge was going through a "thing."
http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2006/01/10/judge_cashman_defends_his_decision_to_impose_60_day_sentence/?page=2
-
David proclaimed the goodness of God, and he lost his child, because of his adulterous act with Bathsheba.
So?
How did she lose or he lose the child?
And, with regards to those pesky Amalekites, you claimed that Jews made up the account. But, you've yet to explain how that makes any sense, based on the parameters involved. Again, Saul is punished for NOT finishing the job and keeping the choice livestock, gold, and silver.
So what? It still comes down to killing children. Can't get away from that or avoid it. Killing children is evil.
From a human standpoint, defeating your enemies, making sport with their king, and walking away with their loot is a magnificent accomplishment. Yet, Saul got cursed, instead of blessed for his actions. And many Israelites, for generations to come, would suffer as a result of Saul's disobedience, starting with the members of his own family (none from the house of Saul inherited the throne of Israel, not even David's offspring from Saul's daughter).
Again so what? Just becuase sins affects others who did not sin doesn't justify killing children ESPECIALLY when you have the power to prevent it.
-
Ozmo go to this website.
http://www.ligonier.org/
Scroll down to the tab titled "Latest" and click on the audio broadcast "When towers fall" dated 4/21/2008
Please listen to this broadcast about "why does God let innocent people die" I think this might help you with the issue of why children died at the hand of God.
HMIC
I'm about to run out of here and won;t be back to my house for at least 6-7 hours. I'll listen to it then or tomorrow sometime. Thanks for the link.
But if its about natural disasters, i see them as two very different things when it comes to God ordering Jews to kill children.
-
Point taken. However, it still stands that in today's world, no one is having their children executed for rebellious behavior. Can you imagine?
There wouldn't be enough graves to bury them.
I notice you've discarded many of my other examples to focus on this one. Are those just incidental? I'll go out on a limb and say that many non-religious people would favor the death penalty for rapists regardless of whether or not they are religious leaders. However, those are simply not the laws of today.
No, I simply didn't have time to address them.
Please see Deuteronomy 22:23-25. Where does it say the victim may refuse her assailant? As well, in today's world a rape victim wouldn't be executed for "not screaming."
See Exodus 22. The "not screaming" part has to do with the victim actually being just that...A VICTIM. If she willingly gives up the booty and she's married/bethroed, she's committing adultery, the penaly for which is DEATH (for both parties).
Far as I remember, causing a miscarriage only carried the penalty of death if the woman was grievously harmed or died as a result. If not, the assailant paid a fine and that was that.
I think that applied to the unborn baby. If the baby died, then the offender got put to death.
Theft is generally a non-violent crime, both then and now, and we were talking about violent, seemingly barbaric punishment or acts based on today's sensibilities.
My point was that our justice system for crimes (violent or non-violent) isn't necessarily better in some cases, just different.
The prosecution/state. They felt the rapist was at low risk for re-offending, so no in-house counseling, which pissed off the Judge. The judge thought he was dangerous and needed counseling in addition to jail time. The rapist didn't get a two-month sentence. He got 10 years to life with all of it suspended but for 60 days provided he complete out-patient counseling, which he wasn't going to get in jail. If he failed to comply it was back to the big house. Was it a brilliant move? No, and you're talking about one isolated case here. Sounds like after 25 years on the bench, the Judge was going through a "thing."
http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2006/01/10/judge_cashman_defends_his_decision_to_impose_60_day_sentence/?page=2
If the judge felt he needed counseling, in addition to jail time, all he has to do is order the counseling during his 10-year sentence, NOT reduce his sentence to 60 days (with out-patient counseling). Again, it was only after the heat got put on him (once Bill O'Reilly got word of the story) that he bumped this guy's sentence up to 3 years.
-
So?
How did she lose or he lose the child?
So.....you said you believe God is good and good isn't killing children. David proclaimed that God is good, too. However, the prophet, Nathan, told David in advance that, while he and Batsheba would be spared, the child they conceived would die because of their sin.
So what? It still comes down to killing children. Can't get away from that or avoid it. Killing children is evil.
I'm not avoiding anything. Once again, whether you like it or not, human life is the Lord's creation and, as such, He can do with it what He sees fit. It was His call to deal with the Amalekites via Saul. Defining good and evil is based on the Lord's criteria, not yours or mine. And, it was His call. He has the right to destroy that which He ultimately created. Man does not, unless he had His authorization, which was the case with Saul.
Again so what? Just becuase sins affects others who did not sin doesn't justify killing children ESPECIALLY when you have the power to prevent it.
Sin affecting others means just that. It affects others; and in some tragic cases, that involves death. The blame goes on the Amalekites, period, which may be something YOU keep trying to avoid.
-
So.....you said you believe God is good and good isn't killing children. David proclaimed that God is good, too. However, the prophet, Nathan, told David in advance that, while he and Batsheba would be spared, the child they conceived would die because of their sin.
Again so what? Writing scripture after any fact can make anything look prophetic. You are telling me someone in "B.C. whatever" knew whether or not the child died becuase of the sin or from some other cause the primitive minded people of David's day attributed to GOD becuase their knowledge about the causes of death ranked at the same level as that of a caveman's shaman?
oh please. ::)
I'm not avoiding anything. Once again, whether you like it or not, human life is the Lord's creation and, as such, He can do with it what He sees fit. It was His call to deal with the Amalekites via Saul. Defining good and evil is based on the Lord's criteria, not yours or mine. And, it was His call. He has the right to destroy that which He ultimately created. Man does not, unless he had His authorization, which was the case with Saul.
Yes, if he created all this, which he has, he has the ABILITY to do what he wishes with it. But in defining GOD, and the wisdom that is sure to be attached to such, and being the ultimate authority on right or wrong to commit such an evil hypocritical act, it does not match, it is not pure, it has no integrity or credibility. You can't say GOD is all those things HT listed and not say he isn't the other things i listed when GOD order the killing of children. If god is any of those things i listed he is a man. Hence most of the OT is crap.
Sin affecting others means just that. It affects others; and in some tragic cases, that involves death. The blame goes on the Amalekites, period, which may be something YOU keep trying to avoid.
Whaty's tragic isd when there was no other choice or way. There were other choices and ways with or without GOD. It's a cop out and avoidance of the fact of barbarism and evil in an attempt to justify killing children to say, "oh well, in some tragic cases, that involves death but GOD made the children and can do what ever he pleases."
-
Again so what? Writing scripture after any fact can make anything look prophetic. You are telling me someone in "B.C. whatever" knew whether or not the child died becuase of the sin or from some other cause the primitive minded people of David's day attributed to GOD becuase their knowledge about the causes of death ranked at the same level as that of a caveman's shaman?
oh please. ::)
You asked why David's first son (from Bathsheba) died. I give you the answer, and you respond with this? First of all, you have no indication that Nathan's telling David of the fate of his son was done AFTER his death.
The account goes that Nathan informed the king, in no uncertain terms, what would happen. In fact, to drive the point home, he used a parable of a rich man who owned lots of sheep and a poor man who has one sheep that he treated as a pet. The rich man had a guest and wanted to serve him dinner. But, rather than taking from his many sheep to kill and serve to his guest, he took that of the poor man.
David was enraged and demanded that this man be put to death, but not before restoring fourfold what he had taken. Nathan dropped the bomb on the king and said that David was that rich man. Of all the women he could have had, he chose to take another man's wife, have sex with her and knock her up. Then, he tried to hide it by attempting to convice Uriah (Bathsheba's husband) to go home and be with his wife (i.e. have sex with her quickly, so when her pregnancy starts to show, Uriah will think it's his baby). When that failed, David put Uriah in the heat of battle and order a troop withdrawal to ensure he would die in combat. Then, he took Bathsheba for his own wife.
While David repented of his sin, Nathan informed him that his sin would not go unpunished. While he and Bathsheba would be spared, that child, conceived in wickedness, would die. This occured WHILE BATHSHEBA WAS STILL PREGNANT. A week after that child was born, it died.
Yes, if he created all this, which he has, he has the ABILITY to do what he wishes with it. But in defining GOD, and the wisdom that is sure to be attached to such, and being the ultimate authority on right or wrong to commit such an evil hypocritical act, it does not match, it is not pure, it has no integrity or credibility. You can't say GOD is all those things HT listed and not say he isn't the other things i listed when GOD order the killing of children. If god is any of those things i listed he is a man. Hence most of the OT is crap.
This is the same God, listed in the New Testament, who gave his only begotten Son to die on the cross to save mankind, as the OT predicted long beforehand. You can't separate the two. And, as you continually forget, it was the Father (in the OT) and the Son (in the NT) who stated that, when it comes to judgment, "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay!" "I will make recompense!".
He defines good and evil, not you or I. We don't create life; therefore we have no right to destroy it, UNLESS we have authorization to do so per HIS authority.
In other words, when the people of God gets mistreated, it is the Lord (not you, me, or anyone else) who decide how, when, and how severely the wicked get judged. And, in this particular case of the Amalekites (after centuries of their persecution of Israel, among other nations), the edict came down. Amalek was to be COMPLETELY DESTROYED: man, woman, boy, girl, cat, dog, sheep, oxen, gold, silver, etc. Nothing and no one was to remain.
Saul screwed that up and he lost the throne because of it. Worse still, Israel would be plagued by the Amalekites again.
Whaty's tragic isd when there was no other choice or way. There were other choices and ways with or without GOD. It's a cop out and avoidance of the fact of barbarism and evil in an attempt to justify killing children to say, "oh well, in some tragic cases, that involves death but GOD made the children and can do what ever he pleases."
That's not a cop-out. That is simple fact. The wages of sin is death. And that is not limited to the trangressors, which is why people need to monitor their behavior. Barbarism is done by those who have no right or authorization to destroy what they did not create. That is not the case with God. He created it; He can destroy it, whether you or I like it or not.
And BTW, what would these so-called choices be?
Assimilate them? Then, folks like you start crying about slavery. Or worse, the Amalekite children grow up and pick up where their parents left off (i.e. what happened during the time of Esther).
Leave them behind? Then, they either starve to death or get picked off by some other invading nation.
Translate them? Why? They didn't accept God as their Lord and Savior, and their parents surely didn't either.
It's the Amalekites' sin (and their refusal to repent) that brought such judgment on them and their offspring.
-
Again so what? Writing scripture after any fact can make anything look prophetic. You are telling me someone in "B.C. whatever" knew whether or not the child died becuase of the sin or from some other cause the primitive minded people of David's day attributed to GOD becuase their knowledge about the causes of death ranked at the same level as that of a caveman's shaman?
oh please. ::)
Yes, if he created all this, which he has, he has the ABILITY to do what he wishes with it. But in defining GOD, and the wisdom that is sure to be attached to such, and being the ultimate authority on right or wrong to commit such an evil hypocritical act, it does not match, it is not pure, it has no integrity or credibility. You can't say GOD is all those things HT listed and not say he isn't the other things i listed when GOD order the killing of children. If god is any of those things i listed he is a man. Hence most of the OT is crap.
Whaty's tragic isd when there was no other choice or way. There were other choices and ways with or without GOD. It's a cop out and avoidance of the fact of barbarism and evil in an attempt to justify killing children to say, "oh well, in some tragic cases, that involves death but GOD made the children and can do what ever he pleases."
You and I share similar views. :) But there are a few very valuable lessons to take from it too. The dietary laws for instance. Very advanced for that age... and if more people kept kosher, they'd lose weight and be a lot healthier. Not mixing dairy with meat = instant weight loss, as all those rich sauces, cheese, etc are out of bounds. And if more people waited 5 hours after the big steak dinner to have their slab of cheesecake or mixing bowl sized ice cream dessert, this would would be a good thing. In many ways actually, the kosher way of eating is similar to a bodybuilding diet. Without all the matzah of course. I personally never found much more to take from it. Endless violence and bloodshed ad infinitum.
-
No, I simply didn't have time to address them.
See Exodus 22. The "not screaming" part has to do with the victim actually being just that...A VICTIM. If she willingly gives up the booty and she's married/bethroed, she's committing adultery, the penaly for which is DEATH (for both parties).
MCWAY it doesn't take a lot of imagination to figure out how a man can overpower a woman very easily, and shut her up in innumerable ways... knife to the throat, shove a piece of cloth down her throat, strangle her, break her jaw, etc... so basically, if a woman was raped in a city, unable to call for help, she was stoned to death for abetting her rapist.
There's not really anything to address about the cutting off of women's hands for accidentally touching a man's private thang, jealous men forcing women to drink poison to get to the bottom of their potential unfaithfulness, and the myriad of other barbaric laws... which are topped off with the killing of your rebellious, cursing children, young or old alike.
Perhaps you do think that these quaint old customs were actually approved by God, and that there is some ancient wisdom in them, as is your prerogative. As far as I know, there are some places that still employ these means of "justice" and you might think it a little slice of heaven on earth, but many of us just call it Saudi Arabia.
If the judge felt he needed counseling, in addition to jail time, all he has to do is order the counseling during his 10-year sentence, NOT reduce his sentence to 60 days (with out-patient counseling). Again, it was only after the heat got put on him (once Bill O'Reilly got word of the story) that he bumped this guy's sentence up to 3 years.
No MCWAY, that was the Judge's point. Sex offenders deemed "low-risk" are NOT entitled to receive counseling while they are in prison, I guess due to budgetary considerations. The judge felt he was high risk, and after 25 years on the bench, I'm sure he learned a bit about that and his opinion was valid. Sex offenders released from prison without having received treatment are the MOST likely to re-offend.
O'Reilly is a self-serving, attention-grabbing yellow journalist, so even if you like to listen to him, it's usually better to get actual facts elsewhere. Vermonters were upset by his ruling before O'Reilly got involved, so your yellow knight pretty much just jumped on his portable ratings soapbox, didn't actually help solve anything. On the other end of the spectrum, Judge Cashman was known as a law and order, distinguished and impartial judge for his entire tenure.
All the judge wanted was for this kid to get counseling so that his chances of re-offending when he got out might be reduced, an admirable and caring ideal I think... so he provoked the prosecution/state, literally, with his ruling, designed to illustrate what he thought of the system. Finally, in the end, everyone got what they wanted. The kid got more time, AND he also got counseling while in prison. The Judge went out with a big bang, even though it was controversial, serving his community to the best of his ability right to the end.
-
You asked why David's first son (from Bathsheba) died. I give you the answer, and you respond with this? First of all, you have no indication that Nathan's telling David of the fate of his son was done AFTER his death.
The account goes that Nathan informed the king, in no uncertain terms, what would happen. In fact, to drive the point home, he used a parable of a rich man who owned lots of sheep and a poor man who has one sheep that he treated as a pet. The rich man had a guest and wanted to serve him dinner. But, rather than taking from his many sheep to kill and serve to his guest, he took that of the poor man.
David was enraged and demanded that this man be put to death, but not before restoring fourfold what he had taken. Nathan dropped the bomb on the king and said that David was that rich man. Of all the women he could have had, he chose to take another man's wife, have sex with her and knock her up. Then, he tried to hide it by attempting to convice Uriah (Bathsheba's husband) to go home and be with his wife (i.e. have sex with her quickly, so when her pregnancy starts to show, Uriah will think it's his baby). When that failed, David put Uriah in the heat of battle and order a troop withdrawal to ensure he would die in combat. Then, he took Bathsheba for his own wife.
While David repented of his sin, Nathan informed him that his sin would not go unpunished. While he and Bathsheba would be spared, that child, conceived in wickedness, would die. This occured WHILE BATHSHEBA WAS STILL PREGNANT. A week after that child was born, it died.
Was this written before or after the event? ::)
This is the same God, listed in the New Testament, who gave his only begotten Son to die on the cross to save mankind, as the OT predicted long beforehand. You can't separate the two. And, as you continually forget, it was the Father (in the OT) and the Son (in the NT) who stated that, when it comes to judgment, "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay!" "I will make recompense!".
He defines good and evil, not you or I. We don't create life; therefore we have no right to destroy it, UNLESS we have authorization to do so per HIS authority.
In other words, when the people of God gets mistreated, it is the Lord (not you, me, or anyone else) who decide how, when, and how severely the wicked get judged. And, in this particular case of the Amalekites (after centuries of their persecution of Israel, among other nations), the edict came down. Amalek was to be COMPLETELY DESTROYED: man, woman, boy, girl, cat, dog, sheep, oxen, gold, silver, etc. Nothing and no one was to remain.
Saul screwed that up and he lost the throne because of it. Worse still, Israel would be plagued by the Amalekites again.
Look save the fire and brimstone crapola for bearing witness to someone who is foolish enough to allow himself to view GOD's actions as something that has no meaning when convenient. God's actions do have meaning good or bad and if it is written that men slaughtered children on god's orders than it is a lie.
Again, you go on and on trying to justify, God's alleged action of ordering the death of children. There is no capacity God or otherwise that justifies the killing of children. Especially that of the "all powerful, all knowing, all good" GOD.
This is the same God, listed in the New Testament, who gave his only begotten Son to die on the cross to save mankind, as the OT predicted long beforehand. You can't separate the two. And, as you continually forget, it was the Father (in the OT) and the Son (in the NT) who stated that, when it comes to judgment, "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay!" "I will make recompense!".
That has nothing to do with killing children unless you look a the obvious hypocrisy of killing innocent in the name of vengeance, repayment or recompense
He defines good and evil, not you or I. We don't create life; therefore we have no right to destroy it, UNLESS we have authorization to do so per HIS authority.
So is killing innocent children whose parents commitment evil acts, good or evil? ???
I know, i know, evil if we do it, good if god does it.... ::) Yes, God's sets the fine example of do as i say not as i do. brilliant! Divine! Godly!
In other words, when the people of God gets mistreated, it is the Lord (not you, me, or anyone else) who decide how, when, and how severely the wicked get judged. And, in this particular case of the Amalekites (after centuries of their persecution of Israel, among other nations), the edict came down. Amalek was to be COMPLETELY DESTROYED: man, woman, boy, girl, cat, dog, sheep, oxen, gold, silver, etc. Nothing and no one was to remain.
More Brilliance! Genocide! That's where Hitler got the idea! Good thing God set such a good example!
Saul screwed that up and he lost the throne because of it. Worse still, Israel would be plagued by the Amalekites again.
lol yeah, God had no choice ::)
That's not a cop-out. That is simple fact. The wages of sin is death. And that is not limited to the trangressors, which is why people need to monitor their behavior. Barbarism is done by those who have no right or authorization to destroy what they did not create. That is not the case with God. He created it; He can destroy it, whether you or I like it or not.
And BTW, what would these so-called choices be?
Assimilate them? Then, folks like you start crying about slavery. Or worse, the Amalekite children grow up and pick up where their parents left off (i.e. what happened during the time of Esther).
Leave them behind? Then, they either starve to death or get picked off by some other invading nation.
Translate them? Why? They didn't accept God as their Lord and Savior, and their parents surely didn't either.
Gee, you are an all powerful, all knowing, only GOD........ And you can't think of any other options?
McWay, you are not this brainless. Do you really want me to list things an all-powerful God could have done not to KILL INNOCENT CHILDREN??????
-
OzmO, why do you hate Jesus this much????? Don't you know that he died for your sins?
Yet, here you are, your soul held captive by the Devil, criticizing the infallible Word of God.
You really need to re-consider your salvation.
-
You and I share similar views. :) But there are a few very valuable lessons to take from it too. The dietary laws for instance. Very advanced for that age... and if more people kept kosher, they'd lose weight and be a lot healthier. Not mixing dairy with meat = instant weight loss, as all those rich sauces, cheese, etc are out of bounds. And if more people waited 5 hours after the big steak dinner to have their slab of cheesecake or mixing bowl sized ice cream dessert, this would would be a good thing. In many ways actually, the kosher way of eating is similar to a bodybuilding diet. Without all the matzah of course. I personally never found much more to take from it. Endless violence and bloodshed ad infinitum.
Much more than me, you seem to see things in a more practical vein and you get to the heart of it quicker. I agree there are many things ancient people's have done better in living their lives. They had another advantage in food. There was virtually no choices when it came to processed foods ;D
-
OzmO, why do you hate Jesus this much????? Don't you know that he died for your sins?
Yet, here you are, your soul held captive by the Devil, criticizing the infallible Word of God.
You really need to re-consider your salvation.
I need to further re-consider my diet. and i'm not saying this becuase of what DeeDee said, although she's dead on. I'm getting to the point of not wanting to ever buy produce at grocery stores anymore. Farmer's markets all the way!
-
Was this written before or after the event? ::)
Perhaps, you should quit rolling the eyes and address the scenario at hand. Please give the specifics of thisgrand scenario in which David's son died and someone decided to craft the account, regarding David, Bathsheba, and Nathan.
BTW, we have no reports of David's other children dying in infancy, for any reason.
Look save the fire and brimstone crapola for bearing witness to someone who is foolish enough to allow himself to view GOD's actions as something that has no meaning when convenient. God's actions do have meaning good or bad and if it is written that men slaughtered children on god's orders than it is a lie.
What on Earth are you talking about? I'm not claiming that God's actions have no meaning. Quite the opposite, I've stated the meaning of what when down with the Amalekites quite plainly. It's called JUDGMENT, namely that the Amalekites' repeated sinful behavior brought such judgment on their heads. And, it affected their entire kingdom, pure and simple.
The same God that sent His son to die for our sins is THE same God who ordered the Amalekites' destruction.
Again, you go on and on trying to justify, God's alleged action of ordering the death of children. There is no capacity God or otherwise that justifies the killing of children. Especially that of the "all powerful, all knowing, all good" GOD.
Wrong. Again, it's called judgment of sin. Since you believe in this God and in Jesus Christ, you must also believe in Jesus' Second Coming. When He returns, there will be judgment for the wicked, period.
If they weren't His actions or on His orders, then whose were they? More importantly, why was Saul STRIPPED of the throne of Israel, despite his overwhelming victory over the Amalekites (with loads of livestock and loot to boot)?
I know of no earthly kingdom that gets rid of its king for SUCCESSFULLY (at least, from a wordly perspective) defeating its enemies and collecting the spoils of war. Do you?
That has nothing to do with killing children unless you look a the obvious hypocrisy of killing innocent in the name of vengeance, repayment or recompense
That has everything to do with it. It's the same God. That's why Jesus' instructions, told by Him directly and later by Paul, said for us NOT to seek revenge. It's because He will avenge His people. He will choose the how, when, where, and the severity of such judgment.
Getting back to David, his sins cursed his family as well. In addition to telling David what would happen to his first son by Bathsheba, Nathan further revealed to the king that, because he killed Uriah with the sword (destroying Uriah's family), the sword would never leave David's house. And, if you read what happened to nearly all of his children, that curse came to pass in in great and terrible fashion.
Just as the sins of Saul cursed his family, the sins of David did likewise.
So is killing innocent children whose parents commitment evil acts, good or evil? ???
I know, i know, evil if we do it, good if god does it.... ::) Yes, God's sets the fine example of do as i say not as i do. brilliant! Divine! Godly!
He's so unfair that He sent His son to die, for sins that YOU and I committed, to give us eternal life that NEITHER of us deserve. When you do that, then you can talk about "do as I say, not as I do". God gave His son for someone else's transgressions; I don't see you giving up yours (or planning to do so, if you have no kids, at present).
Gosh, Jehovah can be such a meanie!!! He told us to forgive 70 X 7, and even with those blasted Amalekites, He gave them OVER THREE CENTURIES to repent, before the edict came to utterly destroy them. He gave Pharoah nine chance to let His people go. The antediluvians got 120 years to repent.
Well, you have to give it up to the Ninevites. At least one occasion, when they were told to repent, they ACTUALLY DID and were spared (much to the chagrin of a certain prophet).
More Brilliance! Genocide! That's where Hitler got the idea! Good thing God set such a good example!
Yet, the Jewish people are alive and well. As for Hitler and his bunch........... What sins did the Jews commit to merit Hitler's wrath? Did the furor give them a chance to repent? Did he give warnings or lesser punishments to indicate that Israel needed to change its way?
lol yeah, God had no choice ::)
I'm sorry. I must have missed the part where God is required to do things your way (or mine, for that matter). Of course, He said he would do away with the Amalekites and I don't see any running around today, do you?
Gee, you are an all powerful, all knowing, only GOD........ And you can't think of any other options?
McWay, you are not this brainless. Do you really want me to list things an all-powerful God could have done not to KILL INNOCENT CHILDREN??????
You aren't this brainless, either. I already listed three and you have yet to deal with those. As for the options, those are predicated on the actons of the Amalekites. Had they repented; they'd have been spared. And, as history as shown (and you fail to acknowledge), we saw exactly what happened when these "innocent children" got spared: They followed right in the footsteps of their parents and persecuted the Israelites AGAIN.
-
Perhaps, you should quit rolling the eyes and address the scenario at hand. Please give the specifics of thisgrand scenario in which David's son died and someone decided to craft the account, regarding David, Bathsheba, and Nathan.
BTW, we have no reports of David's other children dying in infancy, for any reason.
I am addressing the scenario at hand......that's why i'm rolling my eyes.
You can make anything sound prophetic after the fact.
And people having a child die in infancy while all their others don't is significant as if it that never happens?
Let me get this right.....the kid was conceived out of adultery and died before birth and the OT says it was foretold? Read my second sentence.
What on Earth are you talking about? I'm not claiming that God's actions have no meaning. Quite the opposite, I've stated the meaning of what when down with the Amalekites quite plainly. It's called JUDGMENT, namely that the Amalekites' repeated sinful behavior brought such judgment on their heads. And, it affected their entire kingdom, pure and simple.
The same God that sent His son to die for our sins is THE same God who ordered the Amalekites' destruction.
You are claiming they have no meaning in regards to what morality of what he did......kill children
Wrong. Again, it's called judgment of sin. Since you believe in this God and in Jesus Christ, you must also believe in Jesus' Second Coming. When He returns, there will be judgment for the wicked, period.
And children are wicked? here it comes...........eyes are starting to go up....... ::) BAM! sorry. :) couldn't help it.
If they weren't His actions or on His orders, then whose were they? More importantly, why was Saul STRIPPED of the throne of Israel, despite his overwhelming victory over the Amalekites (with loads of livestock and loot to boot)?
I know of no earthly kingdom that gets rid of its king for SUCCESSFULLY (at least, from a wordly perspective) defeating its enemies and collecting the spoils of war. Do you?
Fact is, we don't know what really happen there except what was written and what was written told of God ordering the death of innocent children, so that makes the whole book suspect. Which is what i've been saying.
That has everything to do with it. It's the same God. That's why Jesus' instructions, told by Him directly and later by Paul, said for us NOT to seek revenge. It's because He will avenge His people. He will choose the how, when, where, and the severity of such judgment.
Getting back to David, his sins cursed his family as well. In addition to telling David what would happen to his first son by Bathsheba, Nathan further revealed to the king that, because he killed Uriah with the sword (destroying Uriah's family), the sword would never leave David's house. And, if you read what happened to nearly all of his children, that curse came to pass in in great and terrible fashion.
Just as the sins of Saul cursed his family, the sins of David did likewise.
I don't believe in curses. Curses are easy to write about after the fact which is what happened here.
He's so unfair that He sent His son to die, for sins that YOU and I committed, to give us eternal life that NEITHER of us deserve. When you do that, then you can talk about "do as I say, not as I do". God gave His son for someone else's transgressions; I don't see you giving up yours (or planning to do so, if you have no kids, at present).
Gosh, Jehovah can be such a meanie!!! He told us to forgive 70 X 7, and even with those blasted Amalekites, He gave them OVER THREE CENTURIES to repent, before the edict came to utterly destroy them. He gave Pharoah nine chance to let His people go. The antediluvians got 120 years to repent.
Well, you have to give it up to the Ninevites. At least one occasion, when they were told to repent, they ACTUALLY DID and were spared (much to the chagrin of a certain prophet).
All that's wonderful McWay. But it has nothign to do with killing children.
I'm sorry. I must have missed the part where God is required to do things your way (or mine, for that matter). Of course, He said he would do away with the Amalekites and I don't see any running around today, do you?
I don't buy into the idea that a race of people are evil.
We don;t see those people running around today for many reasons, mainly they were slaughtered at the hands of the child murdering Jews. As for the adults they probably deserved to die.
You aren't this brainless, either. I already listed three and you have yet to deal with those. As for the options, those are predicated on the actons of the Amalekites. Had they repented; they'd have been spared. And, as history as shown (and you fail to acknowledge), we saw exactly what happened when these "innocent children" got spared: They followed right in the footsteps of their parents and persecuted the Israelites AGAIN.
No McWay, we this based on what an ancient history book has to say. A race of people aren't evil. There are evil people in every race.
There are many things God could have done. You are not using creative problem solving abilities.
I'll post more later, got to get to work. :)
-
MCWAY it doesn't take a lot of imagination to figure out how a man can overpower a woman very easily, and shut her up in innumerable ways... knife to the throat, shove a piece of cloth down her throat, strangle her, break her jaw, etc... so basically, if a woman was raped in a city, unable to call for help, she was stoned to death for abetting her rapist.
The verse doesn't say that. If such indicators like a broken jaw or any other wounds are on the body, then it doesn't take a lot of imagination to figure out that she was indeed assaulted. Therefore, it's time to get the rocks and find the rapist. The woman was stoned to death for adultery (i.e. she, a married/bethroed woman, had sex with another man willingly; or she had consensual sex with a married/bethroed man).
There's not really anything to address about the cutting off of women's hands for accidentally touching a man's private thang, jealous men forcing women to drink poison to get to the bottom of their potential unfaithfulness, and the myriad of other barbaric laws... which are topped off with the killing of your rebellious, cursing children, young or old alike.
Cursing your parents was a serious offense. And, that ain't simply uttering expletives. In addition to a blatant violation of the 5th commandment, such might involve the invocation of demon spirits to do ill toward one's parents (and invoking demons is a BIG no-no).
About the "private thang", there was no accidental contact; it involved crushing a man's nuts (hence destroying his ability to have children). ENOUGH SAID!!!
As for the jealous men thing, when it came accusations of adultery, such matters went before a priest. This wasn't something you could do casually or on a whim. In fact, the labor of having to undergo this procedure was to the woman's advantage. If you believed your wife had been trickin', you'd better have all your ducks in a row. Unlike the cultures of many of Israel's neighbors in matters like this, the burden of proof was with the husband, NOT the wife. In other words, the wife was INNOCENT, UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY (Sound familiar?).
To top it all off, the "poison" was simply water, with the curse for infidelity, written on a piece of paper and mixed into it. This has more supernatural connotations than anything else. If she were really drinking poison, it would kill her (or mess her up), REGARDLESS of her innocence or guilt.
Here's more (from Glenn Miller, via Christian Think-Tank/Tektonics.org):
The trial of bitter waters (Sotah) is an amazing provision by God for a woman to publicly clear her name (and indict a dysfunctional husband in the process). This is the procedure invoked by a jealous and/or paranoid husband who suspected his wife of infidelity. God gave this law to protect the woman from physical and economic abuse from a capricious and petty husband. In many of the cultures of that day, men had absolute dictatorial rights over their wives. If they suspected adultery, they were allowed to kill the woman without any appeal on her part. There was not a process of justice, or process where they BOTH had to appear before a higher authority. In fact, in the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1720 BC.), CH 132, women who were suspected of this type of infidelity were required to throw themselves into the Euphrates river--if they drown, they were guilty; if not, they were innocent! (Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 171).
God would instead provide a public vindication process, before His leaders, his people, and the couple. If the woman was vindicated, the man would bear the stigma of unfounded and paranoid jealousy, and slanderous accusation before his friends/family (with possible legal consequences). Her rights were protected by this very ceremony. This was a very, very advanced pro-women procedure for those times.
-- By comparison, in the other law codes of that time, ANYONE could accuse her and force her to undergo the River Ordeal(!). So, the Laws of Ur-Nammu, 14 [ca. 2100bc, Ur in Sumer]: "If a man accuses the wife of a young man of promiscuity but the River Ordeal clears her..." (LCMAM:18).
And, once a woman's name was cleared, the husband was the hook to care for her FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE.
No MCWAY, that was the Judge's point. Sex offenders deemed "low-risk" are NOT entitled to receive counseling while they are in prison, I guess due to budgetary considerations. The judge felt he was high risk, and after 25 years on the bench, I'm sure he learned a bit about that and his opinion was valid. Sex offenders released from prison without having received treatment are the MOST likely to re-offend.
Then he can get the counseling, upon his release. That does not warrant his cutting a 10-year sentence to 60 days.
O'Reilly is a self-serving, attention-grabbing yellow journalist, so even if you like to listen to him, it's usually better to get actual facts elsewhere. Vermonters were upset by his ruling before O'Reilly got involved, so your yellow knight pretty much just jumped on his portable ratings soapbox, didn't actually help solve anything. On the other end of the spectrum, Judge Cashman was known as a law and order, distinguished and impartial judge for his entire tenure.
Key word: WAS
All the judge wanted was for this kid to get counseling so that his chances of re-offending when he got out might be reduced, an admirable and caring ideal I think... so he provoked the prosecution/state, literally, with his ruling, designed to illustrate what he thought of the system. Finally, in the end, everyone got what they wanted. The kid got more time, AND he also got counseling while in prison. The Judge went out with a big bang, even though it was controversial, serving his community to the best of his ability right to the end.
More time? You said the sentence, initially, was 10 years to life. Cashman reduced it to 60 days. Then, upon the the people protesting this foolishness (given more visibility by O'Reilly's telecast), the judge sentenced the rapist to 3 years.
But, that gets me back to the point of material care. This girl will be messed up for years to comes (perhaps, for life). Yet, as soon as this rapist serves his three years and goes through his counseling, that's it. He doesn't fund the medical bills, psychiatric care, etc.
-
I am addressing the scenario at hand......that's why i'm rolling my eyes.
You can make anything sound prophetic after the fact.
And people having a child die in infancy while all their others don't is significant as if it that never happens?
Let me get this right.....the kid was conceived out of adultery and died before birth and the OT says it was foretold? Read my second sentence.
No, the child died about a week after it was born. David knew what would happen to his son, becaus Nathan told him of the child's fate, WHILE Bathsheba was still pregnant. In fact, after the child's birth, David fasted, hoping God would reverse His decision. And what happened to his grown sons and daughters was a direct reflection of the sword never leaving David's house, as Nathan also mentioned.
You're simply trying to brush off this incident as something as merely happened, because you refuse to accept the fact that sinful behavior affect more than the trangressors. In this tragic case, David's son paid for his parents' sin.
You are claiming they have no meaning in regards to what morality of what he did......kill children
And children are wicked? here it comes...........eyes are starting to go up....... ::) BAM! sorry. :) couldn't help it.
They can be. Apparently, you haven't been watching the news. Regardless (and here's the point you refuse to accept), when you are in a position of authority, the sin you commit adversely affects those under that authority. Look at the folks at Enron. Why do you think, especially in political years, we wail about corporate greed? It’s because, when these executives go down, a lot of honest, hard-working people will go down with them. The corruption of the executives destroyed the whole company, right down to the janitors and secretaries. Investors, who had no part in the corruption, lost millions. Middle-class people, who had 401s and pensions, got wiped out, having nothing to show for all their hard work and savings.
That's the morality of the situation. In certain aspects, when you screw up, YOU ARE NOT the only one who suffers for it, period. In the same vein, when you do what is right, your family is BLESSED by your actions.
Fact is, we don't know what really happen there except what was written and what was written told of God ordering the death of innocent children, so that makes the whole book suspect. Which is what i've been saying.
Then, you should cease with the speculation about God not ordering the judgment on the Amakelites. And, if the whole book is "suspect", so too is what YOU believe about God, because the same book described Him as the one who sent Jesus, in whom you claim to believe, to give us eternal life. And that same book foretold that Jesus would come to Earth to do that for us.
I don't believe in curses. Curses are easy to write about after the fact which is what happened here.
Notwithstanding that your disbelief in curses has no bearing on the matter, it that's the case, again, explain why Saul LOST the throne of Israel (i.e. none of his descendants ever became king, not even those from the intermarriage of David and Saul's daughter), DESPITE A tremendous military victory over one of Israel's most dogged enemies.
Jesus believed in curses, and you claim to believe in Him. In fact, His death is described as taking the curse of sin for us (so that we might have eternal life), for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs from a tree".
All that's wonderful McWay. But it has nothign to do with killing children.
Yes, it does. Had the Ninevites not repented, ALL OF THEM (men, women, and children) would have been destroyed. When did Pharoah FINALLY release Israel from bondage, again? OHHHH!!! When the firstborn of Egypt, including his own son, got struck down. That tenth plague hit home, showing Pharoah how powerless he actually was. And, thus Israel left Egyptian bondage.
I don't buy into the idea that a race of people are evil.
But, they can COMMIT evil, which is what the Amalekites did for centuries. They weren't destroyed, because of their ethnicity; they were destroyed because of what they did. They were given chances to repent; they did not. Hence, it's judgment time.
We don;t see those people running around today for many reasons, mainly they were slaughtered at the hands of the child murdering Jews. As for the adults they probably deserved to die.
The Lord said He would blot out the Amalekites and, guess what, THEY'RE GONE.
No McWay, we this based on what an ancient history book has to say. A race of people aren't evil. There are evil people in every race.
Who said the Amalekites got pummeled, because of their race? There are evil people in every race and they get the chance to repent and be spared judgment. You will also notice that much of God's wrath comes against ISRAEL itself, for mimicking the wicked behavior of its neighbors.
There are many things God could have done. You are not using creative problem solving abilities.
Name such that don't fall under the categories I already mentioned:
- Assimilating them (OOPS!!! We already know what happened as a result of Saul sparing some of the Amalekites; see the book of Esther)
- Leaving them behind (result: death by starvation and/or enslavement by another group of people).
- Translating them (reason for translating the children of a people who spend 300+ years assaulting your chosen clan would be what; there's no
covenant with the Amalekites)
-
No, the child died about a week after it was born. David knew what would happen to his son, becaus Nathan told him of the child's fate, WHILE Bathsheba was still pregnant. In fact, after the child's birth, David fasted, hoping God would reverse His decision. And what happened to his grown sons and daughters was a direct reflection of the sword never leaving David's house, as Nathan also mentioned.
You're simply trying to brush off this incident as something as merely happened, because you refuse to accept the fact that sinful behavior affect more than the trangressors. In this tragic case, David's son paid for his parents' sin.
No, McWay, really, I'm not brushing off the fact that sinful behavior affects more than the transgressors. My point is that there was a choice and or option, to avoid, in the case of killing innocent children. The choice was made to kill them. A very ungodly act considering the morality of killing, the morality of killing innocent people, the morality of killing children and the available options of an all powerful God to not kill them.
They can be. Apparently, you haven't been watching the news. Regardless (and here's the point you refuse to accept), when you are in a position of authority, the sin you commit adversely affects those under that authority. Look at the folks at Enron. The corruption of the executives destroyed the whole company, right down to the janitors and secretaries. Investors, who had no part in the corruption, lost millions. Middle-class people, who had 401s and pensions, got wiped out, having nothing to show for all their hard work and savings.
That's the morality of the situation. In certain aspects, when you screw up, YOU ARE NOT the only one who suffers for it, period. In the same vein, when you do what is right, your family is BLESSED by your actions.
Everything you talked about there does not include killing innocent children, so therefore i do agree as i i said in the above paragraph.
Then, you should cease with the speculation about God not ordering the judgment on the Amakelites. And, if the whole book is "suspect", so too is what YOU believe about God, because the same book described Him as the one who sent Jesus, in whom you claim to believe, to give us eternal life. And that same book foretold that Jesus would come to Earth to do that for us.
That's very incorrect. The bible is a collect of writings, letters and books that are believed to be the Word of God. My contention is the OT is not the 100% WOG and one very good example is the alleged orders from GOd to kill innocent children.
Notwithstanding that your disbelief in curses has no bearing on the matter, it that's the case, again, explain why Saul LOST the throne of Israel (i.e. none of his descendants ever became king, not even those from the intermarriage of David and Saul's daughter), DESPITE A tremendous military victory over one of Israel's most dogged enemies.
Jesus believed in curses, and you claim to believe in Him. In fact, His death is described as taking the curse of sin for us (so that we might have eternal life), for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs from a tree".
Do you want me to explain how it is possible for a person to lose his or her king ship after a great military victory?
Can you please post the verses that talk about his removal?
Yes, it does. Had the Ninevites not repented, ALL OF THEM (men, women, and children) would have been destroyed. When did Pharoah FINALLY release Israel from bondage, again? OHHHH!!! When the firstborn of Egypt, including his own son, got struck down. That tenth plague hit home, showing Pharoah how powerless he actually was. And, thus Israel left Egyptian bondage.
Well then i can add killing the first born to the list of acts not consistent with GOD.
But, they can COMMIT evil, which is what the Amalekites did for centuries. They weren't destroyed, because of their ethnicity; they were destroyed because of what they did. They were given chances to repent; they did not. Hence, it's judgment time.
So can anyone else. We all have the potential for evil. But guidance, wisdom and the spirit of God, if we allow will keep us on the right path. And as children we are the most impressionable and mold-able.
Who said the Amalekites got pummeled, because of their race? There are evil people in every race and they get the chance to repent and be spared judgment. You will also notice that much of God's wrath comes against ISRAEL itself, for mimicking the wicked behavior of its neighbors.
I see what you are saying i think. My point is, it's unrealistic to say and entire people or race is evil. So when you site that it says the Amelekites are evil, it's much like saying muslims are evil or all radical muslims are evil which is not true.
Name such that don't fall under the categories I already mentioned:
- Assimilating them (OOPS!!! We already know what happened as a result of Saul sparing some of the Amalekites; see the book of Esther)
- Leaving them behind (result: death by starvation and/or enslavement by another group of people).
- Translating them (reason for translating the children of a people who spend 300+ years assaulting your chosen clan would be what; there's no
covenant with the Amalekites)
It's ridiculous to think that the 0-5 year olds were already evil or were surely to grow up evil. That goes back to thinking the "race" is evil.
Here's some possible options off the top pf my head:
- separate and spread each child across the globe and have a family adopt them on God's behalf. Allow them to grow up and make choices between good and evil and when they chose to be evil then punish them by sending down a lightning bolt and kill them instantly. But at least as God you gave the Children a fair chance to chose. Just like we all have.
- Put them (children) all on an island and feed them and send angels down to teach them and mentor them, parent them etc...
- Kill only those who violated the peace and sinned profusely and make a show of God's power in plain view then transport the rest of them to a remote place at the time like Australia and give them a second chance. If they don't change then kill them. Of course don't immediately kill the children until they reach an age of accountability.
I could think of more.
-
Just to add, McWay,
God's grace and spirit is a powerful and amazing thing isn't?
-
No, McWay, really, I'm not brushing off the fact that sinful behavior affects more than the transgressors. My point is that there was a choice and or option, to avoid, in the case of killing innocent children. The choice was made to kill them. A very ungodly act considering the morality of killing, the morality of killing innocent people, the morality of killing children and the available options of an all powerful God to not kill them.
And this choice would be what? I believe I asked you this earlier. Furthermore, the "morality" is based on God's instructions, which (to Saul) were to completely destroy the Amalekites.
Everything you talked about there does not include killing innocent children, so therefore i do agree as i i said in the above paragraph.
It includes the innocent (i.e. hard-working people who did not engage in the corporate corruption) being adversely affected. Innocent Enron employees STILL SUFFERED by losing their jobs, pensions, and savings . Innocent stockholders lost millions. And the innocent families members of these employees lost food on the table, tuition for school, etc.
Adverse consequences can affect the innocent; and, unfortunately, that includes DEATH.
That's very incorrect. The bible is a collect of writings, letters and books that are believed to be the Word of God. My contention is the OT is not the 100% WOG and one very good example is the alleged orders from GOd to kill innocent children.
The Old Testament doesn't foretell of the coming of Christ or His sacrifice to save man? Which Old Testament are you reading?
Do you want me to explain how it is possible for a person to lose his or her king ship after a great military victory?
Can you please post the verses that talk about his removal?
Try 1 Sam 15. In fact, it was the prophet Samuel, who was charged with finding Saul's replacement, which turned out to be David. Saul lost the throne nobody from his family ever succeeded him. David tried to play peace-maker, between his supporters and those who still followed Saul ,by marrying one of his daughters, so that Saul would still have a royal descendant to rule Israel.
Verses 26-28
And Samuel said unto Saul, I will not return with thee: for thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD hath rejected thee from being king over Israel. And as Samuel turned about to go away, he laid hold upon the skirt of his mantle, and it rent. And Samuel said unto him, The LORD hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine, that is better than thou.
Not only did Saul NOT obey the word of the Lord, he lied to Samuel, by saying that he did. Of course, the bleating and moo-ing of what was supposed to be dead Amalekite livestock betrayed his word. To top it all off: First, he then tried to blame it on his troops, as if he had nothing to do with the matter. They killed the sick animals and destroyed what was deemed worthless. But, Saul and crew kept the good stuff, which Saul tried to pass off as saying that such was for the Lord.
Well then i can add killing the first born to the list of acts not consistent with GOD.
And you would be incorrect, especially in that case. Unlike the issue with the Amalekites, Israel NEVER engaged the Egyptians in combat. Why do you think the Jews, to this day, celebrate the Passover? It's about their deliverance from Egypt. And the final straw that broke Pharoah's back, getting him to yield, was the slaying of the firstborn.
So can anyone else. We all have the potential for evil. But guidance, wisdom and the spirit of God, if we allow will keep us on the right path. And as children we are the most impressionable and mold-able.
Indeed. But, if that guidance is not followed but continually rejected, manifesting evil behavior, then the judgment of God comes upon those transgressors (as well as those under their authority).
I see what you are saying i think. My point is, it's unrealistic to say and entire people or race is evil. So when you site that it says the Amelekites are evil, it's much like saying muslims are evil or all radical muslims are evil which is not true.
Not quite. The Amalekites were judged for their ACTIONS, much as the "radical Muslims" are today. We ain't after Al Qaeda, because they're Arab. We're after them, because they slammed jets into our buildings, killing 3000+ American people. And, I don't hear Bin Laden saying he's sorry. Or Zawahiri calling for the AQ crew to repent and make atonement for 9/11.
It's ridiculous to think that the 0-5 year olds were already evil or were surely to grow up evil. That goes back to thinking the "race" is evil.
Here's some possible options off the top pf my head:
- separate and spread each child across the globe and have a family adopt them on God's behalf. Allow them to grow up and make choices between good and evil and when they chose to be evil then punish them by sending down a lightning bolt and kill them instantly. But at least as God you gave the Children a fair chance to chose. Just like we all have.
- Put them (children) all on an island and feed them and send angels down to teach them and mentor them, parent them etc...
In other words, "Assimilate". (I mentioend that already). The Amalekites that Saul didn't destroy did get assimilated. And when their numbers grew, guess what happened. They picked up where their ancestors left off. Again, refer to the book of Esther.
- Kill only those who violated the peace and sinned profusely and make a show of God's power in plain view then transport the rest of them to a remote place at the time like Australia and give them a second chance. If they don't change then kill them. Of course don't immediately kill the children until they reach an age of accountability.
Ummmmm.....how many chances do you think the Amalekites got during the 300+ years that they were persecuting Israel? Not to mention that Saul warned the Kenites, a race of people who lived among the Amalekites, that judgment was coming. But, because they were kind to Israel, they would be spared. However, it would be in their best interested to leave the area.
The Amalekites had PLENTY of opportunities to repent but did not do so.
-
The verse doesn't say that. If such indicators like a broken jaw or any other wounds are on the body, then it doesn't take a lot of imagination to figure out that she was indeed assaulted. Therefore, it's time to get the rocks
But, that gets me back to the point of material care. This girl will be messed up for years to comes (perhaps, for life). Yet, as soon as this rapist serves his three years and goes through his counseling, that's it. He doesn't fund the medical bills, psychiatric care, etc.
You don't have to keep justifying God's edicts to me. They were what they were.
That verse pertaining to rape simply says if she don't scream, it means she wants it. Ergo, she gets executed. The other verse doesn't specifically state that the prerequisite for hand chopping requires the crushing of a man's genitals. It talks about grabbing. Perhaps you have a different translation than I do. It's possible.
The term "Bitter waters" had a different, less innocent connotation back in the day, and leading up to modern times. Women have used "bitter waters' to induce abortion over the centuries. How do you know what was scooped up from the floor surrounding the tabernacle. Ingesting ink is always a good idea too. Was there a similar trial by fire for men? And of course, what better way to divine a person's guilt or innocence than trial by fire? Sort of like throwing someone into a body of water. If they float, means they're a witch. If they sink and drown, they were innocent. We should def reinstate that wisdom into our society. :)
But regardless of all that, my point is that we don't feel it necessary to execute people for these infractions today. It simply wouldn't fly. Neither does barring illegitimate children, or men who have been castrated, from entering places of worship. And I'll bet you're wearing clothes made from more than one fiber. I'll also bet you don't keep a kosher home, even though you've been admonished to do so. The list goes on and on.
Then he can get the counseling, upon his release. That does not warrant his cutting a 10-year sentence to 60 days.
You're right. It's much better to send a pedophile to prison for 3 years without giving him an understanding that what he did was wrong, so when he gets out starving for kiddie sex, he can just go on his merry way.
Key word: WAS
More time? You said the sentence, initially, was 10 years to life. Cashman reduced it to 60 days. Then, upon the the people protesting this foolishness (given more visibility by O'Reilly's telecast), the judge sentenced the rapist to 3 years.
3-10. The original sentence was 10-life, most of it suspended unless he was found to not complete couseling and/or reoffend. And yes, was. The Judge is retired now, and perhaps it was time. The key point also, is that it was only after all the doodoo hit the fan, that the prosecution backed down and agreed to allow the offender to receive treatment while in prison.
As far as I know, and I may be wrong, but victims of violent crime do have civil courts to their avail today.
But according to you, ancient wisdom would have prevailed in a much better way, without any prison time at all. Since the parents willingly allowed their child to sleep in the same bed numerous times with a grown man they knew had the hots for their child, perhaps he wouldn't have been punished at all. And if he did, what was it, 50 shekels for the father and he marries the girl? That's a terrible penalty!!! I think more parents today should marry off their children to the pedophiles that molest them. It would do such much more to help a child's messed up psyche. It makes perfect SENSE!
-
And this choice would be what? I believe I asked you this earlier. Furthermore, the "morality" is based on God's instructions, which (to Saul) were to completely destroy the Amalekites.
Based on God's instructions is killing innocent poeple ok or not?
It includes the innocent (i.e. hard-working people who did not engage in the corporate corruption) being adversely affected. Innocent Enron employees STILL SUFFERED by losing their jobs, pensions, and savings . Innocent stockholders lost millions. And the innocent families members of these employees lost food on the table, tuition for school, etc.
Adverse consequences can affect the innocent; and, unfortunately, that includes DEATH.
The US government didn't go and kill their children. Very poor comparison McWay.
The Old Testament doesn't foretell of the coming of Christ or His sacrifice to save man? Which Old Testament are you reading?
In some of the books and writings that make up the OT, the coming of of the messiah was foretold. So what?
What's incorrect about your statement is that the OT is a self contained book, It is not. It is a collection of ancient writings incorrectly believed to be the word of GOD.
Try 1 Sam 15. In fact, it was the prophet Samuel, who was charged with finding Saul's replacement, which turned out to be David. Saul lost the throne nobody from his family ever succeeded him. David tried to play peace-maker, between his supporters and those who still followed Saul ,by marrying one of his daughters, so that Saul would still have a royal descendant to rule Israel.
Verses 26-28
And Samuel said unto Saul, I will not return with thee: for thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD hath rejected thee from being king over Israel. And as Samuel turned about to go away, he laid hold upon the skirt of his mantle, and it rent. And Samuel said unto him, The LORD hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine, that is better than thou.
Not only did Saul NOT obey the word of the Lord, he lied to Samuel, by saying that he did. Of course, the bleating and moo-ing of what was supposed to be dead Amalekite livestock betrayed his word. To top it all off: First, he then tried to blame it on his troops, as if he had nothing to do with the matter. They killed the sick animals and destroyed what was deemed worthless. But, Saul and crew kept the good stuff, which Saul tried to pass off as saying that such was for the Lord.
Sounds like Samuel carried as much weight as the king. Might explain how a king was removed.
And you would be incorrect, especially in that case. Unlike the issue with the Amalekites, Israel NEVER engaged the Egyptians in combat. Why do you think the Jews, to this day, celebrate the Passover? It's about their deliverance from Egypt. And the final straw that broke Pharoah's back, getting him to yield, was the slaying of the firstborn.
I don't disagree with you just wrote McWay, I disagree that killing innocent children is godly or right. And it's the same with this instance.
Indeed. But, if that guidance is not followed but continually rejected, manifesting evil behavior, then the judgment of God comes upon those transgressors (as well as those under their authority).
Nope not at all. Maybe in the twisted world of the OT. But in more civilized less primitive, less barbaric, less OT following cultures, innocent people do not pay the price of their master's (leaders, employers, etc...) sins with their lives IF it can be avoided. Which is certainly the case with an All-powerful God. Now in Radical Islamic cultures, which are very similar in barbarism to the OT, innocent people do and we already now what the rest of the sensible world thinks of that.
Not quite. The Amalekites were judged for their ACTIONS, much as the "radical Muslims" are today. We ain't after Al Qaeda, because they're Arab. We're after them, because they same jets into our buildings, killing 3000+ American people. And, I don't hear Bin Laden saying he's sorry. Or Zawahiri calling for the AQ crew to repent and make atonement for 9/11.
So should kill all OBL's children? Would that be right?
In other words, "Assimilate". (I mentioend that already). The Amalekites that Saul didn't destroy did get assimilated. And when their numbers grew, guess what happened. They picked up where their ancestors left off. Again, refer to the book of Esther.
You didn't read what i wrote or i didn't explain it right...... Separate them around the world. you could probaly place them 500-1000 miles from each other all over the planet.
Ummmmm.....how many chances do you think the Amalekites got during the 300+ years that they were persecuting Israel? Not to mention that Saul warned the Kenites, a race of people who lived among the Amalekites, that judgment was coming. But, because they were kind to Israel, they would be spared. However, it would be in their best interested to leave the area.
The Amalekites had PLENTY of opportunities to repent but did not do so.
I don't place blame on those who do not deserve any. the OT seems to teach people to do that. That's a sign of primitive regression. Should we today pay the price of what our ancestors did in the 1800's with Africans? That's pretty much what you saying. Should we persecute Germans by killing all their children in 1946?
The Amelikites had plenty of opportunities, but not the children who were murdered and likely beheaded at the hands of jewish soldiers.
EVERYONE deserves the right to make the right choices. Isn't even talked about the NT? Something about the age of accountability? To not allow a child that opportunity by killing them becuase their parents were bad is evil and barbaric and NOT GOd. It's man in his righteousness and judgment and vainness who would think they speak for GOD.
-
Did any one listen to the audio file I posted?
-
Did any one listen to the audio file I posted?
I listened to the first few sentences after the advertisement to join them on on glacier bay.
My issue is NOT about God letting innocent people die, it's about GOD ordering innocent children to be killed and how that's evil behavior and hypocritical and therefore the OT is not the 100% WOG.
-
Based on God's instructions is killing innocent poeple ok or not?
His instructions to Saul, regarding the Amalekites, were to destroy every one and everything. The innocence or guilt factor is for God to decide, not you.
The US government didn't go and kill their children. Very poor comparison McWay.
The US government took down that company and nearly everyone associated with it suffered for it, WHETHER THEY PARTICIPATED IN THE CORRUPTION OR NOT. They didn't spare the janitors or secretaries. They didn't go out and find the mid-level managers new jobs or provide means for them to feed their families.
The point which you keep missing is that the sinful actions of the heads of Enron affected those under their charge. In this particular case, the "judgment" was financial loss.
In some of the books and writings that make up the OT, the coming of of the messiah was foretold. So what?
What's incorrect about your statement is that the OT is a self contained book, It is not. It is a collection of ancient writings incorrectly believed to be the word of GOD.
So.....what that means is your cherry-picking what you think is and isn't the word of God, simply because you have a problem with His judgment on certain people, doesn't fly.
Sounds like Samuel carried as much weight as the king. Might explain how a king was removed.
Samuel was the prophet, who acted as the messenger and conscience of the kingdom. However, he had no say in the matter. In fact, when God tasked him to find Saul's replacement, among the sons of Jesse, the LAST person Samuel thought should be king was David. Had it been up to Samuel, David's big brother, Eliab, would have been the new king. It was God's call to go with the Jesse's youngest boy, a shepherd.
I don't disagree with you just wrote McWay, I disagree that killing innocent children is godly or right. And it's the same with this instance.
Nope not at all. Maybe in the twisted world of the OT. But in more civilized less primitive, less barbaric, less OT following cultures, innocent people do not pay the price of their master's (leaders, employers, etc...) sins with their lives IF it can be avoided. Which is certainly the case with an All-powerful God. Now in Radical Islamic cultures, which are very similar in barbarism to the OT, innocent people do and we already now what the rest of the sensible world thinks of that.
"IF it can be avoided"? And, therein lies the problem with your statements. This could have been avoided...BY THE AMALEKITES, had they repented and made amends with Israel (which they had over 300 years to do). God gave them more than enough time to turn from their wicked way; they didn't; therefore, it's judgment time.
BTW, you mentioned "leaders, employers, etc." Exactly how did the US government compensate those employees who suffered when Enron went down?
So should kill all OBL's children? Would that be right?
Were they involved with Al-Qaeda? If so, did they try to make amends with the US?
You didn't read what i wrote or i didn't explain it right...... Separate them around the world. you could probaly place them 500-1000 miles from each other all over the planet.
I did read what you wrote. Again, what's stopping the spared Amalekites from growing in numbers and resuming the Israeli persecution that their forefathers started? Remember, that they were separated, displaced from Amalek. But, when their numbers increased, it was business as usual for the children of Amalek.
I don't place blame on those who do not deserve any. the OT seems to teach people to do that. That's a sign of primitive regression. Should we today pay the price of what our ancestors did in the 1800's with Africans? That's pretty much what you saying. Should we persecute Germans by killing all their children in 1946?
Wrong again.
Once again, you keep forgetting the REPENTANCE factor. Again, look at the Ninevites. They were to be destroyed for their wickedness. But, they repented and were spared. And, therein lies the difference between them and the Amalekites. Had the Amalekites of Saul's day made amends for what their forefathers did to Israel, when Moses was alive, what happened with Saul never would have occured.
The Amelikites had plenty of opportunities, but not the children who were murdered and likely beheaded at the hands of jewish soldiers.
Their parents are responsible for their fate. And, this sentence was placed on them, because it was the Amalekites who targeted Israel's weak and feeble citizens. As Samuel told king Agag, "As your sword has made women childless, so your mother will be made childless".
EVERYONE deserves the right to make the right choices. Isn't even talked about the NT? Something about the age of accountability? To not allow a child that opportunity by killing them becuase their parents were bad is evil and barbaric and NOT GOd. It's man in his righteousness and judgment and vainness who would think they speak for GOD.
But, you know that everyone doesn't get what they deserve in this sinful world. And that means that innocent people will suffer for the sins of others.
That's why man must monitor his behavior. Because, the wrong decisions can bring poverty, disease, despair, or even DEATH upon his whole family, his company, or his kingdom.
Man's righteousness doesn't strip a king of his throne for nearly destroying his enemies and bringing home their loot and choice livestock. Man's righteousness doesn't pick a scrawny shepherd boy to replace that king, especially when that boy has bigger, stronger, and more skilled brothers.
The NT is not in conflict with the OT, when it comes to judging sin. Jesus told His disciples that if they loved Him, they would keep His commandments. And last time I checked, one of those commandments (I believe it's #2) said something about visiting the iniquities of the fathers to the THIRD AND FOURTH generation. Certain sins have heavy consequences that affect children and even grandchidren.
-
His instructions to Saul, regarding the Amalekites, were to destroy every one and everything. The innocence or guilt factor is for God to decide, not you.
Wow, what a cheesy condescending statement to say. Is that how it goes McWay? You can have an intelligent conversation until your assertions are shown to be contradictory or false so then you whip out the "it's for GOD to decide not you"?
Yes, GOD did decide, then he became a hypocrite and murdered children.
You see that's the thing about children. Contrary to what a frustrated mother might say, there no such thing as an evil 18 month old. So for you to whip that one out is ridiculous.
The US government took down that company and nearly everyone associated with it suffered for it, WHETHER THEY PARTICIPATED IN THE CORRUPTION OR NOT. They didn't spare the janitors or secretaries. They didn't go out and find the mid-level managers new jobs or provide means for them to feed their families.
The point which you keep missing is that the sinful actions of the heads of Enron affected those under their charge. In this particular case, the "judgment" was financial loss.
At what point will you finally pull the "wool of denial" from your eyes and recognize that's there a difference between a janitor losing his job and his children not being able to get an ipod for Christmas or and enron exec spending time in jail and his children going on welfare VERSUS killing innocent children?
So.....what that means is your cherry-picking what you think is and isn't the word of God, simply because you have a problem with His judgment on certain people, doesn't fly.
Yeah, pretty much, becuase i haven't traded my common sense that tells me that killing innocent children is EVIL for blind faith that becomes easy pickings for churches to impose their doctrine.
Obviously it seems like you have, becuase you are desperately trying to justify why it is a godly act to kill innocent children to the point of having to say: "it's for God to decide not you"
Sorry here it comes:
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Samuel was simply the messenger. He had no say on the matter. In fact, when God tasked him to find Saul's replacement, among the sons of Jesse, the LAST person Samuel thought should be king was David. Had it been up to Samuel, David's big brother, Eliab, would have been the new king. It was God's call to go with the Jesse's youngest boy, a shepherd.
Obviously not. Samuel said it and it became so.
"IF it can be avoided"? And, therein lies the problem with your statements. This could have been avoided...BY THE AMALEKITES, had they repented and made amends with Israel (which they had over 300 years to do). God gave them more than enough time to turn from their wicked way; they didn't; therefore, it's judgment time.
No it could have been avoid by God, God chose to give the order. God had the option. The Amalikite adults chose to continue to be murderous and they paid for it. god chose to kill innocent children.
BTW, you mentioned "leaders, employers, etc." Exactly how did the US government compensate those employees who suffered when Enron went down?
How did they compensate them? probably many of them went on unemployment. But one thing is for sure. the government didn't kill their children. ::)
Were they involved with Al-Qaeda? If so, did they try to make amends with the US?
Are you asking if OBL had 1-8 year old children if they were involved with Al Queda? If so would you advocate their execution? If not would you still advocate their execution and believe it's right?
I did read what you wrote. Again, what's stopping the spared Amalekites from growing in numbers and resuming the Israeli persecution that their forefathers started? Remember, that they were separated, displaced from Amalek. But, when their numbers increased, it was business as usual for the children of Amalek.
OH ok, so i get you now. You believe that they were born EVIL and any of their offspring no matter how diluted would surely become evil.
Even if you place 1 amalikite child every 1000 square miles all the way from north America to china they will find a way to repopulate and re-converge next to the jews and attack them again?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH
Wrong again.
Once again, you keep forgetting the REPENTANCE factor. Again, look at the Ninevites. They were to be destroyed for their wickedness. But, they repented and were spared. And, therein lies the difference between them and the Amalekites. Had the Amalekites of Saul's day made amends for what their forefathers did to Israel, when Moses was alive, what happened with Saul never would have occured.
Why do you keep going back to the Amelekite adults when this is about the murder of Amalekite children? Did the children have the opportunity to repent? NO, they were murdered before that could happen. Murdered by men who used GOD as a scape goat. The men who likely thought a drought was a punishment by god, the same men who today think Katrina was god's punishment for all the sins in New Orleans. The same dim witted primitive people who think there is any justification in killing children.
Their parents are responsible for their fate. And, this sentence was placed on them, because it was the Amalekites who targeted Israel's weak and feeble citizens. As Samuel told king Agag, "As your sword has made women childless, so your mother will be made childless".
That doesn't make killing children justified. Maybe in your world it does McWay. NOT in mine.
In my anger i may want to kill children in retaliation, but i won;t becuase it's not the right thing to do. However, in the JEW's anger they did. But then again, just like radical Islam, they were very primitive.
But, you know that everyone doesn't get what they deserve in this sinful world. And that means that innocent people will suffer for the sins of others.
That's why man must monitor his behavior. Because, the wrong decisions can bring poverty, disease, despair, or even DEATH upon his whole family, his company, or his kingdom.
Yes.
And that would apply here, until GOD decided (allegedly) to order the death of children.
The murder or deliberate killing of innocent children are the choices and the actions of men not of GOD. Because for God to chose to kill innocent children invalidates all that he has tried to teach us.
-
...for God to chose to kill innocent children invalidates all that he has tried to teach us.
Plain and simple we serve a different God than you serve! The remedy; The Holy spirit of the God of the OLD and New Testaments (which we hold to) has to clear this up for you.
HMIC
Some verses to help you:
Psalm 58:3
The wicked are estranged from the womb; They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.
Romans 8 :10-12
10 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."
God (OT & NT) has his reasons for why and whom he pours out his wrath, you just have to accept and trust his devine judgement.
-
You and I share similar views. :) But there are a few very valuable lessons to take from it too. The dietary laws for instance. Very advanced for that age... and if more people kept kosher, they'd lose weight and be a lot healthier. Not mixing dairy with meat = instant weight loss, as all those rich sauces, cheese, etc are out of bounds. And if more people waited 5 hours after the big steak dinner to have their slab of cheesecake or mixing bowl sized ice cream dessert, this would would be a good thing. In many ways actually, the kosher way of eating is similar to a bodybuilding diet. Without all the matzah of course. I personally never found much more to take from it. Endless violence and bloodshed ad infinitum.
Good point about the diet, Deedee, but that's too bad, that you personally never found much more to take from the OT. I personally found much to take from the OT. I won't flood the thread with text, but here is just a few things:
Exodus
"Honor thy father and thy mother." 20:12
"Thou shalt not kill." 20:13
"Thou shalt not commit adultery." 20:14
"Thou shalt not steal." 20:15
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." 20:16
Be kind to strangers, widows, and fatherless children. 22:21-22
Value the truth; don't lie. 23:1
Don't do what everyone else does, if what they do is wrong. 23:2
Be kind to your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. 23:4-5
Treat the poor fairly. 23:6
Be honest. Don't kill the innocent. 23:7
Don't mistreat strangers. 23:9
Every seventh year the Israelites were to leave their fields unharvested, so that the poor would have something to eat. 23:11
Leviticus
What is stolen or wrongfully acquired should be returned to the owner. 6:2-5
Leave some grapes on the vine for travelers and the poor. 19:10
Don't steal or lie 19:11, 13
"Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling block before the blind." 19:14
Don't gossip. 19:16
Don't hate people. 19:17
"Love thy neighbor as thyself." 19:18
Respect your elders. 19:32
Be kind to strangers. 19:33-34
Treat others fairly. Don't cheat. 19:35-36
To help feed the poor and strangers, farmers should not harvest the corners of their fields. 23:22
"Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." 25:10
Do not oppress one another. 25:17
Deuteronomy
"Honor thy father and thy mother." 5:16
"Thou shalt not kill." 5:17
Don't commit adultery. 5:18
Don't steal. 5:19
Don't lie. 5:20
"Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." 10:19
Help the poor. 15:7-8
"Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy." 15:11
Judges and officers should strive to be impartial and should never take a bribe. 16:18-19
Look out for your neighbor's animals and protect them from harm. 22:1-4
Be careful when making a roof to ensure that no one falls off the edge. 22:8
Don't return runaway slaves to their masters. Let them live with you in peace and freedom. 23:15-16
Do not oppress the poor, whether they be slaves, neighbors, or strangers. 24:14-15
"It shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow."
Be kind to widows, orphans, fatherless children and strangers. Share whatever you have with them. 24:17-21
"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." Let the animal eat while it works. 25:4
"Thou shalt have a perfect and just weight."
Be honest when you deal with others. Don't cheat. 25:13-15
Take care of those who need help. 26:12-13
Proverbs
"My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother." 1:8
A beautiful proverb about mercy and truth. 3:3
Wisdom and understanding lead to happiness. 3:13
"Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it." 3:27
Help your neighbor, if you can. 3:28
Don't devise plots against your neighbor, fight without cause, or imitate an oppressor. 3:29-31
"Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding." 4:7
Speak plainly and honestly to others. 4:24
"Rejoice with the wife of thy youth.... Let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love." 5:18-19
Wisdom is better than wealth. Nothing else compares with it. 8:11
"A wise son maketh a glad father." 10:1, 23:24, 29:3
"Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins." 10:12
"When pride cometh, then cometh shame." 11:2
"The merciful man doeth good to his own soul: but he that is cruel troubleth his own flesh." 11:17
"He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind." 11:29
"Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge." 12:1
Be kind to animals. 12:10
"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise." 12:15
"The lip of truth shall be established for ever: but a lying tongue is but for a moment." 12:19
"A wise son heareth his father's instruction." 13:1
"A righteous man hateth lying." 13:5
"Every prudent man dealeth with knowledge: but a fool layeth open his folly." 13:16
Some nice proverbs about wisdom, anger, mercy and folly. 14:7-8, 14:16-18, 14:21-22, 29, 16:21-22
"A soft answer turneth away wrath." 15:1
Some good remarks about wisdom. 15:2, 7
"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." 16:18
Don't gossip about others. Avoid saying hurtful things. 16:28
"He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city." 16:32
"A merry heart doeth good like a medicine." 17:22
"Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding." 17:28
"A fool hath no delight in understanding" and his "mouth is his destruction." 18:2, 7
"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." 18:13
Be careful how you speak; words can do great damage. 21:23
"A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches." 22:1
"Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." 22:6
"He that hath a bountiful eye shall be blessed; for he giveth of his bread to the poor." 22:9
Don't rob the poor or oppress the afflicted. 22:22
"Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words." 23:9
"Apply thine heart unto instruction, and thine ears to the words of knowledge." 23:12
"Hearken unto thy father that begat thee, and despise not thy mother when she is old." 23:22
Find the truth and hang on to it; Value wisdom, instruction, and understanding 23:23
"Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth." 24:17
"Be not a witness against thy neighbour without cause; and deceive not with thy lips." 24:28
"Say not, I will do so to him as he hath done to me: I will render to the man according to his work." 24:29
"If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink." 25:21
"Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him." 26:12
"Boast not thyself of to morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth." 27:1
"Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips." 27:2
"Be thou diligent to know the state of thy flocks, and look well to thy herds." Take care of your animals. 27:23
"A man that flattereth his neighbour spreadeth a net for his feet." 29:5
"The righteous considereth the cause of the poor: but the wicked regardeth not to know it." 29:7
"A man's pride shall bring him low: but honour shall uphold the humble in spirit." 29:23
-
Plain and simple we serve a different God than you serve! The remedy; The Holy spirit of the God of the OLD and New Testaments (which we hold to) has to clear this up for you.
HMIC
Some verses to help you:
Psalm 58:3
The wicked are estranged from the womb; They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.
Romans 8 :10-12
10 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."
God (OT & NT) has his reasons for why and whom he pours out his wrath, you just have to accept and trust his devine judgement.
Thanks HT for the imput..... working from the end of your post:
I trust in God's divine judgment. I don't see killing innocent children as divine. I do believe in punishing a person for their actions but not before the fact. I do not identify GOD 100% in the OT. There is too much in it that conflicts with basic morality that is also attributed to him. The whole collection of books is woven with the word of fearful/hateful men some of who would commit genocide as with the Amalekites..
Psalm 58:3
The wicked are estranged from the womb; They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.
Written by primitive people who lack understanding of human psychology and who's culture in some respects, becuase of the time in history, needs to set up reasons to hate in order to survive.
People aren't born wicked, although it may seem so sometimes.
-
Good point about the diet, Deedee, but that's too bad, that you personally never found much more to take from the OT. I personally found much to take from the OT. I won't flood the thread with text, but here is just a few things:
I'm happy for you that you found those great ethics to live by, and that's important. Other people get it elsewhere. I shouldn't say that what I posted about dietary advice ;D was the only thing I got out of it... off the top of my head there are some beautiful passages. Like those just before the Flood... when God was angry with the giganto people... those to me are among some of the most poetic beautiful writings I've read. :) But I never got over all the bloodlust, violence, etc... the concubine murder story in Judges gave me nightmares when I was a kid. Plus the whole nature vs nurture thing Hustle Man posted above... it just always read like some village elders wrote it. My views are very much like Ozmo's. That's what makes our diverse world so great I guess.
-
I need to further re-consider my diet. and i'm not saying this becuase of what DeeDee said, although she's dead on. I'm getting to the point of not wanting to ever buy produce at grocery stores anymore. Farmer's markets all the way!
Lol!!! I've been on the biblical path of eating myself. It's much healthier. :)
-
Lol!!! I've been on the biblical path of eating myself. It's much healthier. :)
And what is that Dee?
-
Wow, what a cheesy condescending statement to say. Is that how it goes McWay? You can have an intelligent conversation until your assertions are shown to be contradictory or false so then you whip out the "it's for GOD to decide not you"?
You haven't shown any of my statements to be false or contradictory, Ozmo. And, my statement was not meant to be condescending. In fact, you’ll notice that, in the past, I’ve included myself, when I’ve made that statement. And, I should have done so here.
I apologize for appearing to be condescending. But, my point stands. That’s the Lord’s call to make as Creator, regarding judgment on the Amalekites.
Yes, GOD did decide, then he became a hypocrite and murdered children.
You see that's the thing about children. Contrary to what a frustrated mother might say, there no such thing as an evil 18 month old. So for you to whip that one out is ridiculous.
A hypocrite doesn't follow his own standards, yet he expects others to do so. God follows His own standard. Again, see Commandment #2. He judges the inquities to the third and fourth generation. And, that's what He does with the Amalekites.
God does indeed decide the innocent or guilt factor. Regardless of that, the mother is responsible for that child and her sinful behavior could adversely affect both her and that child.
At what point will you finally pull the "wool of denial" from your eyes and recognize that's there a difference between a janitor losing his job and his children not being able to get an ipod for Christmas or and enron exec spending time in jail and his children going on welfare VERSUS killing innocent children?
When will you finally realize that the principle between what happened with the Enron example and the Amalekites is the same? The sins of those in authority affect those under that authority. The only difference between the two is the "judgment" in each case.
With Enron, it was severe financial loss. With the Amalekites, it was DEATH. But, the same rule applied. The sin of Enron CEO damaged his entire company; and the sin of Amalekite king, Agag, virtually demolished his entire country.
Yeah, pretty much, becuase i haven't traded my common sense that tells me that killing innocent children is EVIL for blind faith that becomes easy pickings for churches to impose their doctrine.
And what doctrine would that be?
Obviously it seems like you have, becuase you are desperately trying to justify why it is a godly act to kill innocent children to the point of having to say: "it's for God to decide not you"
Sorry here it comes:
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
There's no desperation involved. That's simply the case.
Obviously not. Samuel said it and it became so.
NOOOOOO.......The Lord told Samuel to find a replacement for Saul, which would be among the sons of Jesse. There’s no indicator that Samuel wanted to pick from this family (or even that he wanted Saul replaced). In fact, Samuel was afraid that Saul would kill him, if he went looking for a replacement to be the new king. And, as stated earlier, when he got to Jesse’s house, Samuel’s choice was David's big brother, Eliab. But, God's pick was David, and He explained the reason to Samuel.
No it could have been avoid by God, God chose to give the order. God had the option. The Amalikite adults chose to continue to be murderous and they paid for it. god chose to kill innocent children.
They paid for it, and so did their children, just as Pharoah's sins cost him (and many of those in his kingdom) the firstborn son. That's the fact you repeatedly deny: People's sins don't just affect them. The higher authority you have, the more devastating your sin will be to those under your influence.
And, YES, that includes DEATH.
How did they compensate them? probably many of them went on unemployment. But one thing is for sure. the government didn't kill their children. ::)
Unemployment HARDLY covered the income many of those people were making. And, once again, you miss the point by a country mile. It's not about merely the punishment; it's about the punishment (be it disease, financial loss, or death) affected all under the transgressors' authority.
Are you asking if OBL had 1-8 year old children if they were involved with Al Queda? If so would you advocate their execution? If not would you still advocate their execution and believe it's right?
If they’ve got machine guns and explosives, all bets are off.
OH ok, so i get you now. You believe that they were born EVIL and any of their offspring no matter how diluted would surely become evil.
Technically, YES, they’re born evil. But, so is everyone else. As Scripture says, we are born in sin and shaped in iniquity.
With that said, we have the opportunity to repent, and so did the Amalekites. They didn’t; thus the judgment of God hit them. And their children suffered for it as well (it’s that 2nd commandment thing).
Even if you place 1 amalikite child every 1000 square miles all the way from north America to china they will find a way to repopulate and re-converge next to the jews and attack them again?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH
And exactly who’s going to be willing to adopt these kids, given the Amalekites’ horrid reputation? Using an example you gave earlier, do you plan on rocking one of Bin Laden’s babies to sleep, upon his capture/execution and the dismantling of Al-Qaeda? Or, have you a college fund set up for one of Zawahiri’s teens, to get his degree?
And, lest you forget, the Amalekites were scattered. But, their numbers grew and they resumed their persecution of Israel.
Why do you keep going back to the Amelekite adults when this is about the murder of Amalekite children? Did the children have the opportunity to repent? NO, they were murdered before that could happen. Murdered by men who used GOD as a scape goat. The men who likely thought a drought was a punishment by god, the same men who today think Katrina was god's punishment for all the sins in New Orleans. The same dim witted primitive people who think there is any justification in killing children.
I keep going back to the Amalekite adults, because (as much as it may grate your pysche), the adults’ sin brought judgment on themselves and their offspring. As for your claim of using God a scapegoat, the Israelites did no such thing. Again, this whole issue with Saul being deposed as king has NOTHING to do with merely executing God’s judgment. It’s about that fact that Saul didn’t execute it FULLY.
He was to utterly and completely destroy Amalek, not spare the king, or his family, or any other families, or the choice livestock, or the silver and gold, or the jewels, or the precious resources.
With the OT loaded with examples of Israel being punished for NOT following God’s instructions, why is it that no judgment occurs on the Israelites for pummeling the Amalekites? Had Saul finished the job, his family would have still been the ruling class in Israel.
That doesn't make killing children justified. Maybe in your world it does McWay. NOT in mine.
Last time I checked, we lived on the same planet.
In my anger i may want to kill children in retaliation, but i won;t becuase it's not the right thing to do. However, in the JEW's anger they did. But then again, just like radical Islam, they were very primitive.
Right based on whose laws?
Saul didn't do the right thing. He agreed to follow God's instructions but didn't. Then, he lied to Samuel, claiming that he did. He tried to push the blame for his disobedience on his troops. And, he claimed that the choice livestock (which he was order to destroy) was an offering to God.
Yes.
And that would apply here, until GOD decided (allegedly) to order the death of children.
The murder or deliberate killing of innocent children are the choices and the actions of men not of GOD. Because for God to chose to kill innocent children invalidates all that he has tried to teach us.
What God teaches is that sins have GRAVE consequences (literally and figuratively). He teaches that those in authority, who commit certain sins, merit consequences that can affect those under his authority. It goes back to the second commandment.
The Lord also teaches why we shouldn't have a spirit of revenge, as it robs you of your peace and eats at your soul. As He has said, vengeance is HIS. He will choose the hour and the method to bring judgment onto those who have wronged his people.
-
I can't believe this silly thread is still going on in light of the fact that Yahweh the Angry is MOST CERTAINLY cruel...
But you know what they say....
Arguing on the internet is like winning the Special Olympics; even if you win, you're still retarded... ;D
-
Arguing on the internet is like winning the Special Olympics; even if you win, you're still retarded... ;D
True. ;D
-
I can't believe this silly thread is still going on in light of the fact that Yahweh the Angry is MOST CERTAINLY cruel...
Yep!! Giving people centuries to repent, sparing them of the full consequences of their sin (if they do), and ultimately offering them a chance at eternal life. WHAT A MEANIE!!!!!
;D
-
Yep!! Giving people centuries to repent, sparing them of the full consequences of their sin (if they do), and ultimately offering them a chance at eternal life. WHAT A MEANIE!!!!!
;D
None of the above claimed by you based on a shred of mutually corroborative, tangible evidence; just your blind faith. For a change. ::)
-
Yep!! Giving people centuries to repent, sparing them of the full consequences of their sin (if they do), and ultimately offering them a chance at eternal life. WHAT A MEANIE!!!!!
;D
So what does he allegedly do? Kills children. He's not a meanie, he's a murderer.
You haven't shown any of my statements to be false or contradictory, Ozmo. And, my statement was not meant to be condescending. In fact, you’ll notice that, in the past, I’ve included myself, when I’ve made that statement. And, I should have done so here.
I apologize for appearing to be condescending. But, my point stands. That’s the Lord’s call to make as Creator, regarding judgment on the Amalekites.
In principle as the all powerful yes, it's his call, but that doesn't take away the fact that it's wrong, immoral, unjustified and cruel.
A hypocrite doesn't follow his own standards, yet he expects others to do so. God follows His own standard. Again, see Commandment #2. He judges the inquities to the third and fourth generation. And, that's what He does with the Amalekites.
God does indeed decide the innocent or guilt factor. Regardless of that, the mother is responsible for that child and her sinful behavior could adversely affect both her and that child.
In this case he is, he killed innocent people. Judging poeple for what their grandparents did? that's just plain stupid.
We've going around and around with this, children having to deal with the consequences of their parents actions is a fact of life, but choosing to innocent children doesn't fall in that category. Otherwise we would be justified in killing innocent children of other nations and people.
When will you finally realize that the principle between what happened with the Enron example and the Amalekites is the same? The sins of those in authority affect those under that authority. The only difference between the two is the "judgment" in each case.
With Enron, it was severe financial loss. With the Amalekites, it was DEATH. But, the same rule applied. The sin of Enron CEO damaged his entire company; and the sin of Amalekite king, Agag, virtually demolished his entire country.
refer above to the other response. They are no the same. What happened to the children of the enron execs and employees is how life works, Ordering soldiers to kill children is an abomination, immoral, vicious, murderer, etc... THey never had to be killed.
And what doctrine would that be?
All churches have doctrine. They all think they are right and know the truth.
NOOOOOO.......The Lord told Samuel to find a replacement for Saul, which would be among the sons of Jesse. There’s no indicator that Samuel wanted to pick from this family (or even that he wanted Saul replaced). In fact, Samuel was afraid that Saul would kill him, if he went looking for a replacement to be the new king. And, as stated earlier, when he got to Jesse’s house, Samuel’s choice was David's big brother, Eliab. But, God's pick was David, and He explained the reason to Samuel.
The words came from Samuel's mouth.
Verses 26-28
And Samuel said unto Saul, I will not return with thee: for thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD hath rejected thee from being king over Israel. And as Samuel turned about to go away, he laid hold upon the skirt of his mantle, and it rent. And Samuel said unto him, The LORD hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine, that is better than thou.
Now you can go on and on and tell me GOD was telling Samuel to say that, but this is the same God that told who ever to kill the children also? If that's the case, Samuel was no profit.
They paid for it, and so did their children, just as Pharoah's sins cost him (and many of those in his kingdom) the firstborn son. That's the fact you repeatedly deny: People's sins don't just affect them. The higher authority you have, the more devastating your sin will be to those under your influence.
And, YES, that includes DEATH.
Not if the death of children can be avoided. Again i ask you, would killing all the children of Germany or just the nazi's in 1946 be justified?
If they’ve got machine guns and explosives, all bets are off.
So if a 5 year boy of OBL is in the vicinity of a AK-47 he should die?
Technically, YES, they’re born evil. But, so is everyone else. As Scripture says, we are born in sin and shaped in iniquity.
With that said, we have the opportunity to repent, and so did the Amalekites. They didn’t; thus the judgment of God hit them. And their children suffered for it as well (it’s that 2nd commandment thing).
Ho w does the 2nd commandment relate to killing innocent children?
I keep going back to the Amalekite adults, because (as much as it may grate your pysche), the adults’ sin brought judgment on themselves and their offspring. As for your claim of using God a scapegoat, the Israelites did no such thing. Again, this whole issue with Saul being deposed as king has NOTHING to do with merely executing God’s judgment. It’s about that fact that Saul didn’t execute it FULLY.
He was to utterly and completely destroy Amalek, not spare the king, or his family, or any other families, or the choice livestock, or the silver and gold, or the jewels, or the precious resources.
With the OT loaded with examples of Israel being punished for NOT following God’s instructions, why is it that no judgment occurs on the Israelites for pummeling the Amalekites? Had Saul finished the job, his family would have still been the ruling class in Israel.
Doesn;t change the immoral, vicious, murderous and cruel act of killing innocent children
Last time I checked, we lived on the same planet.
So then i ask you is killing children of evil parents justified? If a man kills another, is it justified i kill his children?
And exactly who’s going to be willing to adopt these kids, given the Amalekites’ horrid reputation? Using an example you gave earlier, do you plan on rocking one of Bin Laden’s babies to sleep, upon his capture/execution and the dismantling of Al-Qaeda? Or, have you a college fund set up for one of Zawahiri’s teens, to get his degree?
And, lest you forget, the Amalekites were scattered. But, their numbers grew and they resumed their persecution of Israel.
And how is a family in China in 2000+ BC going to know about the history of a baby given to them by an angel? Will they look it up on the internet? Will they index his DNA and find out? How did they know about the Amalikites on CNN? You are really desperate if that's what you have to say to discredit this solution.
What the jews did was commit genocide.
What God teaches is that sins have GRAVE consequences (literally and figuratively). He teaches that those in authority, who commit certain sins, merit consequences that can affect those under his authority. It goes back to the second commandment.
The Lord also teaches why we shouldn't have a spirit of revenge, as it robs you of your peace and eats at your soul. As He has said, vengeance is HIS. He will choose the hour and the method to bring judgment onto those who have wronged his people.
And then he becomes a hypocrite by murdering those who are innocent.