If God ordered you to kill a child..........

[MCWAY]

Ok, so you would have killed children, killed babies, infants etc.   

Thanks for answering.


So Saul, ordered the deaths of the children but kept the livestock and then lost his throne because of it?

That's pretty much been established, Ozmo. My question to you was why did such happen if, as you have claimed on multiple occasions, the Israelites lied about being given directions to completely destroy Amalek (everyone and everything)?

Saul not only did NOT carry out God's instructions, but he lied about it, boldy proclaiming that he did to the prophet, Samuel. When Samuel asked why he heard mooing and bleating of cattle and sheep (if Saul did as he was told), the soon-to-be-deposed king of Israel blamed his troops for keeping the livestock and booty of war, instead of destroying them as he supposedly intended to do.

On the surface, the Israelites came away with a HUGE victory. So why did their king end up getting the heave-ho because of that and why would someone report that such happened if that were not the case?

[Deicide]

That's pretty much been established, Ozmo. My question to you was why did such happen if, as you have claimed on multiple occasions, the Israelites lied about being given directions to completely destroy Amalek (everyone and everything)?

Thank Zeus it's all fiction anyway...phui...

[MCWAY]

Thank Zeus it's all fiction anyway...phui...

So, the Amalekites were fictional; the Israelites were fictional; King David (Saul's replacement) was fictional, etc.?

I'll just add that blurb of yours to the increasingly-growing lists of false and inaccurate statements you've made.

BTW, there's still the matter of your backing your claims about the Talmud and the Testimonium of Josephus by producing references to the former as actually being ORIGINATED in 200 A.D. and the latter having a original copy with absolutely NO references to Jesus Christ at all.

[D-bol]

the bible was written by man, not God....

get it?

[Deicide]

So, the Amalekites were fictional; the Israelites were fictional; King David (Saul's replacement) was fictional, etc.?

I'll just add that blurb of yours to the increasingly-growing lists of false and inaccurate statements you've made.

BTW, there's still the matter of your backing your claims about the Talmud and the Testimonium of Josephus by producing references to the former as actually being ORIGINATED in 200 A.D. and the latter having a original copy with absolutely NO references to Jesus Christ at all.

Sure, when you learn English. Originate does not have passive forms and if you are a native speaker you ought to know that.

[Necrosis]

add me.I would be too scared to go against God.

28Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe

you people are ridiculous, cant you see how your in fear of this imaginary creature and it has all the inklings of a man made legend.

if you dont do this you will burn in hell, follow these ten commandments, accept jesus, otherwise you die. its all about control.

i find fundy nut bags hilarious, they cant even reason and are too afraid to let go because remember god has everything waiting for them.

[Deicide]

you people are ridiculous, cant you see how your in fear of this imaginary creature and it has all the inklings of a man made legend.

if you dont do this you will burn in hell, follow these ten commandments, accept jesus, otherwise you die. its all about control.

i find fundy nut bags hilarious, they cant even reason and are too afraid to let go because remember god has everything waiting for them.

Unfortunately there seem to be far too many fundies here at getbig...

[Deicide]

So, the Amalekites were fictional; the Israelites were fictional; King David (Saul's replacement) was fictional, etc.?

There are some sparse historical details in the OT but the individual stories, the divine elements, etc. are no where else attested to, save in the OT.

I'll just add that blurb of yours to the increasingly-growing lists of false and inaccurate statements you've made.

BTW, there's still the matter of your backing your claims about the Talmud and the Testimonium of Josephus by producing references to the former as actually being ORIGINATED in 200 A.D. and the latter having a original copy with absolutely NO references to Jesus Christ at all.

BOOM!

Criticism of the identification of Yeshu with Jesus
Critics of the identification of Yeshu with Jesus point to inconsistencies between the Talmudic references to Yeshu and ben-Stada and the stories about Jesus in the New Testament. The oppression by King Jannæus mentioned in the Talmud occurred about 87 BCE, which would put the events of the story about a century before Jesus. The Yeshu who taught Jacob of Sechania would have lived a century after Jesus. The forty day waiting period before execution is absent from the Christian tradition and moreover Jesus did not have connections with the government. Jesus was crucified not stoned. Jesus was executed in Jerusalem not Lod. Jesus did not burn his food in public and moreover the Yeshu who did this corresponds to Manasseh of Judah in the Shulkhan Arukh. Jesus did not make incisions in his flesh, nor was he caught by hidden observers. In the 13th century Jehiel ben Joseph of Paris wrote that the Yeshu in rabbinic literature was a disciple of Joshua ben Perachiah, and not to be confused with Jesus the Nazarene (Vikkuah Rabbenu Yehiel mi-Paris). Nahmanides too makes this point, and Rabbis Jacob ben Meir (Rabbeinu Tam) (12th century) and Jehiel Heilprin (17th century) also belong to this school.

The resemblance of the name Yeshu to Yeshua which some assume to be the original Hebrew or Aramaic for Jesus, is of questionable importance. The guttural consonant ayin (ע) at the end of the latter name (Yeshua - ישוע) forms part of the root but is absent from Yeshu (ישו). Although, as remarked above, the ayin (ע) became a silent letter no other case is known of where this led to a dropping of the consonant in spelling.

There are significant phonetic difficulties in seeing the epithet son of Pandera as a corruption of parthenos. Moreover, Jesus was not commonly referred to as son of the Virgin making an intentional play on such an expression very unlikely. Regarding the names of the disciples, the accepted origins of Thaddaeus is Thaddai and not Todah.

R. Travers Herford and others caution that not all mentions of Yeshu refer to the Christian Jesus. Furthermore, many critical historical scholars hold that for a variety of reasons, early Christianity was simply one of many factions competing with rabbinical Judaism, and the early sages of the Talmud paid no special attention to Jesus or Christianity.

http://www.juliantrubin.com/encyclopedia/bible/jesus_in_talmud.html

The Talmud has two components: the Mishnah (c. 200 CE), the first written compendium of Judaism's Oral Law; and the Gemara (c. 500 CE), a discussion of the Mishnah and related Tannaitic writings that often ventures onto other subjects and expounds broadly on the Tanakh. The terms Talmud and Gemara are often used interchangeably. The Gemara is the basis for all codes of rabbinic law and is much quoted in other rabbinic literature. The whole Talmud is also traditionally referred to as Shas (ש"ס (a Hebrew abbreviation of shisha sedarim, the "six orders" of the Mishnah).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud

[nzhardgain]

you people are ridiculous, cant you see how your in fear of this imaginary creature and it has all the inklings of a man made legend.

if you dont do this you will burn in hell, follow these ten commandments, accept jesus, otherwise you die. its all about control.

i find fundy nut bags hilarious, they cant even reason and are too afraid to let go because remember god has everything waiting for them.

why do you keep posting here if we are so wrong?

[Deicide]

So, the Amalekites were fictional; the Israelites were fictional; King David (Saul's replacement) was fictional, etc.?

I'll just add that blurb of yours to the increasingly-growing lists of false and inaccurate statements you've made.

BTW, there's still the matter of your backing your claims about the Talmud and the Testimonium of Josephus by producing references to the former as actually being ORIGINATED in 200 A.D. and the latter having a original copy with absolutely NO references to Jesus Christ at all.

BOOM!

The Jewish community of Palestine suffered horrendous losses during the Great Revolt and the Bar-Kokhba rebellion. Well over a million Jews were killed in the two ill-fated uprisings, and the leading yeshivot, along with thousands of their rabbinical scholars and students, were devastated.

This decline in the number of knowledgeable Jews seems to have been a decisive factor in Rabbi Judah the Prince's decision around the year 200 C.E. to record in writing the Oral Law. For centuries, Judaism's leading rabbis had resisted writing down the Oral Law. Teaching the law orally, the rabbis knew, compelled students to maintain close relationships with teachers, and they considered teachers, not books, to be the best conveyors of the Jewish tradition. But with the deaths of so many teachers in the failed revolts, Rabbi Judah apparently feared that the Oral Law would be forgotten unless it were written down.

In the Mishna, the name for the sixty-three tractates in which Rabbi Judah set down the Oral Law, Jewish law is systematically codified, unlike in the Torah. For example, if a person wanted to find every law in the Torah about the Sabbath, he would have to locate scattered references in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. Indeed, in order to know everything the Torah said on a given subject, one either had to read through all of it or know its contents by heart. Rabbi Judah avoided this problem by arranging the Mishna topically. All laws pertaining to the Sabbath were put into one tractate called Shabbat (Hebrew for "Sabbath"). The laws contained in Shabbat's twenty-four chapters are far more extensive than those contained in the Torah, for the Mishna summarizes the Oral Law's extensive Sabbath legislation. The tractate Shabbat is part of a larger "order" called Mo'ed (Hebrew for "holiday"), which is one of six orders that comprise the Mishna. Some of the other tractates in Mo'ed specify the Oral Laws of Passover (Pesachim); Purim (Megillah); Rosh ha­Shana; Yom Kippur (Yoma); and Sukkot.

The first of the six orders is called Zera'im (Seeds), and deals with the agricultural rules of ancient Palestine, particularly with the details of the produce that were to be presented as offerings at the Temple in Jerusalem. The most famous tractate in Zera'im, however, Brakhot (Blessings) has little to do with agriculture. It records laws concerning different blessings and when they are to be recited.

Another order, called Nezikin (Damages), contains ten tractates summarizing Jewish civil and criminal law.

Another order, Nashim (Women), deals with issues between the sexes, including both laws of marriage, Kiddushin, and of divorce, Gittin.

A fifth order, Kodashim, outlines the laws of sacrifices and ritual slaughter. The sixth order, Taharot, contains the laws of purity and impurity.

Although parts of the Mishna read as dry legal recitations, Rabbi Judah frequently enlivened the text by presenting minority views, which it was also hoped might serve to guide scholars in later generations (Mishna Eduyot 1:6). In one famous instance, the legal code turned almost poetic, as Rabbi Judah cited the lengthy warning the rabbinic judges delivered to witnesses testifying in capital cases:

"How are witnesses inspired with awe in capital cases?" the Mishna begins. "They are brought in and admonished as follows: In case you may want to offer testimony that is only conjecture or hearsay or secondhand evidence, even from a person you consider trustworthy; or in the event you do not know that we shall test you by cross-examination and inquiry, then know that capital cases are not like monetary cases. In monetary cases, a man can make monetary restitution and be forgiven, but in capital cases both the blood of the man put to death and the blood of his [potential] descendants are on the witness's head until the end of time. For thus we find in the case of Cain, who killed his brother, that it is written: 'The bloods of your brother cry unto Me' (Genesis 4:10) — that is, his blood and the blood of his potential descendants.... Therefore was the first man, Adam, created alone, to teach us that whoever destroys a single life, the Bible considers it as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a single life, the Bible considers it as if he saved an entire world. Furthermore, only one man, Adam, was created for the sake of peace among men, so that no one should say to his fellow, 'My father was greater than yours.... Also, man [was created singly] to show the greatness of the Holy One, Blessed be He, for if a man strikes many coins from one mold, they all resemble one another, but the King of Kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He, made each man in the image of Adam, and yet not one of them resembles his fellow. Therefore every single person is obligated to say, 'The world was created for my sake"' (Mishna Sanhedrin 4:5). (One commentary notes, "How grave the responsibility, therefore, of corrupting myself by giving false evidence, and thus bringing [upon myself the moral guilt of [murdering] a whole world.")

One of the Mishna's sixty­three tractates contains no laws at all. It is called Pirkei Avot (usually translated as Ethics of the Fathers), and it is the "Bartlett's" of the rabbis, in which their most famous sayings and proverbs are recorded.

During the centuries following Rabbi Judah's editing of the Mishna, it was studied exhaustively by generation after generation of rabbis. Eventually, some of these rabbis wrote down their discussions and commentaries on the Mishna's laws in a series of books known as the Talmud. The rabbis of Palestine edited their discussions of the Mishna about the year 400: Their work became known as the Palestinian Talmud (in Hebrew, Talmud Yerushalmi, which literally means "Jerusalem Talmud").

More than a century later, some of the leading Babylonian rabbis compiled another editing of the discussions on the Mishna. By then, these deliberations had been going on some three hundred years. The Babylon edition was far more extensive than its Palestinian counterpart, so that the Babylonian Talmud (Talmud Bavli) became the most authoritative compilation of the Oral Law. When people speak of studying "the Talmud," they almost invariably mean the Bavli rather than the Yerushalmi.

The Talmud's discussions are recorded in a consistent format. A law from the Mishna is cited, which is followed by rabbinic deliberations on its meaning. The Mishna and the rabbinic discussions (known as the Gemara) comprise the Talmud, although in Jewish life the terms Gemara and Talmud usually are used interchangeably.

The rabbis whose views are cited in the Mishna are known as Tanna'im (Aramaic for "teachers"), while the rabbis quoted in the Gemara are known as Amora'im ("explainers" or "interpreters"). Because the Tanna'im lived earlier than the Amora'im, and thus were in closer proximity to Moses and the revelation at Sinai, their teachings are considered more authoritative than those of the Amora'im. For the same reason, Jewish tradition generally regards the teachings of the Amora'im, insofar as they are expounding the Oral Law, as more authoritative than contemporary rabbinic teachings.

In addition to extensive legal discussions (in Hebrew, halakha), the rabbis incorporated into the Talmud guidance on ethical matters, medical advice, historical information, and folklore, which together are known as aggadata.

As a rule, the Gemara's text starts with a close reading of the Mishna. For example, Mishna Bava Mezia 7:1 teaches the following: "If a man hired laborers and ordered them to work early in the morning and late at night, he cannot compel them to work early and late if it is not the custom to do so in that place." On this, the Gemara (Bava Mezia 83a) comments: "Is it not obvious [that an employer cannot demand that they change from the local custom]? The case in question is where the employer gave them a higher wage than was normal. In that case, it might be argued that he could then say to them, 'The reason I gave you a higher wage than is normal is so that you will work early in the morning and late at night.' So the law tells us that the laborers can reply: 'The reason that you gave us a higher wage than is normal is for better work [not longer hours].'"

Among religious Jews, talmudic scholars are regarded with the same awe and respect with which secular society regards Nobel laureates. Yet throughout Jewish history, study of the Mishna and Talmud was hardly restricted to an intellectual elite. An old book saved from the millions burned by the Nazis, and now housed at the YIVO library in New York, bears the stamp THE SOCIETY OF WOODCHOPPERS FOR THE STUDY OF MISHNA IN BERDITCHEV. That the men who chopped wood in Berditchev, an arduous job that required no literacy, met regularly to study Jewish law demonstrates the ongoing pervasiveness of study of the Oral Law in the Jewish community.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/talmud_&_mishna.html

[nzhardgain]

He knows what you do  "trapezkerl"

[Deicide]

He knows what you do  "trapezkerl"

What I do? There's nothing wrong with posting credible links from the people who concocted this bullshit in the first place...

[JOHN MATRIX]

OzmO, killing children is no big deal at all to the Hebrew god. He killed every first born child in Egypt. He could have spared them, in his infinite power and wisdom, but he killed them.

true. FSM, bless His name, would never do such a thing to innocents.

[MCWAY]

There are some sparse historical details in the OT but the individual stories, the divine elements, etc. are no where else attested to, save in the OT.

And that makes them false how? Plus, your claim was that it was ALL fiction.

BOOM!

Criticism of the identification of Yeshu with Jesus
Critics of the identification of Yeshu with Jesus point to inconsistencies between the Talmudic references to Yeshu and ben-Stada and the stories about Jesus in the New Testament. The oppression by King Jannæus mentioned in the Talmud occurred about 87 BCE, which would put the events of the story about a century before Jesus. The Yeshu who taught Jacob of Sechania would have lived a century after Jesus. The forty day waiting period before execution is absent from the Christian tradition and moreover Jesus did not have connections with the government. Jesus was crucified not stoned. Jesus was executed in Jerusalem not Lod. Jesus did not burn his food in public and moreover the Yeshu who did this corresponds to Manasseh of Judah in the Shulkhan Arukh. Jesus did not make incisions in his flesh, nor was he caught by hidden observers. In the 13th century Jehiel ben Joseph of Paris wrote that the Yeshu in rabbinic literature was a disciple of Joshua ben Perachiah, and not to be confused with Jesus the Nazarene (Vikkuah Rabbenu Yehiel mi-Paris). Nahmanides too makes this point, and Rabbis Jacob ben Meir (Rabbeinu Tam) (12th century) and Jehiel Heilprin (17th century) also belong to this school.

The resemblance of the name Yeshu to Yeshua which some assume to be the original Hebrew or Aramaic for Jesus, is of questionable importance. The guttural consonant ayin (ע) at the end of the latter name (Yeshua - ישוע) forms part of the root but is absent from Yeshu (ישו). Although, as remarked above, the ayin (ע) became a silent letter no other case is known of where this led to a dropping of the consonant in spelling.

There are significant phonetic difficulties in seeing the epithet son of Pandera as a corruption of parthenos. Moreover, Jesus was not commonly referred to as son of the Virgin making an intentional play on such an expression very unlikely. Regarding the names of the disciples, the accepted origins of Thaddaeus is Thaddai and not Todah.

R. Travers Herford and others caution that not all mentions of Yeshu refer to the Christian Jesus. Furthermore, many critical historical scholars hold that for a variety of reasons, early Christianity was simply one of many factions competing with rabbinical Judaism, and the early sages of the Talmud paid no special attention to Jesus or Christianity.



http://www.juliantrubin.com/encyclopedia/bible/jesus_in_talmud.html

First, nobody claimed that Jesus Christ was stoned to death. In fact, I pointed out that, had the Jews carried out the sentence, He would have been stoned (as that was the normal punishment for people convicted of sorcery). Instead, since the Romans carried out the execution, he was “hanged” or crucified.

Nor was there any claim that every “Yeshua” referred to Jesus Christ. The reference that Loco mentioned stated that this particular “Yeshua” was:

-   Accused of sorcery
-   Put to death by being “hanged” (crucified)
-   Death occurred on the eve of Passover
-   No one spoke up for Him.


All of those match what happened to Jesus Christ.

And, the "waiting period" isn't silent in Christian tradition. According to John 11:54, Jesus made Himself scarce after the Pharisees and priests plotted His death. The reason can be found in verses 47-50:

Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we: for this man doeth many miracles(this would be the sorcery charge). If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

Verse 57:

Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where he were, he should shew it, that they might take him..

This would explain a decree for 40 days, that Christ was to be stoned to death for practicing sorcery. They simply couldn't find Him.

The Talmud has two components: the Mishnah (c. 200 CE), the first written compendium of Judaism's Oral Law; and the Gemara (c. 500 CE), a discussion of the Mishnah and related Tannaitic writings that often ventures onto other subjects and expounds broadly on the Tanakh. The terms Talmud and Gemara are often used interchangeably. The Gemara is the basis for all codes of rabbinic law and is much quoted in other rabbinic literature. The whole Talmud is also traditionally referred to as Shas (ש"ס (a Hebrew abbreviation of shisha sedarim, the "six orders" of the Mishnah).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud

BAM!!

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.. The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."

Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus. So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do. If so, Roman involvement changed their plans!

The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?

Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons." But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching. Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament. – Probe Ministries (with references to The Historical Jesus by Dr. Gary Habermas)

If the compilation of these items started about 70 A.D., that would mean that the Talmud’s construction occurred as close as 40 years after Jesus’ death and Resurrection, which would (once again) refute your claims that the Talmud was written too far removed to be of any value. One of the men who organized the Talmud, Rabbi Akiba, died in 135 A.D., which would the suggest that the information about "Yeshua" that corresponds to Jesus Christ, was written a lot sooner than 200 A.D. 

[loco]

does god know the future?

Yes

[loco]

Again you get it wrong!   Why are you so thick sometimes?  Is it a language barrier?

I'm not wrong.  Yes, it must be the language barrier, but don't worry OzmO, your English is getting a little better.

He's having issues becuase he admitted he'd murder children.   

The only thing that I have admitted, like any Orthodox Jew and like any conservative Christian, is faith that the Bible is the word of God.  That, according to OzmO, makes us all(Orthodx Jews and conservative Christians) child murderers.  OzmO, way to promote religious hatred.  You sound just like the men who indoctrinate Taliban, al'Qaeda and Hamas children. 

OzmO, you on the other hand have repeatedly admitted to supporting legal abortion, the murder of millions of unborn babies.  And why?  For the health of the economy and for the health of the murderers. You support the murder, protect the murderer and ignore the victim.  In this thread, you make the Amalekites the heroes and victims, while portraying Jews and Christians as villains and child murderers. 

You must be proud of yourself.

[loco]

OzmO,  you love to ask questions, ignore the answer given to you and then claim that people ignore or dodge your question, but in this thread you've not answered many questions.

If you were a jewish soldier would you have killed 2-3-4-year olds and infants on God's orders?

And you wouldn't?  Even if you were an Israeli soldier who had witnessed the Amalekites rape and murder your grand parents, only to come back a few years later and murder your parents and baby sister, only to come back a few years later and murder your wife, sons and daughters...even if you had witnessed your brothers and their families starve to death because the Amalekites kept coming back and destroying your crops and stealing your possessions, generation after generation for three centuries? 

By the way, you have a question I don't think you've addressed. That would be why, if you claim that the Jews lied about the reason for Saul's orders to deal with the Amalekites, Saul lost his throne?

If you demand that God or that Israel have found a better way to deal with the Amalekite babies, why can you conveniently not find a better way to deal with legal abortions other than to just let it happen for the health of the economy and for the health of the murderers?

[Tre]

the bible was written by man, not God....

get it?

IF - as Christians claim - God is 'perfect', then the Bible, by definition, cannot be.

If they want the Bible to be perfect, then God cannot be.  There is no grey area here.

[loco]

you people are ridiculous, cant you see how your in fear of this imaginary creature and it has all the inklings of a man made legend.

if you dont do this you will burn in hell, follow these ten commandments, accept jesus, otherwise you die. its all about control.

i find fundy nut bags hilarious, they cant even reason and are too afraid to let go because remember god has everything waiting for them.

No offense taken.  

Thanks for sharing your opinion!

I may be "ridiculous" to you, but I'm not in fear, God is not imaginary and following the ten commandments won't get me into heaven.  

If it is about control, wealth and power, then why is it that Moses, Jesus, his early followers and many Christians of our time(Lottie moon, George Muller, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Philip James Elliot, etc.) leave whatever they have going for them for a life of rejection, suffering, poverty and death for the cause of God, to help others?  Sure, you hear about secular charities, but you don't hear of secular people leaving all they have to help other people.  You don't hear of secular charities voluntarily suffering pain and death for the cause.

this "fundy nut bag" is not afraid to let go.  Let go of what? I voluntarily embraced Christianity at some point in my life.  Before then, I rejected it.  I would have let go a long time ago if my faith wasn't real.

Thank God for "fundy nut bags"!  At most, we abolish slavery, advance science, defend those who can't defend themselves, speak up for those who can't speak for themselves, we help the needy and bring them hope, food, shelter, medicine, education, etc.  At least, we amuse you.  

[loco]

IF - as Christians claim - God is 'perfect', then the Bible, by definition, cannot be.

If they want the Bible to be perfect, then God cannot be.  There is no grey area here.

Tre, good point!  I agree with you in part.  God is perfect, and God's word is perfect.  The Bible, the means through which a perfect God decided to preserve His perfect word, is not perfect.  Why? because no human language is perfect, no human being is perfect and no media is perfect. 

Hebrew, Greek, English are not perfect languages.  The Bible was written on stone, animal skins, paper, etc., none of which are perfect.  The authors, though inspired by God, are not perfect.

God could have given us His word written by Him in a perfect Heavenly language written on tablets made of a perfect, unknown material.  But then we would not understand it.  So God would have had to provide an imperfect human translator, to have it translated into an imperfect human language, on an imperfect piece of paper, so that we could understand it.

[Deicide]

Tre, good point!  I agree with you in part.  God is perfect, and God's word is perfect.  The Bible, the means through which a perfect God decided to preserve His perfect word, is not perfect.  Why? because no human language is perfect, no human being is perfect and no media is perfect. 

Hebrew, Greek, English are not perfect languages.  The Bible was written on stone, animal skins, paper, etc., none of which are perfect.  The authors, though inspired by God, are not perfect.

God could have given us His word written by Him in a perfect Heavenly language written on tablets made of a perfect, unknown material.  But then we would not understand it.  So God would have had to provide an imperfect human translator, to have it translated into an imperfect human language, on an imperfect piece of paper, so that we could understand it.

That must be the reason that insects have four legs in the bible huh?

[OzmO]

That's pretty much been established, Ozmo. My question to you was why did such happen if, as you have claimed on multiple occasions, the Israelites lied about being given directions to completely destroy Amalek (everyone and everything)?

Saul not only did NOT carry out God's instructions, but he lied about it, boldy proclaiming that he did to the prophet, Samuel. When Samuel asked why he heard mooing and bleating of cattle and sheep (if Saul did as he was told), the soon-to-be-deposed king of Israel blamed his troops for keeping the livestock and booty of war, instead of destroying them as he supposedly intended to do.

On the surface, the Israelites came away with a HUGE victory. So why did their king end up getting the heave-ho because of that and why would someone report that such happened if that were not the case?

Sorry i don't get what you are saying. 

My assertion is that they lied about receiving orders from GOD regarding killing children.  Are you telling me Saul was disposed becuase he took the cattle and Gold?   That goes right along with my assertion becuase, they probably disposed of him because of killing the children NOT the taking of the gold.  But  to justify what they did they claimed Saul didn't follow God's orders regarding the cattle.

[loco]

That must be the reason that insects have four legs in the bible huh?

"Today we refer to an insect’s six appendages as "legs". The ancient Israelites had a different convention. They distinguished the front four appendages from the two rear appendages. The front four they called "feet", the two to the rear they called "legs". This distinction probably came about because some insects such as grasshoppers leap—the two rear appendages are "leaper legs".

"Go on all fours" refers to what the front four feet i.e. front four legs do — they walk. What the rear legs do, whether they contribute to walking or are used for leaping, is excluded from the meaning of "go on all fours".

Some skeptics make fun of the phrase "legs above the feet". However, the leaper legs are longer than the front four legs. When the insect is resting on the ground, part of the leaper legs are higher than the "feet" i.e. higher than the front four legs. In that sense the legs are "above the feet".

There is no profound biological point in all of this — just a case of semantics."
http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BBiology95.htm

"Although these legs are used to walk (even as the grasshopper's can be and are), in function and appearance they are clearly, vastly different. It does not take "mind-reading" to get the point that the Hebrews were just as able (and by extension of the same scheme used with grasshoppers, katydids, etc) to regard the back legs of other types of flying insects as being of a different order, of being something different, so that only the first four were called plain old "feet" as only the first four on the hoppers, etc. were called feet, while the others were given a differing name such as "legs above their feet"."
http://www.tektonics.org/af/buglegs.html

"Today, locusts are considered migratory grasshoppers. They all have two large hind legs, quite different in appearance, size, and function from the front four legs. Their front legs are used for "crawling, clinging, and climbing," while their back legs rest "above" their front legs and feet, and are used for "jumping.""
http://www.icr.org/article/1844/

[OzmO]

I'm not wrong.  Yes, it must be the language barrier, but don't worry OzmO, your English is getting a little better.

I believe it happen loco, but i don't believe God is a hypocrite while you struggle to find justification for killing children.

 

The only thing that I have admitted, like any Orthodox Jew and like any conservative Christian, is faith that the Bible is the word of God.  That, according to OzmO, makes us all(Orthodx Jews and conservative Christians) child murders.  OzmO, way to promote religious hatred.  You sound just like the men who indoctrinate Taliban, al'Qaeda and Hamas children.

You must really be desperate loco.  It's sad that you must sink this low to defend the book you worship.

Let's clear things up so that maybe it will harder for you to words in my mouth which you do so often do when you are faced the cold hard fact the BIBLE is not the word of GOD

-  You've admitted you would have killed innocent babies, infants, children

-  A person is not a child murder until they actually murder a child.  So when you say "all" that's far from true and i do not accuse all or any Christians or jews save those who killed the amalikite children.

-  2 conservative Christians on this board have admitted they would have killed children and you are one of them.  That's as far as my accusation has gone.

-  Now you are comparing me to Al Queda?     grasping grasping grasping   lol.   Maybe you should pull you nose out fo the bible you worship long enough to see what exactly the issues are that Al Queda has with the USA.  you'll see it's not the jews murdering children thousands of years ago.

 

OzmO, you on the other hand have repeatedly admitted to supporting legal abortion, the murder of millions of unborn babies.  And why?  For the health of the economy and for the health of the murderers. You support the murder, protect the murderer and ignore the victim.  In this thread, you make the Amalekites the heroes and victims, while portraying Jews and Christians as villains and child murderers.

You must be proud of yourself.

Now this is the funny part.   In your desperation to defend the book you worship, you try and distract from the issue by bringing up an unrelated issue involving my views as if that makes what the Jews did ok or as if discrediting the critic distracts from the issue of killing innocent children.

It's too bad that the alleged word of God in the bible is soo weak and full inconsistencies that you have to go through this trouble to defend it huh loco?

Too bad this word isn't as full of wisdom and beyond reproach the way the real word of an all powerful God should be huh loco?

Too bad your are relegated to defending the murder of innocent children huh loco?

OzmO,  you love to ask questions, ignore the answer given to you and then claim that people ignore or dodge your question, but in this thread you've not answered many questions.

You do the same buddy, but what ever. 

Ask me some questions and give them a number and i'll answer them.   While you are at it maybe you can answer this  one:

If you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that God contacted you and it was GOD and he ordered you to kill 30 babies would you do it?

And you wouldn't?  Even if you were an Israeli soldier who had witnessed the Amalekites rape and murder your grand parents, only to come back a few years later and murder your parents and baby sister, only to come back a few years later and murder your wife, sons and daughters...even if you had witnessed your brothers and their families starve to death because the Amalekites kept coming back and destroying your crops and stealing your possessions, generation after generation for three centuries?

I wouldn't loco becuase it's an immoral thing to do.  Killing children is wrong under any circumstances.  "I will not kill people becuase of what they might do.  Just i don't see you as a child murderer until you actually kill a child.  Killing people in self defense is one thing as it would justified to killed those amalikite soldiers but to kill children goes against GOD, goes against:  Thou shalt not kill. 

You can't see this and will never see it becuase you have put your self in a spiritual limbo by worshiping that book and have traded your common sense for blind allegiance.

That's a very sad thing loco becuase you are good man.  You have much you do for people with the example you set but have limited yourself.

You can still be everything a Christian is loco and have the common sense that the bible is not the 100% word of God.

If you demand that God or that Israel have found a better way to deal with the Amalekite babies, why can you conveniently not find a better way to deal with legal abortions other than to just let it happen for the health of the economy and for the health of the murderers?

I really am all ears to finding a better way.  If being fully against legal abortion is a 10 and being fully for legalized abortion is a 1 and 5 is the line, i'm a 4.99999999.

I see the answer in society changing their moral standards kind of like it has when it comes to killing innocent children.   

[loco]

I believe it happen loco, but i don't believe God is a hypocrite while you struggle to find justification for killing children.

 
You must really be desperate loco.  It's sad that you must sink this low to defend the book you worship.

Let's clear things up so that maybe it will harder for you to words in my mouth which you do so often do when you are faced the cold hard fact the BIBLE is not the word of GOD

-  You've admitted you would have killed innocent babies, infants, children

-  A person is not a child murder until they actually murder a child.  So when you say "all" that's far from true and i do not accuse all or any Christians or jews save those who killed the amalikite children.

-  2 conservative Christians on this board have admitted they would have killed children and you are one of them.  That's as far as my accusation has gone.

-  Now you are comparing me to Al Queda?     grasping grasping grasping   lol.   Maybe you should pull you nose out fo the bible you worship long enough to see what exactly the issues are that Al Queda has with the USA.  you'll see it's not the jews murdering children thousands of years ago.

 
Now this is the funny part.   In your desperation to defend the book you worship, you try and distract from the issue by bringing up an unrelated issue involving my views as if that makes what the Jews did ok or as if discrediting the critic distracts from the issue of killing innocent children.

It's too bad that the alleged word of God in the bible is soo weak and full inconsistencies that you have to go through this trouble to defend it huh loco?

Too bad this word isn't as full of wisdom and beyond reproach the way the real word of an all powerful God should be huh loco?

Too bad your are relegated to defending the murder of innocent children huh loco?

You do the same buddy, but what ever. 

Ask me some questions and give them a number and i'll answer them.   While you are at it maybe you can answer this  one:

If you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that God contacted you and it was GOD and he ordered you to kill 30 babies would you do it?

I wouldn't loco becuase it's an immoral thing to do.  Killing children is wrong under any circumstances.  "I will not kill people becuase of what they might do.  Just i don't see you as a child murderer until you actually kill a child.  Killing people in self defense is one thing as it would justified to killed those amalikite soldiers but to kill children goes against GOD, goes against:  Thou shalt not kill. 

You can't see this and will never see it becuase you have put your self in a spiritual limbo by worshiping that book and have traded your common sense for blind allegiance.

That's a very sad thing loco becuase you are good man.  You have much you do for people with the example you set but have limited yourself.

You can still be everything a Christian is loco and have the common sense that the bible is not the 100% word of God.

I really am all ears to finding a better way.  If being fully against legal abortion is a 10 and being fully for legalized abortion is a 1 and 5 is the line, i'm a 4.99999999.

I see the answer in society changing their moral standards kind of like it has when it comes to killing innocent children.   

The only thing that McWay and I have admitted, like any Orthodox Jew and like any conservative Christian, is faith that the Bible is the word of God.  That, according to you, makes us all(Orthodx Jews and conservative Christians) child murderers. 

OzmO, this is nothing but your way to promote religious hatred.  The Taliban, al'Qaeda and Hamas would welcome you with open arms to help indoctrinate their children.