Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: OzmO on March 05, 2009, 04:34:49 PM
-
Rape In The Bible
Rape is one of the most heinous crimes imaginable. Yet few people know that the Bible often condones and even approves of rape. How anyone can get their moral guidance from a book that allows rape escapes me. Perhaps they have been lied to about the Bible and carefully detoured around all the nasty stuff in the Bible.
So grab your Bibles and follow along as I show you all the nasty rapes that your priests and preachers don't want to tell you about. Note that in many places in the Bible there are references to "taking a wife". Don't be fooled into thinking that these were voluntary marriages. This first quote clearly shows that murder and force were used to "take" these wives.
1) Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-gilead (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)
So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."
Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.
Obviously these women were repeatedly raped. These sick bastards killed and raped an entire town and then wanted more virgins, so they hid beside the road to kidnap and rape some more. How can anyone see this as anything but evil?
2) Murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
Clearly Moses and God approves of rape of virgins.
3) More Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
What kind of God approves of murder, rape, and slavery?
4) Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.
5) Death to the Rape Victim (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
It is clear that God doesn't give a damn about the rape victim. He is only concerned about the violation of another mans "property".
6) David's Punishment - Polygamy, Rape, Baby Killing, and God's "Forgiveness" (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)
Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'
Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." [The child dies seven days later.]
This has got to be one of the sickest quotes of the Bible. God himself brings the completely innocent rape victims to the rapist. What kind of pathetic loser would do something so evil? And then he kills a child! This is sick, really sick!
7) Rape of Female Captives (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)
"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."
Once again God approves of forcible rape.
8) Rape and the Spoils of War (Judges 5:30 NAB)
They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB)
9) Sex Slaves (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
10) God Assists Rape and Plunder (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
-
Ozmo do you spend much time on "evilbible.com"? http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
-
Ozmo do you spend much time on "evilbible.com"? http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
Just found the site. ;)
The title of the thread asks for discussion.
I personally don't think God likes to rape.
-
OzmO on the Bible:
Much of it i do believe. Especially the good wisdom.
::)
-
5) Death to the Rape Victim (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
And you people worship this ass hole?
What's wrong with you?
-
5) Death to the Rape Victim (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
And you people worship this ass hole?
What's wrong with you?
What are you smoking today, Ozmo??? Because, apparently, it's affected your ability to READ!!
Name one part of that text that says the woman in question was being RAPED!
If the maiden is betrothed, that means she in a "waiting" status, of sorts. But, for all practical purposes, she is married. Therefore, if she has sex with another dude than her husband-to-be, she's COMMITTING ADULTERY, which was a capital offense.
If, on the other hand, the maiden was raped, guess what happened to the rapist, and ONLY THE RAPIST.....(Hint: it's in verse 25, the part that you "conveniently" left out ::) )......
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
-
Did you bother reading the VERY LAST VERSE in Judges 21?
In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
The author is stating that these guys were acting a fool, because they had no godly leader to guide them. But, why let that stand in the way of a good rant?
As for the Midianites issue, once again, you post and spew without understanding. If the intent was mass raping of women, why would Moses be complaining that the Israelites brought the Midianite women back alive? Moses explained that, "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people."
In other words, Balaam (a rogue prophet) advised the Midianite king that the only way he could defeat the Israelites is IF they turned from obedience to God, in particular, when it comes to idolatry. And what better way to get the men of Israel to worship a foreign god, name, than have the women of Midian seduce the Israelite men and have them engage in sexual orgies (in the name of Baal, of course)?
So, if there were any intent to do any raping, it would have been with those women, not the young ones that were spared. And furthermore, they couldn't rape them, anyway.
I will address the rest of this foolishness at a later time.
-
What are you smoking today, Ozmo??? Because, apparently, it's affected your ability to READ!!
Name one part of that text that says the woman in question was being RAPED!
If the maiden is betrothed, that means she in a "waiting" status, of sorts. But, for all practical purposes, she is married. Therefore, if she has sex with another dude than her husband-to-be, she's COMMITTING ADULTERY, which was a capital offense.
If, on the other hand, the maiden was raped, guess what happened to the rapist, and ONLY THE RAPIST.....(Hint: it's in verse 25, the part that you "conveniently" left out ::) )......
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
Oh ok, so we stone adulters to death?
Nice. ::)
-
You are protesting too much Ozmo. Really sounds like you have an axe to grind.
-
You are protesting too much Ozmo. Really sounds like you have an axe to grind.
Nah, just sometimes when i read some of the outrageous stuff in the OT, i wonder.......
-
Oh ok, so we stone adulters to death?
Nice. ::)
I'd prefer the electric chair, but that wasn't available at the time.
-
I'd prefer the electric chair, but that wasn't available at the time.
Many people still do. but something happen during the course of history......society got more civilized.
-
Many people still do. but something happen during the course of history......society got more civilized.
Yep, adultery isn't punished at all, which means wives and children can have their lives destroyed by cheating husbands, leaving them emotional and moral wrecks. And the perps get off, virtually scott-free.
That's really "civilized", alright!! ::)
-
Yep, adultery isn't punished at all, which means wives and children can have their lives destroyed by cheating husbands, leaving them emotional and moral wrecks. And the perps get off, virtually scott-free.
That's really "civilized", alright!! ::)
So that's how you'd have it huh?
not surprised, you'd kill innocent children, why not adulters?
-
So that's how you'd have it huh?
not surprised, you'd kill innocent children, why not adulters?
You'd kill innocent children too; but let adulterers WALK unpunished!!??
If you don't get help from Charter, please get help somewhere!!! ;D
-
You'd kill innocent children too; but let adulterers WALK unpunished!!??
If you don't get help from Charter, please get help somewhere!!! ;D
I don't kill innocent children. I wouldn't kill innocent children. And i don't worship a being that does. You do.
-
I don't kill innocent children. I wouldn't kill innocent children. And i don't worship a being that does. You do.
Yes, you do. You claim to have Christian faith. So, you worship the same Christ, send by the same God.
-
Yes, you do. You claim to have Christian faith. So, you worship the same Christ, send by the same God.
When did i claim to have christian faith? I said i was raised christian. dumbo. Are you that desperate to get me?
-
Rape is a naturally occurring phenomenon that is committed by all ape species (our relatives); not that it is a good thing but it explains the frequent appearance of it in the Bible, which was written and invented by humans (the 5th ape).
-
When did i claim to have christian faith? I said i was raised christian. dumbo. Are you that desperate to get me?
MCWAY, ever the vigilant fundamentalist apologist...
-
When did i claim to have christian faith? I said i was raised christian. dumbo. Are you that desperate to get me?
Hardly!!! You said you had a Christian upbringing......my bad! Regardless, that Christian upbringing is based on the words and deeds of Jesus Christ, sent by the same God who judged the Amalekites (which is, of course, the point you continue to DODGE).
The "nuggets of wisdom" you mentioned earlier are also based on the teachings of this same Christ, and thus by this same God.
-
Hardly!!! You said you had a Christian upbringing......my bad! Regardless, that Christian upbringing is based on the words and deeds of Jesus Christ, sent by the same God who judged the Amalekites (which is, of course, the point you continue to DODGE).
The "nuggets of wisdom" you mentioned earlier are also based on the teachings of this same Christ, and thus by this same God.
Dodge? It a bible literalist belief that connects the 2 books and you have demonstrated very well what kind of person believes that crap. A cultist, who wold kill a child on god's orders. Is your last name Koresh?
-
Dodge? It a bible literalist belief that connects the 2 books and you have demonstrated very well what kind of person believes that crap. A cultist, who wold kill a child on god's orders. Is your last name Koresh?
Yes, DODGE!!!
Either the God who sent Jesus Christ (the guy on whom your Christian upbringing is based) is the same at the One who judged the Amalekites; or He is not. Which is it?
I'm no more of a "cultist" than you, someone who would kill a child (God's orders or not), as long as he can uses bombs vs. swords.
-
Yes, DODGE!!!
Either the God who sent Jesus Christ (the guy on whom your Christian upbringing is based) is the same at the One who judged the Amalekites; or He is not. Which is it?
I'm no more of a "cultist" than you, someone who would kill a child (God's orders or not), as long as he can uses bombs vs. swords.
Who is to say that the "god" that ordered the murder of the Amalekites is God? Unless God is hypocrite. Oh yeah, forget that's what you worship.
First, I don't kill kids. Second, I don't condone killing children. Collateral damage or not. The difference is you are too much of a COWARD to address is the difference between collateral damage from a Bomb that's unavoidable (involving 1 action) versus killing the Amalekites on the field of battle and then proceeding the village and murdering the women and children (involving 2 actions).
But that's what you are, a real coward. Only a real coward] would try and pass of those two completely different instances as the same. Only a true coward would kill an innocent child on God's orders. Only a twisted brain washed ignorant coward would try and defend the cold blooded murder of children.
That's what you are McVay. A coward.
-
Here's another important distinction, McWay, Do the American soldiers purposely go after those children? Did the Jews purposely on GOD orders go after those children?
I won't be surprised if your twisted cultist coward mind can't see it.
-
Who is to say that the "god" that ordered the murder of the Amalekites is God? Unless God is hypocrite. Oh yeah, forget that's what you worship.
That same God, whether you like it not, is the same source of YOUR Christian upbringing and the "nuggets of wisdom" that you like so much from Scripture.
First, I don't kill kids. Second, I don't condone killing children. Collateral damage or not. The difference is you are too much of a COWARD to address is the difference between collateral damage from a Bomb that's unavoidable (involving 1 action) versus killing the Amalekites on the field of battle and then proceeding the village and murdering the women and children (involving 2 actions).
I don't kill kids, either. I answered a hypothethical question, based on a hypothetical situation. And, you've been bleating about it, ever since then, going on a tirade of anti-Biblical cut-and-paste rants.
The coward here is you, as you fail to recognized the simple fact that, bomb or sword, you are STILL TAKING DELIBERATE ACTIONS, with the FULL knowledge that chidren will be killed in the process. It doesn't matter how many actions there are. Those kids are just as DEAD by being blown up and they would be via sword (or as they would be, left to starve to death, as a result of their parents being gone).
But that's what you are, a real coward. Only a real coward] would try and pass of those two completely different instances as the same. Only a true coward would kill an innocent child on God's orders. Only a twisted brain washed ignorant coward would try and defend the cold blooded murder of children.
That's what you are McVay. A coward.
Now, the name-calling starts. I expect this type of infantile behavior from certain posters. But, I guess when your feathers get ruffled, you resort to the same mess as other Bible skeptics I've encounted. The simple fact remains that, by your own standards, YOU would kill innocent children, if the situation presented itself, REGARDLESS OF WHO gave the orders, provided you had the option of hiding behind modern weapons.
You ask a hypothetical question, expecting someone to duck your question. Then, when it gets answered, you start with the criticizing. But, when the tables get turned on you, you cry, whine, bleat, moan, go on an anti-Biblical tirade, and resort to name-calling.
In short, (like far too many Biblical skeptics I've encountered) you can dish it out....BUT YOU CAN'T TAKE IT!
To top it all, you're STILL running from the fact that the same "nuggets of wisdom" that you like from the Bible (as you've admitted), as well as the Christian upbringing you have are all derived from the VERY SAME GOD, about Whom you keep screeching, because of the judgment He declared on the Amalekites.
-
That same God, whether you like it not, is the same source of YOUR Christian upbringing and the "nuggets of wisdom" that you like so much from Scripture.
Not the same God. Unless God IS a hypocrite. If that's what he is, then that's what he is. But common sense says otherwise.
I don't kill kids, either. I answered a hypothethical question, based on a hypothetical situation. And, you've been bleating about it, ever since then, going on a tirade of anti-Biblical cut-and-paste rants.
The difference is potential. You have admitted you'd kill a child on God's orders. I never would.
The coward here is you, as you fail to recognized the simple fact that, bomb or sword, you are STILL TAKING DELIBERATE ACTIONS, with the FULL knowledge that chidren will be killed in the process. It doesn't matter how many actions there are. Those kids are just as DEAD by being blown up and they would be via sword (or as they would be, left to starve to death, as a result of their parents being gone).
No not at all, there isn't full knowledge and US soldiers aren't going into villages and killing ALL the innocent women and children AFTER they have killed the terrorists or insurgents.
This IS a distinction you refuse to acknowledge because you are a coward.
I am NOT a coward because i DO acknowledge we kill children however, it is NOT our INTENT to kill them.
It was the INTENT of the jews to kill children.
I guess i could find a way to draw a picture for you, but you'd just run from that too.
Now, the name-calling starts. I expect this type of infantile behavior from certain posters. But, I guess when your feathers get ruffled, you resort to the same mess as other Bible skeptics I've encounted. The simple fact remains that, by your own standards, YOU would kill innocent children, if the situation presented itself, REGARDLESS OF WHO gave the orders, provided you had the option of hiding behind modern weapons.
Sorry dude. I call it as i see it. Murder is murder and your reasoning is cowardly.
The simple fact remains that, by your own standards, YOU would kill innocent children, if the situation presented itself, REGARDLESS OF WHO gave the orders, provided you had the option of hiding behind modern weapons.
Not at all. I'm not giving the orders, I'm not carrying the orders out. I don't support the killing of children in any regard.
YOU DO. In fact you worship the one who ordered it.
You ask a hypothetical question, expecting someone to duck your question. Then, when it gets answered, you start with the criticizing. But, when the tables get turned on you, you cry, whine, bleat, moan, go on an anti-Biblical tirade, and resort to name-calling.
What tables? Your stupid attempt to liken GENOCIDE to the war on terrorism? ::)
In short, (like far too many Biblical skeptics I've encountered) you can dish it out....BUT YOU CAN'T TAKE IT!
Want i can't take is your brainwashed cult like reasoning. lol
To top it all, you're STILL running from the fact that the same "nuggets of wisdom" that you like from the Bible (as you've admitted), as well as the Christian upbringing you have are all derived from the VERY SAME GOD, about Whom you keep screeching, because of the judgment He declared on the Amalekites.
That's your belief and far from anything factual.
-
OzmO getting owned again, I don't even have to read the thread.
Continue...
-
Not the same God. Unless God IS a hypocrite. If that's what he is, then that's what he is. But common sense says otherwise.
Indeed it is the same God; But, your attempts to label Him a “hypocrite” fall flat. As explained multiple times, He has authority to give and take life, as He is the source of such. You DO NOT; and neither do I.
The difference is potential. You have admitted you'd kill a child on God's orders. I never would.
You’d kill them for far less, as explained earlier (under certain circumstances)
No not at all, there isn't full knowledge and US soldiers aren't going into villages and killing ALL the innocent women and children AFTER they have killed the terrorists or insurgents.
If you drop a warhead (i.e. the A-Bomb) on an enemy, you do so knowing that you will destroy children in the process.
This IS a distinction you refuse to acknowledge because you are a coward.
I am NOT a coward because i DO acknowledge we kill children however, it is NOT our INTENT to kill them.
It was the INTENT of the jews to kill children.
I guess i could find a way to draw a picture for you, but you'd just run from that too.
If there’s one thing I haven’t done is run from your screwball statements.
It was the INTENT to put down an enemy that had been assaulting them for over three centuries. Assimilation of the children is off the table (by your standards; since you’ll start squealing about “slavery”). So, either they are casualties of war directly, OR they will starve to death with their parents gone, indirectly. Either way, they are dead and their fate is the results of their parents’ and rulers’ continued assaults against Israel and other nations.
Sorry dude. I call it as i see it. Murder is murder and your reasoning is cowardly.
My reason is anything but that, for reason explained earlier.
Not at all. I'm not giving the orders, I'm not carrying the orders out. I don't support the killing of children in any regard.
I’m not giving or carrying the orders out, either. However, I understand why it happened.
What tables? Your stupid attempt to liken GENOCIDE to the war on terrorism?
That would my exposing the fact that, put in a similar situation, your actions would be no different, with the lone exception of your preference for use of modern weapons vs. ancient ones.
Lost in all of this is that your claims of “genocide” are quite hollow for, among other reasons:
- The Amalekites were warned and had plenty of opportunity to repent and be spared.
- Even though Saul didn’t get the job done (and was subsequently phased out as king of Israel), David was NEVER ordered to finish what Saul started. And, to top it all off, there were some Amalekites living in Israel (this is where you start yelling about “slavery”).
- Of course, we know what happened later (and why Saul was punished for not following instructions). When the Amalekites’ numbers grew again, guess what they did….THEY WENT RIGHT BACK TO THEIR ASSAULTING WAYS.
That's your belief and far from anything factual.
Then what is the “factual” stuff, with regards to what I asked earlier?
Either the God who sent Jesus Christ (the source of your Christian upbringing) is the same as the God who rendered judgment on the Amalekites; or is He is not.
Which is it?
-
OzmO getting owned again, I don't even have to read the thread.
Continue...
Spoken like a typical Christian in the United States :)
-
Indeed it is the same God; But, your attempts to label Him a “hypocrite” fall flat. As explained multiple times, He has authority to give and take life, as He is the source of such. You DO NOT; and neither do I.
when God Says: "I am an all loving and merciful god", or says, "thou shall not murder", and then proceeds to murder innnocnet children on many occasions, he is a hypocrite.
You’d kill them for far less, as explained earlier (under certain circumstances)
Your explanation doesn't hold.
If you drop a warhead (i.e. the A-Bomb) on an enemy, you do so knowing that you will destroy children in the process.
Are we dropping nukes on Terrorists? yes or no?
I've explained my view on the 2 nukes we dropped in WW2. I understand the reasoning to drop them. I don't agree with dropping them. Still yet, what we did with Japan is a FAR CRY from committing GENOCIDE.
Did the jews just wipe out 2 Amalekite villages or cities forcing surrender and then rebuild their country like we did with the Japanese? yes or no?
Did the Americans have the full power of God then or today? yes or no?
Like i said you explanation doesn't hold.
It was the INTENT to put down an enemy that had been assaulting them for over three centuries. Assimilation of the children is off the table (by your standards; since you’ll start squealing about “slavery”).
Did we have to enslave the Japanese or the Germans yes or no?
Do you believe a race of people or a tribe/clan/nation of people are inherently evil generation after generation? yes or no?
So, either they are casualties of war directly, OR they will starve to death with their parents gone, indirectly. Either way, they are dead and their fate is the results of their parents’ and rulers’ continued assaults against Israel and other nations.
If they left the children all the cattle and crops, they would not have starved to death. Additionally assimilating them into their society wouldn't require slavery.
Did we do this with the warlike Japanese and the Genociding Germans? yes or no?
Did the Jews have the power of God? yes or no?
Is God all powerful? yes or no?
We've already found solutions with the power of God you refuse yet to acknowledge.
My reason is anything but that, for reason explained earlier.
You reasoning doesn't hold. Murder is murder.
I’m not giving or carrying the orders out, either. However, I understand why it happened.
Exactly. We are men, not God. We are men who do not have the power of God. God, has the power. Yet he ordered men to murder innocent children. Our justification as men, to drop those to nukes on Japan ais far more legitimate because we don't have the power of God. Had we the power of God there would have been many other things we could have done to prevent having to drop 2 nukes on them to get them to surrender.
This is why, if God is "all loving and merciful, all forgiving etc..." The God, in many of the instances in the OT is NOT God.
That would my exposing the fact that, put in a similar situation, your actions would be no different, with the lone exception of your preference for use of modern weapons vs. ancient ones.
Still not addressing the difference between GENOCIDE and the war on terrorism ::)
You are trying to compare the two to lessen the issue of murdering children in cold blood vs. children dying from collateral damage. This is why you get accused of intellectual dishonesty by others. Because you very well know how stupid your position is.
Lost in all of this is that your claims of “genocide” are quite hollow for, among other reasons:
- The Amalekites were warned and had plenty of opportunity to repent and be spared.
- Even though Saul didn’t get the job done (and was subsequently phased out as king of Israel), David was NEVER ordered to finish what Saul started. And, to top it all off, there were some Amalekites living in Israel (this is where you start yelling about “slavery”).
- Of course, we know what happened later (and why Saul was punished for not following instructions). When the Amalekites’ numbers grew again, guess what they did….THEY WENT RIGHT BACK TO THEIR ASSAULTING WAYS.
All you listed is the reasons for what they did. Hitler had his reasons too. ::) In both cases GENOCIDE was committed.
If you want to turn this thread into slavery too that's fine. You where exposed on another thread regarding it. Slavery, also, is something the God you worship loves.
Then what is the “factual” stuff, with regards to what I asked earlier?
Either the God who sent Jesus Christ (the source of your Christian upbringing) is the same as the God who rendered judgment on the Amalekites; or is He is not.
Which is it?
Obviously not. :)
-
when God Says: "I am an all loving and merciful god", or says, "thou shall not murder", and then proceeds to murder innnocnet children on many occasions, he is a hypocrite.
Hardly!! As mentioned earlier, only the One who gives life has take it away. We are not to do so, UNLESS authorized by Him, under certain circumstances.
And, He is a merciful God. Ironically enough, on another thread, you indirectly mentioned Jonah, the prophet who actually got ANGRY with God for sparing the Ninevites, instead of destroying them. You're beginning to sound like him, in a sense.
Your explanation doesn't hold.
Are we dropping nukes on Terrorists? yes or no?
NOPE!!! It hasn't reached that point, yet. And hopefully it won't
I've explained my view on the 2 nukes we dropped in WW2. I understand the reasoning to drop them. I don't agree with dropping them. Still yet, what we did with Japan is a FAR CRY from committing GENOCIDE.
What happened with the Amalekites wasn't "committing GENOCIDE", either, for the reasons explained earlier. The Amalekites weren't targeted simply for being Amalekites. They had multiple opportunities to REPENT and make peace with Israel (including one last chance, when Saul warned the Kenites to leave the area). Had they done that, no more beef, no judgment, no NOTHING!!!
Did the jews just wipe out 2 Amalekite villages or cities forcing surrender and then rebuild their country like we did with the Japanese? yes or no?
NOPE!! One, the Amalekites didn't surrender; two; Israel was under no obligation to rebuild Amalek; three, (again) had the Amalekites ceased with their assaults and made peace, they'd have never tasted the sword of Saul.
Did the Americans have the full power of God then or today? yes or no?
Like i said you explanation doesn't hold.
NOPE!!! Regardless, they made a deliberate decisions, with the full ramifications of such being known.
Did we have to enslave the Japanese or the Germans yes or no?
NOPE!! They, unlike the Amalekites, were smart enough to surrender and cease with the scrapping.
Do you believe a race of people or a tribe/clan/nation of people are inherently evil generation after generation? yes or no?
NOPE!! But, the evil actions of their leaders can bring dire consequences on ALL THE PEOPLE of that tribe/clan/nation. That's again the worse part about sinful behavior in certain areas: The transgressor IS NOT THE ONLY ONE who pays the price.
Just as crooked CEOs can bring financial ruin to their ENTIRE COMPANY (from their executives to the janitors), wicked kings can bring DEATH upon their ENTIRE KINGDOM (from the princes to the peasants, and everyone in between them).
If they left the children all the cattle and crops, they would not have starved to death. Additionally assimilating them into their society wouldn't require slavery.
First, there wouldn't be enough children to tend to, much less harvest and care for, all the cattle and crops (notwithstanding the fact that the crops and livestock were to be destroyed, anyway).
Second, how long do you REALLY THINK a land full of crops and cattle are going to last, in the ancient world, with NOBODY to defend it, except a bunch of little kids? If the Israelites don't get them, the next set of Amalek foes (and, based on the Amalekites' actions, they had plenty of those) would have.
Assimilation required, among other things, a rejection of the Amalekite deity, as well as a system quelling of their desire to relatiate when they grow up. OOOPS!!! That's exactly what Israel's laws were designed to do. But, as shown with the Amalekites, who were ALREADY PART OF ISRAEL'S SOCIETY, when they got the muscle and the nerve, they picked right up where their ancestors left off.
Did we do this with the warlike Japanese and the Genociding Germans? yes or no?
NOPE!!! Reason (once again): THEY QUIT and they didn't attack us ever again. I don't recall our being assaulted by Japan for over 300 years.
Did the Jews have the power of God? yes or no?
Is God all powerful? yes or no?
Yes, indeed, on both counts!!!
We've already found solutions with the power of God you refuse yet to acknowledge.
I don't recall the Lord asking YOU (or me) for a solution to anything. He gave them the opportunity to repent and be spared (on several occasions); they did not take it. He rendered judgment as He saw fit, which He has the power to do. Whether it matches your "solution" or not is quite irrevelant.
You reasoning doesn't hold. Murder is murder.
Your reasoning doesn't hold. Murder is intentionally taking life without authorization from the proper governing body. God is THE ultimate authority; there is none higher than Him, least of all you (or me).
Exactly. We are men, not God. We are men who do not have the power of God. God, has the power. Yet he ordered men to murder innocent children. Our justification as men, to drop those to nukes on Japan ais far more legitimate because we don't have the power of God. Had we the power of God there would have been many other things we could have done to prevent having to drop 2 nukes on them to get them to surrender.
Congratulations!!!! You've just contradicted yourself. As long as there's "justification" (in your case, you don't have the power of God and you can use modern weapons, you WOULD, in fact, take actions to destroy an enemy....WITH THE FULL KNOWLEDGE that innocent children will die as a result.
This is why, if God is "all loving and merciful, all forgiving etc..." The God, in many of the instances in the OT is NOT God.
Mercy and forgiveness require one thing.......REPENTANCE!!! For all your screeching, you've completley ignored the responsibility of the Amalekites to repent of their action (if, for no other reason, to spare their own hides).
Once again, if they repent and make amends, they get spared. But, they did not.....proceed with judgment as planned!!!!
Still not addressing the difference between GENOCIDE and the war on terrorism ::)
Wrong again!! What happened to the Amalekites was not genocide. The war on terrorism (as we know it today) has NOT been ongoing for over 300 years. And, if the terrorists cease and desist, this war on terror is OVER.
You are trying to compare the two to lessen the issue of murdering children in cold blood vs. children dying from collateral damage. This is why you get accused of intellectual dishonesty by others. Because you very well know how stupid your position is.
Look who's talking!!! What you can't seem to grasp is that simple concept that, in the ancient world, children starving to death in the desert/being left to get picked off by other enemies is, in the ancient world is "collateral damage".
All you listed is the reasons for what they did. Hitler had his reasons too. ::) In both cases GENOCIDE was committed.
I don't think so. When exactly did Hitler offer the Jews the chance to repent (of course, that would require listing what supposed offense they committed that warranted such, in the first place)?
If you want to turn this thread into slavery too that's fine. You where exposed on another thread regarding it. Slavery, also, is something the God you worship loves.
Obviously not. :)
So, now you're basically stating that the words of JESUS CHRIST Himself, stating that God sent Him to redeem mankind (not to mention a very popular Bible verse by the disciple) John is false.
So, who supposedly sent Jesus Christ to die for man's sins (and give the "nuggets of wisdom" that you like and the Christian upbringing that your parents gave to you)?
[/quote]
-
McWay,
Your quote formatting is over the edge and is sloppy beyond reason. Have your children do extra chores tomorrow. ;) j/j
-
Wow McWay, your cult like thinking is really showing on that last post as i took some time to partially decode it from your sloppiness.
genocide |ˈjenəˌsīd|
noun
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation.
How is what the jews did to the Amalekites not genocide?
hypocrisy |hiˈpäkrisē|
noun ( pl. -sies)
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
How is claiming to be a "all loving, forgiving, merciful god, who says not to murder and then murders a nation of innocent children no a hypocrite?
Is that what they teach you in that cult of yours? Rewriting definitions? Or ignoring the definition of some words? Is that how they make people into brain washed cult bots?
Also on couple points you made it seems like you didn't even comprehend the words.
And the children starving to death in the ancient world is collateral damage?
You are seriously fucked up in the head, leg workouts not with standing.
-
I don't think so. When exactly did Hitler offer the Jews the chance to repent (of course, that would require listing what supposed offense they committed that warranted such, in the first place)?
Mercy and forgiveness require one thing.......REPENTANCE!!! For all your screeching, you've completley ignored the responsibility of the Amalekites to repent of their action (if, for no other reason, to spare their own hides).
Once again, if they repent and make amends, they get spared. But, they did not.....proceed with judgment as planned!!!!
When did offering someone a chance to repent and then killing their innocent children become ok? ::)
I think based on your tone you are aspiring to be a fire and brimstone preacher. lol Would you feel better about yourself if you were?
-
So, now you're basically stating that the words of JESUS CHRIST Himself, stating that God sent Him to redeem mankind (not to mention a very popular Bible verse by the disciple) John is false.
So, who supposedly sent Jesus Christ to die for man's sins (and give the "nuggets of wisdom" that you like and the Christian upbringing that your parents gave to you)?
No I'm not, seems you have another reading comprehension problem.
-
OzmO getting owned again, I don't even have to read the thread.
Continue...
The statement of a fucking idiot. ::)
-
The statement of a fucking idiot. ::)
I'm sure its a gimmick.
-
No I'm not, seems you have another reading comprehension problem.
Not really!!!
I said that either the God who judged the Amalekites is the same One that sent Jesus Christ or He is not. You said “Obviously Not”. Since Jesus Christ Himself declared that it was the Father who sent Him, as did His disciples (particularly John, in perhaps the most popular Bible verse of them all), your “Obviously not” answer claims that God did NOT send Jesus Christ to redeem man from sin.
So, once again, who is this mystery God of the OT that judged the Amalekites who supposedly is different than the One who sent Jesus Christ (the One who teachings and deeds are the source of your Christian upbringing)?
Wow McWay, your cult like thinking is really showing on that last post as i took some time to partially decode it from your sloppiness.
I simply missed a "[/quote]" in one spot, nothing more than that.
genocide |ˈjenəˌsīd|
noun
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation.
How is what the jews did to the Amalekites not genocide?
I believe I explained that some time ago. But, to recap:
- The Amalekites were judged for their actions, not the mere fact that they were Amalekites.
- Those actions had been continuing for over three centuries
- Had they repented and made amends, the fighting would have ended (they were warned yet one last time, before Saul's armies hit them).
Furthermore, are you sure you want to use that definition? Because, if that’s the case, my point stands, regarding the whole A-bomb thing on Hiroshima (a lot of Japanese people died from that one).
If all it takes is “the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation”, the hit on Hiroshima (which you condoned, due to lack of any other choice) is “genocide”. So, too, would be our current war on terror.
hypocrisy |hiˈpäkrisē|
noun ( pl. -sies)
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
How is claiming to be a "all loving, forgiving, merciful god, who says not to murder and then murders a nation of innocent children no a hypocrite?
The “hypocrisy” thing, despite your best attempts, doesn’t fly, either. As has been explained multiple times, it is God who sets the moral standards. As the Creator of Life, He has the authority to end life as He sees fit. Once again, He makes the rules and makes the calls, not you and not me.
As for the mercy part, mercy requires REPENTANCE. And, we have no instance of the Amalekites repenting for their actions, whatsoever. We don't even have someone interceding on their behalf (ala Moses, asking the Lord to forgive the Israelites, even as they are knee-deep in idolatry and sexual perversion, less than a few months after being delivered from Egypt).
Again, a simple change of hearts (and perhaps some reparations), and the Amalekites would have been spared, conflict over. But....NNOOOOOOOOO!!! Even when spared, despite not repenting, when their numbers grew again, they went right back on the warpath.
Is that what they teach you in that cult of yours? Rewriting definitions? Or ignoring the definition of some words? Is that how they make people into brain washed cult bots?
As for your charges that I’m in a cult, that’s another silly statement on your part. I’m no more in a cult than are YOUR PARENTS (the ones responsible for your Christian upbringing). But, I seriously doubt you informed about the status of their respective heads.
Your parents served the same God that I do. But, I’m sure you aren’t lobbing the same insults at them that you are at me……I hope. And, based on your tendency to enjoy the “nuggets of wisdom” from Scripture, it can be inferred that, to some degree, YOU do, too.
Also on couple points you made it seems like you didn't even comprehend the words.
And the children starving to death in the ancient world is collateral damage?
In the ancient world, it is. That's what happens when their parents are killed in warfare. If they don't get assimilated (which by your standards, they can't; else you start wailing about "slavery"), they will unfortunately die, either by sword or starvation.
You are seriously fucked up in the head, leg workouts not with standing.
Again, no more so than your parents, the ones responsible for your Christian upbringing.
-
Ozmo do you spend much time on "evilbible.com"? http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
funny how you never complained as such when NordicSuper man was spending time on similar sites but about islam..
you even joined in with glee
...sad
-
Not really!!!
I said that either the God who judged the Amalekites is the same One that sent Jesus Christ or He is not. You said “Obviously Not”. Since Jesus Christ Himself declared that it was the Father who sent Him, as did His disciples (particularly John, in perhaps the most popular Bible verse of them all), your “Obviously not” answer claims that God did NOT send Jesus Christ to redeem man from sin.
So, once again, who is this mystery God of the OT that judged the Amalekites who supposedly is different than the One who sent Jesus Christ (the One who teachings and deeds are the source of your Christian upbringing)?
No, because the God who sent Jesus, is the God who sent Jesus. God was not telling the jews to commit genocide. The Jews made that part up or the prophet made it up in his revel of righteousness.
I simply missed a "
" in one spot, nothing more than that.[/quote][/quote]
Use the preview button. ;)
I believe I explained that some time ago. But, to recap:
- The Amalekites were judged for their actions, not the mere fact that they were Amalekites.
- Those actions had been continuing for over three centuries
- Had they repented and made amends, the fighting would have ended (they were warned yet one last time, before Saul's armies hit them).
Furthermore, are you sure you want to use that definition? Because, if that’s the case, my point stands, regarding the whole A-bomb thing on Hiroshima (a lot of Japanese people died from that one).
If all it takes is “the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation”, the hit on Hiroshima (which you condoned, due to lack of any other choice) is “genocide”. So, too, would be our current war on terror.
That definition? The definition is the definition. The definition of a large group is what's in question here.
That definition came from my Apple computer.
these comes from dictionary.com:
- the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
- The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.
- The deliberate destruction of an entire race or nation. The Holocaust conducted by the Nazis in Germany and the Rwandan genocide are examples of attempts at genocide.
- systematic killing of a racial or cultural group
Now I'm gonna ask you again. How is what the jews did, on god's orders, to the Amalikites NOT genocide?
I'm not asking you haw events in American history compare to genocide. I'm asking you: How is what the jews did, on god's orders, to the Amalikites NOT genocide?
I'm not asking for justification or the reason for the genocide I'm asking, based on your brainwashed cult claim:
What happened with the Amalekites wasn't "committing GENOCIDE"
How is what the jews did, on god's orders, to the Amalikites NOT genocide?
Because based on the the definition and given examples. IT WAS GENOCIDE.
GOD COMMITTED GENOCIDE.
I would expect no less from man, but God? ::)
The “hypocrisy” thing, despite your best attempts, doesn’t fly, either. As has been explained multiple times, it is God who sets the moral standards. As the Creator of Life, He has the authority to end life as He sees fit. Once again, He makes the rules and makes the calls, not you and not me.
He set moral standards.
He claimed he had moral standards
Then he murdered children in cold blood
HYPOCRITE
As for the mercy part, mercy requires REPENTANCE. And, we have no instance of the Amalekites repenting for their actions, whatsoever. We don't even have someone interceding on their behalf (ala Moses, asking the Lord to forgive the Israelites, even as they are knee-deep in idolatry and sexual perversion, less than a few months after being delivered from Egypt).
Where the children asked if they wanted to repent? Did the 2 year old say: "No i wanna to kill you and eat your bains." ::)
Again, a simple change of hearts (and perhaps some reparations), and the Amalekites would have been spared, conflict over. But....NNOOOOOOOOO!!! Even when spared, despite not repenting, when their numbers grew again, they went right back on the warpath.
Did the children go on the war path at age 27 months? Was this the diaper conflict? War of the binkies? The formula wars? Did they turn their jungle gyms into feces launching catapults? ::)
As for your charges that I’m in a cult, that’s another silly statement on your part. I’m no more in a cult than are YOUR PARENTS (the ones responsible for your Christian upbringing). But, I seriously doubt you informed about the status of their respective heads.Your parents served the same God that I do. But, I’m sure you aren’t lobbing the same insults at them that you are at me……I hope. And, based on your tendency to enjoy the “nuggets of wisdom” from Scripture, it can be inferred that, to some degree, YOU do, too.
No, (wrong again! ::)) because my parents know that killing innocent children is evil. They don't worship a cold blooded child murderer. They realize the OT in many parts is simply Jewish history. They are not cult like, in that way :D
In the ancient world, it is. That's what happens when their parents are killed in warfare.
In the ancient world it is? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAH You culter!
If they don't get assimilated (which by your standards, they can't; else you start wailing about "slavery"), they will unfortunately die, either by sword or starvation.
What did we do with the children orphan in Germany and Japan after ww2? Did we make slaves out of them? Why do you keep insisting that if the children were spared they would become slaves?
Are you really this dim witted?
Again, no more so than your parents, the ones responsible for your Christian upbringing.
That's pretty much been dispelled. My parents didn't worship a child murderer. You do.
-
No, because the God who sent Jesus, is the God who sent Jesus. God was not telling the jews to commit genocide. The Jews made that part up or the prophet made it up in his revel of righteousness.
" in one spot, nothing more than that.
Use the preview button. ;)
That definition? The definition is the definition. The definition of a large group is what's in question here.
That definition came from my Apple computer.
these comes from dictionary.com:
- the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
- The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.
- The deliberate destruction of an entire race or nation. The Holocaust conducted by the Nazis in Germany and the Rwandan genocide are examples of attempts at genocide.
- systematic killing of a racial or cultural group
Now I'm gonna ask you again. How is what the jews did, on god's orders, to the Amalikites NOT genocide?
I'm not asking you haw events in American history compare to genocide. I'm asking you: How is what the jews did, on god's orders, to the Amalikites NOT genocide?
I'm not asking for justification or the reason for the genocide I'm asking, based on your brainwashed cult claim:
How is what the jews did, on god's orders, to the Amalikites NOT genocide?
Because based on the the definition and given examples. IT WAS GENOCIDE.
GOD COMMITTED GENOCIDE.
I would expect no less from man, but God? ::)
He set moral standards.
He claimed he had moral standards
Then he murdered children in cold blood
HYPOCRITE
Where the children asked if they wanted to repent? Did the 2 year old say: "No i wanna to kill you and eat your bains." ::)
Did the children go on the war path at age 27 months? Was this the diaper conflict? War of the binkies? The formula wars? Did they turn their jungle gyms into feces launching catapults? ::)
No, (wrong again! ::)) because my parents know that killing innocent children is evil. They don't worship a cold blooded child murderer. They realize the OT in many parts is simply Jewish history Jewish myth. They are not cult like, in that way :D
In the ancient world it is? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAH You culter!
What did we do with the children orphan in Germany and Japan after ww2? Did we make slaves out of them? Why do you keep insisting that if the children were spared they would become slaves?
Are you really this dim witted?
That's pretty much been dispelled. My parents didn't worship a child murderer. You do.
Fixed.
-
Fixed.
huh? I can't read it. ;D
-
funny how you never complained as such when NordicSuper man was spending time on similar sites but about islam..
you even joined in with glee
...sad
lol. O Rly? News to me. Link?
-
No, because the God who sent Jesus, is the God who sent Jesus. God was not telling the jews to commit genocide. The Jews made that part up or the prophet made it up in his revel of righteousness.
Hardly!!! They have no motive to do such a thing (who were they trying to fool? what punishment were they supposedly going to face from their alleged punisher?).
According to the text, the Israelites were HAPPY with Saul's actions. They defeated their enemies, walked away with their choice livestock and loot, and had their enemies' kings groveling for his very life. Why on earth would they punish Saul by stripping him of his throne?
As for your claim of the prophet making it up (Samuel, in this case), that's even more ridiculous. Though Samuel was upset with Saul's failure to complete his mission, he STILL wanted Saul to be king. It was the Lord who told him that Saul would be deposed (along with his family) and instructed Samuel to quit crying about the situation and find a NEW KING for Israel.
And, if that weren't enough, God's pick was far different from that of Samuel. Samuel, notwithstanding the fact that he still preferred Saul to be ruler, went with David's older brother, to be the new king.
That definition? The definition is the definition. The definition of a large group is what's in question here.
That definition came from my Apple computer.
these comes from dictionary.com:
- the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
- The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.
- The deliberate destruction of an entire race or nation. The Holocaust conducted by the Nazis in Germany and the Rwandan genocide are examples of attempts at genocide.
- systematic killing of a racial or cultural group
Now I'm gonna ask you again. How is what the jews did, on god's orders, to the Amalikites NOT genocide?
I'm not asking you haw events in American history compare to genocide. I'm asking you: How is what the jews did, on god's orders, to the Amalikites NOT genocide?
I'm not asking for justification or the reason for the genocide I'm asking, based on your brainwashed cult claim:
How is what the jews did, on god's orders, to the Amalikites NOT genocide?
Because based on the the definition and given examples. IT WAS GENOCIDE.
GOD COMMITTED GENOCIDE.
I would expect no less from man, but God? ::)
Since you insist on asking the same question, you will get the SAME answers.
- The Amalekites were judged for their actions, not the mere fact that they were Amalekites.
- Those actions had been continuing for over three centuries
- Had they repented and made amends, the fighting would have ended (they were warned yet one last time, before Saul's armies hit them).
The aforementioned attempts at genocide you referenced (Holocaust; Rwandian conflict) were due to mere ethnicity, not for any grievances committed by those people. Amalekites lived among the Israelites, DESPITE the centuries-long feud between the two people. If the goal were mere extermination, the Israelites could have done that long before the days of Saul.
And, as stated elsewhere, when David assumed the throne; he is NOT instructed to finish what Saul started. That means that the Amalekites were given YET ANOTHER CHANCE to repent. Instead, upon their resurgence in numbers, they went back to their old ways.
He set moral standards.
He claimed he had moral standards
Then he murdered children in cold blood
HYPOCRITE
Wrong again. The standard He sets is spelled out in, among other things, the Ten Commandments, ONE OF WHICH clearly states that He punishes to the 3rd and 4th generation (He also blesses to that extent as well).
Where the children asked if they wanted to repent? Did the 2 year old say: "No i wanna to kill you and eat your bains." ::)
Did the children go on the war path at age 27 months? Was this the diaper conflict? War of the binkies? The formula wars? Did they turn their jungle gyms into feces launching catapults? ::)
Their parents and rulers (people in authority) are the ones responsible for making amends. If they don't, the punishment levied on them WILL NOT JUST AFFECT THEM. It will affect EVERYONE under their umbrella of responsibility.
As been shown time and time again (a simple concept that repeatedly ZIPS clean over your head), sin doesn't just affect the transgressor.
That's true to this day. Bosses who are corrupt can bring financial ruin to ALL of their employees. Parents who do vile things can bring disaster and dysfunction to their children. And kings who commit great sin can bring death upon their subjects.
No, (wrong again! ::)) because my parents know that killing innocent children is evil. They don't worship a cold blooded child murderer. They realize the OT in many parts is simply Jewish history. They are not cult like, in that way :D
They serve the same God that I do, the same one that sent Jesus Christ to die for their sins and mine. The same one who judged the Amalekites, for their transgressions. Try as you might to make some silly case that there's a God who sent Jesus and another who judged the Amalekites, that proverbial dog don't hunt. Jesus Christ taught His disciples the passage we've come to know as "the Lord's Prayer", which begins with "Our FATHER, which art in heaven.....". Matt. 6:9-15.
Take a wild guess as to whom Jesus is referring. All of Jesus' references to the Father point SQUARELY at the God of the Old Testament, period. And every time, you accuse me of being in a cult, of being brainwashed, etc., you hurl those same insults to YOUR PARENTS; for they serve the same God.
John even starts his gospel with the statements, “In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God; and the word was God......And the Word became flesh (take a wild guess as to whom that is) and dwelled among us and we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” - John 1:1,14.
In the ancient world it is? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAH You culter!
See above!!
What did we do with the children orphan in Germany and Japan after ww2? Did we make slaves out of them? Why do you keep insisting that if the children were spared they would become slaves?
That's YOUR insistence, as you were the one, whining about "slavery" when referencing account in which the children of Israel's other enemies were assimilated into the Jewish country.
Are you really this dim witted?
That's a question, you should ask yourself, Ozmo!
That's pretty much been dispelled. My parents didn't worship a child murderer. You do.
Again, they serve the same God that I do, the One who sent Jesus Christ. Without His doing that, there is no "Christian upbringing" in which they can raise you.
-
I'd prefer the electric chair, but that wasn't available at the time.
Why should people who commit adultery be sentenced to death at all?
-
Hardly!!! They have no motive to do such a thing (who were they trying to fool? what punishment were they supposedly going to face from their alleged punisher?)
Themselves. Their people and history. People were pretty stupid back then, just like the stupid people who can't see that now, but worship it.
This is obviously too far over your head.
As for your claim of the prophet making it up (Samuel, in this case), that's even more ridiculous. Though Samuel was upset with Saul's failure to complete his mission, he STILL wanted Saul to be king. It was the Lord who told him that Saul would be deposed (along with his family) and instructed Samuel to quit crying about the situation and find a NEW KING for Israel.
And, if that weren't enough, God's pick was far different from that of Samuel. Samuel, notwithstanding the fact that he still preferred Saul to be ruler, went with David's older brother, to be the new king.
So those conditions prove he didn't make up the orders to murder children in cold blood? ::)
Since you insist on asking the same question, you will get the SAME answers.
- The Amalekites were judged for their actions, not the mere fact that they were Amalekites.
- Those actions had been continuing for over three centuries
- Had they repented and made amends, the fighting would have ended (they were warned yet one last time, before Saul's armies hit them).
The aforementioned attempts at genocide you referenced (Holocaust; Rwandian conflict) were due to mere ethnicity, not for any grievances committed by those people. Amalekites lived among the Israelites, DESPITE the centuries-long feud between the two people. If the goal were mere extermination, the Israelites could have done that long before the days of Saul.
And, as stated elsewhere, when David assumed the throne; he is NOT instructed to finish what Saul started. That means that the Amalekites were given YET ANOTHER CHANCE to repent. Instead, upon their resurgence in numbers, they went back to their old ways.
Again, that's because you have nothing to say that holds water. It fits the definition and you worship a genocider.
It's pathetic the lengths of cowardice and dishonesty. I suppose the bible has something in to that redefines english definitions too? ::)
Wrong again. The standard He sets is spelled out in, among other things, the Ten Commandments, ONE OF WHICH clearly states that He punishes to the 3rd and 4th generation (He also blesses to that extent as well).
RIGHT. You worship a contradiction.
3rd and forth generation.... ::) that's as stupid as ancient collateral damage.
Their parents and rulers (people in authority) are the ones responsible for making amends. If they don't, the punishment levied on them WILL NOT JUST AFFECT THEM. It will affect EVERYONE under their umbrella of responsibility.
As been shown time and time again (a simple concept that repeatedly ZIPS clean over your head), sin doesn't just affect the transgressor.
That's true to this day. Bosses who are corrupt can bring financial ruin to ALL of their employees. Parents who do vile things can bring disaster and dysfunction to their children. And kings who commit great sin can bring death upon their subjects.
You'll stop at no nothing to justify the cold blooded murder of children won't you?
They serve the same God that I do, the same one that sent Jesus Christ to die for their sins and mine. The same one who judged the Amalekites, for their transgressions. Try as you might to make some silly case that there's a God who sent Jesus and another who judged the Amalekites, that proverbial dog don't hunt. Jesus Christ taught His disciples the passage we've come to know as "the Lord's Prayer", which begins with "Our FATHER, which art in heaven.....". Matt. 6:9-15.
Take a wild guess as to whom Jesus is referring. All of Jesus' references to the Father point SQUARELY at the God of the Old Testament, period. And every time, you accuse me of being in a cult, of being brainwashed, etc., you hurl those same insults to YOUR PARENTS; for they serve the same God.
John even starts his gospel with the statements, “In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God; and the word was God......And the Word became flesh (take a wild guess as to whom that is) and dwelled among us and we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” - John 1:1,14.
No they are not the same God. God does not murder children. The one you worship does.
They are not modern day primitive people who think the mystic writings of other primitive people are the 100% WOG.
That's YOUR insistence, as you were the one, whining about "slavery" when referencing account in which the children of Israel's other enemies were assimilated into the Jewish country
Did we enslave the Germans or Japaneese? Answer the question if you are not a coward.
My point is, they didn't need to ensalve or kill the Amalikite children either much less anyone else who wasn't a soldier.
Imagine, the United States of America has more wisdom than the God of the OT in this instance.
But you have to have the courage to think on your own not like some primitive ancient brainwashed culter to see that.
You really are dim witted.
-
Themselves. Their people and history. People were pretty stupid back then, just like the stupid people who can't see that now, but worship it.
This is obviously too far over your head.
So those conditions prove he didn't make up the orders to murder children in cold blood? ::)
Again, that's because you have nothing to say that holds water. It fits the definition and you worship a genocider.
It's pathetic the lengths of cowardice and dishonesty. I suppose the bible has something in to that redefines english definitions too? ::)
RIGHT. You worship a contradiction.
3rd and forth generation.... ::) that's as stupid as ancient collateral damage.
You'll stop at no nothing to justify the cold blooded murder of children won't you?
No they are not the same God. God does not murder children. The one you worship does.
They are not modern day primitive people who think the mystic writings of other primitive people are the 100% WOG.
Did we enslave the Germans or Japaneese? Answer the question if you are not a coward.
My point is, they didn't need to ensalve or kill the Amalikite children either much less anyone else who wasn't a soldier.
Imagine, the United States of America has more wisdom than the God of the OT in this instance.
But you have to have the courage to think on your own not like some primitive ancient brainwashed culter to see that.
You really are dim witted.
We did lock Japanese living in America up in pens...
-
Themselves. Their people and history. People were pretty stupid back then, just like the stupid people who can't see that now, but worship it.
This is obviously too far over your head.
Judging from some of your more recent posts, you’re hardly in a position to be calling anyone else “stupid”, right about now.
So those conditions prove he didn't make up the orders to murder children in cold blood? ::)
Again, what would be Samuel's motivation to fabricate any of this? That's a question that you can't seem to answer, in your pitiful attempts to wail about the judgment on the Amalekites.
BTW, the Jewish people have already judged Samuel as one of the most loved and revered prophets in their history. So, even that cracked take of yours doesn't fly.
Again, that's because you have nothing to say that holds water. It fits the definition and you worship a genocider.
It's pathetic the lengths of cowardice and dishonesty. I suppose the bible has something in to that redefines english definitions too? ::)
RIGHT. You worship a contradiction.
Please!!! The authors of the OT books were hardly concerned about what Webster (or any other dictionary writer) would call the judgment on the Amalekites some thousands of years later. They told it as it was.
You foolishly posted the definition of genocide. Then, when it dawned on you that, by using such, it would apply to what went down in WW2 with Japan, you feverishly decided to post the "rest" of them.
Of course the guy who coined the term qualified his statement,
"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups." - Raphael Lemkin
In other words, (as I said earlier), it's the destruction of a people, based on ethnicity, race, or religion. It is NOT merely the deliberate destruction of a ethnicity, race, or religion. Otherwise, every single race of people that has ever gone to war against a foe (and been victorious) can be charged with "genocide" (per Wikipedia's definition, genocide is "the deliberate destruction, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group").
Hitler targeted Jews, JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE JEWS; The Rwandan conflict was based on something similar, one race/tribe killing the other, just for belonging to that tribe/race. That was NOT the case with the Amalekites. They were judged on their ACTIONS, namely assaulting the Israelites for over 300 years, without repentance or reparations.
There was no edict to kill every Amalekite, just because they were Amalekites, even those who lived outside of Amalek. And, lost in all of this is the fact that, had the Amalekites STOPPED their assaults, repented, and made amends with Israel, they would have been forgiven and the conflict ceased.
3rd and forth generation.... ::) that's as stupid as ancient collateral damage.
You'll stop at no nothing to justify the cold blooded murder of children won't you?
Weren't the words of Jesus Christ, to His disciples, "If you love me, keep MY COMMANDMENTS"? To what commandments could He be referring? OOOOHHH!!!! Those would be the Ten Commandments, the second of which indicates that He judges his enemies to the 3rd and 4th generation.
The commandments of Christ.........the same Christ, sent by God, who is the source of that "Chrstian upbringing" of yours that you got from your parents.
No they are not the same God. God does not murder children. The one you worship does.
Yes, they are. But don't take my word for it:
This is the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God - Mark 1:1
Let us alone, what have we to do with You, Jesus of Nazareth? Did you come to destroy us? I know who you are--the Holy One of God - Mark 1:24
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world - John 1:29
Any way you slice it, Ozmo, God (yes, the One who judged the Amalekites) sent Jesus Christ to die for man's sins.
They are not modern day primitive people who think the mystic writings of other primitive people are the 100% WOG.
If you're referring to your folks, like it or not, they are referencing the same Christ, sent by the same God. There's no getting around that.
Did we enslave the Germans or Japaneese? Answer the question if you are not a coward.
Is the Alzheimer's disease kicking into gear or something? I already answered that. Recap:
NOPE!! They, unlike the Amalekites, were smart enough to surrender and cease with the scrapping.
Let's see YOU answer the question I put to you (if YOU are not a coward). Who is this supposed mystery God that's different than the One who sent Jesus Christ (the source of the Christian values that YOUR parents have, in which you were raised)?
It's time to put up or shut up, as for all of your ranting and calling me a coward, you've ducked this question time and time again.
My point is, they didn't need to ensalve or kill the Amalikite children either much less anyone else who wasn't a soldier.
In other words, let them starve and die....or get picked off by another of the Amalekites' foes.
My point is, no matter how you slice it, the Amalekite children suffered for the actions of their parents, as unfortunately happens in life. Other people can pay the price for your mistakes.
Imagine, the United States of America has more wisdom than the God of the OT in this instance.
But you have to have the courage to think on your own not like some primitive ancient brainwashed culter to see that.
You really are dim witted.
I've always thought on my own, contrary to your ridiculous (and utterly inaccurate) claim to the contrary. Once again, you lack the spine to acknowledge that the same God that I worship is the same one that your parents do, because it stems from the same Jesus Christ, sent to die for mankind's sins by the same God.
Despite all of your bone-headed attempts to claim that a different God sent Christ than He who judged the Amalekites, the fact remains that they are one and the same, as validated by Christians over the ages and by the very words of Jesus Christ Himself.
-
Judging from some of your more recent posts, you’re hardly in a position to be calling anyone else “stupid”, right about now.
Oh mean like the part where i cite definitions and you create your own custom ones to cover up for you murderous God? ::)
Or the part where you see propaganda as the absolute truth? ::)
Again, what would be Samuel's motivation to fabricate any of this? That's a question that you can't seem to answer, in your pitiful attempts to wail about the judgment on the Amalekites.
BTW, the Jewish people have already judged Samuel as one of the most loved and revered prophets in their history. So, even that cracked take of yours doesn't fly.
Well good for the jews and Samuel. Doesn't change anything, doesn't change Genocide. Any justification or absolution from the guilt of Genocide in this is a fabrication.
Please!!! The authors of the OT books were hardly concerned about what Webster (or any other dictionary writer) would call the judgment on the Amalekites some thousands of years later. They told it as it was.
You foolishly posted the definition of genocide. Then, when it dawned on you that, by using such, it would apply to what went down in WW2 with Japan, you feverishly decided to post the "rest" of them.
Of course the guy who coined the term qualified his statement,
"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups." - Raphael Lemkin
In other words, (as I said earlier), it's the destruction of a people, based on ethnicity, race, or religion. It is NOT merely the deliberate destruction of a ethnicity, race, or religion. Otherwise, every single race of people that has ever gone to war against a foe (and been victorious) can be charged with "genocide" (per Wikipedia's definition, genocide is "the deliberate destruction, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group").
Hitler targeted Jews, JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE JEWS; The Rwandan conflict was based on something similar, one race/tribe killing the other, just for belonging to that tribe/race. That was NOT the case with the Amalekites. They were judged on their ACTIONS, namely assaulting the Israelites for over 300 years, without repentance or reparations.
There was no edict to kill every Amalekite, just because they were Amalekites, even those who lived outside of Amalek. And, lost in all of this is the fact that, had the Amalekites STOPPED their assaults, repented, and made amends with Israel, they would have been forgiven and the conflict ceased.
I'm just going from the definition. You mean what the jew did wasn't deliberate they just accidentally killed every man women and child? ::) You seem to be making yours up as you see fit to justify your genocide. They Targeted the Amalikites. And Killed them all, men women and children.
Weren't the words of Jesus Christ, to His disciples, "If you love me, keep MY COMMANDMENTS"? To what commandments could He be referring? OOOOHHH!!!! Those would be the Ten Commandments, the second of which indicates that He judges his enemies to the 3rd and 4th generation.
The commandments of Christ.........the same Christ, sent by God, who is the source of that "Chrstian upbringing" of yours that you got from your parents.
Again, that's stupid to think that 3rd and generations of children are to be murdered when it isn't neccesary. Unless of course you are a person who'd kill on god's orders then it makes perfect sense.
Yes, they are. But don't take my word for it:
This is the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God - Mark 1:1
Let us alone, what have we to do with You, Jesus of Nazareth? Did you come to destroy us? I know who you are--the Holy One of God - Mark 1:24
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world - John 1:29
Any way you slice it, Ozmo, God (yes, the One who judged the Amalekites) sent Jesus Christ to die for man's sins.
You mean the Gospels that were written many years after his death and the ones we don't have the originals of.
You mean the ones that were written to reinforce the prophecies of the selected books of the OT?
Yeah, ok. ::)
Is the Alzheimer's disease kicking into gear or something? I already answered that. Recap:
NOPE!! They, unlike the Amalekites, were smart enough to surrender and cease with the scrapping.
Let's see YOU answer the question I put to you (if YOU are not a coward). Who is this supposed mystery God that's different than the One who sent Jesus Christ (the source of the Christian values that YOUR parents have, in which you were raised)?
It's time to put up or shut up, as for all of your ranting and calling me a coward, you've ducked this question time and time again.
Who do you suppose is the Muslim god? The Hindue God? The 800 zillion Christian versions of what's the true way? (Baptist, Pentecostal, Lutheren, etc..)
I was raised by people who believe God was what ever they believed God to be. God is god, regardless of what you or I believe. You believe in a book of stories written by primitive men. I see it for what it is and see God in it. I see god in other writings too. And "if" God is good and just, and merciful and loving, he doesn't order other men to kill innocent children. Otherwise he's a murderer. I know that not to be true.
It is only your arrogance that fuels your belief that the Bible is the 100% WOG, that you are the "chosen" whom God has "found". So you must defend, twist, and even skew definitions, to maintain the integrity of a book of stories.
In other words, let them starve and die....or get picked off by another of the Amalekites' foes.
My point is, no matter how you slice it, the Amalekite children suffered for the actions of their parents, as unfortunately happens in life. Other people can pay the price for your mistakes.
NO. Once again you run hiding behind you BS, claiming the only alternative is to leave them to starve. What did we do with Japan and Germany?
If you're referring to your folks, like it or not, they are referencing the same Christ, sent by the same God. There's no getting around that.
They worship who they believe God to be as you worship who you believe god to be. They are 2 different beliefs. In end God is God. GOD is not a murderer.
I've always thought on my own, contrary to your ridiculous (and utterly inaccurate) claim to the contrary. Once again, you lack the spine to acknowledge that the same God that I worship is the same one that your parents do, because it stems from the same Jesus Christ, sent to die for mankind's sins by the same God.
Despite all of your bone-headed attempts to claim that a different God sent Christ than He who judged the Amalekites, the fact remains that they are one and the same, as validated by Christians over the ages and by the very words of Jesus Christ Himself.
The fact that remains is GOD ordered Genocide. You worship one that commit genocide.
Only an evil entity could kill innocent infants and children no matter what their parents may have done.
-
Oh mean like the part where i cite definitions and you create your own custom ones to cover up for you murderous God? ::)
Or the part where you see propaganda as the absolute truth? ::)
I didn't re-create anything. I used the very definition YOU cited. Then, when you realized that you screwed up, you quickly posted extra definitions to feebly try and save your point.
Well good for the jews and Samuel. Doesn't change anything, doesn't change Genocide. Any justification or absolution from the guilt of Genocide in this is a fabrication.
The term wasn't even coined unil the mid 1900s. So how exactly are the Jews or anyone else going to be guilty of something that didn't exist?
I'm just going from the definition. You mean what the jew did wasn't deliberate they just accidentally killed every man women and child? ::) You seem to be making yours up as you see fit to justify your genocide. They Targeted the Amalikites. And Killed them all, men women and children.
Again, I'm not making up JACK. I posted the definition of genocide from the guy WHO COINED THE TERM. Per his definition, the inicident with the Amalekites was NOT genocide.
Again, that's stupid to think that 3rd and generations of children are to be murdered when it isn't neccesary. Unless of course you are a person who'd kill on god's orders then it makes perfect sense.
Whether you think it's stupid or not makes precious little difference.
You mean the Gospels that were written many years after his death and the ones we don't have the originals of.
You mean the ones that were written to reinforce the prophecies of the selected books of the OT?
Yeah, ok. ::)
We don't have the originals of a LOT of ancient documents. In fact, notwithstanding the separate debate about the authorship of the Gospels and the dates thereof, most of what you know about ancient history comes from sources that are copies of the originals.
But, that's not the point. The point is that the establishment has been made that Jesus Christ is, in fact, the son of God, the same God who judged the Alamekites. The fact that you can't deal with it, because it puts you in the predicament of acknowledging your parents' Christian faith is of the same source as mine, is of little consequence.
Who do you suppose is the Muslim god? The Hindue God? The 800 zillion Christian versions of what's the true way? (Baptist, Pentecostal, Lutheren, etc..)
Last time I checked, the Muslim's god was Allah, and Krishna was that of the Hindus.
But again, that's hardly the point. You're simply ducking the issue about Jesus Christ, because of the predicament in which your claims have just placed you.
I was raised by people who believe God was what ever they believed God to be. God is god, regardless of what you or I believe. You believe in a book of stories written by primitive men. I see it for what it is and see God in it. I see god in other writings too. And "if" God is good and just, and merciful and loving, he doesn't order other men to kill innocent children. Otherwise he's a murderer. I know that not to be true.
Then, your earlier assertion of being raised in a "Christian upbringing" was INCORRECT. The Christian faith DOES NOT indicate that God is "whatever they believed God to be". Christ has commandments; Scripture dictates what those are. What you've described is little more than a watered-down version of pantheism. If that's the case, so be it. But, to call your upbringing or your current belief system as a "Christian" one is categorically false.
To top it all off, if you see "god in other writings", then by your own words, you also "believe in a book of stories written by primitive men".
Your last staement is also quite the false one. God doesn't conform to your standards (or those of any mortal man). He is all of those things: good, just, merciful, and loving. As I've said elsewhere, He blesses and curses individually; He also blesses and curses collectively.
Jesus Christ is the ultimate example of God's love. Just as "by one man, did sin enter into all the world", by one Man (Christ) did redemption enter into all the world. Or, as a lyric to an old Gospel song goes, "I owed a debt I could not pay; Christ paid a debt He did not owe."
It is only your arrogance that fuels your belief that the Bible is the 100% WOG, that you are the "chosen" whom God has "found". So you must defend, twist, and even skew definitions, to maintain the integrity of a book of stories.
That's funny!! I don't recall my claiming to be Jewish ;D. And, I'm not the one skewing defintions. I used the very definition YOU posted (until you realized that you screwed up) and demonstrated just how inaccurate your assertion is.
If anyone is being arrogant, it's you. You have the gall to think that you determine what God can and can't do. You are but a mortal man, just like me. You don't dictate to the Almighty, based on your current (but long over-extended) temper tantrum.
NO. Once again you run hiding behind you BS, claiming the only alternative is to leave them to starve. What did we do with Japan and Germany?
That's YOUR alternative, since (by your crackpot claims) assimilation is off the table. As for Japan and Germany, I've answered that more times than the law allows. One, they didn't attack us for over 300 years; and, two, once we put the hammer down (via the A-bomb).....THEY QUIT!!! They stopped attacking and stopped assaulting. And, they were smart enough to do so, while there was still something left of their country.
They worship who they believe God to be as you worship who you believe god to be. They are 2 different beliefs. In end God is God. GOD is not a murderer.
You identified your upbringing as being "Christian", NOT as being "whatever you believe god to be". The basics of the Christian faith are given within the pages of Scripture. If your belief system doesn't mirror those tenets, they are NOT Christian beliefs. Again, if that's the case, so be it.
But, identifying them as such, only to tuck tail about the situation, when certain aspects come up that you don't like simply doesn't cut it.
The fact that remains is GOD ordered Genocide. You worship one that commit genocide.
The fact remains is your statements is as wrong as two left shoes.
Only an evil entity could kill innocent infants and children no matter what their parents may have done.
Wrong!!! See the A-Bomb and Hiroshima.
-
What are you smoking today, Ozmo??? Because, apparently, it's affected your ability to READ!!
Name one part of that text that says the woman in question was being RAPED!
If the maiden is betrothed, that means she in a "waiting" status, of sorts. But, for all practical purposes, she is married. Therefore, if she has sex with another dude than her husband-to-be, she's COMMITTING ADULTERY, which was a capital offense.
If, on the other hand, the maiden was raped, guess what happened to the rapist, and ONLY THE RAPIST.....(Hint: it's in verse 25, the part that you "conveniently" left out ::) )......
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
why are gods rules seemingly devoid of logic? So during those times adultery was punisable by death, and god agrees with this? I assume since he is all knowing this is the best solution and cheating today should be punishable by death?
God sounds alot like primitive man, Even his rules.
-
why are gods rules seemingly devoid of logic? So during those times adultery was punisable by death, and god agrees with this? I assume since he is all knowing this is the best solution and cheating today should be punishable by death?
God sounds alot like primitive man, Even his rules.
Because the God identified in the O.T. IS primitive man worshiped by modern day primitive people whose blind obedience will compelled to murder innocent children on it's orders.
-
I'm still taken back by the shear level of your dishonestly to yourself demonstrated on this forum regarding this. You will stop at no lengths to twist or ignore facts. You are a dangerous human being.
I didn't re-create anything. I used the very definition YOU cited. Then, when you realized that you screwed up, you quickly posted extra definitions to feebly try and save your point.
I didn't "screw up" I simply provided more definitions outside of the what my apple had in it. Let's go back to the original definition I posted.
genocide
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation.
Was what the jews did to them a deliberate killing? yes.
Were the amalekites a large group of people? yes
Were the Amalekites an ethnic group or nation? yes.
3 for 3 here.
Let's try dictionary.coms definition:
The deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
Was what the jews did to them a deliberate killing? yes.
Was it a systematic extermination? yes
Were the Amalekites a national, racial, political, or cultural group? yes.
3 for 3 again.
Let's try websters:
the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
Was what the jews did to them a deliberate killing? yes.
Was it a systematic extermination? yes
Were the Amalekites a national, racial, political, or cultural group? yes.
3 for 3 again.
Now let's try McDishonest:
If you have a good enough reason and you are God then it's not genocide, But if you kill and entire nation for no reason it is. ::)
Let's look at Wiki's definition:
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.
Wow, same thing. seems like only the brainwashed primitive worshipping few only see it the way you do.
Was this what you were hiding behind from wiki:?
According to R. J. Rummel, genocide has 3 different meanings. The ordinary meaning is murder by government of people due to their national, ethnic, racial, or religious group membership.
let's look at eh other meanings shall we? come now, don't be afraid...the truth will set you free from the bonds of feeling like whale shit.
How about the legal meaning of genocide from wiki that cited the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" definitions of it:
...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
– Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2[2]
Really McWay com on dude, how can you even look at your self in the mirror with the bull shit that comes out of your mouth?
Oh wait, you did post a comment by the person who coin the term:
"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. Did they kill members of the nation of the Amalikites? Yes.
It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. They wanted them (Amaekites) gone didn't they(jews)? and they made them gone didn't they?
The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups."
They wanted them wiped off the face of the earth right? So they never attacked them again tight? And God order them to kill them all. right?
In other words, (as I said earlier), it's the destruction of a people, based on ethnicity, race, or religion. It is NOT merely the deliberate destruction of a ethnicity, race, or religion.
the term deliberate is used in the definitions. The Amalekites were a nation, they were a group, they were a culture.
So again, I ask, why are you making up you own definitions? Because you are dishonest with yourself and it's displayed very well on this forum.
More fun with wiki:
Determining which historical events constitute genocide and which are merely criminal or inhuman behavior is not a clear-cut matter. Furthermore, in nearly every case where accusations of genocide have circulated, partisans of various sides have fiercely disputed the interpretation and details of the event, often to the point of promoting wildly different versions of the facts. An accusation of genocide is certainly not taken lightly and will almost always be controversial. Revisionist attempts to deny or challenge genocides (mainly the Holocaust) are, in some countries, illegal.
Seems like one of our resident thumpers are doing the same thing.
Would you feel better if i just said you worship a mass murder? ::)
The term wasn't even coined unil the mid 1900s. So how exactly are the Jews or anyone else going to be guilty of something that didn't exist?
SO WHAT? If it wasn't ever coined then we'd be calling it mass murder and i be telling you you worship a mass murderer. Are you gonna twist that deinfition around too? ::)
Again, I'm not making up JACK. I posted the definition of genocide from the guy WHO COINED THE TERM. Per his definition, the inicident with the Amalekites was NOT genocide.
Your just an idiot. I've shown it meets all the requirements of the definition. You and your cult are either too stupid to understand that, or are just lying to your selves which makes you dangerous.
Whether you think it's stupid or not makes precious little difference.
So says the guy who has challenges the definition fo genocide. ::)
We don't have the originals of a LOT of ancient documents. In fact, notwithstanding the separate debate about the authorship of the Gospels and the dates thereof, most of what you know about ancient history comes from sources that are copies of the originals.
Copies in question. Copies made by men with much to lose or gain.
But, that's not the point. The point is that the establishment has been made that Jesus Christ is, in fact, the son of God, the same God who judged the Alamekites. The fact that you can't deal with it, because it puts you in the predicament of acknowledging your parents' Christian faith is of the same source as mine, is of little consequence.
Its not a fact. It's a belief shared but many modern day primitive people who would kill an innocent child on god's orders who belong to the cult of bible literalists. That's one of the signs of cult like behavior, beliefs are facts.
Last time I checked, the Muslim's god was Allah, and Krishna was that of the Hindus.
Your mind can't grasp what I'm saying it's too primitive. It can only grasp concepts in the realm of righteous as it relates to your book of stories.
But again, that's hardly the point. You're simply ducking the issue about Jesus Christ, because of the predicament in which your claims have just placed you.
Then, your earlier assertion of being raised in a "Christian upbringing" was INCORRECT. The Christian faith DOES NOT indicate that God is "whatever they believed God to be". Christ has commandments; Scripture dictates what those are. What you've described is little more than a watered-down version of pantheism. If that's the case, so be it. But, to call your upbringing or your current belief system as a "Christian" one is categorically false.
All of which are beliefs and your beliefs put a "mass murderer" in the place of the worship of God. I say mass murder because your primitive mind can't even comprehend a modern day term. I hope mass murder isn't to modern for you. Perhaps God killing is better?
To top it all off, if you see "god in other writings", then by your own words, you also "believe in a book of stories written by primitive men".
No, I see you are getting desperate again. Maybe you find another definition to ignore or change. I see nuggets of God in the "books of Stories". Of course I've maintained that through and through. It's only your dishonesty that causes you write that.
These others who have accused you of being dishonest have hit the nail on the head. You are a danger to society.
Your last staement is also quite the false one. God doesn't conform to your standards (or those of any mortal man). He is all of those things: good, just, merciful, and loving. As I've said elsewhere, He blesses and curses individually; He also blesses and curses collectively.
They aren't just my standards, they are originally his. Not the murdering jews who wrote of a fictitious instance of god regard the extermination of the Amalekites that you worship.
Jesus Christ is the ultimate example of God's love. Just as "by one man, did sin enter into all the world", by one Man (Christ) did redemption enter into all the world. Or, as a lyric to an old Gospel song goes, "I owed a debt I could not pay; Christ paid a debt He did not owe."
Blah blah blah, so says a man who would kill a child on god's orders and worships a genocider.
That's funny!! I don't recall my claiming to be Jewish ;D. And, I'm not the one skewing defintions. I used the very definition YOU posted (until you realized that you screwed up) and demonstrated just how inaccurate your assertion is.
see above. If you get confused, see the definition of the words "see"and "above".
If anyone is being arrogant, it's you. You have the gall to think that you determine what God can and can't do. You are but a mortal man, just like me. You don't dictate to the Almighty, based on your current (but long over-extended) temper tantrum.
I'm going by his morality, his rules, and his edicts. Not my problem you worship a hypocirte who is, unless you belong the bible literalists cult, a mass murderer, genocider, god thats kills, etc....
That's YOUR alternative, since (by your crackpot claims) assimilation is off the table. As for Japan and Germany, I've answered that more times than the law allows. One, they didn't attack us for over 300 years; and, two, once we put the hammer down (via the A-bomb).....THEY QUIT!!! They stopped attacking and stopped assaulting. And, they were smart enough to do so, while there was still something left of their country.
And what did we do afterwards coward?
You identified your upbringing as being "Christian", NOT as being "whatever you believe god to be". The basics of the Christian faith are given within the pages of Scripture. If your belief system doesn't mirror those tenets, they are NOT Christian beliefs. Again, if that's the case, so be it.
You cowards still haven't addressed whether or not a christian must believe the bible is the 100% WOG to be saved.
Wrong!!! See the A-Bomb and Hiroshima.
Is the USA God? There's no comparison, unless you are a member of your cult.
-
I'm still taken back by the shear level of your dishonestly to yourself demonstrated on this forum regarding this. You will stop at no lengths to twist or ignore facts. You are a dangerous human being.
I didn't "screw up" I simply provided more definitions outside of the what my apple had in it. Let's go back to the original definition I posted.
genocide
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation.
Was what the jews did to them a deliberate killing? yes.
Were the amalekites a large group of people? yes
Were the Amalekites an ethnic group or nation? yes.
3 for 3 here.
As mentioned earlier, by that limited definition, what we did to Japan at Hiroshima would be "genocide".
Was what we did to the Japanese a deliberate killing? YES!
Were the Japanese a large group of people? YES!
Were the Japanese an ethnic group or nation? YES!
3 for 3 here!!!
Once you realized that the truncated definition you got from your computer was incomplete (hence undercutting your own argument), you scrambled to rectify the situation.
Let's try dictionary.coms definition:
The deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
Was what the jews did to them a deliberate killing? yes.
Was it a systematic extermination? yes
Were the Amalekites a national, racial, political, or cultural group? yes.
3 for 3 again.
Not quite, Ozmo. Had there been a "systematic extermination", the Amalekites wouldn't have been around for the 300+ years to harass Israel. Nor would Amalekites have been allowed to live among the Israelites (as was the case in the OT).
Let's try websters:
the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
Was what the jews did to them a deliberate killing? yes.
Was it a systematic extermination? yes
Were the Amalekites a national, racial, political, or cultural group? yes.
Make that 2 for 3; see above:
Now let's try McDishonest:
If you have a good enough reason and you are God then it's not genocide, But if you kill and entire nation for no reason it is. ::)
Wrong again, Ozmo. What I stated is that, based on the examples of the Holocaust and the conflict in Rwanda, "genocide" is based primarily (if not exclusively) on RACE or ETHNICITY. Hitler killed the Jews, simply for being Jews; the similar reason goes for the Hutu/Tutsi thing in Rwanda. And nothing the Jews did or said would have stopped the Nazi. Same goes for the Rwanda thing.
However, that was NOT the case with the Amalekites. They were the aggressors against Israel, as this all started when they ambushed the Israelites, unprovoked, as they were transiting from Egypt to their eventual promised land. This continued for centuries afterward. Yet, all the Amalekites had to do was cease and desist, repent, and make amends. And the issue would have been settled.
Yet, because they did not despite numerous opportunities to do so, including one last warning when the Kenites started bailing, the judgment came upon Amalek.
Let's look at Wiki's definition:
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.
Wow, same thing. seems like only the brainwashed primitive worshipping few only see it the way you do.
I'm sorry!! Didn't we deliberately and systemactially destroy the Japanesse (in part), via the A-bomb?
Once again, it's foot-in-mouth time for Ozmo.
Was this what you were hiding behind from wiki:?
According to R. J. Rummel, genocide has 3 different meanings. The ordinary meaning is murder by government of people due to their national, ethnic, racial, or religious group membership.
let's look at eh other meanings shall we? come now, don't be afraid...the truth will set you free from the bonds of feeling like whale shit.
Apparently, you must be projecting, as I hardly feel like that. On the contrary, I feel fantastic. And, as woefully wrong as you tend to be, you should know by now that I need not hide behind anything or from anyone, least of all, you.
Of course, that would leave you with the task of explaining why I would "hide" behind the Wiki's definition, when I'm the one who brought it to the forefront, in the first place.
How about the legal meaning of genocide from wiki that cited the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" definitions of it:
...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
– Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2[2]
Really McWay com on dude, how can you even look at your self in the mirror with the bull shit that comes out of your mouth?
When you have a handsome mug like mine, it's easy!!! ;D (as for the BS stuff, I defer that to you).
Notwithstanding the fact that the ancient Israelites would hardly be concerned about a term that would be coined 2 millenia after this event, clauses a) through e) would all fit under what happened to Japan.
Oh wait, you did post a comment by the person who coin the term:
"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. Did they kill members of the nation of the Amalikites? Yes.
As we did with the member of the nation of Japan. NEXT!!!!
It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. They wanted them (Amaekites) gone didn't they(jews)? and they made them gone didn't they?
They wanted them wiped off the face of the earth right? So they never attacked them again tight? And God order them to kill them all. right?
They wanted them to cease and desist with the attacks on their people, hence the reason the Amalekites were given CENTURIES to repent of their ways. And, it also why they were warned one last time, before Saul commenced with his marching orders. Now, what would have happened had those Amalekites surrendered and repented (Hint: the same thing that happened with the Ninevites).
But, no sooner than they survived the beating they took from Saul than they turned right around and went after Israel AGAIN (see 1 Sam. 30).
No surrendering like the Japanese, no restitution for previous attacks, no peace treaty......NOTHING.
the term deliberate is used in the definitions. The Amalekites were a nation, they were a group, they were a culture.
And so were/are the Japanese. Only, unlike the Amalekites, they were smart enough to throw in the towel (after nearly being atomized) and haven't attacked us since then.
So again, I ask, why are you making up you own definitions? Because you are dishonest with yourself and it's displayed very well on this forum.
I'm not making up any definitions. I don't need to do so. The point, which you can't quite digest is that, what happened to the Amalekites is no more genocide than what happened to the Japanese. Yet, you continue to cluck away about the former being genocide, while denying that the latter was such.
By the definitions that YOU used, either they're BOTH genocide or NEITHER is genocide. Which is it?
More fun with wiki:
Determining which historical events constitute genocide and which are merely criminal or inhuman behavior is not a clear-cut matter. Furthermore, in nearly every case where accusations of genocide have circulated, partisans of various sides have fiercely disputed the interpretation and details of the event, often to the point of promoting wildly different versions of the facts. An accusation of genocide is certainly not taken lightly and will almost always be controversial. Revisionist attempts to deny or challenge genocides (mainly the Holocaust) are, in some countries, illegal.
Seems like one of our resident thumpers are doing the same thing.
And those alleged different versions of the facts would be.........
Would you feel better if i just said you worship a mass murder? ::)
I would feel better, seeing how many bulletholes are in your shoes, right about now.
SO WHAT? If it wasn't ever coined then we'd be calling it mass murder and i be telling you you worship a mass murderer. Are you gonna twist that deinfition around too? ::)
The simple fact is you're the one picking and choosing what is genocide and what isn't. You SCREAM to the heavens that what happened to the Amalekites was genocide; yet what happened to the Japanese wasn't, despite the fact that by the definition that YOU JUST POSTED (with no twisting from me), BOTH instances can be coined as "genocide". In fact, you just cited that defining such was not a "clear-cut matter".
Your just an idiot. I've shown it meets all the requirements of the definition. You and your cult are either too stupid to understand that, or are just lying to your selves which makes you dangerous.
So does what happened to the Japanese. Yet, you are NOT calling that "genocide". Therefore, you are projecting once again. You call one incident "genocide" but don't call the other such.
As Lemkin's explanation stated, simply killing a large group of a particular race does NOT equate to genocide. And the examples of genocide cited are primarily (if not exclusively) BASED ON RACE/ETHNICITY and carried out BECAUSE OF RACE/ETHNICITY. Such was not with the case with the Amalekites (or the Japanese, for that matter).
Both were hit, due their actions against an enemy (Amalek with Israel; Japan with the USA). And both would have ended, with far fewer casualties, had the initiators (Amalek and Japan) surrendered and made amends. Japan did that (after the A-Bomb); Amalek did not, even after Saul's military strike.
So says the guy who has challenges the definition fo genocide. ::)
What challenge?
Copies in question. Copies made by men with much to lose or gain.
I'm sorry!! I could have sworn that ALL the New Testament was written, while Israel was in ROMAN BONDAGE!! Where was all of this stuff to "gain" or "lose"?
Its not a fact. It's a belief shared but many modern day primitive people who would kill an innocent child on god's orders who belong to the cult of bible literalists. That's one of the signs of cult like behavior, beliefs are facts.
That would mean you're in the "cult" of denial. First, you trumpeted your Christian upbrining as to being a significant part of your current belief system. Of course, when it dawned on you that the same Christ (from which this upbringing originates) is the Son of the same God who judged the Amalekites, you go off on some tangent claiming that a different God sent Jesus than the one of the OT.
When that didn't work, you then claimed that your upbringing was that God was "whatever you wanted God to be", which is actually NOT a Christian upbringing. Your story keeps changing every time your takes get dropped.
Your mind can't grasp what I'm saying it's too primitive. It can only grasp concepts in the realm of righteous as it relates to your book of stories.
I grasp what you're saying quite well, which is why it's so easy to dismantle it, for the foolishness that it is.
All of which are beliefs and your beliefs put a "mass murderer" in the place of the worship of God. I say mass murder because your primitive mind can't even comprehend a modern day term. I hope mass murder isn't to modern for you. Perhaps God killing is better?
No, I see you are getting desperate again. Maybe you find another definition to ignore or change. I see nuggets of God in the "books of Stories". Of course I've maintained that through and through. It's only your dishonesty that causes you write that.
If you're using the "book of stories" evein for "nuggets" of wisdom, then that puts you in the same boat.
These others who have accused you of being dishonest have hit the nail on the head. You are a danger to society.
Considering who they are (and that they used the same tired arguments that you do, that I've refuted numerous times), that's hardly a concern on my part. Like them, you make accusations that you can't back, and when presented with the fact, you resort to the standard name-calling, flip-flopping, and dismissal. I've cut their arguments down, just as I've done with yours.
As the saying goes, "You can't be the first; but you can be the next"!!!
They aren't just my standards, they are originally his. Not the murdering jews who wrote of a fictitious instance of god regard the extermination of the Amalekites that you worship.
Blah blah blah, so says a man who would kill a child on god's orders and worships a genocider.
Blah, blah, blah!! So says the man would killa child for much less, as long as he can use bombs!!!
I'm going by his morality, his rules, and his edicts. Not my problem you worship a hypocirte who is, unless you belong the bible literalists cult, a mass murderer, genocider, god thats kills, etc....
Are you talking about your folks again...WAIT A MINUTE!!! They aren't Christians, anymore. As being such now puts you back in that proverbial pickle again.
And what did we do afterwards coward?
Again, check the Alzheimer's disease. They quit; they stopped attacking (have not attacked us since then).....NO MORE BEEF!!! What part of that ain't sinking in to that grey matter.
You cowards still haven't addressed whether or not a christian must believe the bible is the 100% WOG to be saved.
More memory loss!!! Fitt@40 answered your question, as did Loco, Stella, Beach Bum, and yours truly.
In fact, O amnesia-possesing one, you were the one asked Stella and me.......
"McWay or Stella, is there scripture to back it up? Or is this just personal interpretation? "
This begs the question of why you would do such, if we "cowards" never addressed your question.
But, since you want to call people out, TO THIS DAY, you have fused them lips shut on the issue of whom this supposed mystery God of the OT is that you swear isn't the same as the one who sent Jesus Christ.
Plus, (unless you just recently posted there), no one's heard a peep from you, since I dismantled your silly claim about women having to "shut up like good little b*&@^^#", with regards to their roles in Israel's society.
Tick....Tick....Tick.... .
Is the USA God? There's no comparison, unless you are a member of your cult.
The USA doesn't have to be, when it comes to this issue. By the definition that YOU used, either both instances (the A-Bomb on Japan and Saul's strike on the Amalekites) were "genocide"; or neither were such.
Both were deliberate; both were systematic; both killed a large group of ethnic people (in part).
-
why are gods rules seemingly devoid of logic? So during those times adultery was punisable by death, and god agrees with this? I assume since he is all knowing this is the best solution and cheating today should be punishable by death?
God sounds alot like primitive man, Even his rules.
I explained this elsewhere. But, in a society where family integrity was IMPERATIVE for rights of inheritance and economic issues, adultery was seen as a grievous offense.
Add to that the disease factor. If diseases like AIDS can devastate countries and communities in the 21st century (A.D), can you imagine what such diseases could do to people some 3000 years ago. Syphillis or gonnorhea would wipe out as many people then as AIDS does now. For those reasons (not to mention the devastating emotional toll such put on families), it's not hard to see why adultery would be a capital offense.
-
Because the God identified in the O.T. IS primitive man worshiped by modern day primitive people whose blind obedience will compelled to murder innocent children on it's orders.
exactly however, if it is god would wrote the bible per se and these are his laws they should be the best laws. So we should stone people who cheat as god would have, in all his infinite knowledge this is the best answer.
-
As mentioned earlier, by that limited definition, what we did to Japan at Hiroshima would be "genocide".
Was what we did to the Japanese a deliberate killing? YES!
Were the Japanese a large group of people? YES!
Were the Japanese an ethnic group or nation? YES!
3 for 3 here!!!
Once you realized that the truncated definition you got from your computer was incomplete (hence undercutting your own argument), you scrambled to rectify the situation.
What America did to to Japan in WW2 is irrelevant to what God did to the Amalekites. It's still Genocide. You can call What America did to Hiroshima or Nagasaki genocide. But the differences are plain. And when you consider the options we had versus the options God had, it's tragic that we didn't have god's power and it's tragic that god use his power for murder, that's is of course if that was God, which is wasn't.
Not quite, Ozmo. Had there been a "systematic extermination", the Amalekites wouldn't have been around for the 300+ years to harass Israel. Nor would Amalekites have been allowed to live among the Israelites (as was the case in the OT). Make that 2 for 3; see above:
I doubt they synchronized their watches and kill everyone at the same time. It probably took a quite while. Maybe months for them to systematically exterminate the Amalekites.
Wrong again, Ozmo. What I stated is that, based on the examples of the Holocaust and the conflict in Rwanda, "genocide" is based primarily (if not exclusively) on RACE or ETHNICITY. Hitler killed the Jews, simply for being Jews; the similar reason goes for the Hutu/Tutsi thing in Rwanda. And nothing the Jews did or said would have stopped the Nazi. Same goes for the Rwanda thing.
You need to read your history books. Hitler and his henchmen believed the jews were the source of all of Germany's problems after WW1. They saw them as evil and the "only" "solution" was to exterminate them. No you and I know better. But only one us of knows better that that there isn't such a thing as an evil race of people that needed to be exterminated down to the infant.
However, that was NOT the case with the Amalekites. They were the aggressors against Israel, as this all started when they ambushed the Israelites, unprovoked, as they were transiting from Egypt to their eventual promised land. This continued for centuries afterward. Yet, all the Amalekites had to do was cease and desist, repent, and make amends. And the issue would have been settled.Yet, because they did not despite numerous opportunities to do so, including one last warning when the Kenites started bailing, the judgment came upon Amalek.
Yes, those who ruled the Amalekites were aggressors according to the account in the bible. NOT the women and children.
I'm sorry!! Didn't we deliberately and systemactially destroy the Japanesse (in part), via the A-bomb? Once again, it's foot-in-mouth time for Ozmo.
We completely destroyed two cities. More people were in fact killed in fire bombings in tokyo. I believe they were a country of 40-50 at the time, not sure.
The difference you refuse to admit to be it cowardice or dishonesty, is we weren't out to wipe them off the face of the earth like the OT god and the hews were. We wanted to do just enough to end the war. And how we rebuilt their country, preserved their cultrure etc... has help made them an ally which is another critical difference you run from. It wouldn't matter if we were at war with them on and off for 300 years as it is alleged in your book of propaganda and fables. This country along with most of the world, save a few madmen of the years knows the EVIL of genocide. The same genocide ordered by the God of the OT. There are actually standards, you know things like "don't kill innocent children" because it's evil and wrong, something you have admitted you'd do. Good thing, cult literalists like you don't call the shots.
Of course, that would leave you with the task of explaining why I would "hide" behind the Wiki's definition, when I'm the one who brought it to the forefront, in the first place.
You have been running and hiding from just about any assertion that has been challenged by me. You actually draw comparisons to what we did to the Japanese with what god has done with the Amalekites. Even 5 year old know how to stupid that is.
Notwithstanding the fact that the ancient Israelites would hardly be concerned about a term that would be coined 2 millenia after this event, clauses a) through e) would all fit under what happened to Japan.
What would it matter what they thought? They did what they did. they committed genocide. thought of a mass murder then, but because they wrote God told to do it and likely fabricated or embellished the reasons for doing it, thousands of years later primitive people like your self, eat it up and make excuses deflecting the evil in it by say things like "the creator is not morally accountable".
As we did with the member of the nation of Japan. NEXT!!!!
Again the difference among many you dishonestly choose to ignore: We did murder every Japanese person on earth.
They wanted them to cease and desist with the attacks on their people, hence the reason the Amalekites were given CENTURIES to repent of their ways. And, it also why they were warned one last time, before Saul commenced with his marching orders. Now, what would have happened had those Amalekites surrendered and repented (Hint: the same thing that happened with the Ninevites).
But, no sooner than they survived the beating they took from Saul than they turned right around and went after Israel AGAIN (see 1 Sam. 30).
So what? I'm not defending those who may be guilty of crimes. I'm defending the cold murder of innocent children. Innocent children you have admitted you'd kill on god's orders
No surrendering like the Japanese, no restitution for previous attacks, no peace treaty......NOTHING.
From the small one sided written account. Still wouldn't matter. We aren't defending the possible guilt of the amalekites here. We are talking about the cold blooded murder of children.
I'm not making up any definitions. I don't need to do so. The point, which you can't quite digest is that, what happened to the Amalekites is no more genocide than what happened to the Japanese. Yet, you continue to cluck away about the former being genocide, while denying that the latter was such.
It doesn't matter if we did worse than the what God did to the Amalekites. In the end you still worship a God that kills children in cold blood.
By the definitions that YOU used, either they're BOTH genocide or NEITHER is genocide. Which is it?
By the definitions I've used. yes they both are. But which fills the definition better? The complete deliberate extermination of an entire race and nation of people or large groups of people who died in the war?
And those alleged different versions of the facts would be.........
That what god did to the amalekites was not genocide.
I would feel better, seeing how many bulletholes are in your shoes, right about now.
The simple fact is you're the one picking and choosing what is genocide and what isn't. You SCREAM to the heavens that what happened to the Amalekites was genocide; yet what happened to the Japanese wasn't, despite the fact that by the definition that YOU JUST POSTED (with no twisting from me), BOTH instances can be coined as "genocide". In fact, you just cited that defining such was not a "clear-cut matter".
So does what happened to the Japanese. Yet, you are NOT calling that "genocide". Therefore, you are projecting once again. You call one incident "genocide" but don't call the other such.
see above...again.
As Lemkin's explanation stated, simply killing a large group of a particular race does NOT equate to genocide.
see above
And the examples of genocide cited are primarily (if not exclusively) BASED ON RACE/ETHNICITY and carried out BECAUSE OF RACE/ETHNICITY. Such was not with the case with the Amalekites (or the Japanese, for that matter).Both were hit, due their actions against an enemy (Amalek with Israel; Japan with the USA). And both would have ended, with far fewer casualties, had the initiators (Amalek and Japan) surrendered and made amends. Japan did that (after the A-Bomb); Amalek did not, even after Saul's military strike.
Based in what way? They all had reasons. People don't commit mass murder for the heck of it. there are reasons they hate a race enough to exterminate it that particular race. The Jews did just that as hitler did just that.
What challenge?
See above, you are the one who challenges the definition of genocide and the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" definitions of it.
I'm just repeating what they say.
I'm sorry!! I could have sworn that ALL the New Testament was written, while Israel was in ROMAN BONDAGE!! Where was all of this stuff to "gain" or "lose"?
You mean every jews was in prison? There were no kings? There were no guilds? There was not churches? There were no rabbis? ::)
That would mean you're in the "cult" of denial. First, you trumpeted your Christian upbrining as to being a significant part of your current belief system. Of course, when it dawned on you that the same Christ (from which this upbringing originates) is the Son of the same God who judged the Amalekites, you go off on some tangent claiming that a different God sent Jesus than the one of the OT.
When that didn't work, you then claimed that your upbringing was that God was "whatever you wanted God to be", which is actually NOT a Christian upbringing. Your story keeps changing every time your takes get dropped
.
No skippy, I brought up my Christian upbringing because it taught me that killing children is wrong. You have only tried to use it as a way to twist it around. The problems is, no one in my family is that stupid to believe the bible literally.
I grasp what you're saying quite well, which is why it's so easy to dismantle it, for the foolishness that it is.
If you're using the "book of stories" evein for "nuggets" of wisdom, then that puts you in the same boat.
No it doesn't it only proves that i have the wisdom to see it for what it is along with all the other thousands of religious books. You on the other hand believe it so much that you'd kill a child on God's orders. Speaks volumes of you.
Considering who they are (and that they used the same tired arguments that you do, that I've refuted numerous times), that's hardly a concern on my part. Like them, you make accusations that you can't back, and when presented with the fact, you resort to the standard name-calling, flip-flopping, and dismissal. I've cut their arguments down, just as I've done with yours.
You haven't refuted anything honestly. You lie for what you believe. You lie here. You lie to yourself. that's what makes you dangerous. You are a brainwashed nut job. Sorry, just call it as i see it.
Blah, blah, blah!! So says the man would killa child for much less, as long as he can use bombs!!!
Another good example of your dishonesty.
Are you talking about your folks again...WAIT A MINUTE!!! They aren't Christians, anymore. As being such now puts you back in that proverbial pickle again.
Again, check the Alzheimer's disease. They quit; they stopped attacking (have not attacked us since then).....NO MORE BEEF!!! What part of that ain't sinking in to that grey matter.
More memory loss!!! Fitt@40 answered your question, as did Loco, Stella, Beach Bum, and yours truly.
In fact, O amnesia-possesing one, you were the one asked Stella and me.......
"McWay or Stella, is there scripture to back it up? Or is this just personal interpretation? "
This begs the question of why you would do such, if we "cowards" never addressed your question.
Show me in scripture where is says a person must believe in the selected books (selected some 300 years later by men) as the 100% WOG to be saved.
But, since you want to call people out, TO THIS DAY, you have fused them lips shut on the issue of whom this supposed mystery God of the OT is that you swear isn't the same as the one who sent Jesus Christ.
When have i sworn it isn't?
Plus, (unless you just recently posted there), no one's heard a peep from you, since I dismantled your silly claim about women having to "shut up like good little b*&@^^#", with regards to their roles in Israel's society.
Tick....Tick....Tick.... .
I haven't got there yet. I will though. Meanwhile be nice to your wife. Let her talk once in a while.
The USA doesn't have to be, when it comes to this issue. By the definition that YOU used, either both instances (the A-Bomb on Japan and Saul's strike on the Amalekites) were "genocide"; or neither were such.
Both were deliberate; both were systematic; both killed a large group of ethnic people (in part).
refer to above.
-
What America did to to Japan in WW2 is irrelevant to what God did to the Amalekites. It's still Genocide. You can call What America did to Hiroshima or Nagasaki genocide. But the differences are plain. And when you consider the options we had versus the options God had, it's tragic that we didn't have god's power and it's tragic that god use his power for murder, that's is of course if that was God, which is wasn't.
That’s just it. I DON’T call (what happened to Hiroshima or Nagasaki) genocide. The point was, based on the definition you used, if you referred to what happened to the Amalekites as such, you must do so with regards to the Japanese.
I doubt they synchronized their watches and kill everyone at the same time. It probably took a quite while. Maybe months for them to systematically exterminate the Amalekites.
That can’t quite be determined, not that it’s relevant, regarding the issue at hand.
You need to read your history books. Hitler and his henchmen believed the jews were the source of all of Germany's problems after WW1. They saw them as evil and the "only" "solution" was to exterminate them. No you and I know better. But only one us of knows better that that there isn't such a thing as an evil race of people that needed to be exterminated down to the infant.
When did Hitler give the Jews the opportunity to make amends or repent of whatever actions the Jews supposedly did that gave Germany its problems? Again, Hitler rounded up Jews that weren’t even in Germany. And he whacked anyone he remotely suspected of being Jewish or who helped the Jews out.
That wasn’t the case with the Amalekites. We know the deal with them. They attacked the Israelites unprovoked, as they were leaving Egypt. They continued their assault against Israel, nearly driving them to starvation, at one point.
Yes, those who ruled the Amalekites were aggressors according to the account in the bible. NOT the women and children.
We completely destroyed two cities. More people were in fact killed in fire bombings in tokyo. I believe they were a country of 40-50 at the time, not sure.
The difference you refuse to admit to be it cowardice or dishonesty, is we weren't out to wipe them off the face of the earth like the OT god and the hews were. We wanted to do just enough to end the war. And how we rebuilt their country, preserved their cultrure etc... has help made them an ally which is another critical difference you run from. It wouldn't matter if we were at war with them on and off for 300 years as it is alleged in your book of propaganda and fables. This country along with most of the world, save a few madmen of the years knows the EVIL of genocide. The same genocide ordered by the God of the OT. There are actually standards, you know things like "don't kill innocent children" because it's evil and wrong, something you have admitted you'd do. Good thing, cult literalists like you don't call the shots.
The critical difference, that you can’t seem to grasp, is that the Japanese did the one thing that the Amalekites did not. THEY SURRENDERED! They stopped the attacks, stopped the assaults, and made peace. That’s why we helped them rebuild their country; that’s why they became an ally.
This may come as a shock to you, but Israel did much the same thing with people with whom they once had conflict (the Gibeonites, Amorites, Kenites, etc.). But, all of that was predicated on PEACE being made between Israel and those other folks. That DID NOT happen with the Amalekites, because they kept up their offensives against Israel, despite numerous opportunities (over a period of at least 300 years) to cease and make peace.
You have been running and hiding from just about any assertion that has been challenged by me. You actually draw comparisons to what we did to the Japanese with what god has done with the Amalekites. Even 5 year old know how to stupid that is.
I’ve done nothing of the sort. You used the definition of genocide as “the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation”. After I pointed out to you that, by such a standard, what we did to the Japanese would be genocide, guess who went scrambling (foot wedged cleanly in mouth) looking to clean up his mess……..YOU!
What would it matter what they thought? They did what they did. they committed genocide. thought of a mass murder then, but because they wrote God told to do it and likely fabricated or embellished the reasons for doing it, thousands of years later primitive people like your self, eat it up and make excuses deflecting the evil in it by say things like "the creator is not morally accountable".
And your evidence that the account was “likely fabricated or embellished” would be…….OH! What’s it’s been since the moment you made the accusation….NOTHING!!!
You have nothing to indicate that they made up the point of being ordered to destroy the gold, silver, and choice livestock, something no ancient society in its right mind would have done, ESPECIALLY with regards to a long-time enemy (much less, the king losing his throne for actually keeping the loot).
I make no excuse for what happen. I understand the issue and the circumstances surrounding the events.
Again the difference among many you dishonestly choose to ignore: We did murder every Japanese person on earth.
You might want to correct that last statement of yours. “We didn’t murder every Japanese person on earth”. The reason that the USA didn’t target all Japanese is that 1) we had Japanese who fought on our side; 2) they hadn’t been attacking us for centuries on end; and 3), the part you missed yet again…..THE JAPANESE SURRENDERED.
Had the Amalekites done the same, the conflict would have been over. They however did not, even after being warned via the Kenites, who would have been wiped out with the Amalekites, for mere guilt by association (as Hitler did, killing not only Jews but non-Jewish sympathizers), if this were “genocide”.
So what? I'm not defending those who may be guilty of crimes. I'm defending the cold murder of innocent children. Innocent children you have admitted you'd kill on god's orders
The Japanese children that died at Hiroshima are JUST AS DEAD as the Amalekite children were. And, all it would take is the luxury of hiding behind modern weapons for you would do the same (on far less).
From the small one sided written account. Still wouldn't matter. We aren't defending the possible guilt of the amalekites here. We are talking about the cold blooded murder of children.
We are talking about them, much like the Japanese children, being casualties of war. And, as mentioned earlier, since assimilating them is off the table (thanks to your silly “slavery” rants), those kids are unfortunately faced with DEATH (sword or starvation).
It doesn't matter if we did worse than the what God did to the Amalekites. In the end you still worship a God that kills children in cold blood.
And, by your statements, so do your mother and father. And because of your “Christian upbringing” (unless you’ve officially denounced it) so do YOU.
By the definitions I've used. yes they both are. But which fills the definition better? The complete deliberate extermination of an entire race and nation of people or large groups of people who died in the war?
Listen to what you just said. BOTH the Amalekites and the Japanese died in a war. And the war with the Amalekites and Israel lasted FAR LONGER than that with the USA and Japan.
Yet, you used the other definitions of “genocide” to claim that America did not commit genocide, while leaving the Jewish conflict with Amalek in that category.
That what god did to the amalekites was not genocide.
Based in what way? They all had reasons. People don't commit mass murder for the heck of it. there are reasons they hate a race enough to exterminate it that particular race. The Jews did just that as hitler did just that.
The "hatred" of the Amalekites were due to their continued assaults, with no indication of repentance or making amends. Had they done so, the conflict would have ceased, just as it did between Israel and other nations, with whom they'd fought.
See above, you are the one who challenges the definition of genocide and the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" definitions of it.
I'm just repeating what they say.
Except, when you shoot yourself in the foot with their definitions.
All of those definitions emphasize racial/ethnic factors as the driving force for genocide. Such was not the case with the Amalekites. Otherwise, as mentioned earlier, the Kenites and the Amalekites, living in Israel, would have been destroyed as well.
Compare that with Hitler, who did not disseminate in his Holocaust. To him, a Jewish sympathizer was just as bad as a Jew himself and ripe for his picking.
You mean every jews was in prison? There were no kings? There were no guilds? There was not churches? There were no rabbis? ::)
You can have all of those things and STILL be in bondage, a vassal or tribute kingdom, as Israel clearly was in 1st century A.D. I guess you missed that simple fact, in your ridiculous rambling.
No skippy, I brought up my Christian upbringing because it taught me that killing children is wrong. You have only tried to use it as a way to twist it around. The problems is, no one in my family is that stupid to believe the bible literally.
Sorry, there’s no twisting needed. Your Christian upbringing, like it or not, is based on the teachings and deeds of one Jesus Christ, sent by THE VERY SAME GOD, who judged the Amalekites. And, it is that simple fact that you can’t duck.
Your feeble attempts to suggest that a different God sent Christ not only rings hollow but
No it doesn't it only proves that i have the wisdom to see it for what it is along with all the other thousands of religious books. You on the other hand believe it so much that you'd kill a child on God's orders. Speaks volumes of you.
What speaks volumes of you is the severe yellow streak, when it comes to acknowledging the source of your “Christian upbringing”. You bring it up, until it puts you in a philosophical bind. Then, you claim that “God is whatever you believe Him to be”, a tenet that is decidedly NOT Christian, whatsoever.
If you’re going to claim it, CLAIM IT; if not, then don’t. But, the continued flip-flopping is rather pitiful. You talk about the “other thousands of religious books”. But for some strange reason, I don’t hear you talking about your Buddhist upbringing, or your Islamic upbringing, or your Molechian upbringing, or your upbringing based on the worship of Dagon, or Ashoreth, etc (and the respective books, regarding those religions).
You haven't refuted anything honestly. You lie for what you believe. You lie here. You lie to yourself. that's what makes you dangerous. You are a brainwashed nut job. Sorry, just call it as i see it.
Then, you might want to consider to Lasix (or bi-focals, at the very least). I have spoken the truth here. And, since it grates your little psyche, you have resorted to claiming that Jesus Christ wasn’t really sent by God (since it would mean that’s same God of the OT). But, that is the very essence of Christianity.
So, the fact remains that if your parents are Christians, they serve the SAME GOD that I do. And, if you continue to claim your “Christian upbringing”, then so do YOU.
Otherwise, you have mistakenly identified your upbringing and the faith of your father and mother.
Another good example of your dishonesty.
Not really. If you’d push the button, knowing that children will die in the process, the statement stands.
Show me in scripture where is says a person must believe in the selected books (selected some 300 years later by men) as the 100% WOG to be saved.
Again, the memory loss is kicking into gear. I did that on the other thread. But, if 2 Tim 3 weren’t enough, there’s also this blurb:
Rom. 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
And guess who that God, who raised Jesus from the dead, would be……..THAT’S RIGHT!!! The same one that judged the Amalekites.
Besides, the question was put to you on that same thread. If that’s not the case, what percentage is the word of God and who makes the determination of what is or isn’t?
If someone determines that the Ten Commandments are no longer part of the Word of God, that means they can steal, commit adultery, disobey their parents, etc. and still be saved. Or, if they believed that God didn’t really resurrect Jesus Christ from the dead (the confession of which is a requirement to be saved).
When have i sworn it isn't?
That’s a figure of speech. But, you’ve made the claim repeatedly, with virtually nothing to support your statement.
I haven't got there yet. I will though. Meanwhile be nice to your wife. Let her talk once in a while.
My wife gets the last word…..and the first word…..and much of the words in between them. ;D .
-
That’s just it. I DON’T call (what happened to Hiroshima or Nagasaki) genocide. The point was, based on the definition you used, if you referred to what happened to the Amalekites as such, you must do so with regards to the Japanese.
Ok so what? The difference is that, God ordered the entire nation killed and the Americans nuked 2 cities.
It can be argued that the Americans committed genocide on those to cities. It can not be argue with any validity that god did not commit genocide with the Amalikites.
That can’t quite be determined, not that it’s relevant, regarding the issue at hand.
You are the one who brought it up as not fitting into the definition. I say it fits just fine.
When did Hitler give the Jews the opportunity to make amends or repent of whatever actions the Jews supposedly did that gave Germany its problems? Again, Hitler rounded up Jews that weren’t even in Germany. And he whacked anyone he remotely suspected of being Jewish or who helped the Jews out.
That wasn’t the case with the Amalekites. We know the deal with them. They attacked the Israelites unprovoked, as they were leaving Egypt. They continued their assault against Israel, nearly driving them to starvation, at one point.
Where in the definition of Genocide does it say that if you give them an opportunity to make amends and they don't take and then you exterminate them it isn't genocide?
Again more dishonesty or plain ignorance.
The critical difference, that you can’t seem to grasp, is that the Japanese did the one thing that the Amalekites did not. THEY SURRENDERED! They stopped the attacks, stopped the assaults, and made peace. That’s why we helped them rebuild their country; that’s why they became an ally.
This may come as a shock to you, but Israel did much the same thing with people with whom they once had conflict (the Gibeonites, Amorites, Kenites, etc.). But, all of that was predicated on PEACE being made between Israel and those other folks. That DID NOT happen with the Amalekites, because they kept up their offensives against Israel, despite numerous opportunities (over a period of at least 300 years) to cease and make peace.
Again, your unwillingness to see it for what it is. It doesn't matter what the Japanese did or didn't do, the act is about genocide. We wouldn't have committed it in the fashion God did if they didn't surrender. We are better than that.
I’ve done nothing of the sort. You used the definition of genocide as “the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation”. After I pointed out to you that, by such a standard, what we did to the Japanese would be genocide, guess who went scrambling (foot wedged cleanly in mouth) looking to clean up his mess……..YOU!
No scrambling involved. I've had to explain it in the easiest terms possible for you. What God did fits the definition exactly, regardless if you want to "deflect" the issue to the Americans of 1945.
And your evidence that the account was “likely fabricated or embellished” would be…….OH! What’s it’s been since the moment you made the accusation….NOTHING!!!
You have nothing to indicate that they made up the point of being ordered to destroy the gold, silver, and choice livestock, something no ancient society in its right mind would have done, ESPECIALLY with regards to a long-time enemy (much less, the king losing his throne for actually keeping the loot).
I make no excuse for what happen. I understand the issue and the circumstances surrounding the events.
This act of Genocide, all of which is based on a single account written by those who committed it. ::)
Oh I forgot, primitive people believing a book of stories to be the infallible WOG written by other primitive people 1000's of year ago.
Got it.
You might want to correct that last statement of yours. “We didn’t murder every Japanese person on earth”. The reason that the USA didn’t target all Japanese is that 1) we had Japanese who fought on our side; 2) they hadn’t been attacking us for centuries on end; and 3), the part you missed yet again…..THE JAPANESE SURRENDERED.
Had the Amalekites done the same, the conflict would have been over. They however did not, even after being warned via the Kenites, who would have been wiped out with the Amalekites, for mere guilt by association (as Hitler did, killing not only Jews but non-Jewish sympathizers), if this were “genocide”.
Doesn't change what God ordered. Run Forrest run.
The Japanese children that died at Hiroshima are JUST AS DEAD as the Amalekite children were. And, all it would take is the luxury of hiding behind modern weapons for you would do the same (on far less).
Doesn't change what God ordered. Run Forrest run. (back to candy ass deflections I see.)
We are talking about them, much like the Japanese children, being casualties of war. And, as mentioned earlier, since assimilating them is off the table (thanks to your silly “slavery” rants), those kids are unfortunately faced with DEATH (sword or starvation).
Back to that again huh? Maintaining that slavery was the only option when slavery didn't occur with the Germany or Japan? Or any other civilized nation on earth for that matter?
Doesn't change what God ordered. Run Forrest run. (back to candy ass deflections I see.)
And, by your statements, so do your mother and father. And because of your “Christian upbringing” (unless you’ve officially denounced it) so do YOU.
No, based on your twisted belief that the Bible is the WOG, only. God is god, regardless of what you or I believe.
Listen to what you just said. BOTH the Amalekites and the Japanese died in a war. And the war with the Amalekites and Israel lasted FAR LONGER than that with the USA and Japan.
Doesn't change what God ordered. Run Forrest run.
Yet, you used the other definitions of “genocide” to claim that America did not commit genocide, while leaving the Jewish conflict with Amalek in that category.
Doesn't change what God ordered. Run Forrest run.
The "hatred" of the Amalekites were due to their continued assaults, with no indication of repentance or making amends. Had they done so, the conflict would have ceased, just as it did between Israel and other nations, with whom they'd fought.
Doesn't change what God ordered. Run Forrest run.
Except, when you shoot yourself in the foot with their definitions.
I've proved based ont he definition that God oredered Genocide, Run Forrest run.
All of those definitions emphasize racial/ethnic factors as the driving force for genocide. Such was not the case with the Amalekites. Otherwise, as mentioned earlier, the Kenites and the Amalekites, living in Israel, would have been destroyed as well.
Compare that with Hitler, who did not disseminate in his Holocaust. To him, a Jewish sympathizer was just as bad as a Jew himself and ripe for his picking.
The Amalekites, the entire nation, were singled out then wiped out on God's orders. Run Forrest run.
You can have all of those things and STILL be in bondage, a vassal or tribute kingdom, as Israel clearly was in 1st century A.D. I guess you missed that simple fact, in your ridiculous rambling.
And people still have much to gain or lose with in that bondage. They were bonded politically as a vaseel to Rome. It was business as usual to every one else. The only difference was that taxes were paid to Rome not Judea. People still got rich, people still gained power.
Run Forrest run.
Sorry, there’s no twisting needed. Your Christian upbringing, like it or not, is based on the teachings and deeds of one Jesus Christ, sent by THE VERY SAME GOD, who judged the Amalekites. And, it is that simple fact that you can’t duck.
Sent by is your belief. I see no God in someone who order the murder of innocent children. you do.
Your feeble attempts to suggest that a different God sent Christ not only rings hollow but
Hollow? Based on what? It is only a belief/faith that is the basis for you accepting the bible as the WOG nothing more.
What speaks volumes of you is the severe yellow streak, when it comes to acknowledging the source of your “Christian upbringing”. You bring it up, until it puts you in a philosophical bind. Then, you claim that “God is whatever you believe Him to be”, a tenet that is decidedly NOT Christian, whatsoever.
You haven't proved that one must believe the Bible assembled 300 year after christ's death to be the 100% WOG to be saved.
If you’re going to claim it, CLAIM IT; if not, then don’t. But, the continued flip-flopping is rather pitiful. You talk about the “other thousands of religious books”. But for some strange reason, I don’t hear you talking about your Buddhist upbringing, or your Islamic upbringing, or your Molechian upbringing, or your upbringing based on the worship of Dagon, or Ashoreth, etc (and the respective books, regarding those religions).
Claim what? I'm only claiming that the wisdom of God exists in other religious books.
Then, you might want to consider to Lasix (or bi-focals, at the very least). I have spoken the truth here. And, since it grates your little psyche, you have resorted to claiming that Jesus Christ wasn’t really sent by God (since it would mean that’s same God of the OT). But, that is the very essence of Christianity.
So, the fact remains that if your parents are Christians, they serve the SAME GOD that I do. And, if you continue to claim your “Christian upbringing”, then so do YOU.
Otherwise, you have mistakenly identified your upbringing and the faith of your father and mother.
All of which is based on faith not FACTS. My upbringing, be it Christian, taught me that killing innocent children is wrong. You can't handle that can you?
Again, the memory loss is kicking into gear. I did that on the other thread. But, if 2 Tim 3 weren’t enough, there’s also this blurb:
Rom. 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
And guess who that God, who raised Jesus from the dead, would be……..THAT’S RIGHT!!! The same one that judged the Amalekites.
Besides, the question was put to you on that same thread. If that’s not the case, what percentage is the word of God and who makes the determination of what is or isn’t?
If someone determines that the Ten Commandments are no longer part of the Word of God, that means they can steal, commit adultery, disobey their parents, etc. and still be saved. Or, if they believed that God didn’t really resurrect Jesus Christ from the dead (the confession of which is a requirement to be saved).
Again show me where you must believe the bible is the 100% WOG assembled some 300 years after christ's death to be saved.
-
Ok so what? The difference is that, God ordered the entire nation killed and the Americans nuked 2 cities.
And America would have nuked more cities, had the Japanese not surrendered. Fortunately for them, they did.
The common thread is that these were actions taken against an enemy, based on the initial assaults started by that enemy. The expressed purpose was to get that conflict to cease. The one difference is that one stopped and surrendered, after taking a major beating; and the other did not.
It can be argued that the Americans committed genocide on those to cities. It can not be argue with any validity that god did not commit genocide with the Amalikites.
Yes, it can. Again, the one common thread, with the most touted examples of genocide (the Holocaust and the Rwanda conflict) is RACE/ETHNICITY. Those folks killed were due primarily, if not solely, due to that. Plus, as stated earlier, anyone who sympathized or associated with them got killed as well.
That’s not the case with the Amalekites. They weren't killed just for being Amalekites (i.e. those who lived among the Israelites, as was allowed by law). Nor, were any, for merely associated with the Amalekites, killed in kind (i.e. the Kenites, who were warned, prior to Saul’s strike, to leave the area).
You are the one who brought it up as not fitting into the definition. I say it fits just fine.
I say it does not, for the reason given, just as what happened with the Japanese doesn’t fit the description.
Where in the definition of Genocide does it say that if you give them an opportunity to make amends and they don't take and then you exterminate them it isn't genocide?
Again more dishonesty or plain ignorance.
More amnesia, I see. Weren’t you the one that posted, According to R. J. Rummel, genocide has 3 different meanings. The ordinary meaning is murder by government of people due to their national, ethnic, racial, or religious group membership.?
That’s what I thought.
Plus, as mentioned by Lemkin, “Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves."
The point, of course, is that the Amalekites were judged based on WHAT THEY DID (and continued to do), NOT on their race/ethnicity.
And, since killing a whole bunch of people from one race isn’t enough to qualify as genocide (per the definitions cited), the term doesn’t apply.
Again, your unwillingness to see it for what it is. It doesn't matter what the Japanese did or didn't do, the act is about genocide. We wouldn't have committed it in the fashion God did if they didn't surrender. We are better than that.
We would have blown up as much of Japan as it took to get them to stop with their assaults, period.
No scrambling involved. I've had to explain it in the easiest terms possible for you. What God did fits the definition exactly, regardless if you want to "deflect" the issue to the Americans of 1945.
There’s no deflecting involved. Just as what happened in 1945 with the Japanese wasn’t genocide, neither was what happened to the Amalekites.
Doesn't change what God ordered. Run Forrest run.
Doesn't change what God ordered. Run Forrest run. (back to candy ass deflections I see.)
Nope!! That would imply that I actually deflected or ran from your pitiful charges in the first place, which simply isn't the case.
I don’t need to run. I’ve addressed your questions. Your liking the answers make no difference to me.
Back to that again huh? Maintaining that slavery was the only option when slavery didn't occur with the Germany or Japan? Or any other civilized nation on earth for that matter?
Their respective countries (Japan and Germany) were still left in good enough shape for them to inhabit them. And, of course, they surrendered before the damage got worse than it was.
We didn't rebuilt Japan (or Germany) while they were still warring with us, while we were still being "Pearl Harbored". Any restorations, reparations, treaties, etc., with those two nations came only AFTER they threw in the towel (while there was something still left of their land).
The same would have occured with the Amalekites, except for the fact that they did not surrender or stop their assaults.
Doesn't change what God ordered. Run Forrest run. (back to candy ass deflections I see.)
Nope!!
No, based on your twisted belief that the Bible is the WOG, only. God is god, regardless of what you or I believe.
Then, what are His standards, where can those standards be found? That’s the part you have yet to answer. Does He have commandments? If so, what are they?
If you don’t know what they are, how in the world can you (or anyone else) claim that you are following them?
Doesn't change what God ordered. Run Forrest run.
Doesn't change what God ordered. Run Forrest run. (back to candy ass deflections I see.)
Nope!! Simply cutting through your pitiful arguments.
Back to that again huh? Maintaining that slavery was the only option when slavery didn't occur with the Germany or Japan? Or any other civilized nation on earth for that matter?
Come again? There were plenty of civilized nations where slavery occured
I've proved based ont he definition that God oredered Genocide, Run Forrest run.
The Amalekites, the entire nation, were singled out then wiped out on God's orders. Run Forrest run.
How cute!!! Now, in your pathetic attempts to save face, you’ve gone into broken-record mode.
And, as if your skipped-record routine weren’t feeble enough, your comprehension skills continue to be on the fritz.
The “entire nation” was not singled out then wiped out. The Amalekites, who lived among the Israelites in peace….SPARED!!! The Kenites, who lived among the Amalekites (and likely intermarried with them, thus making them part of their nation)……….SPARED!!!!!
Neither of that is a hallmark of genocide…..NEXT!!!!
And people still have much to gain or lose with in that bondage. They were bonded politically as a vaseel to Rome. It was business as usual to every one else. The only difference was that taxes were paid to Rome not Judea. People still got rich, people still gained power.
Run Forrest run.
Yet, none of those people who got rich and gained power were authors of the books of the New Testament. The only one remotely in a position to do such was Paul. But, he GAVE UP his position of influence to become a Christian and spread the Gospel. And, he subsequently died for that.
Sent by is your belief. I see no God in someone who order the murder of innocent children. you do.
What you or I believe makes no difference, remember?
Hollow? Based on what? It is only a belief/faith that is the basis for you accepting the bible as the WOG nothing more
By that standard, it is only a belief/faith that is the basis of your thinking that God (of the OT) isn’t the one who sent Jesus Christ or that part of Scripture you don’t like isn’t the “WOG”, based on your discomfort with His judgment on the Amalekites.
You haven't proved that one must believe the Bible assembled 300 year after christ's death to be the 100% WOG to be saved.
I’ve addressed that at the end of this post. Plus, you STILL haven't addressed which percentage is or isn't "WOG" and who makes the determination.
Claim what? I'm only claiming that the wisdom of God exists in other religious books.
Yet, I don’t hear you extolling your Muslim/Buddhist/Ashoreth/Baal/Dagon/Molech/Krishna upbringing.
You prefer the wisdom of God……that is, until it involves something that you don’t like.
All of which is based on faith not FACTS. My upbringing, be it Christian, taught me that killing innocent children is wrong. You can't handle that can you?
Was your upbringing a Christian one or not? Are your parents Christians or not? Which is it?
The last time I saw someone flip-flopped this much, he lost to George Bush in the 2004 election.
Again show me where you must believe the bible is the 100% WOG assembled some 300 years after christ's death to be saved.
The Bible’s assembly occurred long before some 300 years after Christ’s death and resurrection. But, that’s hardly the crux of the matter, here.
Paul’s reference to Scripture features, at the bare mininum, the Tanakh (or what we call the Old Testament). THAT’S THE PART YOU WISH TO AVOID, the part with which you have issue, the Old Testament (which was assembled long before Christ was even born).
The verse I used initially states that “All Scripture” is inspired by God (not just the Scripture that you like, not just the Scripture that doesn’t hurt your feelings, or bruise your psyche, or doesn’t conflict with your emotions). And the only God to which Paul is referring is that of the Old Testament (despite your repeated, yet pitiful, claims to the contrary).
And as a requirement to be saved, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved”.
Your attempt to suggest that you can be a Christian, as long as you don’t believe that God didn’t raise from the dead, or that God didn’t send Jesus at all, or that someone other than the God of the OT (that you don’t like for whatever reason) send Jesus to redeem mankind continues to fall flat on its face.
And that’s at the heart of all this ranting you’ve been doing for last couple of weeks.
-
More amnesia, I see. Weren’t you the one that posted, According to R. J. Rummel, genocide has 3 different meanings. The ordinary meaning is murder by government of people due to their national, ethnic, racial, or religious group membership.?
That’s what I thought.
Plus, as mentioned by Lemkin, “Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves."
The point, of course, is that the Amalekites were judged based on WHAT THEY DID (and continued to do), NOT on their race/ethnicity.
And, since killing a whole bunch of people from one race isn’t enough to qualify as genocide (per the definitions cited), the term doesn’t apply.
It wasn't a whole bunch. Everyone of them were order to be killed.
And you still haven't addressed where is says "if you give them the opportunity to make amends" which is one of the reasons you are using to deny it is Genocide.
Committing Genocide WAS DUE to them being Amalekites because of the reasons you have outlined even though those reasons aren't justification for doing what they did. Regardless the reasons don't matter it's the act of killing/exterminating a specific race completely that defines genocide.
It can be argued that we committed genocide by dropping nukes on Japan, but it is pale in comparison to what Germany was engaged in and that is even more pale in comparison to what the jews did as they succeeded in kill all the Amalekites.
Also, It doesn't matter what i think regarding Japan. The definition clearly defines the Jews as committing genocide. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide definition clearly identifies what htye did as genocide.
I'm not having Amnesia, I read carefully those items. Still, the definition stands and the Jews fit right into it. Killing a race due tot he fact that they are a certain race doesn't happen with out reasons, valid or invalid. Maybe the Jew's reasons were valid. Regardless genoicide was committed per all the definitions.
I just noticed this on the re-read.....
How cute!!! Now, in your pathetic attempts to save face, you’ve gone into broken-record mode.
And, as if your skipped-record routine weren’t feeble enough, your comprehension skills continue to be on the fritz.
The “entire nation” was not singled out then wiped out. The Amalekites, who lived among the Israelites in peace….SPARED!!! The Kenites, who lived among the Amalekites (and likely intermarried with them, thus making them part of their nation)……….SPARED!!!!!
Neither of that is a hallmark of genocide…..NEXT!!!!
Wow, so Amalekites can live in peace with the Jews, but yet the Jews killed innocent children?
So it wasn't destined that Amaeliktes would always rise up and fight the Jews? But yet they kill infants and children any way?
::)
Yeah quite the God you worship.
-
Come again? There were plenty of civilized nations where slavery occured
Think of how much less slavery would have existed if it were denounced in the Bible.
If the Bible was really the WOG it would have been soundly denounced. But yet it was basically encouraged and used as justification in more primitive times.
-
The Bible’s assembly occurred long before some 300 years after Christ’s death and resurrection. But, that’s hardly the crux of the matter, here.
Paul’s reference to Scripture features, at the bare mininum, the Tanakh (or what we call the Old Testament). THAT’S THE PART YOU WISH TO AVOID, the part with which you have issue, the Old Testament (which was assembled long before Christ was even born).
The verse I used initially states that “All Scripture” is inspired by God (not just the Scripture that you like, not just the Scripture that doesn’t hurt your feelings, or bruise your psyche, or doesn’t conflict with your emotions). And the only God to which Paul is referring is that of the Old Testament (despite your repeated, yet pitiful, claims to the contrary).
And as a requirement to be saved, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved”.
Your attempt to suggest that you can be a Christian, as long as you don’t believe that God didn’t raise from the dead, or that God didn’t send Jesus at all, or that someone other than the God of the OT (that you don’t like for whatever reason) send Jesus to redeem mankind continues to fall flat on its face.
And that’s at the heart of all this ranting you’ve been doing for last couple of weeks.
I am going to ask you again. Show me the verse or verses that says you must believe the Bible is the 100% WOG to be saved.
You showed this verse: “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved”.
Nothing about believing the BIBLE is the 100% WOG here. A person only has to believe and accept that Jesus is his savor and died on the cross for his/her sins.
-
Yet, none of those people who got rich and gained power were authors of the books of the New Testament. The only one remotely in a position to do such was Paul. But, he GAVE UP his position of influence to become a Christian and spread the Gospel. And, he subsequently died for that.
Not Paul. It was those who came afterwards, as the religion grew, that had much to gain.
-
Was your upbringing a Christian one or not? Are your parents Christians or not? Which is it?
The last time I saw someone flip-flopped this much, he lost to George Bush in the 2004 election.
It was very Christian. But not the Christian you subscribe to that would kill a child on God's orders.
-
MCWay, we might want to consider splitting this thing off in 2 separate threads.
We have the Genocide issue, The "if you must believe the bible is the 100% WOG issue which kind of relates to my Christian up bringing that can be attached to an existing thread.
-
Not Paul. It was those who came afterwards, as the religion grew, that had much to gain.
Christians hardly had anything to gain, as they were persecuted for their beliefs. And that was the case for centuries, until Constantine arrived and made Christianity (or a diluted version of it, loaded with pagan traditions) the official religion of the empire.
Was your upbringing a Christian one or not? Are your parents Christians or not? Which is it?
The last time I saw someone flip-flopped this much, he lost to George Bush in the 2004 election.
It was very Christian. But not the Christian you subscribe to that would kill a child on God's orders.
My point was that the Christian faith is predicated on the fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, sent to die for the redemption of mankind. That God is the same as the one who passed judgment on the Amalekites.
I am going to ask you again. Show me the verse or verses that says you must believe the Bible is the 100% WOG to be saved.
You showed this verse: “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved”.
Nothing about believing the BIBLE is the 100% WOG here. A person only has to believe and accept that Jesus is his savor and died on the cross for his/her sins.
You forgot that I also showed you 2 Tim 3, when you asked the question on that other thread. As I said, when Paul refers to Scripture, he (at the very least) is referencing the Tanakh (aka the Old Testament). That's the part with which you have issue. Paul's words were, "ALL Scripture is inspired by God......" That includes the OT.
That's the part you're attempting to suggest that you don't have to believe to be saved. Tie that in with the other verse I mentioned about believing and confessing that God rose Jesus from the dead and the picture is clear. You don't believe that, because you don't think Scripture is inspired by God, nor do you believe that this same God rose Jesus from the dead. The two are intertwined.
Think of how much less slavery would have existed if it were denounced in the Bible.
How'd you come up with that conclusion? Adultery is denounced in the Bible; yet, it runs rampant. Homosexuality is denounced in the Bible; yet gayness is being touted left and right. Theft, fornication, lying, cheating, greed and a whole slew of other things are denounced in Scripture. But, as in the days of Noah (where the thoughts of man were evil continuously), we see such running wild on a daily basis.
As for this slavery issue, kidnapping someone from his native land and selling them was a capital offense in Scripture. But that certainly didn't stop whites from going to Africa and snatching up black people . Fornicating with servants was off limits, too. But, we all know the white man didn't abide by that. Giving the firsborn son of the "hated wife" the bulk of the estate was required by Biblical law; yet white people kept humping black women and having babies, without giving those kids one red cent. And they certainly didn't marry the black women they knocked up.
If the Bible was really the WOG it would have been soundly denounced. But yet it was basically encouraged and used as justification in more primitive times.
Denounced by whom?
It wasn't a whole bunch. Everyone of them were order to be killed.
Not the Kenites, who lived among them, not the Amalekites who lived in Israel (or any who made peace with Israel). And, Saul's orders would have be rescinded, had the Amalekites repented.
Committing Genocide WAS DUE to them being Amalekites because of the reasons you have outlined even though those reasons aren't justification for doing what they did. Regardless the reasons don't matter it's the act of killing/exterminating a specific race completely that defines genocide.
They weren't killed for merely being Amalekites but due to their past and present actions, with no attempts to make peace or cease with their attacks. Plus, as mentioned earlier, when genocide occurs, not only are a specific people wiped out, based primarily on race, but any sympathizers or suspected members of that race are destroyed as well.
The fact that Amalekites lived amongst the Israelites AND that Saul warned the Kenites (and indirectly, the Amalekites) means that race (actual, implied, or mere guilt by association) DID NOT drive Saul's offensive.
It can be argued that we committed genocide by dropping nukes on Japan, but it is pale in comparison to what Germany was engaged in and that is even more pale in comparison to what the jews did as they succeeded in kill all the Amalekites.
That argument is also an incorrect one, because we didn't blow up the Japanese simply for being Japanese. They attacked us without provocation and continued, until the A-bomb got them to surrender. Once that happened, there was no more fighting with them.
Also, It doesn't matter what i think regarding Japan. The definition clearly defines the Jews as committing genocide. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide definition clearly identifies what htye did as genocide.
I'm not having Amnesia, I read carefully those items. Still, the definition stands and the Jews fit right into it. Killing a race due tot he fact that they are a certain race doesn't happen with out reasons, valid or invalid. Maybe the Jew's reasons were valid. Regardless genoicide was committed per all the definitions.
No, it does not. As pointed out earlier, simply killing a large group of a particular race of people doesn’t equate to genocide. There’s even the admission that defining such is not “clear-cut”.
I just noticed this on the re-read.....
Quote
How cute!!! Now, in your pathetic attempts to save face, you’ve gone into broken-record mode.
And, as if your skipped-record routine weren’t feeble enough, your comprehension skills continue to be on the fritz.
The “entire nation” was not singled out then wiped out. The Amalekites, who lived among the Israelites in peace….SPARED!!! The Kenites, who lived among the Amalekites (and likely intermarried with them, thus making them part of their nation)……….SPARED!!!!!
Neither of that is a hallmark of genocide…..NEXT!!!!
Wow, so Amalekites can live in peace with the Jews, but yet the Jews killed innocent children?
So it wasn't destined that Amaeliktes would always rise up and fight the Jews? But yet they kill infants and children any way?
Yeah quite the God you worship.[/quote]
All of them CAN live in peace, but they didn’t (except for the aforementioned few who lived among Israel, plus the Kenites). Again, had they repented and/or made some sort of amends or treaty, the conflict’s over.
The God I worship gave them multiple opportunities, over a span of at least three centuries to repent, make amends, and leave His people along. But, they didn’t……Proceed with judgment, as planned.
-
Christians hardly had anything to gain, as they were persecuted for their beliefs. And that was the case for centuries, until Constantine arrived and made Christianity (or a diluted version of it, loaded with pagan traditions) the official religion of the empire.
Still there was gain with in the religious community they were part of. How does that saying go? It better to be the head of a mouse than the tail of a lion?
My point was that the Christian faith is predicated on the fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, sent to die for the redemption of mankind. That God is the same as the one who passed judgment on the Amalekites.
No, the same God "believed" to be the one who passed judgment on the Amalekites. Based on an assembly and selection of books and letters some 300 years later that determined for you what is and what is not the WOG. In my case I don't believe that God would kill innocent children deliberately in an act of genocide. You do. I can't remember the exact percentage but i remember reading a couple years ago that only 28% of Christians believe the Bible word for word. That's pretty tragic for those who believe word for word. Regardless, the truth is what ever the truth will end up being, but for now, It is only your belief that makes it true for you not fact.
You forgot that I also showed you 2 Tim 3, when you asked the question on that other thread. As I said, when Paul refers to Scripture, he (at the very least) is referencing the Tanakh (aka the Old Testament). That's the part with which you have issue. Paul's words were, "ALL Scripture is inspired by God......" That includes the OT.
That's the part you're attempting to suggest that you don't have to believe to be saved. Tie that in with the other verse I mentioned about believing and confessing that God rose Jesus from the dead and the picture is clear. You don't believe that, because you don't think Scripture is inspired by God, nor do you believe that this same God rose Jesus from the dead. The two are intertwined.
I think much scripture is inspired by God. That's why i say there are many "nuggets" of God in Christian scipture; as well as other religions.
What you've wrote is not clear to me, it's simply Paul telling someone in a letter that all scripture is "inspired by God". Even if he said all scripture is the word of God, Still you haven't shown me where He, or Jesus, said you must believe the Letters I'm about to write or have written, plus the OT (Torah?) is the WOG to be saved.
What is clear, is that you must accept Jesus as your savior. That's clear.
How'd you come up with that conclusion? Adultery is denounced in the Bible; yet, it runs rampant. Homosexuality is denounced in the Bible; yet gayness is being touted left and right. Theft, fornication, lying, cheating, greed and a whole slew of other things are denounced in Scripture. But, as in the days of Noah (where the thoughts of man were evil continuously), we see such running wild on a daily basis.
gayness? lol you mean homosexuality don't you? Not that there's anything wrong with that. ;)
As for this slavery issue, kidnapping someone from his native land and selling them was a capital offense in Scripture. But that certainly didn't stop whites from going to Africa and snatching up black people . Fornicating with servants was off limits, too. But, we all know the white man didn't abide by that. Giving the firsborn son of the "hated wife" the bulk of the estate was required by Biblical law; yet white people kept humping black women and having babies, without giving those kids one red cent. And they certainly didn't marry the black women they knocked up.
Just think of how much more there would have been if those things weren't denounced. I'm not suggesting slavery would have not existed. I'm only saying it's hard to argue legitimately that had the Bible denounced slavery that it wouldn't regressed from modern society quicker.
Denounced by whom?
By God in the Bible. Perhaps in the commandments. Maybe it was the tablets that moses dropped? ;)
Not the Kenites, who lived among them, not the Amalekites who lived in Israel (or any who made peace with Israel). And, Saul's orders would have be rescinded, had the Amalekites repented.
They weren't killed for merely being Amalekites but due to their past and present actions, with no attempts to make peace or cease with their attacks. Plus, as mentioned earlier, when genocide occurs, not only are a specific people wiped out, based primarily on race, but any sympathizers or suspected members of that race are destroyed as well.
The fact that Amalekites lived amongst the Israelites AND that Saul warned the Kenites (and indirectly, the Amalekites) means that race (actual, implied, or mere guilt by association) DID NOT drive Saul's offensive.
Did they kill the Amalekites that lived among the Israelite too?
That argument is also an incorrect one, because we didn't blow up the Japanese simply for being Japanese. They attacked us without provocation and continued, until the A-bomb got them to surrender. Once that happened, there was no more fighting with them.
From our point of view it was unprovoked. From theirs it wasn't. But that's not really the point. The point is, the Jews wiped out a nation, just as the Germans attempted to do both for there own reasons valid or invalid. The validity of the act doesn't play into the definition of the act.
No, it does not. As pointed out earlier, simply killing a large group of a particular race of people doesn’t equate to genocide. There’s even the admission that defining such is not “clear-cut”.
Exactly, Horoshima was a large group, the Amalekites were an entire nation.
All of them CAN live in peace, but they didn’t (except for the aforementioned few who lived among Israel, plus the Kenites). Again, had they repented and/or made some sort of amends or treaty, the conflict’s over.
The God I worship gave them multiple opportunities, over a span of at least three centuries to repent, make amends, and leave His people along. But, they didn’t……Proceed with judgment, as planned.
Wasn't it you that said these children would "rise up" when they grew up an attack Israel again but yet there are Amalekites living peacefully amoung them?
-
Still there was gain with in the religious community they were part of. How does that saying go? It better to be the head of a mouse than the tail of a lion?
Not when the neck of the mouse kept is broken by the mousetrap of the Roman empire.
No, the same God "believed" to be the one who passed judgment on the Amalekites. Based on an assembly and selection of books and letters some 300 years later that determined for you what is and what is not the WOG. In my case I don't believe that God would kill innocent children deliberately in an act of genocide. You do. I can't remember the exact percentage but i remember reading a couple years ago that only 28% of Christians believe the Bible word for word. That's pretty tragic for those who believe word for word. Regardless, the truth is what ever the truth will end up being, but for now, It is only your belief that makes it true for you not fact.
Again, by that standard, you have nothing but your belief that the God of the OT is not the same as the One who sent Jesus Christ.
As for that 28%, those low numbers is likely due to the lack of actual Bible study done, coupled with outside pressure to dilute the Word to conform to a worldly philosophy.
I think much scripture is inspired by God. That's why i say there are many "nuggets" of God in Christian scipture; as well as other religions.
What you've wrote is not clear to me, it's simply Paul telling someone in a letter that all scripture is "inspired by God". Even if he said all scripture is the word of God, Still you haven't shown me where He, or Jesus, said you must believe the Letters I'm about to write or have written, plus the OT (Torah?) is the WOG to be saved.
What is clear, is that you must accept Jesus as your savior. That's clear.
The Torah is part of the Tanakh (that word is actually an English pronounciation of the three Hebrew consonants, which translate to the English letters, "TNK", the "T" being the Torah".
Accepting Jesus as your Savior indeed true. But, here's the rub: Jesus can't be your Savior, unless He rose from the grave. And who's responsible for His resurrection? As Paul mentioned, one must believe and confess that "God raised Him from the dead". And that's at the heart of the matter, of your objection. The God who raised Jesus from the dead is the same one who judged the Amalekites.
gayness? lol you mean homosexuality don't you? Not that there's anything wrong with that. ;)
I never really like Seinfeld. But, my wife was crazy aobut that show. ;D
Just think of how much more there would have been if those things weren't denounced. I'm not suggesting slavery would have not existed. I'm only saying it's hard to argue legitimately that had the Bible denounced slavery that it wouldn't regressed from modern society quicker.
We're not in disagreement here Ozmo. But, as I've stated elsewhere, there a HUGE difference between "slavery" as described in the OT and what we've come to know as slavery, in more modern times (i.e. chattel slavery, endured by black people in this country).
I listed the details earlier, all of which (kidnapping people from a foreign land, raping the women without consequence, not allowing children from slave women to be legitimate heirs, inhumane beatings, dismemberment and killing with no punishment, no social advancement, etc.) are denounced by the Bible.
By God in the Bible. Perhaps in the commandments. Maybe it was the tablets that moses dropped? ;)
Did they kill the Amalekites that lived among the Israelite too?
NOPE....unless they committed some sort of major offense (i.e. the Amalekite that ended up killing Saul).
From our point of view it was unprovoked. From theirs it wasn't. But that's not really the point. The point is, the Jews wiped out a nation, just as the Germans attempted to do both for there own reasons valid or invalid. The validity of the act doesn't play into the definition of the act.
The unprovoked part starts with the Amalekite assault on the Israelites, as they were leaving Egypt.
As for the rest of your statement, the reason makes all the difference as to whether or not an act like this is genocide. Killing a mass of people, based primarily (or solely) on race/ethnicity (as well as any suspected members of that race or sympathizers to that race) is genocide.
Killing mass group of people, because they've been attacking yours for several years (or even centuries) is not.
Exactly, Horoshima was a large group, the Amalekites were an entire nation.
So was Japan, the nation with which we were at war. Hiroshima was one good chunk of the nation of Japan. After putting the A-bomb on them, they got smart and surrendered. They didn't attack us anymore; hence the blowing up of the Japanese stopped.
Wasn't it you that said these children would "rise up" when they grew up an attack Israel again but yet there are Amalekites living peacefully amoung them?
There were a handful of Amalekites living peacefully amongst Israel. But, a much larger group of them (namely the ones that Saul didn't destroy) re-surfaced and resumed their attacks on Israel. David ended up having to deal with them, when he became king. Fast forward to the book of Esther. That guy, Haman, who nearly had the Jewish people wiped out. He was an Amalekite. Even to the days of king Hezekiah, the Amalekites were a sworn enemy to Israel that continued to pester them.
-
Not when the neck of the mouse kept is broken by the mousetrap of the Roman empire.
Yeah constantly, yet it kept growing and never died. :)
Again, by that standard, you have nothing but your belief that the God of the OT is not the same as the One who sent Jesus Christ.
The of the OT? How many instances in the OT is god talked about? My contention is not all of it is God. But my contention is also not all of it isn't God.
As for that 28%, those low numbers is likely due to the lack of actual Bible study done, coupled with outside pressure to dilute the Word to conform to a worldly philosophy.
Also, due tot he fact of the many many interpretations that have resulted into the many many denominations combined with the fact that's its written not straight forward and beyond misinterpretation. Coupled with modern science and common sense.
"actual Bible study" is simply a practice of telling people what to believe/how to interpret the Bible. (been to quite a few ;))
Accepting Jesus as your Savior indeed true. But, here's the rub: Jesus can't be your Savior, unless He rose from the grave. And who's responsible for His resurrection? As Paul mentioned, one must believe and confess that "God raised Him from the dead". And that's at the heart of the matter, of your objection. The God who raised Jesus from the dead is the same one who judged the Amalekites.
No it's not, because God is God. Regardless of whether or not the OT is true. I believe God raised Jesus from the Dead. It Doesn't matter if God correctly identified in the OT or not. I believe Jesus died on the cross for my sins and God raised him from the dead. I'm saved. Anything else is "pork barrel spending" ;D
I never really like Seinfeld. But, my wife was crazy aobut that show. ;D
We're not in disagreement here Ozmo. But, as I've stated elsewhere, there a HUGE difference between "slavery" as described in the OT and what we've come to know as slavery, in more modern times (i.e. chattel slavery, endured by black people in this country).I listed the details earlier, all of which (kidnapping people from a foreign land, raping the women without consequence, not allowing children from slave women to be legitimate heirs, inhumane beatings, dismemberment and killing with no punishment, no social advancement, etc.) are denounced by the Bible.
We are disagreement in one area because i believe it was still slavery not servitude or being a servant. But we can cuss and discuss that on another thread.
NOPE....unless they committed some sort of major offense (i.e. the Amalekite that ended up killing Saul).
Yet the other children did not commit any offense and because, as you have reasoned, they were destined to rise up and attack Israel again they must be put to death? Makes no sense and is illogical. Just as barbaric as thinking because their parents attacked Israel they must die to.
The unprovoked part starts with the Amalekite assault on the Israelites, as they were leaving Egypt.
Unfortunately, we don't have their side of the story, not that it would be justified.
As for the rest of your statement, the reason makes all the difference as to whether or not an act like this is genocide. Killing a mass of people, based primarily (or solely) on race/ethnicity (as well as any suspected members of that race or sympathizers to that race) is genocide.
Killing mass group of people, because they've been attacking yours for several years (or even centuries) is not.
Still by definition it is. Then you are saying the definition is wrong.
So was Japan, the nation with which we were at war. Hiroshima was one good chunk of the nation of Japan. After putting the A-bomb on them, they got smart and surrendered. They didn't attack us anymore; hence the blowing up of the Japanese stopped.
Good chunk? I donno. It's all relative. 71 million people in Japan. 100K dieing?
There were a handful of Amalekites living peacefully amongst Israel. But, a much larger group of them (namely the ones that Saul didn't destroy) re-surfaced and resumed their attacks on Israel. David ended up having to deal with them, when he became king. Fast forward to the book of Esther. That guy, Haman, who nearly had the Jewish people wiped out. He was an Amalekite. Even to the days of king Hezekiah, the Amalekites were a sworn enemy to Israel that continued to pester them.
Please don't think I'm defending those who attacked Israel. I'm defending the innocent children who were needlessly murdered on God's orders. If there were Amalikites living peacefully with the Israelites then it proves that those innocent children didn't need to die based on your contention that they would have surely rose up years later and attacked.
-
Ozmo,
In the old testament or rather the more accurate description, "Hebrew/Aramaic" portion of the Bible, God tolerated acts that He did not approve of. For instance polygamy. I could go on here, however I don't have the time at the moment. I would like to discuss it in a reasonable and peaceful manor with you if your willing. Let me know. :)
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
Ozmo,
In the old testament or rather the more accurate description, "Hebrew/Aramaic" portion of the Bible, God tolerated acts that He did not approve of. For instance polygamy. I could go on here, however I don't have the time at the moment. I would like to discuss it in a reasonable and peaceful manor with you if your willing. Let me know. :)
GC/DEA_AGENT
You would like to discuss acts he deemed sinful but still tolerated or specifically polygamy?
I personally don't care how people decide to live their lives as long as they don't hurt others. If three women want to be married to one man, good for them. It can be both a curse and a blessing to the husband.