God of the OT or Jesus in the NT: Do they contradict one another?

[MCWAY]

This is what you said:

Historical and archaeological evidence supports what is said in the Bible but does not make what's attached to it fact.

I understand your point of not being able to prove super natural occurrences, but your acceptance of these occurances as fact is little different from urban legends or other supernatural events from other religion as those religion have archaeological evidence that support them also.  Like Mt Olympus.

Correction: I says you can't prove supernatural occurences DIRECTLY!!! Such must be manifested in the natural realm. That's where prophecy comes into play, which goes back to the dates the Biblical books were written. If archaeological evidence shows certain books being penned at a certain time, and the prophetic content therein comes to pass, in the FUTURE, then that's a clear sign of supernatural occurence.

That's why, again, certain non-believers, when they can't deny the accuracy of Scripture, have to resort to claims that the books were written after the fact. Such is fueled by their disbelief, not a lack of evidence.

Re:  loco's assertion about 5000 copies.  It doesn't matter.  You don't have the original or the copies made in the many years before the 5000 were made. 

You're making it sound as if the 5000+ copies were made at one shot or during one time period. We have these copies (and these are just the ones written in Greek) from various time periods. As Loco said, there are some from 4th century A.D. and some from 1st century A.D (and many in between). The consistency and integrity is there. That, again, would suggest that the copies reflect what the originals say.

Why do you think that somehow, the originals have such a drastically different message or different content than the copies that we have?

[nzhardgain]

I see a lot of pearls being thrown here.

They are getting muddy.

Ozmo keep denying

Ps please stop saying that murdering,raping,thieving people were innocent.thanks.

[OzmO]

I see a lot of pearls being thrown here.

They are getting muddy.

Ozmo keep denying

Ps please stop saying that murdering,raping,thieving people were innocent.thanks.

Learn to read.

I'm talking about the children dumb ass.

[Necrosis]

Correction: I says you can't prove supernatural occurences DIRECTLY!!! Such must be manifested in the natural realm. That's where prophecy comes into play, which goes back to the dates the Biblical books were written. If archaeological evidence shows certain books being penned at a certain time, and the prophetic content therein comes to pass, in the FUTURE, then that's a clear sign of supernatural occurence.

That's why, again, certain non-believers, when they can't deny the accuracy of Scripture, have to resort to claims that the books were written after the fact. Such is fueled by their disbelief, not a lack of evidence.

You're making it sound as if the 5000+ copies were made at one shot or during one time period. We have these copies (and these are just the ones written in Greek) from various time periods. As Loco said, there are some from 4th century A.D. and some from 1st century A.D (and many in between). The consistency and integrity is there. That, again, would suggest that the copies reflect what the originals say.

Why do you think that somehow, the originals have such a drastically different message or different content than the copies that we have?

dude i totally forgot about this thread.

do you know how many religions there are?

why would god forsake all those people. also, because christianity is a north american phenomenon for the most part, why would he allow people to be born in indian where another religion is chief? wouldnt this be like condeming them? also, you know that your sure of your religion, but many religious people of different sects feel the same way. other books have prophecies as well, and Quran talks about conception in detail such that someone would have to know of embryology(or so it seems). your book is not the only book. funny how geography plays a role in religious beleif .

supernatural occurencies defy natural law and cannot exist, if natural law is true. if you beleive the laws of the universe are untrue then you are just being ignorant. also, if the future is decided, obviously is if there is prophecies, do we have free will? it would seem unlikely, this contradicts god. miracles etc imply that there where mistakes per se in the design, that intervention was required, again contradicting free will.

either god is intimate or seperate. it cant be both ways otherwise the convo would degenerate into irrational ramblings.

also, what is the point of a retarded child? he cannot choose to repent and surely will sin, is he going to burn in hell? and if not, why?  why would god even create him, just to suffer?

would people stop saying that god allowed the murder, rape etc of guilty people. do you even see your logical fallacy? your god is suppose to be omni-benevolent, pure love. thus these options are not possible, unless god has evil, anger etc as well as love, hence he is not perfect.

[OzmO]

Correction: I says you can't prove supernatural occurences DIRECTLY!!! Such must be manifested in the natural realm. That's where prophecy comes into play, which goes back to the dates the Biblical books were written. If archaeological evidence shows certain books being penned at a certain time, and the prophetic content therein comes to pass, in the FUTURE, then that's a clear sign of supernatural occurence.

That's why, again, certain non-believers, when they can't deny the accuracy of Scripture, have to resort to claims that the books were written after the fact. Such is fueled by their disbelief, not a lack of evidence.

that has got to be the weakest argument for proving fact I've ever heard.

[nzhardgain]

dude i totally forgot about this thread.

do you know how many religions there are?

why would god forsake all those people. also, because christianity is a north american phenomenon for the most part

Wrong.How long has north america been around compared to christianity?

would people stop saying that god allowed the murder, rape etc of guilty people. do you even see your logical fallacy? your god is suppose to be omni-benevolent, pure love. thus these options are not possible, unless god has evil, anger etc as well as love, hence he is not perfect.

You are right in saying that Gods first quality is in fact love.But he has love for his people first.His sense of justice is perfect.He doesnt allow his followers to be hammered beyond what they can bear.

[loco]

that has got to be the weakest argument for proving fact I've ever heard.

Really?  How so?

[loco]

do you know how many religions there are?

Yes, only two:

1. Human Achievement: Be good as much as you can, avoid evil as much as you can, and some god may bless you and you may have a good "after life".

2. Divine Intervention: God reached down to humans and did everything that needed to be done through Jesus Christ.

why would god forsake all those people. also, because christianity is a north american phenomenon for the most part,

Christianity is Middle Eastern.  That's where it originated, in Palestine.  We don't know exactly how many Christians exist in countries where Christians are tortured and killed, countries like China and all the Islamic countries.  Christianity has been growing in China and South Korea.  Christianity is big in Australia too.

why would he allow people to be born in indian where another religion is chief? wouldnt this be like condeming them?

Christians form the third largest group in Kerala, India. They have sometimes, even in some official documents, been called Nazaranis (followers of Jesus of Nazarene) or St. Thomas Christians.

also, you know that your sure of your religion, but many religious people of different sects feel the same way. other books have prophecies as well, and Quran talks about conception in detail such that someone would have to know of embryology(or so it seems). your book is not the only book. funny how geography plays a role in religious beleif .

Much of the Quran is based on the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.  Muslims don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God or that he died for our sins, but they do believe that Jesus is a prophet sent by God, born of the Virgin Mary, and that Jesus is coming back soon.

supernatural occurencies defy natural law and cannot exist, if natural law is true. if you beleive the laws of the universe are untrue then you are just being ignorant. also, if the future is decided, obviously is if there is prophecies, do we have free will? it would seem unlikely, this contradicts god. miracles etc imply that there where mistakes per se in the design, that intervention was required, again contradicting free will.

either god is intimate or seperate. it cant be both ways otherwise the convo would degenerate into irrational ramblings.

God is a God of order and a God of law.  This is manifested in both, the Bible and the Universe that He created.  God created natural laws, and they are good laws.  However, God will for His own good reasons defy and break His own natural laws to show, among many things, that He is God, that these are His laws, and that just as He created these natural laws, He can also break them.  That's what a miracle is. 

also, what is the point of a retarded child? he cannot choose to repent and surely will sin, is he going to burn in hell? and if not, why?  why would god even create him, just to suffer?

In a perfect world, there would not be retarded children, or pain, or sickness.  But this isn't a perfect world.  No, a retarded child will not burn in hell.  And a retarded child will not suffer, but be happy provided he/she has loving parents and a loving environment.  I heard on the radio the other day that a child with down syndrome in some Latin country learned to weave tapestries and they are so artistic that he is now selling them.  He is happy just to know that he is making something that people are willing to pay for.

would people stop saying that god allowed the murder, rape etc of guilty people. do you even see your logical fallacy? your god is suppose to be omni-benevolent, pure love. thus these options are not possible, unless god has evil, anger etc as well as love, hence he is not perfect.

Not only that, but God sometimes allows the murder, rape, etc of innocent people too.  It is not a perfect world.  It used to be, and we messed it up.  God is good, and He created a good and perfect world.  We messed it up, but one day God will remove this world and again create a new, perfect world.

[nzhardgain]

Learn to read.

I'm talking about the children dumb ass.

They were innocent?Or you once again talking out of your ass?
Heres the deal,ive decided with my sinful eye and bad judgement that you are far too stupid to be treacherous apostate scum.
Ive upgraded you to ignorant fool.Do more reading and less typing.You betray your lack of knowledge of the word with every post.
Apology for trying to lump christians as murderous child killers accepted.

[Necrosis]

Yes, only two:

1. Human Achievement: Be good as much as you can, avoid evil as much as you can, and some god may bless you and you may have a good "after life".

2. Divine Intervention: God reached down to humans and did everything that needed to be done through Jesus Christ.

Christianity is Middle Eastern.  That's where it originated, in Palestine.  We don't know exactly how many Christians exist in countries where Christians are tortured and killed, countries like China and all the Islamic countries.  Christianity has been growing in China and South Korea.  Christianity is big in Australia too.

Christians form the third largest group in Kerala, India. They have sometimes, even in some official documents, been called Nazaranis (followers of Jesus of Nazarene) or St. Thomas Christians.

Much of the Quran is based on the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.  Muslims don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God or that he died for our sins, but they do believe that Jesus is a prophet sent by God, born of the Virgin Mary, and that Jesus is coming back soon.

God is a God of order and a God of law.  This is manifested in both, the Bible and the Universe that He created.  God created natural laws, and they are good laws.  However, God will for His own good reasons defy and break His own natural laws to show, among many things, that He is God, that these are His laws, and that just as He created these natural laws, He can also break them.  That's what a miracle is. 


In a perfect world, there would not be retarded children, or pain, or sickness.  But this isn't a perfect world.  No, a retarded child will not burn in hell.  And a retarded child will not suffer, but be happy provided he/she has loving parents and a loving environment.  I heard on the radio the other day that a child with down syndrome in some Latin country learned to weave tapestries and they are so artistic that he is now selling them.  He is happy just to know that he is making something that people are willing to pay for.

Not only that, but God sometimes allows the murder, rape, etc of innocent people too.  It is not a perfect world.  It used to be, and we messed it up.  God is good, and He created a good and perfect world.  We messed it up, but one day God will remove this world and again create a new, perfect world.

you made some good points until you started defying logic.

"God is a God of order and a God of law.  This is manifested in both, the Bible and the Universe that He created.  God created natural laws, and they are good laws.  However, God will for His own good reasons defy and break His own natural laws to show, among many things, that He is God, that these are His laws, and that just as He created these natural laws, He can also break them.  That's what a miracle is. "

you cant have it both ways, show me one verifiable account where natural laws have been broken? if this is so then all of science is wrong, the laws by definition cannot be broken. please dont say god can do it, or he can choose, this is a cop out of a rational argument, show me instances in present day where god does this and it is accepted by all people. you see there is something called confirmation bias so if christians agree with you, that is not that big of a deal, but if other sects do, especially atheists, then we know it is more then likely true. i have never heard of a supernatural event that has been verified.

a miracle is divine intervention, why would god need to intervene, wouldnt that indicate a mistake in the design? yes it would.

also you cant say god is all good then say he condems people or allows evil things to happen, this is impossible if god is all good. for example the devil is pure evil and is the opposite of god, he does all evil acts. the devil will not show compassion, will not help someone in need because he cannot, he is pure evil. you cant have god both ways, its impossible.

"In a perfect world, there would not be retarded children, or pain, or sickness.  But this isn't a perfect world.  No, a retarded child will not burn in hell.  And a retarded child will not suffer, but be happy provided he/she has loving parents and a loving environment.  I heard on the radio the other day that a child with down syndrome in some Latin country learned to weave tapestries and they are so artistic that he is now selling them.  He is happy just to know that he is making something that people are willing to pay for."

this doesnt answer my question, its just a nice story. obviously the kid has sinned, shouldnt he repent, and accept jesus. and if not wont he burn in hell for eternity? the answer is yes again. im not asking if the world is perfect im saying that you must accept jesus and repent for your sins to go to heaven, are special people, sick people exempt from this point for some reason? and if so why?, and what degree of sickness is needed in order not to repent, a little a lot? physical or mental? what about a person with alzheimers, would he go to hell because he forgot to repent?

"Not only that, but God sometimes allows the murder, rape, etc of innocent people too.  It is not a perfect world.  It used to be, and we messed it up.  God is good, and He created a good and perfect world.  We messed it up, but one day God will remove this world and again create a new, perfect world."

your first sentence shows god is not all good, or pure love, see above for explanation. you cant have it both ways, your proposing god has negative traits such as anger, and evil, which if you follow your logic implies GOD IS NOT PERFECT.

[Necrosis]

Yes, only two:

1. Human Achievement: Be good as much as you can, avoid evil as much as you can, and some god may bless you and you may have a good "after life".

2. Divine Intervention: God reached down to humans and did everything that needed to be done through Jesus Christ.

semantics. how do you define religion, i was aware there are twelve classical religions with many belief systems in the world, for example scientology.

[OzmO]

They were innocent?Or you once again talking out of your ass?
Heres the deal,ive decided with my sinful eye and bad judgement that you are far too stupid to be treacherous apostate scum.
Ive upgraded you to ignorant fool.Do more reading and less typing.You betray your lack of knowledge of the word with every post.
Apology for trying to lump christians as murderous child killers accepted.

Yeah, 3 year old Amalikites  are evil killers.      Who's ass are words coming from? 

Again, learn to read.

[nzhardgain]

Going back and forth calling each other dumb wont get us closer to the truth of the matter.Please go back and read the context(the surrounding verses and also please research the history regarding what type of opponents that the israelites had to contend with,what they practised and how that affected their children)
This subject hurts my heart because i have children.But back in those days their was no safety net in terms of police or army.If you have any concept of what a bloodfeud is and how tribes interacted with each other way back then,you wouldnt be so hasty to attack basically what is the building blocks of christianity.
You really dont know anything about the Abrahamic covenant.How u can seperate the OT and the New boggles me.

Im still trying to get a handle on what you actually believe.
Jesus and surrounding prophecies would of been unable to be fulfilled if the nation of Israel was overran by pagans.
Harsh life back then.

[OzmO]

Going back and forth calling each other dumb wont get us closer to the truth of the matter.Please go back and read the context(the surrounding verses and also please research the history regarding what type of opponents that the israelites had to contend with,what they practised and how that affected their children)
This subject hurts my heart because i have children.But back in those days their was no safety net in terms of police or army.If you have any concept of what a bloodfeud is and how tribes interacted with each other way back then,you wouldnt be so hasty to attack basically what is the building blocks of christianity.
You really dont know anything about the Abrahamic covenant.How u can seperate the OT and the New boggles me.

Im still trying to get a handle on what you actually believe.
Jesus and surrounding prophecies would of been unable to be fulfilled if the nation of Israel was overran by pagans.
Harsh life back then.

The bottom line is in the OT it's written that God ordered the Jews to kill all the amelikites.  Now, killing the adults was certaintly justified, but killing 3 year girls isn't.   That's my contention; that the OT is not the 100% Word of God, becuase that action is inconsistent with the divinity expressed in the NT as well as the OT and contradicts the common decency and moral accountability you'd expect from God. 

[loco]

The bottom line is in the OT it's written that God ordered the Jews to kill all the amelikites.  Now, killing the adults was certaintly justified, but killing 3 year girls isn't.

Killing all the "adult" Amalekites was "certainly justified"?  Okay.

How do you define "adult"?  What is the cut off age? 4?  Would you have gone around the Amalekite camp asking kids for their age?  What if a kid's birthday was that same day, he/she had just turned 4?  Would you have killed the kid because he/she was no longer 3 years old?

So what would you have done with all the little ones, say 3 years and younger?  Israel's army had to travel days, maybe weeks to find and defeat the Amalekites.  They fought them in stages, fighting, pursuing, then fighting again, before coming back home after all their battles.

1 Samuel 15:7
"Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, to the east of Egypt."

Would you have told Israel's army to strap children to their bodies and carry them along from battle to battle?  Most of them, if not all, were foot soldiers.

1 Samuel 15:4
"So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim—two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men from Judah."

Or would you have told Israel's army to leave the small children to die a slow, painful death, after killing all the adults?

[MCWAY]

you made some good points until you started defying logic.

"God is a God of order and a God of law.  This is manifested in both, the Bible and the Universe that He created.  God created natural laws, and they are good laws.  However, God will for His own good reasons defy and break His own natural laws to show, among many things, that He is God, that these are His laws, and that just as He created these natural laws, He can also break them.  That's what a miracle is. "

you cant have it both ways, show me one verifiable account where natural laws have been broken? if this is so then all of science is wrong, the laws by definition cannot be broken. please dont say god can do it, or he can choose, this is a cop out of a rational argument, show me instances in present day where god does this and it is accepted by all people. you see there is something called confirmation bias so if christians agree with you, that is not that big of a deal, but if other sects do, especially atheists, then we know it is more then likely true. i have never heard of a supernatural event that has been verified.

Why would all of science be wrong? They're God's scientific laws. He created them and put them in motion. As such, He can circumvent them as He sees fit to suit His purpose.

If an atheist believes in the supernatural, then he ain't an atheist anymore. So, your comment makes no sense. And, you forget that there are many Christians, who were once atheists.

a miracle is divine intervention, why would god need to intervene, wouldnt that indicate a mistake in the design? yes it would.

also you cant say god is all good then say he condems people or allows evil things to happen, this is impossible if god is all good. for example the devil is pure evil and is the opposite of god, he does all evil acts. the devil will not show compassion, will not help someone in need because he cannot, he is pure evil. you cant have god both ways, its impossible.

God has laws and principles and there are consequences for violating those. Blaming God for man's flagrant breaking of divine rules is rather ridiculous.

"In a perfect world, there would not be retarded children, or pain, or sickness.  But this isn't a perfect world.  No, a retarded child will not burn in hell.  And a retarded child will not suffer, but be happy provided he/she has loving parents and a loving environment.  I heard on the radio the other day that a child with down syndrome in some Latin country learned to weave tapestries and they are so artistic that he is now selling them.  He is happy just to know that he is making something that people are willing to pay for."

this doesnt answer my question, its just a nice story. obviously the kid has sinned, shouldnt he repent, and accept jesus. and if not wont he burn in hell for eternity? the answer is yes again. im not asking if the world is perfect im saying that you must accept jesus and repent for your sins to go to heaven, are special people, sick people exempt from this point for some reason? and if so why?, and what degree of sickness is needed in order not to repent, a little a lot? physical or mental? what about a person with alzheimers, would he go to hell because he forgot to repent?

"Not only that, but God sometimes allows the murder, rape, etc of innocent people too.  It is not a perfect world.  It used to be, and we messed it up.  God is good, and He created a good and perfect world.  We messed it up, but one day God will remove this world and again create a new, perfect world."

your first sentence shows god is not all good, or pure love, see above for explanation. you cant have it both ways, your proposing god has negative traits such as anger, and evil, which if you follow your logic implies GOD IS NOT PERFECT.

If people want free will to rebel against God, then they'd better be prepared to accept the consequences for doing such, pure and simple. Keep in mind, however, that the worst part about committing sin is that, at some levels, the transgressor isn't the only one who pays the price. There are things that you do that bring pain and suffering on you and your entire family, or your neighbors.

[OzmO]

Killing all the "adult" Amalekites was "certainly justified"?  Okay.

How do you define "adult"?  What is the cut off age? 4?  Would you have gone around the Amalekite camp asking kids for their age?  What if a kid's birthday was that same day, he/she had just turned 4?  Would you have killed the kid because he/she was no longer 3 years old?

Is this another sad attempt to justify killing children?  Are you attempting to debate me on what considered the age of an adult by asking me about 4 year olds?   That's really stupid.

So what would you have done with all the little ones, say 3 years and younger?  Israel's army had to travel days, maybe weeks to find and defeat the Amalekites.  They fought them in stages, fighting, pursuing, then fighting again, before coming back home after all their battles.

So what?  God's directive is not to take responsibility for ones actions?   And because they couldn't anything with the children that justifies killing them loco? 

Would you feel good and justified if you were one of those Israeli soldiers as you ran a spear through a 6 year old girls chest?

Would you feel like you were doing the work of God?

Would you feel like God was pleased with you as the life of that girl left her?

That's what happed loco.   That reality of it times the thousands of children that were surely killed by people "on a mission from GOD". 

And what saddens me is people like you, Hustleman, McVay sit here and try and justify it.   It's very pathetic and shows a disconnection with your humanity and common sense replaced by fanaticism .

1 Samuel 15:7
"Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, to the east of Egypt."

Would you have told Israel's army to strap children to their bodies and carry them along from battle to battle?  Most of them, if not all, were foot soldiers.

1 Samuel 15:4
"So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim—two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men from Judah."

Or would you have told Israel's army to leave the small children to die a slow, painful death, after killing all the adults?

If you know anything about warfare in the time before automobiles, which you obviously don't, an army that size would have a huge logistic support system which would include thousands of men and women who prepared food, procured supplies etc.. that followed that army where ever it went.

   In any case, yes they should have took the children and they would had the food they took from the Amalikites to help feed them.  And even if they didn't they should have shared there own.   It's about common decency, moral obligation, you know all the stuff Christians spout off about.


(Odds are you won't answer all of those questions  )

[loco]

Is this another sad attempt to justify killing children?  Are you attempting to debate me on what considered the age of an adult by asking me about 4 year olds?   That's really stupid.

So what?  God's directive is not to take responsibility for ones actions?   And because they couldn't anything with the children that justifies killing them loco? 

Would you feel good and justified if you were one of those Israeli soldiers as you ran a spear through a 6 year old girls chest?

Would you feel like you were doing the work of God?

Would you feel like God was pleased with you as the life of that girl left her?

That's what happed loco.   That reality of it times the thousands of children that were surely killed by people "on a mission from GOD". 

And what saddens me is people like you, Hustleman, McVay sit here and try and justify it.   It's very pathetic and shows a disconnection with your humanity and common sense replaced by fanaticism.

Yes yes OzmO, whatever you say.  Spare me the insults and the appeals to emotion which only make your arguments weaker, and please do answer the questions:

Killing all the "adult" Amalekites was "certainly justified"?  Okay.

How do you define "adult"?  What is the cut off age? 4?  Would you have gone around the Amalekite camp asking kids for their age?  What if a kid's birthday was that same day, he/she had just turned 4?  Would you have killed the kid because he/she was no longer 3 years old?

Stop avoiding the questions.

If you know anything about warfare in the time before automobiles, which you obviously don't, an army that size would have a huge logistic support system which would include thousands of men and women who prepared food, procured supplies etc.. that followed that army where ever it went.

The scripture is very clear on who Saul took into battle and there were no women. 

   In any case, yes they should have took the children and they would had the food they took from the Amalikites to help feed them.  And even if they didn't they should have shared there own.   It's about common decency, moral obligation, you know all the stuff Christians spout off about.

God ordered them not to take anything from the Amalekites, no food, no money, nothing.

[OzmO]

Yes yes OzmO, whatever you say.  Spare me the insults and the appeals to emotion which only make your arguments weaker, and please do answer the questions:

It's not about making arguments weaker or stronger loco, I'm trying to get you to see the audacity of your indifference to what those soldiers did to those children and how they justified it.

Get it?

(i knew you'd avoid the questions somehow  )

Stop avoiding the questions.

I'm not avoiding  the question loco, for once drop your debate sword and use some common sense.   You know the difference between an adult and a child.   Personally, I'd spare  any person who wasn't a soldier.  Just like civilized armies do TODAY.  And we still today have all the same problems with people wanting revenge but that doesn't change our moral obligation not to kill innocent people.   

The scripture is very clear on who Saul took into battle and there were no women. 

They don't take these people to battle.  Use your head!   They travel with them.  That's how's it's been since the beginning of organized large scale movement of armies before the industrial age.  women take care of the livestock, feed the troops help heal wounds etc...  And even if there wasn't in an army that size there would thousands of logistical personal.

God ordered them not to take anything from the Amalekites, no food, no money, nothing.

yeah, makes monster sense......Don't take the food and kill the children.     Yeah,  very Godly.   


The assertion the Bible is the 100% Word of GOD is the biggest pile of BULLSHIT EVER

[loco]

It's not about making arguments weaker or stronger loco, I'm trying to get you to see the audacity of your indifference to what those soldiers did to those children and how they justified it.

Get it?

Insults and appeals to emotion don't make your arguments stronger, only weaker.

I'm not avoiding  the question loco, for once drop your debate sword and use some common sense.   You know the difference between an adult and a child.   

You are avoiding the questions

Personally, I'd spare  any person who wasn't a soldier.  Just like civilized armies do TODAY.  And we still today have all the same problems with people wanting revenge but that doesn't change our moral obligation not to kill innocent people.   

No, you said that killing all the adults was cerntainly justified.

They don't take these people to battle.  Use your head!   They travel with them.  That's how's it's been since the beginning of organized large scale movement of armies before the industrial age.  women take of the livestock, feed the troops help heal wounds etc...

It doesn't matter.  Israel did not have any women traveling with them.  You just made that up.  I'll tell you what.  Prove to me with the Bible, or with any other reference outside of the Bible for that matter, that Israel in those days, the days of the Amalekites, had women traveling with soldiers when going to battle? 

1 Samuel 15:4-6
4 So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim—two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men from Judah. 5 Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine. 6 Then he said to the Kenites, "Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt." So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites.

yeah, makes monster sense......Don't take the food and kill the children.   

It does make sense.  God told them to destroy everything that belonged to the Amalekites.

1 Samuel 15:2
"attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them"

The assertion the Bible is the 100% Word of GOD biggest pile of BULLSHIT EVER

Thanks for your opinion!

[OzmO]

Insults and appeals to emotion don't make your arguments stronger, only weaker.

Once again avoiding what really happen and glazing over as the holy of word of GOD

You are avoiding the questions

what ever.   For someone who picks and chooses what to answer it's funny. 

re-read,  I answered your question.

No, you said that killing all the adults was cerntainly justified.

Another example of the extent you have to go to justify killing children:   If the women were evil and guilty of murder then they should have died too.

It doesn't matter.  Israel did not have any women traveling with them.  You just made that up.  I'll tell you what.  Prove to me with the Bible, or with any other reference outside of the Bible for that matter, that soldiers in those days, the days of the Amalekites, had women traveling with them when going to battle?

1 Samuel 15:4-6
4 So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim—two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men from Judah. 5 Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine. 6 Then he said to the Kenites, "Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt." So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites.

I'll see if i can do that.  I'll have to do some research.  I certainly won't use the book of stories to prove it.  But what ever the outcome,  it still doesn't justify killing children, but for you it does.   

It does make sense.  God told them to destroy everything that belonged to the Amalekites.

1 Samuel 15:2
"attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them"

Yeah, loco it makes sense that that is what's written in the Bible but for you comprehend beyond that seems difficult for you.

[loco]

Once again avoiding what really happen and glazing over as the holy of word of GOD

You avoid the questions

what ever.   For someone who picks and chooses what to answer it's funny. 

You are avoiding my questions.  And you are the one picking and choosing what suits you. 

re-read,  I answered your question.

No you didn't. Anytime anyone disagrees with you you insult the persons ability to read, but you are still avoiding the question.

Another example of the extent you have to go to justify killing children:   If the women were evil and guilty of murder then they should have died too.

No, you said

The bottom line is in the OT it's written that God ordered the Jews to kill all the amelikites.  Now, killing the adults was certaintly justified, but killing 3 year girls isn't.

You are a flip flopper

I'll see if i can do that.  I'll have to do some research.  I certainly won't use the book of stories to prove it.  But what ever the outcome,  it still doesn't justify killing children, but for you it does.   

What?  First you insult my education and knowledge for not accepting your assumption that women were traveling with the Israeli soldiers, now this?  In other words, you made it up.  This is what you do in most of your posts, make stuff up as you go.  When asked for evidence, you say you don't have time, or you say "use common sense.", or you resort to insults.  How about from now on you provide some references for your statements instead of pulling stuff out of your butt?     

Yeah, loco it makes sense that that is what's written in the Bible but for you comprehend beyond that seems difficult for you.

So you have no problems quoting the Bible when it comes to the murderous Amalekites, the 3000 idolatrous men in Exodus, Judas, etc., But when you are refuted with the same Bible, now it's just a book of stories to you and it doesn't matter what's written in it.   

[OzmO]

You avoid the questions

You are avoiding my questions.  And you are the one picking and choosing what suits you. 

No you didn't. Anytime anyone disagrees with you you insult the persons ability to read, but you are still avoiding the question.

No, you said
You are a flip flopper

What?  First you insult my education and knowledge for not accepting your assumption that women were traveling with the Israeli soldiers, now this?  In other words, you made it up.  This is what you do in most of your posts, make stuff up as you go.  When asked for evidence, you say you don't have time, or you say "use common sense.", or you resort to insults.  How about from now on you provide some references for your statements instead of pulling stuff out of your butt?     

So you have no problems quoting the Bible when it comes to the murderous Amalekites, the 3000 idolatrous men in Exodus, Judas, etc., But when you are refuted with the same Bible, now it's just a book of stories to you and it doesn't matter what's written in it.   

Loco, nothing is refuted, and the fact remains regardless of how you find fault in what i say.........

Nothing will change the fact the GOD ordered the killing of children.

And no matter how hard you try and justify it, there is no justification to killing children.

You can on and on about how i try and pull things out of my ass, but at the end of the day THE GOD IN THE OT ORDERED THE KILLING OF CHILDREN.  You believe that is God.

You can't get away from it, even with your candy ass question about what's an adult.

Children loco, are you close to one right now?  god ordered many of those to be killed by soldiers.

revel in that god that kills children, loco,  praise to him, glorify him.


(ps:  I'll still do the research, just don't have much time right now for that)

[OzmO]

If you didn;t comprehend what i just wrote i'll say it again:

If I'm right or wrong about my assumptions of how armies were composed back then it still doesn't take away form the fact

GOD ORDERED THE DEATH OF innocent children


BTW,

first google hit:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/gabr000a.htm

[loco]

OzmO,  these questions are based on something that you, not me, said.  Now, one more time, and now that you know women were not traveling with the soldiers and now that you know Israel commanded not to take any food from the Amalekites:

The bottom line is in the OT it's written that God ordered the Jews to kill all the amelikites.  Now, killing the adults was certaintly justified, but killing 3 year girls isn't.

Killing all the "adult" Amalekites was "certainly justified"?  Okay.

How do you define "adult"?  What is the cut off age? 4?  Would you have gone around the Amalekite camp asking kids for their age?  What if a kid's birthday was that same day, he/she had just turned 4?  Would you have killed the kid because he/she was no longer 3 years old?

So what would you have done with all the little ones, say 3 years and younger?  Israel's army had to travel days, maybe weeks to find and defeat the Amalekites.  They fought them in stages, fighting, pursuing, then fighting again, before coming back home after all their battles.

1 Samuel 15:7
"Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, to the east of Egypt."

Would you have told Israel's army to strap children to their bodies and carry them along from battle to battle?  Most of them, if not all, were foot soldiers.

1 Samuel 15:4
"So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim—two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men from Judah."

Or would you have told Israel's army to leave the small children to die a slow, painful death, after killing all the adults?