Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: big L dawg on February 19, 2009, 01:48:55 PM
-
remember that lady that drowned her kids in the bathtub.she said god told her to do it....well there's some nut job that post's here regularly that would do the same thing.
-
remember that lady that drowned her kids in the bathtub.she said god told her to do it....well there's some nut job that post's here regularly that would do the same thing.
dorian yates?
:P
-
dorian yates?
:P
not sure what Dorian's stance is on this :D but no...not him.
-
not sure what Dorian's stance is on this :D but no...not him.
I believe her name was Andrea Yates, hence the Dorian post. :)
Yeah, she was definitely delusional.
-
I believe her name was Andrea Yates, hence the Dorian post. :)
Yeah, she was definitely delusional.
yea..and she is one of many people that god has told them to kill there kids....I'm sure there's a good reason for it ??? I mean who are we to question god or them...right? :-\
-
Very Christian of you to mock the killing of women and children.
So, McWay if God ordered you to bash the head in of a 2 year old girl would you do it?
I didn't mock the killing of the women and children. I listed the options that would be available, with regards to the remnants of Israel's defeated attackers.
As for your question, which I've answered once before, the answer is YES!!
Cue the outrage!!!
-
I guess this is sticking to the thread.
-
For people who claim to be so enlightened, it appears we have a very DENSE group of folks here. Ozmo asked me that question, expecting me to dance around the issue (as did the last person to whom he inquired the same), hence setting me up for more grilling.
I gave Ozmo my answer (which he, on its face anyway, wanted to be a "Yes" or "No").
As for the Andrea Yates thing, there's no reason why God would tell me to kill my own child.
1) The child committed no sin, worthy of death.
2) Were any sin of a serious nature committed, the Lord, as He tends to do, would give ample time for forgiveness and repentance before passing judgment (a point Ozmo, Liberalismo et. al. missed by ten miles).
3) Such an instruction would hardly be given, sans explanation.
4) I always have the option of interceding, as Moses did on behalf of the Israelites, when God wanted to destroy them for their idolatry and wickedness.
5) Any judgment involving the death of children DID NOT involve simply children. It was a punishment on the adults, who committed serious trangressions. And as people like Ozmo completely forget, at times, is a principle that is as true today as it was thousands of years ago....CHILDREN OFTEN PAY THE PRICE FOR THE SINS OF THEIR PARENTS.
A much lighter (but no less signficant) example is one I've used with Ozmo and others involving a family, living in a house or apartment. It's quite simple. If you do something stupid that costs you your job and can't pay your mortgage/rent, guess what happens....YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY GETS THROWN OUT TO THE STREET. The landlord isn't going to spare your kids or wife and give them shelter. You all get evicted.
And, such it is in life. At certain levels, your whole family can be adversely affected by the evil you do.
So, as L Dawg tends to do, he is merely running his mouth with little-to-no substance behind his statements, other than the standard RAH-RAH-RAH anti-religious blathering. So be it.
-
For people who claim to be so enlightened, it appears we have a very DENSE group of folks here. Ozmo asked me that question, expecting me to dance around the issue (as did the last person to whom he inquired the same), hence setting me up for more grilling.
I gave Ozmo my answer (which he, on its face anyway, wanted to be a "Yes" or "No").
As for the Andrea Yates thing, there's no reason why God would tell me to kill my own child.
1) The child committed no sin, worthy of death.
2) Were any sin of a serious nature committed, the Lord, as He tends to do, would give ample time for forgiveness and repentance before passing judgment (a point Ozmo, Liberalismo et. al. missed by ten miles).
3) Such an instruction would hardly be given, sans explanation.
4) I always have the option of interceding, as Moses did on behalf of the Israelites, when God wanted to destroy them for their idolatry and wickedness.
5) Any judgment involving the death of children DID NOT involve simply children. It was a punishment on the adults, who committed serious trangressions. And as people like Ozmo completely forget, at times, is a principle that is as true today as it was thousands of years ago....CHILDREN OFTEN PAY THE PRICE FOR THE SINS OF THEIR PARENTS.
A much lighter (but no less signficant) example is one I've used with Ozmo and others involving a family, living in a house or apartment. It's quite simple. If you do something stupid that costs you your job and can't pay your mortgage/rent, guess what happens....YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY GETS THROWN OUT TO THE STREET. The landlord isn't going to spare your kids or wife and give them shelter. You all get evicted.
And, such it is in life. At certain levels, your whole family can be adversely affected by the evil you do.
So, as L Dawg tends to do, he is merely running his mouth with little-to-no substance behind his statements, other than the standard RAH-RAH-RAH anti-religious blathering. So be it.
so the numerous amount of religious whack jobs that have killed over the years because god told them to are all lying?or are they just crazy?but yet if you bashed the head in of a 2 year old it would be because god told you to.right?
-
so the numerous amount of religious whack jobs that have killed over the years because god told them to are all lying?or are they just crazy?but yet if you bashed the head in of a 2 year old it would be because god told you to.right?
Get ready because whether you like it or not, one world religion is on its way. The majority of world leaders are satanists. I’ve been saying this for years. If you’re smart enough to look in the right places you will confirm it. Here is just one example:
Walter Cronkite : "I'm Glad To Sit On The Right Hand Of Satan"
Do you prefer satanism as a world religion? Better get use to worshipping him because you will be even if you are currently an athiest homeboy.
-
For people who claim to be so enlightened, it appears we have a very DENSE group of folks here. Ozmo asked me that question, expecting me to dance around the issue (as did the last person to whom he inquired the same), hence setting me up for more grilling.
I gave Ozmo my answer (which he, on its face anyway, wanted to be a "Yes" or "No").
As for the Andrea Yates thing, there's no reason why God would tell me to kill my own child.
1) The child committed no sin, worthy of death.
2) Were any sin of a serious nature committed, the Lord, as He tends to do, would give ample time for forgiveness and repentance before passing judgment (a point Ozmo, Liberalismo et. al. missed by ten miles).
3) Such an instruction would hardly be given, sans explanation.
4) I always have the option of interceding, as Moses did on behalf of the Israelites, when God wanted to destroy them for their idolatry and wickedness.
5) Any judgment involving the death of children DID NOT involve simply children. It was a punishment on the adults, who committed serious trangressions. And as people like Ozmo completely forget, at times, is a principle that is as true today as it was thousands of years ago....CHILDREN OFTEN PAY THE PRICE FOR THE SINS OF THEIR PARENTS.
A much lighter (but no less signficant) example is one I've used with Ozmo and others involving a family, living in a house or apartment. It's quite simple. If you do something stupid that costs you your job and can't pay your mortgage/rent, guess what happens....YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY GETS THROWN OUT TO THE STREET. The landlord isn't going to spare your kids or wife and give them shelter. You all get evicted.
And, such it is in life. At certain levels, your whole family can be adversely affected by the evil you do.
So, as L Dawg tends to do, he is merely running his mouth with little-to-no substance behind his statements, other than the standard RAH-RAH-RAH anti-religious blathering. So be it.
It doesn't matter in the least. Either you are a person who can find some reason to MURDER A 2 year old CHILD or you are not.
There is no grey area here. At least be a man and stand by what you said. And stop trying to squirm out of it with your candy ass deflections.
-
Oh and just for the record, even "IF" it all was true, the bible as the WOG, and GOD ordered me to kill a 2 year old child, and it be an Amalikite or Hamas, I'd tell him to go to hell.
-
Oh and just for the record, even "IF" it all was true, the bible as the WOG, and GOD ordered me to kill a 2 year old child, and it be an Amalikite or Hamas, I'd tell him to go to hell.
Ditto.
-
Oh and just for the record, even "IF" it all was true, the bible as the WOG, and GOD ordered me to kill a 2 year old child, and it be an Amalikite or Hamas, I'd tell him to go to hell.
You are such a self-righteous hypocrite. You have no clue what you would do were you in the shoes of the ancient Israelites. Had somebody killed your grandparents, your parents, your sisters and brothers, your children, you might just gladly kill them and their children too, with or without God's blessing.
I don't know what I would do. I really don't. Why don't you be honest and admit that you don't know either.
You asked MCWAY a hypothetical question. He gave you an honest, hypothetical answer, and now you are using that to dishonestly twist the meaning of his answer and attack and discredit him. Hypocrite!
-
You are such a self-righteous hypocrite. You have no clue what you would do were you in the shoes of the ancient Israelites. Had somebody killed your grandparents, your parents, your sisters and brothers, your children, you might just gladly kill them and their children too, with or without God's blessing.
I don't know what I would do. I really don't. Why don't you be honest and admit that you don't know either.
You asked MCWAY a hypothetical question. He gave you an honest, hypothetical answer, and now you are using that to dishonestly twist the meaning of his answer and attack and discredit him. Hypocrite!
Is this more desperate blabber from the resident drama queen?
I'm not being self righteous at all you holy than thou slaver genocider worshiping bible thumper.
If i did it in anger, it would still be wrong for me to kill a child. (not to mention ungodly) At least i can admit that and not cast candy ass slants and deflections on it with bull shit justifications about children paying for the sins of their parents. How fucking stupid. Fact of the matter is I wouldn't kill the child of the person who murdered my entire family. I'd kill the person for sure if i could get away with it. And then I'd take that child in a raise it as my own. Which would be a very christian thing to do, not that perverse crap you worship.
Sorry, loco, I have a grip on what's right and wrong, I don't need a flawed book of stories written by primitive men thousands of years ago taken literally by ignorant people.
Regarding McWay,
He said he would kill a child on God's orders. plain and simple. The lady who drowned her children thought the same thing. Get over it. At least he had the nads to answer the question unlike someone I know. ::)
-
It doesn't matter in the least. Either you are a person who can find some reason to MURDER A 2 year old CHILD or you are not.
There is no grey area here. At least be a man and stand by what you said. And stop trying to squirm out of it with your candy ass deflections.
I stand by what I said. The simple fact is you were expecting me to squirm, just as you did when you brought up a thread just like this one a few months ago.
I did then what I've done now. I answered your question, straight up, and gave you the reasons for my answer.
As for your answers to Loco, those are spurious, to say the least. Were we to crush Al Qaeda underfoot, the odds of you being first in line to adopt Bin Laden's grandbabies are SLIM and NONE (with "SLIM" heading for the exit signs).
And, as I mentioned the last time you made such a claim about adoption, the Israelites did that (not with the Amalekites but with other people); and you whined about "slavery".
What I said about children suffering for the sins of their parents is anything but deflection. It is mere reality, often the collateral damage of war. When push comes to shove, you ain't adopting any Al Qaeda/Taliban babies into the Ozmo household. Nor, are you making sure that what's left of their ranks become American citizens and move into the house next door.
-
I stand by what I said. The simple fact is you were expecting me to squirm, just as you did when you brought up a thread just like this one a few months ago.
I did then what I've done now. I answered your question, straight up, and gave you the reasons for my answer.
As for your answers to Loco, those are spurious, to say the least. Were we to crush Al Qaeda underfoot, the odds of you being first in line to adopt Bin Laden's grandbabies are SLIM and NONE (with "SLIM" heading for the exit signs).
And, as I mentioned the last time you made such a claim about adoption, the Israelites did that (not with the Amalekites but with other people); and you whined about "slavery".
What I said about children suffering for the sins of their parents is anything but deflection. It is mere reality, often the collateral damage of war. When push comes to shove, you ain't adopting any Al Qaeda/Taliban babies into the Ozmo household. Nor, are you making sure that what's left of their ranks become American citizens and move into the house next door.
your one psychotic SOB!
so the numerous amount of religious whack jobs that have killed over the years because god told them to are all lying?or are they just crazy?but yet if you bashed the head in of a 2 year old it would be because god told you to.right?
now answer my question.
-
You are such a self-righteous hypocrite. You have no clue what you would do were you in the shoes of the ancient Israelites. Had somebody killed your grandparents, your parents, your sisters and brothers, your children, you might just gladly kill them and their children too, with or without God's blessing.
I don't know what I would do. I really don't. Why don't you be honest and admit that you don't know either.
You asked MCWAY a hypothetical question. He gave you an honest, hypothetical answer, and now you are using that to dishonestly twist the meaning of his answer and attack and discredit him. Hypocrite!
I disagree! I think he does know what he would do. Again, Ozmo wasn't expecting me to give him a "Yes" or "No" answer.
If we got the chance to take Al Qaeda out, once and for all (after what went down on 9/11, the Cole, the firs WTC attack, etc), Ozmo, along with L Dawg, Liberalismo, and all the other blubberers here would take it in a heartbeat.
They wouldn't give TWO RED CENTS, whether the wives and kids of these guys were destroyed in the process, especially given the weapons of modern warfare, that makes killing our enemies far more impersonal. That appears to be the source of Ozmo's crying (as if they'd be any less dead, courtesy of missiles, instead of swords or bare hands).
-
your one psychotic SOB!
I'm sorry!! Let's see your adoption papers for a child, whose Al Qaeda daddy is dead and gone, because of our military strikes.
Or, if you prefer, you can show us a picture of your mourning over the children, killed as collateral damage, after our Armed Forces took out a AQ stronghold.
now answer my question.
Or what? You're going to throw a temper tantrum? Last time I checked, I outlined the criteria as to how and why, if at all, the Lord would give anyone such instruction. Maybe you should brush up on your reading skills.
But, since comprehension ain't your strongest gift, I'd say "Yes", and "Perhaps", to your rather bone-headed questions.
As I said on a previous post, neither you, Ozmo, or anyone else shed a tear when our military put down terrorist posts (especially knowing the MO of these guys is to hide behind their own women and children). And, there'd be no remorse on your end, if the opportunity to completely eliminate Al Qaeda presented itself, no matter how many 2-year-old kids of theirs died as a result.
-
I stand by what I said. The simple fact is you were expecting me to squirm, just as you did when you brought up a thread just like this one a few months ago.
I did then what I've done now. I answered your question, straight up, and gave you the reasons for my answer.
Nice too see that you aren't squirming once again. However, I'm sure that woman had "her" reasons too. FACT is you would kill a child on God's orders. The ground work is there. Hope your sanity stays in tact for the sake of the children around you.
As for your answers to Loco, those are spurious, to say the least. Were we to crush Al Qaeda underfoot, the odds of you being first in line to adopt Bin Laden's grandbabies are SLIM and NONE (with "SLIM" heading for the exit signs).
And, as I mentioned the last time you made such a claim about adoption, the Israelites did that (not with the Amalekites but with other people); and you whined about "slavery".
Such a simpleton view of what's happen over there eh McWay? Is that what allows you to swallow the non sense you believe? We have killed many AQ and Taliban adults. Are our soldiers also killing purposely hunting down their children and killing them too? Our you proud of these "christians soldiers doing God's work as they toss a fragment grenade in room full chidren or how they line a dozen five year girls up and shot them with their M-4? Does that make you feel rightous? Does that make you feel like God's soldier? ::)
We are not purposely going after children with the intent of genocide in Afghanistan McWay. Pull your nose out of Pat Robertson's butt. What we doing? I would hope they are being sent to orphanages or sent to adoption. I know we are not killing them. FFS
What I said about children suffering for the sins of their parents is anything but deflection. It is mere reality, often the collateral damage of war. When push comes to shove, you ain't adopting any Al Qaeda/Taliban babies into the Ozmo household. Nor, are you making sure that what's left of their ranks become American citizens and move into the house next door.
What you said was a pathetic justification about the purposeful killing of innocent children, something that you said you would do on God's orders.
You are a fine soldier in Satan's army. ;)
-
Nice too see that you aren't squirming once again. However, I'm sure that woman had "her" reasons too. FACT is you would kill a child on God's orders. The ground work is there. Hope your sanity stays in tact for the sake of the children around you.
Perhaps, she did. But, given the criteria I laid out earlier, based on Scripture, the safe bet is that her “orders” DID NOT come from the Lord.
Such a simpleton view of what's happen over there eh McWay? Is that what allows you to swallow the non sense you believe? We have killed many AQ and Taliban adults. Are our soldiers also killing purposely hunting down their children and killing them too? Our you proud of these "christians soldiers doing God's work as they toss a fragment grenade in room full chidren or how they line a dozen five year girls up and shot them with their M-4? Does that make you feel rightous? Does that make you feel like God's soldier? ::)
Once again, you're playing semantics. You know that attacking AQ means that their women and children WILL DIE as well for various reasons, among those reasons, AQ likes to hide among their women and children and those women and children are often used as suicide bombers themselves.
We are not purposely going after children with the intent of genocide in Afghanistan McWay. Pull your nose out of Pat Robertson's butt. What we doing? I would hope they are being sent to orphanages or sent to adoption. I know we are not killing them. FFS
What does Pat Robertson have to do with this (or are you running out of lines to use). Those children could be, as I mentioned would be the case were just the Amalekite males destroyed, left to starve and die. In any event, you aren't rushing to the front of the line to adopt them or make them American citizens.
What you said was a pathetic justification about the purposeful killing of innocent children, something that you said you would do on God's orders.
You are a fine soldier in Satan's army. ;)
What I've said is proof, that when push comes to shove, you would act in the EXACT same manner, if it means protecting your family, your people, and your country from extermination. Retaliating against Al Qaeda or the Taliban, in any form or fashion, means that THEIR WIVES AND CHILDREN WILL DIE, plain and simple, no getting around it.
You will either destroy them in warfare OR (in the unlikely event you could actually sift through the ranks and target the males exclusively) the women and children will STARVE TO DEATH. Either way, those kids will pay a heavy price for their father's "Death to America/Death to Israel" mantra and subsequent actions.
And, your hands will be NOTICABLY VOID of any adoption papers for Bin Laden's/Zawahiri's/Randy-Al-Kaboom's kids or grandkids.
-
Perhaps, she did. But, given the criteria I laid out earlier, based on Scripture, the safe bet is that her “orders” DID NOT come from the Lord.
Exactly, she didn't know the difference. YOU don;t know the difference either as you have already admitted you'd kill children on God's orders. The only thing that separates you from her, is perception. Nothing more. What separates me from you and her is that there isn't a situation where i would kill an innocent child. And if i did, it would be wrong under ANY circumstance. It wouldn't be ok because i was god or whatever lame ass excuse/cop out you come up with to justify the killing of children to validate the book of stories you worship.
Once again, you're playing semantics. You know that attacking AQ means that their women and children WILL DIE as well for various reasons, among those reasons, AQ likes to hide among their women and children and those women and children are often used as suicide bombers themselves.
I'm not talking about collateral damage. I'm talking about killing children on purpose. I'm talking about genocide. You have suggested justification for genocide and the killing of children in this modern age with Hamas, AQ, and the Taliban.
What does Pat Robertson have to do with this (or are you running out of lines to use). Those children could be, as I mentioned would be the case were just the Amalekite males destroyed, left to starve and die. In any event, you aren't rushing to the front of the line to adopt them or make them American citizens.
Pat Robertson preaches that Christian Warrior Bull shit, you reminded me of it. If we are killing their parents, and leaving children in a cave to starve and not allowing other families or orphanages to take care of them then we aren't doing it right. But we are not doing that. And you know it.
What I've said is proof, that when push comes to shove, you would act in the EXACT same manner, if it means protecting your family, your people, and your country from extermination. Retaliating against Al Qaeda or the Taliban, in any form or fashion, means that THEIR WIVES AND CHILDREN WILL DIE, plain and simple, no getting around it.
You will either destroy them in warfare OR (in the unlikely event you could actually sift through the ranks and target the males exclusively) the women and children will STARVE TO DEATH. Either way, those kids will pay a heavy price for their father's "Death to America/Death to Israel" mantra and subsequent actions.
And, your hands will be NOTICABLY VOID of any adoption papers for Bin Laden's/Zawahiri's/Randy-Al-Kaboom's kids or grandkids.
No I wouldn't. The ADULTS responsible would die. I'm not so barbaric and primitive to think that someone is guilty before they commit a crime or destine to be a criminal. I guess you are. I'm surprised you are not in the GAZA strip right now clubbing baby girls and boys. Because they are sure to grow to be terrorists. Aren't they? ::)
I'll say it like i said to to loco:
I have a grip on what's right and wrong, I don't need a flawed book of stories written by primitive men thousands of years ago taken literally by ignorant people.
We are not committing genocide in Afghanistan. We are not commiting Genocide on the just the male adults. Afghanistan has the capacity to take of the orphaned children. Just as the Murdering Jews did with the Amalilkites.
Thanks God, the American government isn't a barbaric as you perverse Christians are.
-
Update:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=263451.50 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=263451.50)
And, NO! I am not in the same boat as Andrea Yates, for the reason I outlined on L Dawg's thread.
For the sake of any Hamas children you might encounter in your life, I hope not. :D
If you go around chanting "Death to..." me and my people and are willing to act out accordingly, all bets are off.
Is McWay suggesting he'd kill Children born of Hamas parents because of what they chant?
-
Exactly, she didn't know the difference. YOU don;t know the difference either as you have already admitted you'd kill children on God's orders. The only thing that separates you from her, is perception. Nothing more. What separates me from you and her is that there isn't a situation where i would kill an innocent child. And if i did, it would be wrong under ANY circumstance. It wouldn't be ok because i was god or whatever lame ass excuse/cop out you come up with to justify the killing of children to validate the book of stories you worship.
Wrong again!! I DO know the difference, as I have clear guidelines as to how the Lord operates with regards to justice, mercy, repentance, judgment, and the depth and range of all of the above. It's an simple read and it's easy to state that no such order would come from the Lord to exclusively kill my children.
What seperates me from you is that I speak the truth and know certain circumstances require certain actions. There are situations that you would do such, even given how unlikely the odds of your having to do so might be.
I'm not talking about collateral damage. I'm talking about killing children on purpose. I'm talking about genocide. You have suggested justification for genocide and the killing of children in this modern age with Hamas, AQ, and the Taliban.
Guess what you're doing, when you attack Hamas, AQ, and the Taliban, KNOWING THAT THEY USE CHILDREN AS SHIELDS or AS BOMBS and hide among the populace: You're killing children, ON PURPOSE. In fact, they're counting on that. That's why they bleat to the UN, everytime they get their behinds whipped, while engaging in the very thing that they supposedly want: HOLY WAR (Jihad). They just don't like it, when they're on the losing end of it.
Pat Robertson preaches that Christian Warrior Bull shit, you reminded me of it. If we are killing their parents, and leaving children in a cave to starve and not allowing other families or orphanages to take care of them then we aren't doing it right. But we are not doing that. And you know it.
No I wouldn't. The ADULTS responsible would die. I'm not so barbaric and primitive to think that someone is guilty before they commit a crime or destine to be a criminal. I guess you are. I'm surprised you are not in the GAZA strip right now clubbing baby girls and boys. Because they are sure to grow to be terrorists. Aren't they? ::)
Again, you play the semantics game. Killing them with missiles and bombs makes it impersonal. But, you would do that, just the same, if that's what it took to keep them from putting an end to your family and country.
I'll say it like i said to to loco:
I have a grip on what's right and wrong, I don't need a flawed book of stories written by primitive men thousands of years ago taken literally by ignorant people.
We are not committing genocide in Afghanistan. We are not commiting Genocide on the just the male adults. Afghanistan has the capacity to take of the orphaned children. Just as the Murdering Jews did with the Amalilkites.
It has not reached that point....YET. Then again, they haven't been attacking us, scorching our crops, and targeting our women and children for three centuries, have they? Nor have peace treaties, cease-fires, etc. been attempted for as long. Of course, you keep forgetting that in your continued wailing about the Amalekites.
Were the Israelites to have taken care of those kids, you'd turn right around and start hollering about "slavery", just as you did, when Israel adopted children from other vanquished enemies. So, again, spare me the adoption spiel.
BTW, guess what happened, when those adopted Amalekites (the ones Saul didn't destroy and went elsewhere) grew up and their numbers were replenished.
Again, when I see you with adoption papers in hand, to feed clothe, and school the sons of dead AQ/Hamas/Taliban terrorists, you'll have a leg on which to stand. That's assuming they don't use your benevolence against you, when they grow up (then again, you may plan to just pick the babies and leave the older kids and teens to starve to death).
Thanks God, the American government isn't a barbaric as you perverse Christians are.
Thanks God, we have leaders that will protect us, no matter what, rather than subject us to destruction, simply because Ozmo et. al. is worried about AQ's kiddies having gummy bears at day care.
-
remember that lady that drowned her kids in the bathtub.she said god told her to do it....well there's some nut job that post's here regularly that would do the same thing.
hey Ibraham started it! ;D
-
I haven't read this whole thing but wasn't the original question in the initial thread a few months ago "If God told you to kill the child, would you?"
This means God told him to do it right? Not that he may have heard voices, or Satan whispered in his ear, or he may be delusional or insane. No possibility in the question other than God, the creator of the universe who created life and can bring the dead back to life told him to do it.
The question implies imo, that God is real and he told him to do it. The question was not, if you believed God told you to...The question was "If GOD told you to...." right?
If that is correct, I believe people that don't believe in an omniscient God that is the creator of life, the creator of the universe, the one who can take lives at will and the one that can restore and resurrect life will never understand MCWAY'S answer.
-
Wrong again!! I DO know the difference, as I have clear guidelines as to how the Lord operates with regards to justice, mercy, repentance, judgment, and the depth and range of all of the above. It's an simple read and it's easy to state that no such order would come from the Lord to exclusively kill my children.
What seperates me from you is that I speak the truth and know certain circumstances require certain actions. There are situations that you would do such, even given how unlikely the odds of your having to do so might be.
Still I wouldn't kill a child, yet you have admitted you would. If there are clear guidelines the hypocrite you worship has succeeded in layign the ground work for you to be ripe for the picking. Just like that woman.
Guess what you're doing, when you attack Hamas, AQ, and the Taliban, KNOWING THAT THEY USE CHILDREN AS SHIELDS or AS BOMBS and hide among the populace: You're killing children, ON PURPOSE. In fact, they're counting on that. That's why they bleat to the UN, everytime they get their behinds whipped, while engaging in the very thing that they supposedly want: HOLY WAR (Jihad). They just don't like it, when they're on the losing end of it.
Yes, and our soldiers, not taking in your murdering God's example, do everything they can to avoid killing innocent people. Did god do the same in his unlimited power? ::)
Again, you play the semantics game. Killing them with missiles and bombs makes it impersonal. But, you would do that, just the same, if that's what it took to keep them from putting an end to your family and country.
You are the one confusing the issue. We are talking about GENOCIDE remember? Or did you forget in the mists of your candy ass deflection of the issue?
Collateral damage is unavoidable in war. And is unfortunate. GENOCIDE is always avoidable and is even more avoidable when you are the All powerful God.
It has not reached that point....YET. Then again, they haven't been attacking us, scorching our crops, and targeting our women and children for three centuries, have they? Nor have peace treaties, cease-fires, etc. been attempted for as long. Of course, you keep forgetting that in your continued wailing about the Amalekites.
Were the Israelites to have taken care of those kids, you'd turn right around and start hollering about "slavery", just as you did, when Israel adopted children from other vanquished enemies. So, again, spare me the adoption spiel.
BTW, guess what happened, when those adopted Amalekites (the ones Saul didn't destroy and went elsewhere) grew up and their numbers were replenished.
Again, when I see you with adoption papers in hand, to feed clothe, and school the sons of dead AQ/Hamas/Taliban terrorists, you'll have a leg on which to stand. That's assuming they don't use your benevolence against you, when they grow up (then again, you may plan to just pick the babies and leave the older kids and teens to starve to death).
I'm not adopting these kids for several reasons:
- I didn't kill there parents
- There parents didn't kill anyone in my family, or for that mater anyone i know
- We are not forced to decide between a Male genocide of AQ & the Taliban and complete Genocide of all men women and children.
- There are resources and people who are taking care of orphaned children from this conflict.
Even if all this were true and they kill my family and i did kill their parents I would not kill the children. At the very least I help pay for their care.
The mere fact that you would have to resort to such pathetic arguments to justify your willingness to kill a child on God's orders says more of the twisted perverse cult of christianity you follow.
You whole argument borders on the ridiculous.
- God is the creator therefore he's not morally accountable
- I don't see you adopting AQ children
- Even though i said i'd kill a child on God's it's different than what that women did.
And then suggesting you'd kill Hamas children for chanting. You should be ashamed of yourself.
-
-
bottom line I wouldn't let Mcway or anyone with his mind set within 500 feet of my child.
-
Still I wouldn't kill a child, yet you have admitted you would. If there are clear guidelines the hypocrite you worship has succeeded in layign the ground work for you to be ripe for the picking. Just like that woman.
Notwithstanding how dopey this statement of yours is, I missed the parts were 1) the trangressions of these kids were identified 2)they were given the opportunity to repent of such or 3) Andrea Yates attempted to interceded on her kids behalf.
Yes, and our soldiers, not taking in your murdering God's example, do everything they can to avoid killing innocent people. Did god do the same in his unlimited power? ::)
What do you call giving them over 300 years to surrender, repent, and to make amends for their actions?
You are the one confusing the issue. We are talking about GENOCIDE remember? Or did you forget in the mists of your candy ass deflection of the issue?
Collateral damage is unavoidable in war. And is unfortunate. GENOCIDE is always avoidable and is even more avoidable when you are the All powerful God.
One way to do that is to repent, when you've been ambushing the Israelites, instead of CONTINUING to attack their people, scorch their crops, etc. And, that's just the Israelites; that doesn't include the other folks the Amalekites were assaulting. Or did YOU forget that in YOUR candy-@$$ deflections?
I'm not adopting these kids for several reasons:
- I didn't kill there parents
- There parents didn't kill anyone in my family, or for that mater anyone i know
- We are not forced to decide between a Male genocide of AQ & the Taliban and complete Genocide of all men women and children.
- There are resources and people who are taking care of orphaned children from this conflict.
Even if all this were true and they kill my family and i did kill their parents I would not kill the children. At the very least I help pay for their care.
You'd do nothing of the sort! Nor would you expect anyone else who'd experience such a tragedy to do the same.
The mere fact that you would have to resort to such pathetic arguments to justify your willingness to kill a child on God's orders says more of the twisted perverse cult of christianity you follow.
My arguments are to make the point, that I know to decipher the words of God vs. some other source (psychotic, demonic, etc.) based on the criteria used in Scripture. And, that situation yield absolutely NO chance of my being ordered to just wantonly or exclusively kill a child. The simple fact is, and you admitted it yourself, you were expecting to duck your question and not give you a straight "Yes" or "No" answer, in a silly attempt to either criticize my faith (or lack thereof, depending on which answer I picked) to God.
You whole argument borders on the ridiculous.
- God is the creator therefore he's not morally accountable
- I don't see you adopting AQ children
- Even though i said i'd kill a child on God's it's different than what that women did.
To whom is God supposedly morally accountable? YOU!!! Are you going to hold your breath and whine, if the Almighty doesn't do things the way YOU think they should be done? He who created life has the right to destroy it. If that don't float your boat, that is just too bad for you.
You claimed that once you retaliate against an enemy, you should take care of their children. Yet, were you put in the same situation, your concern about AQ children would be out the door as fast as your Ozmo feet could take you. Your suggestion that our armed forces, who take down AQ terrorists (or even the citizens of the United States) are now obligated to care for their children is even more preposterous.
Again, when I see some adoption papers in your hand for Bin Laden's grandbabies (or any other children of the folks who hit us on 9/11), then you'll have a leg on which to stand with this silly stance of yours.
And then suggesting you'd kill Hamas children for chanting. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I suggested no such thing, Ozmo. What I said was regarding taking actions to attack me and my family. I clarified that in a subsequent post. And, considering, based on what I've seen on recent news specials (kids ASSEMBLING BOMBS AND CARRYING ASSAULT WEAPONS, an 8-year-old killing his fahter; most recently, an 11-year-old shooting his father's pregnant fiance', etc.) if you think that I'm going to contemplate adopting or sparing such little monsters (especially, when they're engaging in trying to kill me), you REALLY NEED TO LAY OFF THE COLD ONES!!
-
Notwithstanding how dopey this statement of yours is, I missed the parts were 1) the trangressions of these kids were identified 2)they were given the opportunity to repent of such or 3) Andrea Yates attempted to interceded on her kids behalf.
How is it dopey that the same god that preaches love and decency orders grown men to ram a spear in the gut of a 18 month baby girl?
How is it dopey that thousands of years later a grown man in this day age says he'd kill a child on "god's" order?
It's not dopey. It's tragic.
What do you call giving them over 300 years to surrender, repent, and to make amends for their actions?
Answer the question. Did god do the same with his power? We've already established he could have teleport them to a planet on the other side of the universe and put a force shield around it preventing them from ever leaving it, traveling billions of lights years across the universe so they can attack Israel. Care to make any more excuses for your "ALL POWERFUL" GOD?
Or are you gonna try and tell me that there is something good that would come out of a person who is forced to ram a spear in the gut of a baby?
One way to do that is to repent, when you've been ambushing the Israelites, instead of CONTINUING to attack their people, scorch their crops, etc. And, that's just the Israelites; that doesn't include the other folks the Amalekites were assaulting. Or did YOU forget that in YOUR candy-@$$ deflections?
Really? Can you explain to me how to get a 7 month old baby boy to repent? Let's get back to subject before you start running off at the mouth about who's knows what to "defect" from the fact that the ALL POWERFUL god you worship, who is also a slaver, ordered soldiers to kill children when he had in his power to avoid it.
You'd do nothing of the sort! Nor would you expect anyone else who'd experience such a tragedy to do the same.
That's the difference between you me. You in many ways are as primitive and emotionally barbaric as those murdering soldiers thousands of years ago. I'm not. You have shown, by your statements, that you would kill a child on god's order, you are no different than Mrs. Yates save a small shred of perception. You believe in absolute vengeance, man women and child. You are no different than those who hijacked the planes on 9/11. They believed they were on a mission from God too. They believed they were acting on god's orders. Now, I don't think there is a situation presently that would cause you murder a child, McWay, don't get me wrong, but the potential, by your own admission, is there.
It's that kind of barbaric stone age thinking that for all the good religion does, still holds our society captive from peace and our true potential.
My arguments are to make the point, that I know to decipher the words of God vs. some other source (psychotic, demonic, etc.) based on the criteria used in Scripture. And, that situation yield absolutely NO chance of my being ordered to just wantonly or exclusively kill a child. The simple fact is, and you admitted it yourself, you were expecting to duck your question and not give you a straight "Yes" or "No" answer, in a silly attempt to either criticize my faith (or lack thereof, depending on which answer I picked) to God.
David Koresh felt the same about scripture. ;)
Are you a prophet McWay? You know the future? You know God's voice?
To whom is God supposedly morally accountable? YOU!!! Are you going to hold your breath and whine, if the Almighty doesn't do things the way YOU think they should be done? He who created life has the right to destroy it. If that don't float your boat, that is just too bad for you.
He's morally accountable to himself. It's called integrity, walking the walk, talking the talk etc... The first thing that comes to mind when someone doesn't follow there own rules is: SATAN
You claimed that once you retaliate against an enemy, you should take care of their children. Yet, were you put in the same situation, your concern about AQ children would be out the door as fast as your Ozmo feet could take you. Your suggestion that our armed forces, who take down AQ terrorists (or even the citizens of the United States) are now obligated to care for their children is even more preposterous.
No, what i said was "If I killed their parents" I'd talk care of their children. I listed the differences that made you candy ass defection of an argument worthless.
But this paragraph shows me some of the hate in your heart for anyone who is not like you. It shows you don't know the difference between what it is to be an adult versus a child. But then again, you've already admitted you'd kill a child on god's orders. So why show anything but indifference to the innocent children of the terrorists?
Again, when I see some adoption papers in your hand for Bin Laden's grandbabies (or any other children of the folks who hit us on 9/11), then you'll have a leg on which to stand with this silly stance of yours.
There you go, waving your adoption deflection flag, even though I outline distinctly the difference between what's going on now and GENOCIDE that happened with the Amalikites.
BUT WHAT CAN I EXPECT FROM SOME ONE WHO IS TRYING TO JUSTIFY KILLING CHILDREN AND HAS ADMITTED THEY WOULD DO IT THEMSELVES?
I suggested no such thing, Ozmo. What I said was regarding taking actions to attack me and my family. I clarified that in a subsequent post. And, considering, based on what I've seen on recent news specials (kids ASSEMBLING BOMBS AND CARRYING ASSAULT WEAPONS, an 8-year-old killing his fahter; most recently, an 11-year-old shooting his father's pregnant fiance', etc.) if you think that I'm going to contemplate adopting or sparing such little monsters (especially, when they're engaging in trying to kill me), you REALLY NEED TO LAY OFF THE COLD ONES!!
You didn't say directly, you only suggested it. I posted the whole exchange earlier. And this last response only strengthens assertions about you.
Seriously dude. Get counseling. There's much hate in your heart. You are libel to blow a fuse and go on a killing spree killing anyone that looks arab.
-
How is it dopey that the same god that preaches love and decency orders grown men to ram a spear in the gut of a 18 month baby girl?
How is it dopey that thousands of years later a grown man in this day age says he'd kill a child on "god's" order?
It's not dopey. It's tragic.
Answer the question. Did god do the same with his power? We've already established he could have teleport them to a planet on the other side of the universe and put a force shield around it preventing them from ever leaving it, traveling billions of lights years across the universe so they can attack Israel. Care to make any more excuses for your "ALL POWERFUL" GOD?
Already did! 300+ years to repent and make amends. They didn't; thus, they paid the price for it, period. I make no excuses for my God, because He does NOT need to conform to what I think (or what YOU THINK, for that matter) He should do with His creation. If the Amalekites had repented, they'd been spared (no teleportation necessary).
Or are you gonna try and tell me that there is something good that would come out of a person who is forced to ram a spear in the gut of a baby?
Once again, in your pathetic attempt to prop up your argument, you play the semantics game with the manner of death involved. Spears then, or bombs, now, they're just as dead.
Really? Can you explain to me how to get a 7 month old baby boy to repent? Let's get back to subject before you start running off at the mouth about who's knows what to "defect" from the fact that the ALL POWERFUL god you worship, who is also a slaver, ordered soldiers to kill children when he had in his power to avoid it.
I've been on the subject from the start. In fact, this goofball statement of yours just demonstrates YOUR deflection and merely verifies what I've said from the jump. You, in your eagerness to whine, will find fault with any aspect of what was done with the Amalekites, or any other people on whom He pronounced judgment.
Again, you spare them and assimilate them (about which you REPEATEDLY cried did not happen with the Amalekites, but did happen with others), you start wailing about "slavery". Or you leave to starve and die, then it's the "God's-a-big-meanie" routine. Or, you continue your current route with the tired genocide flap.
That's the difference between you me. You in many ways are as primitive and emotionally barbaric as those murdering soldiers thousands of years ago. I'm not. You have shown, by your statements, that you would kill a child on god's order, you are no different than Mrs. Yates save a small shred of perception. You believe in absolute vengeance, man women and child. You are no different than those who hijacked the planes on 9/11. They believed they were on a mission from God too. They believed they were acting on god's orders. Now, I don't think there is a situation presently that would cause you murder a child, McWay, don't get me wrong, but the potential, by your own admission, is there.
You are EVERY BIT as "primitive". The one difference between us is that I can say it straight up, when asked, because I know how the Lord operates, based on His word. I know the criteria He sets and how He offers redemption and repentance. You, on the other hand, would do ABSOLUTELY NONE of the things that you so smugly claimed earlier.
If your family or people underwent what the Israelites did for three centuries and change, you WOULD NOT adopt the offspring of your enemies or give two spits who did. And, if those who were attacking those you loved happened to be children, you'd take them down without hesitation, pure and simple. So, you'll excuse me if I don't buy your sanctimonious routine, at this point.
It's that kind of barbaric stone age thinking that for all the good religion does, still holds our society captive from peace and our true potential.
David Koresh felt the same about scripture. ;)
Hardly!! Koresh violated Scripture majorly. Nowhere, past or present, has there been any edict for mass suicide.
Are you a prophet McWay? You know the future? You know God's voice?
What part of "based on the criteria in Scripture" ain't registering? That's why I have a Bible. It easily helps me decipher what is and isn't of the Lord.
He's morally accountable to himself. It's called integrity, walking the walk, talking the talk etc... The first thing that comes to mind when someone doesn't follow there own rules is: SATAN
I'm sorry!! What are all these satanic rules that the Prince of Darkness is violating? As far as God not walking the walk, that's a laugh. Part of walking the walk is His covenant with Abraham, to bless those who bless him (and his family) and curse those who curse him.
Not to mention that 2nd commandment, regarding the punishment to the third and fourth generation.
No, what i said was "If I killed their parents" I'd talk care of their children. I listed the differences that made you candy ass defection of an argument worthless.
I know what you said, and this statement (much like that one) is simply BS!!
But this paragraph shows me some of the hate in your heart for anyone who is not like you. It shows you don't know the difference between what it is to be an adult versus a child. But then again, you've already admitted you'd kill a child on god's orders. So why show anything but indifference to the innocent children of the terrorists?
You'd better get your eyes checked. I don't hate people who simply aren't like me. I do have a personal lack of tolerance to try to rehabiliate someone's little monsters.
There you go, waving your adoption deflection flag, even though I outline distinctly the difference between what's going on now and GENOCIDE that happened with the Amalikites.
BUT WHAT CAN I EXPECT FROM SOME ONE WHO IS TRYING TO JUSTIFY KILLING CHILDREN AND HAS ADMITTED THEY WOULD DO IT THEMSELVES?
It's hardly a deflection. It's a pointed example that, feet held to the fire, your money and your mouth would be in two separate locations, with nary the slightest thought on the fate of Team AQ's little ones.
You didn't say directly, you only suggested it. I posted the whole exchange earlier. And this last response only strengthens assertions about you.
Seriously dude. Get counseling. There's much hate in your heart. You are libel to blow a fuse and go on a killing spree killing anyone that looks arab.
<<pause for hysterical laughter>> This has to be the most ROCK-HEADED BONE-BRAINED THING you have ever posted. The last thing I have is hatred for anything that looks Arab. I have people in my church who are from Arab countries. I've been to their homes; they've been to mine. Their kids have played with my own.
It ain't an Arab thing; it's a terrorist-thing; it's my attitude against ANYONE who would bring harm to me and my family, regardless of their ethnicity.
The 8-year-old who killed his dad WASN'T ARAB; neither was the recent 11-year-old who killed his father's pregnant fiance'. Again, lay off the brewskies!!!
-
Why are you all arguing with fundamental extremist religious nut job fanatics who would kill a child if God told them to?
-
Why are you all arguing with fundamental extremist religious nut job fanatics who would kill a child if God told them to?
It's entertaining, sad, tragic, telling, astonishing, among other things, to see the extent a person in 2009, after many millennia of human history, could find a reason to murder an innocent child.
-
It's entertaining, sad, tragic, telling, astonishing, among other things, to see the extent a person in 2009, after many millennia of human history, could find a reason to murder an innocent child.
There are far too many problems in this world, and psychotic people only hold us back.
-
It's entertaining, sad, tragic, telling, astonishing, among other things, to see the extent a person in 2009, after many millennia of human history, could find a reason to murder an innocent child.
Indeed it is, But, as Beach Bum so eloquently pointed out, it is perfectly LEGAL, IN THIS country, and (YES, OZMO, in the year 2009) to kill a child. The only issue is location.
Even more tragic and telling is that someone would claim that he'd adopt the children of his enemies, knowing that (when push came to shove) he would not.
There are far too many problems in this world, and psychotic people only hold us back.
Hold you back from what?
-
It's also as such to find that someone would do the same thing, as long as he had the option of hiding behind modern-day weapons. Even more tragic and telling is that someone would claim that he'd adopt the children of his enemies, knowing that (when push came to shove) he would not.
So sad......that's all you have now to defend your murderous admission? Just keep on holding on to it because I'm sure that's what helps you keep going to church.
You worship a murderer and a slaver. End of story.
-
So sad......that's all you have now to defend your murderous admission? Just keep on holding on to it because I'm sure that's what helps you keep going to church.
You worship a murderer and a slaver. End of story.
Since I didn't and haven't murdered anyone, I have no "murderous admission". So, that's hardly the reason I continue to go to church.
Who I worship is the Creator of heaven and Earth, end of story. And while your ridiculous statements make for good fodder on a thread, they continue to lack accuracy and insight.
-
Why does'nt god ever tell anyone to go take a shit on the salad bar at the golden corral?!!!
-
Since I didn't and haven't murdered anyone, I have no "murderous admission". So, that's hardly the reason I continue to go to church.
Who I worship is the Creator of heaven and Earth, end of story. And while your ridiculous statements make for good fodder on a thread, they continue to lack accuracy and insight.
You continue to go to church in the face of such hypocrisy because you lend yourself into believing such such stupid arguments that defend the murder of innocent children. Or you really are just psycho.
You worship what you think is the creator of heaven and earth, a being who is a salver and a murderer.
-
You continue to go to church in the face of such hypocrisy because you lend yourself into believing such such stupid arguments that defend the murder of innocent children. Or you really are just psycho.
The more you rant on this, the less you make sense, Ozmo. My going to church, then and now, has absolutely NOTHING to do with what happened to the Amalekites.
I could call you the same thing, as you seem to be FAR MORE CONCERNED about them poor Amalekites, than their victims. Why aren't you inquiring about why they refused to leave Israel or some of their other neighbors alone? And, you continue to side-step the fact that, had they repented (they had 300+ years to do so, remember), the Amalekites would have been spared (Hey, it worked for the Ninevites).
Then, there's the other fact that you keep forgetting, namely that the Amalekites (who were spared) went RIGHT BACK TO THEIR assaulting ways, once their numbers grew again.
You worship what you think is the creator of heaven and earth, a being who is a salver and a murderer.
He is the Creator and, much to your chagrin, He can who what He wants with His creation. But, you'll continue to whine about it, whether the folks were spared ("SLAVER, SLAVER!!!!") or not ("MURDERER, MURDERER!!").
-
The more you rant on this, the less you make sense, Ozmo. My going to church, then and now, has absolutely NOTHING to do with what happened to the Amalekites.
Sure it does, by professing your belief the Bible is the 100% WOG, you are also worshipping a slaver and a murderer. It takes some justification to swallow that pill and still worship him, unless of course you are psycho. You will need to lash out with any and every pathetic argument to pull it off. Oh wait, that's what you are doing.
- The creator is not accountable to his own edicts
- The children would have surely starved, so killing them was the best thing to do
- Sparing the children would have only ensured they would have grown up to attack Israel again.
- Since you won't adopt a AQ baby, then it was justified to kill those Amalikite children, nevermind the fact the instances are completely different.
Again, you should be ashamed of yourself. And you have the nerve to call yourself a Christian?
I could call you the same thing, as you seem to be FAR MORE CONCERNED about them poor Amalekites, than their victims. Why aren't you inquiring about why they refused to leave Israel or some of their other neighbors alone? And, you continue to side-step the fact that, had they repented (they had 300+ years to do so, remember), the Amalekites would have been spared (Hey, it worked for the Ninevites).
I'm not talking about the Adults, remember? We are talking about murdering children. The same thing you admitted you'd do on God's orders. Now you are suggesting I'm sticking up for them? Add another candy ass deflection to the list.
Oh and by the way, I'm sure there was plenty of "evil" amalikites. but only a fool would believe the entire race was evil. Just like the same fools who thought all the Jews were evil in 1932. Good thing the Americans, Germans and Soviets weren't that foolish in 1944. Or for that matter in 2009. But wait, in 1200's around the time of the crusade the "Christians" loved to slaughter entire towns........on what presumed to be "god's" orders. Religion is so bad ass. ::)
Then, there's the other fact that you keep forgetting, namely that the Amalekites (who were spared) went RIGHT BACK TO THEIR assaulting ways, once their numbers grew again.
Yeah, according to the same people who wrote the historical account. ::) I wonder how many axe welding 18 month year old girls killed jews. ::)
-
Sure it does, by professing your belief the Bible is the 100% WOG, you are also worshipping a slaver and a murderer. It takes some justification to swallow that pill and still worship him, unless of course you are psycho. You will need to lash out with any and every pathetic argument to pull it off. Oh wait, that's what you are doing.
PLEASE!!! The least of my concerns, when it comes to why I continue to attend church and worship the Lord, is what happened to the Amalekites. I do that because I want to do so, because of what the Lord has done in my life and that of my family.
The only so-called "lashing out" is with regards to a hypothetical question, asked (it appears) for the specific purpose of trying to paint me in a corner, with regards to my faith. You've stated as much, that you expected me to squirm and not answer your question straight up. Since I didn't do that, you have pitifully resorted to this.
- The creator is not accountable to his own edicts
- The children would have surely starved, so killing them was the best thing to do
- Sparing the children would have only ensured they would have grown up to attack Israel again.
- Since you won't adopt a AQ baby, then it was justified to kill those Amalikite children, nevermind the fact the instances are completely different.
Again, you should be ashamed of yourself. And you have the nerve to call yourself a Christian?
I sure do, and I hardly need to be ashamed of myself, because I answer to the Lord, NOT TO YOU.
- As Creator, He has the authority to reward or punish as He sees fit. He can bless individually or curse individually; He can bless collectively or curse collectively. When (and how) the Lord does that is solely up to Him, NOT YOU.
- As stated multiple times, that simply covers your hypocrisy on the matter. One minute you were complaining that the Amalekite children should have been adopted by Israel. Yet, when Israel did that with the children of other enemies, you started crying about "slavery".
- NEWS FLASH!!! That's exactly what happened. Their numbers grew; they resumed their assault on Israel.
- Missed the point by a country mile.....AGAIN!!! That's another indicator of YOUR hyprocrisy on the matter.
I'm not talking about the Adults, remember? We are talking about murdering children. The same thing you admitted you'd do on God's orders. Now you are suggesting I'm sticking up for them? Add another candy ass deflection to the list.
Look who's talking. You're the one that came up withe utterly STUPID assertion that I hate anything Arab, to cover the fact, that (when push comes to shove) you would do the EXACT SAME THING, when it comes to dealing with enemies who put your family or people in the same predicament in which the Israelites found themselves. You would do whatever it took (especially with the luxury of modern weapons) and the absolute LEAST OF YOUR CONCERNS would be the fate of your enemies' children.
Oh and by the way, I'm sure there was plenty of "evil" amalikites. but only a fool would believe the entire race was evil. Just like the same fools who thought all the Jews were evil in 1932. Good thing the Americans, Germans and Soviets weren't that foolish in 1944. Or for that matter in 2009. But wait, in 1200's around the time of the crusade the "Christians" loved to slaughter entire towns........on what presumed to be "god's" orders. Religion is so bad ass. ::)
Nice try. But, it appears your history is a bit off. The Crusades had little to do with God's orders. It was a power-and-wealth grab. What happened to the Amalekites had nothing to do with power or wealth (you will recall that Saul was ordered to destroy EVERYTHING in Amalek, wealth and livestock included). It had everything to do with the fact that, despite being given CENTURIES and numerous warnings to repent, make amends, and change their ways, the Amalekites continued to terrorize the Israelites and other people.
In your foolish attempt to the Israelites with Nazis, you failed to mentioned what the sins of the Jews supposedly were or the efforts of Hitler to give them a chance to repent of those alleged sins.
Yeah, according to the same people who wrote the historical account. ::) I wonder how many axe welding 18 month year old girls killed jews. ::)
AHHHHH!!! The old tired "the victors wrote the history" routine. ::) . I wonder how noble you'd think the Israelites were, had the females been spared....WAIT A MINUTE!!!! Those of another enemy of Israel were spared. And guess what you were hollering when that happened....."SLAVERY, SLAVERY!!!".
In other words, the usual "God-is-a-big-meanie" spiel ::)
-
Nero set Rome on fire, then blamed the Christians. As a result, many Christians were tortured and killed.
OzmO and company kill millions of babies, then he calls MCWAY a baby killer when MCWAY has killed zero babies and he actually is pro-life. OzmO calls MCWAY a hypocrite, when OzmO is the biggest selfrighteous hypocrite here.
But it makes OzmO feel better about his immoral life to call baby killers those who are actually trying to save those babies that OzmO is killing.
But Christians have been around for 2,000 years and have suffered torture and death at the hands of people like Nero and OzmO, yet OzmO thinks that whining and complaining, and calling Christians hypocrites and baby killers is really going to hurt their feelings and make them stop believing in God's word.
If MCWAY is a baby killer just because he believes that the Bible is the word of God,
then OzmO is responsible for this:
-
Nero set Rome on fire, then blamed the Christians. As a result, many Christians were tortured and killed.
OzmO and company kills millions of babies, then calls MCWAY a baby killer when MCWAY has killed zero babies and is actually is pro-life. OzmO calls MCWAY a hypocrite, when OzmO is the biggest selfrighteous hypocrite here.
But it makes OzmO feel better about his immoral life to call baby killers those who are actually trying to save those babies that OzmO is killing.
But Christians have been around for 2,000 years and have suffered torture and death at the hands of people like Nero and OzmO, yet OzmO thinks that whining and complaining, and calling Christians hypocrites and baby killers is really going to hurt Christians' feelings and make them stop believing in God's word.
If MCWAY is a baby killer just because he believes that the Bible is the word of God,
then OzmO is responsible for this:
::)
Now you are truly getting desperate.
When has there been a vote for abortion?
Aside from that when in my life have i ever supported anyone getting an abortion: NEVER.
I don't know which is more candy ass, McVays deflections on the murderous god he worships or Loco's.
-
::)
Now you are truly getting desperate.
When has there been a vote for abortion?
Aside from that when in my life have i ever supported anyone getting an abortion: NEVER.
I don't know which is more candy ass, McVays deflections on the murderous god he worships or Loco's.
First of all, (as I’ve told you the last time you pulled this crap), the name’s MCWAY.
Second of all, what’s worse is YOUR hypocrisy on the matter, which I’ve pointed out several times, namely your cries of “SLAVERY” or “GENOCIDE” depending on what happened to the remnant of Israel’s enemies.
Add to that your ridiculous tirade, accusing me of hating Arabs and basing my church attendance and worship on what happened to the Amalekites, and you have a recipe for utter silliness.
Thirdly, neither Loco nor I are deflecting anything. We are giving our honest answers, based on our honest feelings. You, on the other hand, appear to be lying through your teeth on this one, because your purpose wasn't merely getting a simple answer to a hypothetical question.
And, lastly, your claims about your adopting the children of any enemy who died at your hand are as hollow are they are silly.
-
First of all, (as I’ve told you the last time you pulled this crap), the name’s MCWAY.
;) ;D :-*
-
First of all, (as I’ve told you the last time you pulled this crap), the name’s MCWAY.
Second of all, what’s worse is YOUR hypocrisy on the matter, which I’ve pointed out several times, namely your cries of “SLAVERY” or “GENOCIDE” depending on what happened to the remnant of Israel’s enemies.
Add to that your ridiculous tirade, accusing me of hating Arabs and basing my church attendance and worship on what happened to the Amalekites, and you have a recipe for utter silliness.
Thirdly, neither Loco nor I are deflecting anything. We are giving our honest answers, based on our honest feelings. You, on the other hand, appear to be lying through your teeth on this one, because your purpose wasn't merely getting a simple answer to a hypothetical question.
And, lastly, your claims about your adopting the children of any enemy who died at your hand are as hollow are they are silly.
You both are deflecting:
The fact you worship a being that committed genocide and supports slavery.
-
I love how loco posted drawings of late abortions, something i do not support.
Maybe i should post pictures of murdered children, something the God you worship ordered.
-
I love how loco posted drawings of late abortions, something i do not support.
Maybe i should post pictures of murdered children, something the God you worship ordered.
I think Loco's point is that support of abortion PERIOD would be, by your standards, "murdering children". Therefore, unless I miss my guress, Loco is calling you a hypocrite for support abortion of any kind on one hand, while wailing about the Amalekites' children on the other.
You both are deflecting:
The fact you worship a being that committed genocide and supports slavery.
We worship a being that created life and do what He pleases with that. Plus, we both called you on your rather waffling stance. With Loco, it's the abortion thing, namely your crying about Amalekite babies, while supporting abortion (of any form).
With me, it's your flip-flopping on your stance, regarding the remnants of Israel's enemies, calling it "slavery" one minute and "genocide" the next.
-
I think Loco's point is that support of abortion PERIOD would be, by your standards, "murdering children". Therefore, unless I miss my guress, Loco is calling you a hypocrite for support abortion of any kind on one hand, while wailing about the Amalekites' children on the other.
We worship a being that created life and do what He pleases with that. Plus, we both called you on your rather waffling stance. With Loco, it's the abortion thing, namely your crying about Amalekite babies, while supporting abortion (of any form).
With me, it's your flip-flopping on your stance, regarding the remnants of Israel's enemies, calling it "slavery" one minute and "genocide" the next.
I don't support abortion.
A vote hasn't ever been put up for abortion.
In my life and the people around me i have vehemently at times discouraged people from getting an abortion. Never has abortion been a option in anyone whom I've encountered considering it.
Regardless of my stance on abortion.
Regardless if you feel I'm a hypocrite because I think abortion is should be legal because outlawing wouldn't stop it, it would only make matters worse.
Regardless if I myself fully supported abortion and performed them myself on women.
Regardless if I myself was a serial murderer of children
Regardless if I myself was the most morally corrupt person on earth.
It wouldn't change the fact that killing children IS WRONG and for God to order makes him a murderer not "God" the almighty, creator of heaven and earth and the source of all that good and just.
All it is, is another of the many candy ass deflections from you guys trying to avoid the reality of murdered children at the hands of Jews who sought a "get out of jail free card" from genocide.
-
I don't support abortion.
A vote hasn't ever been put up for abortion.
In my life and the people around me i have vehemently at times discouraged people from getting an abortion. Never has abortion been a option in anyone whom I've encountered considering it.
Regardless of my stance on abortion.
Regardless if you feel I'm a hypocrite because I think abortion is should be legal because outlawing wouldn't stop it, it would only make matters worse.
Regardless if I myself fully supported abortion and performed them myself on women.
Regardless if I myself was a serial murderer of children
Regardless if I myself was the most morally corrupt person on earth.
It wouldn't change the fact that killing children IS WRONG and for God to order makes him a murderer not "God" the almighty, creator of heaven and earth and the source of all that good and just.
All it is, is another of the many candy ass deflections from you guys trying to avoid the reality of murdered children at the hands of Jews who sought a "get out of jail free card" from genocide.
WHAT!? I've asked you this several times, but to recap, from whom were the Israelites seeking this so-called "get-out-of-jail-free-card"?
He is the the Creator of heaven and Earth, REGARDLESS of what happened to the Amalekite children or anyone else's children, or what you may think about it.
-
WHAT!? I've asked you this several times, but to recap, from whom were the Israelites seeking this so-called "get-out-of-jail-free-card"?
Justification for murderous actions.
He is the the Creator of heaven and Earth, REGARDLESS of what happened to the Amalekite children or anyone else's children, or what you may think about it.
He is what he is, but what ever he is, if he all that is good and just, he is not that which is identified in the OT. What's identified in the OT is a slaver and murderer.
-
WHAT!? I've asked you this several times, but to recap, from whom were the Israelites seeking this so-called "get-out-of-jail-free-card"?
He is the the Creator of heaven and Earth, REGARDLESS of what happened to the Amalekite children or anyone else's children, or what you may think about it.
Show me any evidence that he created Earth. Oh, never mind.
"Remarkable claims require remarkable proof. But maybe you don't need proof. I do."
-Dr. Michio Kaku
-
Justification for murderous actions.
The question was, "From WHOM were they seeking this so-called 'get-out-of-jail-free' card?"
He is what he is, but what ever he is, if he all that is good and just, he is not that which is identified in the OT. What's identified in the OT is a slaver and murderer.
He is that which is identified in the OT. The God that send Christ to die for our sins and the one who took care of the Amalekites.....they're one and the same.
-
The question was, "From WHOM were they seeking this so-called 'get-out-of-jail-free' card?"
Probably the people within their nation who had some sense and History itself.
He is that which is identified in the OT. The God that send Christ to die for our sins and the one who took care of the Amalekites.....they're one and the same.
Then he's a hypocrite or not one in the same.
-
Probably the people within their nation who had some sense and History itself.
The people within their nation knew exactly why this edict happened and had known about it for over 300 years.
It didn't come as a surprise to the king, the prophets (Samuel, in particular) or the judges. Samuel's the one who gave Saul the Lord's instructions. And it was Saul who got in trouble for not following those instructions, namely keeping the gold, silver, and choice livestock for himself and his troops, when he was ordered to destroy everything of Amalek.
Then he's a hypocrite or not one in the same.
Hardly! He has the authority to take life, because He gives life. And, He is the one who sent Christ to be crucified.
-
The people within their nation knew exactly why this edict happened and had known about it for over 300 years.
It didn't come as a surprise to the king, the prophets (Samuel, in particular) or the judges. Samuel's the one who gave Saul the Lord's instructions. And it was Saul who got in trouble for not following those instructions, namely keeping the gold, silver, and choice livestock for himself and his troops, when he was ordered to destroy everything of Amalek.
yeah, according to the story, written thousands of years ago by primitive people which may have been changed or altered who knows how many times. The story is written to justify genocide. I'm sure the Nazi's could have come up with a good story to.
Hardly! He has the authority to take life, because He gives life. And, He is the one who sent Christ to be crucified.
Actions define. His have defined hypocrisy if taken as the bible being his 100% word.
-
yeah, according to the story, written thousands of years ago by primitive people which may have been changed or altered who knows how many times. The story is written to justify genocide. I'm sure the Nazi's could have come up with a good story to.
Or the story may be accurate as is, to reflect what had been happening to Israel during that time period. Kings don't get stripped of their thrones for SUCCESSFULLY destroying their enemies and walking away with their livestock and gold.
Of course, you still have yet to explain to whom the Israelites are supposedly trying to justify this incident or what alleged consequence they're trying to avoid by doing such (other than being the subject of your ire).
Actions define. His have defined hypocrisy if taken as the bible being his 100% word.
They do nothing of the sort. His actions define His authority over His creation.
-
Or the story may be accurate as is, to reflect what had been happening to Israel during that time period. Kings don't get stripped of their thrones for SUCCESSFULLY destroying their enemies and walking away with their livestock and gold.
Of course, you still have yet to explain to whom the Israelites are supposedly trying to justify this incident or what alleged consequence they're trying to avoid by doing such (other than being the subject of your ire).
Yeah, according tot he story written thousands of years ago, by primitive people for primitive people. sure ::)
But still, even so, doesn't change the crime: Murdering Children
To whom? History and themselves.
They do nothing of the sort. His actions define His authority over His creation.
His particular action define his hypocrisy, creator or not.
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.
I don't see anything in the definition saying "unless you are the creator of heaven and earth"
You worship a hypocrite that is a salver and a mass murderer.
-
You can't run from it.
CHILDREN WERE MURDERED on GOD's ORDERS
- It doesn't matter if I adopt AQ kids or not
- It doesn't matter if God is a hypocrite or not
- It doesn't matter if I'm a hypocrite of not
- It doesn't matter if I support abortion or not
- It doesn't matter if it was a mercy killing or not
- It doesn't matter if they kept the spoils of Genocide or not
The God you worship MURDERED children. And has deceived those who follow him that way (the bible being the 100% infallible WOG) into thinking it was justified. That is not God. That is Satan.
That's the saddest and funniest part this whole whole debate, you two (mainly loco's pathetic attempts) presume to dispel my arguments about how's its wrong to murder children by attacking my character? ::)
-
Yeah, according tot he story written thousands of years ago, by primitive people for primitive people. sure ::)
But still, even so, doesn't change the crime: Murdering Children
To whom? History and themselves.
There's no crime involved, much to dismay of your argument. And, your attempt to insult the ancient Israelites notwithstanding, if this were indeed for "primitive people" by "primitive people", then by those "primitive" rules, what happened to the Amalekites, based on their actions for over three centuries was fair game.
His particular action define his hypocrisy, creator or not.
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.
I don't see anything in the definition saying "unless you are the creator of heaven and earth"
You worship a hypocrite that is a salver and a mass murderer.
I missed the part where God was subject to the definitions of a dictionary.
With that said, that definition doesn't fit Him, anyway. As His standards clearly indicate that He punished those to the third and fourth generation (Check the 2nd commandment, which I mentioned a while back).
But to suggest that the Lord has no right to destroy what He created (and what ultimately is His) is downright ridiculous.
You can't run from it.
CHILDREN WERE MURDERED on GOD's ORDERS
- It doesn't matter if I adopt AQ kids or not
- It doesn't matter if God is a hypocrite or not
- It doesn't matter if I'm a hypocrite of not
- It doesn't matter if I support abortion or not
- It doesn't matter if it was a mercy killing or not
- It doesn't matter if they kept the spoils of Genocide or not
The God you worship MURDERED children. And has deceived those who follow him that way (the bible being the 100% infallible WOG) into thinking it was justified. That is not God. That is Satan.
Hardly!!! There is no deception involved. And, last time I checked, you aren't the referee in this issue (or any other, for that matter).
That's the saddest and funniest part this whole whole debate, you two (mainly loco's pathetic attempts) presume to dispel my arguments about how's its wrong to murder children by attacking my character? ::)
This coming from someone who accuse me of hating anything Arab and going to church, based on fear of what happened to the Amalekites. What was that you were saying about "hypocrisy" again?
-
There's no crime involved, much to dismay of your argument. And, your attempt to insult the ancient Israelites notwithstanding, if this were indeed for "primitive people" by "primitive people", then by those "primitive" rules, what happened to the Amalekites, based on their actions for over three centuries was fair game.
Killing Children is not a crime? ::)
I missed the part where God was subject to the definitions of a dictionary.
You mean God's actions have no definition? ::)
With that said, that definition doesn't fit Him, anyway. As His standards clearly indicate that He punished those to the third and fourth generation (Check the 2nd commandment, which I mentioned a while back).
He punished innocent children by murdering them? ::)
But to suggest that the Lord has no right to destroy what He created (and what ultimately is His) is downright ridiculous.
To suggest there is no moral accountability on anyone's or any being's actions is ridiculous. ::)
Hardly!!! There is no deception involved. And, last time I checked, you aren't the referee in this issue (or any other, for that matter).
A good deception appears anything but.
This coming from someone who accuse me of hating anything Arab and going to church, based on fear of what happened to the Amalekites. What was that you were saying about "hypocrisy" again?
Back to attacking me to defect from the murder of children? ::)
-
Killing Children is not a crime? ::)
You mean God's actions have no definition? ::)
He punished innocent children by murdering them? ::)
To suggest there is no moral accountability on anyone's or any being's actions is ridiculous. ::)
One more time, to whom is God supposedly accountable for doing as He sees fit with what is His?
A good deception appears anything but.
Back to attacking me to defect from the murder of children? ::)
You're the one who did the attacking, by falsely accusing me of hating anything Arab. Then, you start wailing that Loco and I are attacking YOUR character. That would be what you call hypocrisy, since you're so eager to point out alleged examples of such.
[/quote]
-
One more time, to whom is God supposedly accountable for doing as He sees fit with what is His?
To himself and his creation. And him "seeing fit" defines his humanity not his divinity.
You're the one who did the attacking, by falsely accusing me of hating anything Arab. Then, you start wailing that Loco and I are attacking YOUR character. That would be what you call hypocrisy, since you're so eager to point out alleged examples of such.
The difference is I'm not doing it to argue the justification of murdering children ;)
And my attack was based on your statements which i outlined in another post on this thread.
And how did loco start his posts in this thread?
You are such a self-righteous hypocrite.
And then proceeded to post pictures of late term abortion in another.
Par for the course for him.
GET your facts straight.
-
To himself and his creation. And him "seeing fit" defines his humanity not his divinity.
I beg to differ. His creation understood/understand (well, most of them, anyway ;D ) that He operates in that manner.
The difference is I'm not doing it to argue the justification of murdering children ;)
In the realm of your recent hypocrisy craze, that basically makes no difference.
And my attack was based on your statements which i outlined in another post on this thread.
Your outline was most inaccurate. My statements had nothing to do with people being Arab. It had everything to do with their being terrorists, attempting to destroy me and my family/people.
And how did loco start his posts in this thread?
And then proceeded to post pictures of late term abortion in another.
Par for the course for him.
GET your facts straight.
I have them straight.
-
I beg to differ. His creation understood/understand (well, most of them, anyway ;D ) that He operates in that manner.
He operates as a hypocrite and a murderer. NOT GODLY, but very manly ;D
In the realm of your recent hypocrisy craze, that basically makes no difference.
Of course it does, Because I'm sticking to the issue: Murdering Children. But from your POV, trying to defend the murder of children, you don't have much choice.
Your outline was most inaccurate. My statements had nothing to do with people being Arab. It had everything to do with their being terrorists, attempting to destroy me and my family/people.
Go back and re-read the exchange. That's why i said you "suggested". You weren't direct. However, what you suggested of yourself was very telling. I'm convinced you wouldn't just kill a child (unless God ordered you to). But I'm not convinced you wouldn't kill an innocent child with Hamas parents if provoked.
I have them straight.
Which part do you have straight? The part where you say: "You're the one who did the attacking............... Then, you start wailing that Loco and I are attacking YOUR character."
Who entered the discussion starting with a personal attack?
Who suggested they would kill Hamas Children?
Get your facts straight.
And again, the difference is that I'm not using the issues or arguments from these attacks to justify why killing children is wrong.
-
Never seen a place in the Bible where God instructed someone to take an innocent life, especially, a child. These types of situations can usually be the case of demonic influence or mental illness of some sort. God is not evil. The devil and demons are tho. :o
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
[youtube][http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYoZKptSDSw/youtube]
-
-
-
That's because the "god" in the OT is a insecure ego maniac on a power trip.
And there's people thousands of years later that worship this god who was conjured up in the writings of a insane primitive man. And these people would kill children on his orders.
If that lady that drown her children was living then a book written by her absolving her from the murder of her children because "god" told her to do it might actually be in the Bible. Wait! Not possible because women back then, for the most part, were little more than property and had no intellectual or spiritual value in that society because she's the first one who ate the apple and slept with a snake. Unless of course they lived for three days in a whale.
-
Excellent!
You gotta be a whack job to worship this.
Right on target!
I wonder where this lady that drowned her children got the idea.........
-
That's because the "god" in the OT is a insecure ego maniac on a power trip.
“Insecure” about what? The Amalekites had over 300 years to repent. An "insecure" God doesn't wait that long to avenge the attacks on His people.
And there's people thousands of years later that worship this god who was conjured up in the writings of a insane primitive man. And these people would kill children on his orders.
Just as you would destroy your enemies (women, children, and all) for reasons far less than that, as long as you have the option of hiding behind modern weapons.
If that lady that drown her children was living then a book written by her absolving her from the murder of her children because "god" told her to do it might actually be in the Bible. Wait! Not possible because women back then, for the most part, were little more than property and had no intellectual or spiritual value in that society because she's the first one who ate the apple and slept with a snake. Unless of course they lived for three days in a whale.
What in the world was that senseless babble??
Yates would hardly be absolved from what she did. As mentioned earlier, the criteria to determine whether any such order would come from the Lord is EASY TO DETERMINE. What was the sin of these children or their parents? Were the parents given ample time to repent of any such trangression? Did anyone attempt to intercede on the behalf of the accused? And the list goes onward.
God did not tell this woman to kill her children, point blank. To try and equate what Yates did to this issue of the Amalekites (a group of people who raided, pillaged, and looted the Israelites and others without provocation for centuries, with no design on repenting or making amends) is utterly ridiculous.
Your claim about women having no intellectual or spiritual value is also incorrect, at least in the sense that it's not the way God ordered His people to behave. In fact, that's why Israel was BANNED from intermarrying with many of their neighbors. The Israelite men adopted some of their habits, among which was MISTREATING THEIR WOMEN.
And, speaking of "whale", the account to which you're referring makes my earlier point, refuting your claims of an "insecure" God. Jonah ended up in a certain critter's belly for not initially following God's instructions: To go to Nineveh and give the news of the people's destruction for their assaults on Israel But, unlike the Amalekites, the Ninevites actually repented; and that so-called "insecure ego maniac on a power trip" God.....SPARED THEM ALL.
That actually angered the prophet. Mr. Meanie-"insecure-ego manic" SPARED the people who'd been beating on Israel for years. Jonah wanted fire and brimstone and got PO'ed for not getting it.
Shouldn't the Lord have barbecued those Ninevites, if he's as "insecure" as you claim he is? Why spare them?
-
Not possible because women back then, for the most part, were little more than property and had no intellectual or spiritual value in that society because she's the first one who ate the apple and slept with a snake.
I wonder sometimes if people are just arguing for the sake of argument. Here is an account where Sarah, Abraham's wife, was granted her request. Ten years after having originally entered Canaan, 75-year-old Sarah requested that Abraham have relations with her Egyptian maidservant Hagar in order to have children from her. (Ge 16:1-3) The resultant difficulties made it apparent that this was not God's way of fulfilling the promise previously made to Abraham concerning the “seed.” (Ge 15:1-16) Becoming aware of her pregnancy, Hagar began despising her mistress. When Sarah voiced complaint, Abraham granted his wife full authority to deal with Hagar as her maidservant. Humiliated by Sarah, Hagar ran away from her mistress but returned in obedience to divine direction, after which she gave birth to Ishmael.(Ge 16:4-16).
-
“Insecure” about what? The Amalekites had over 300 years to repent. An "insecure" God doesn't wait that long to avenge the attacks on His people.
Anyone or being who would tell a father to kill his son as some sort of test to prove faith or loyalty is insecure and should seek conseling if not be institutionalized. But because God is the creator of heaven and earth, it's ok. ::)
Just as you would destroy your enemies (women, children, and all) for reasons far less than that, as long as you have the option of hiding behind modern weapons.
There's a difference between war and genocide
There's a difference between collateral damage and walking up to a 3 year old girl and clubbing her until her brains spill out and proceeding to do it to every child in a nation.
There's a difference between unavoidable deaths and avoidable murder.
If you worship the murderous being in the OT, you aren't smart enough to know those differences. You are only able and willing to kill your son or another child on God's orders. Because you are taught that blind obedience pleases this God.
What in the world was that senseless babble??
Yates would hardly be absolved from what she did. As mentioned earlier, the criteria to determine whether any such order would come from the Lord is EASY TO DETERMINE. What was the sin of these children or their parents? Were the parents given ample time to repent of any such trangression? Did anyone attempt to intercede on the behalf of the accused? And the list goes onward
The very idea that you could find justification for killing innocent children because of the sins of the parents is disturbing.
Again, I urge you to seek counseling.
God did not tell this woman to kill her children, point blank.
It doesn't matter if god did or not. She believed he did and because she was a "blind follower", who didn't know the difference between right and wrong and believed the INSANE BULL SHIT that God is morally absolved from killing children because he's the creator of heaven and earth. She did in fact kill her children on god's orders.
To try and equate what Yates did to this issue of the Amalekites (a group of people who raided, pillaged, and looted the Israelites and others without provocation for centuries, with no design on repenting or making amends) is utterly ridiculous.
I'm not equating what Yates did with the Amalikites. I'm equating what Yates did to what you said you do if God ordered you to.
Your claim about women having no intellectual or spiritual value is also incorrect, at least in the sense that it's not the way God ordered His people to behave. In fact, that's why Israel was BANNED from intermarrying with many of their neighbors. The Israelite men adopted some of their habits, among which was MISTREATING THEIR WOMEN.
Really? So women in those times had full equal rights in every way that men enjoyed? ::)
And, speaking of "whale", the account to which you're referring makes my earlier point, refuting your claims of an "insecure" God. Jonah ended up in a certain critter's belly for not initially following God's instructions: To go to Nineveh and give the news of the people's destruction for their assaults on Israel But, unlike the Amalekites, the Ninevites actually repented; and that so-called "insecure ego maniac on a power trip" God.....SPARED THEM ALL.
And he lived 3 days int eh belly of a whale? ::)
That actually angered the prophet. Mr. Meanie-"insecure-ego manic" SPARED the people who'd been beating on Israel for years. Jonah wanted fire and brimstone and got PO'ed for not getting it.
Shouldn't the Lord have barbecued those Ninevites, if he's as "insecure" as you claim he is? Why spare them?
Oh BTW, If you go into a pre school some time and "spare" 99 children but kill one, you are still a child murderer. ;) ::)
Only the warped would see otherwise.
-
I wonder sometimes if people are just arguing for the sake of argument. Here is an account where Sarah, Abraham's wife, was granted her request. Ten years after having originally entered Canaan, 75-year-old Sarah requested that Abraham have relations with her Egyptian maidservant Hagar in order to have children from her. (Ge 16:1-3) The resultant difficulties made it apparent that this was not God's way of fulfilling the promise previously made to Abraham concerning the “seed.” (Ge 15:1-16) Becoming aware of her pregnancy, Hagar began despising her mistress. When Sarah voiced complaint, Abraham granted his wife full authority to deal with Hagar as her maidservant. Humiliated by Sarah, Hagar ran away from her mistress but returned in obedience to divine direction, after which she gave birth to Ishmael.(Ge 16:4-16).
I was talking about Eve. Our Great (x infinity) Grandmother who failed us all. ;)
-
I wonder sometimes if people are just arguing for the sake of argument. Here is an account where Sarah, Abraham's wife, was granted her request. Ten years after having originally entered Canaan, 75-year-old Sarah requested that Abraham have relations with her Egyptian maidservant Hagar in order to have children from her. (Ge 16:1-3) The resultant difficulties made it apparent that this was not God's way of fulfilling the promise previously made to Abraham concerning the “seed.” (Ge 15:1-16) Becoming aware of her pregnancy, Hagar began despising her mistress. When Sarah voiced complaint, Abraham granted his wife full authority to deal with Hagar as her maidservant. Humiliated by Sarah, Hagar ran away from her mistress but returned in obedience to divine direction, after which she gave birth to Ishmael.(Ge 16:4-16).
That's a great point, with regards to Ozmo's claim about women having no intellectual power. Apparently, he's never heard of (for better or worse): Jezebel, Ruth, Naomi, Deborah, Esther, Tamar, Jacob's wives (who played him like a fiddle), etc.
-
That's a great point, with regards to Ozmo's claim about women having no intellectual power. Apparently, he's never heard of (for better or worse): Jezebel, Ruth, Naomi, Deborah, Esther, Tamar, Jacob's wives (who played him like a fiddle), etc.
Really? They had the same rights as men back then? Influence and power are 2 different things.
-
Anyone or being who would tell a father to kill his son as some sort of test to prove faith or loyalty is insecure and should seek conseling if not be institutionalized. But because God is the creator of heaven and earth, it's ok. ::)
Lest you forget, it was that same God who gave Isaac to Abraham, in the first place (a supernatural act, considering that Isaac was the product of a barren mother who, even if she weren't such initially, was WAAAAAAAY past her child-bearing years). And, lost in all of this was Abe's faith that somehow, someway, both he and Isaac would return from Mt. Moriah alive (Gen. 22:5).
There's a difference between war and genocide
There's a difference between collateral damage and walking up to a 3 year old girl and clubbing her until her brains spill out and proceeding to do it to every child in a nation.
There's a difference between unavoidable deaths and avoidable murder.
There is no difference between death by sword and death by bomb/missile. Hiding behind modern weapons doesn't change that.
If you worship the murderous being in the OT, you aren't smart enough to know those differences. You are only able and willing to kill your son or another child on God's orders. Because you are taught that blind obedience pleases this God.
Blind obedience is hardly the case, especially (in Abe's scenario) when it involves a son that a father WOULD NEVER HAVE HAD IN THE FIRST PLACE, were it not for this "murderous being".
And, at the end of the day, that "murderous being" kept his promise to Abraham, giving him a son from the woman he loves (who was barren from the start) and multiplying his offspring to form a nation. Why, Mr "Murderous Being" (despite being under absolutely NO OBLIGATION to do so) even made a prosperous nation from Abe's other son, who should have never been born but was due to Abe's disobedience and impatience with the original covenant.
The very idea that you could find justification for killing innocent children because of the sins of the parents is disturbing.
Again, I urge you to seek counseling.
By that logic you should take your own advice and seek counseling, as the only difference here is your semantics about the weapons involved. When push comes to shove, you would destroy any threat to your existence and/or that of your family, with virtually no concern for the fate of your enemies' children.
It doesn't matter if god did or not. She believed he did and because she was a "blind follower", who didn't know the difference between right and wrong and believed the INSANE BULL SHIT that God is morally absolved from killing children because he's the creator of heaven and earth. She did in fact kill her children on god's orders.
Listen to what you just said. Whatever Yates was blindly following, it was not an order from the Lord. And, she certainly couldn't demonstrate that it was such. The Israelites believed, from a false prophet named Hananiah, that they'd be freed from Babylonian bondage and have that kingdom's riches, within a 2-year span of time. That didn't happen (and that particular prophet ended up dead, because of it, as did those who "blindly" followed him).
Jer. 28:15, Then said the prophet Jeremiah unto Hananiah the prophet, "Hear now, Hananiah; The LORD hath not sent thee; but thou makest this people to trust in a lie."
The point, of course, is claiming that God ordered something and that actually being the case are two different issues (which is the point, you've been trying to make). While there is ample evidence that the edict on the Amalekites was a divine order, there is absolutely NONE as it relates to the Yates case.
I'm not equating what Yates did with the Amalikites. I'm equating what Yates did to what you said you do if God ordered you to.
And, that is an equation that is supremely flawed, for the reasons I explained earlier. In the EXTREMELY unlikely event that such would occur, He'd would explain why and, more importantly, I would have the option (as Moses and Abraham did) of interceding on my child's behalf. And, upon certain acts of repentance, my children would be spared.
Really? So women in those times had full equal rights in every way that men enjoyed? ::)
Try reading that again. You claimed that the women had "NO intellectual or spiritual value". That is categorically false. They did have intellectual and spiritual value. Whether such was "full equal rights" in every way that men enjoyed makes no difference. I would say they did not then, just they don't NOW, either in America or elsewhere.
And he lived 3 days int eh belly of a whale? ::)
Oh BTW, If you go into a pre school some time and "spare" 99 children but kill one, you are still a child murderer. ;) ::)
Only the warped would see otherwise.
Missed the point by a county mile.....again! By your claim of God supposedly being "insecure", the Ninevites should have been destroyed immediately, with no warning or chance to repent. But, that's not what happened.
And, lost in all of this is the simple fact, whether you like or not, that the Lord can do as He sees fit with His creation, as He (not YOU, ME, or anyone else) alone created life.
-
-
Really? They had the same rights as men back then? Influence and power are 2 different things.
Judges 4:4-5 (New International Version)
Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time. She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites came to her to have their disputes decided.
-
miracles at work
-
Lest you forget, it was that same God who gave Isaac to Abraham, in the first place (a supernatural act, considering that Isaac was the product of a barren mother who, even if she weren't such initially, was WAAAAAAAY past her child-bearing years). And, lost in all of this was Abe's faith that somehow, someway, both he and Isaac would return from Mt. Moriah alive (Gen. 22:5).
So what? It doesn't matter if he the creator and he gave it to him or not. Telling him to kill is child is EVIL. It shows God is insecure about how people worship him and is on a power trip.
The fact I have to explain killing innocent children is wrong and you have admitted you'd kill an innocent child on God's orders strongly warrants your need for counseling. So again, I urge you, seek counseling.
There is no difference between death by sword and death by bomb/missile. Hiding behind modern weapons doesn't change that.
Very true, there is no difference between killing people with a sword and a bomb in the sense that they both have been killed.
The difference is that, one is collateral damage and the other is the pre meditated murder of an innocent child that was completely avoidable.
The fact I have to explain this simple difference warrants your need for counseling. So again, I urge you, seek counseling.
Blind obedience is hardly the case, especially (in Abe's scenario) when it involves a son that a father WOULD NEVER HAVE HAD IN THE FIRST PLACE, were it not for this "murderous being"
And, at the end of the day, that "murderous being" kept his promise to Abraham, giving him a son from the woman he loves (who was barren from the start) and multiplying his offspring to form a nation. Why, Mr "Murderous Being" (despite being under absolutely NO OBLIGATION to do so) even made a prosperous nation from Abe's other son, who should have never been born but was due to Abe's disobedience and impatience with the original covenant.
That has everything to do with blind obedience. Did you watch the video? Abraham was going to do it. Period.
The fact that you justify this and cannot see the evil in it warrants your need for counseling. So again, I urge you, seek counseling.
By that logic you should take your own advice and seek counseling, as the only difference here is your semantics about the weapons involved. When push comes to shove, you would destroy any threat to your existence and/or that of your family, with virtually no concern for the fate of your enemies' children
The difference is the one you choose the ignore: Collateral damage versus intentionally murdering a innocent child when it's completely avoidable.
The fact that you'd sink yourself to this kind of moral dishonesty that results in the justification of murdering an innocent child warrants your need for counseling. So again, I urge you, seek counseling.
Listen to what you just said. Whatever Yates was blindly following, it was not an order from the Lord. And, she certainly couldn't demonstrate that it was such. The Israelites believed, from a false prophet named Hananiah, that they'd be freed from Babylonian bondage and have that kingdom's riches, within a 2-year span of time. That didn't happen (and that particular prophet ended up dead, because of it, as did those who "blindly" followed him).
Jer. 28:15, Then said the prophet Jeremiah unto Hananiah the prophet, "Hear now, Hananiah; The LORD hath not sent thee; but thou makest this people to trust in a lie."
The point, of course, is claiming that God ordered something and that actually being the case are two different issues (which is the point, you've been trying to make). While there is ample evidence that the edict on the Amalekites was a divine order, there is absolutely NONE as it relates to the Yates case.
nd, that is an equation that is supremely flawed, for the reasons I explained earlier. In the EXTREMELY unlikely event that such would occur, He'd would explain why and, more importantly, I would have the option (as Moses and Abraham did) of interceding on my child's behalf. And, upon certain acts of repentance, my children would be spared.
Either you are just too ignorant to understand the concept of perception and how it relates to the potential to act, or you are fighting to keep this in terms which can differentiate your self from her.
- You are different from her in that you have NOT killed an innocent child
- You are different from her in that your conditions that would compel you to kill an innocent child is different from hers.
- However, you are exactly the same in that you both would kill an innocent child on God's orders.
And for that last point, I urge you, seek counseling.
Try reading that again. You claimed that the women had "NO intellectual or spiritual value". That is categorically false. They did have intellectual and spiritual value. Whether such was "full equal rights" in every way that men enjoyed makes no difference. I would say they did not then, just they don't NOW, either in America or elsewhere.
Do you think they should? Or do you think they are the weaker side of the species because Eve was manipulated by the serpent and therefore should be unequal?
Missed the point by a county mile.....again! By your claim of God supposedly being "insecure", the Ninevites should have been destroyed immediately, with no warning or chance to repent. But, that's not what happened.
And, lost in all of this is the simple fact, whether you like or not, that the Lord can do as He sees fit with His creation, as He (not YOU, ME, or anyone else) alone created lif
Using occasions that God was merciful in other instances does not change the fact that he ordered the genocide of a nation which resulted in the death of thousands of innocent children.
This kind of thinking is what murderers and criminals use to justify themselves. Murder is murder. Isn't there something in Bible that says if you have sinned but yet done many good works you will still be accountable for your sins?
Because you cannot see this, and continue to argue this. I again urge you, to seek counseling.
-
Judges 4:4-5 (New International Version)
Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time. She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites came to her to have their disputes decided.
Did they have equal rights as men?
-
So what? It doesn't matter if he the creator and he gave it to him or not. Telling him to kill is child is EVIL. It shows God is insecure about how people worship him and is on a power trip.
First of all, it's HIS Creation. Second of all, the text makes no indication that Issac was a child (Some Biblical scholars, based on the writings of Josephus, claim that Isaac was around 25, when this incident occur; other estimate his age at 37).
Third of all, insecurity has nothing to do with it.
The fact I have to explain killing innocent children is wrong and you have admitted you'd kill an innocent child on God's orders strongly warrants your need for counseling. So again, I urge you, seek counseling.
You don't have to explain squat. And, I urge you to take your own advice.
Very true, there is no difference between killing people with a sword and a bomb in the sense that they both have been killed.
The difference is that, one is collateral damage and the other is the pre meditated murder of an innocent child that was completely avoidable.
The fact I have to explain this simple difference warrants your need for counseling. So again, I urge you, seek counseling.
There is no difference, because unfortunately they're going to DIE regardless of the outcome, either by sword or by starvation. And, it falls on the hands of their parents, for the continued assaults on Israel without repentance or any attempt to make amends.
That has everything to do with blind obedience. Did you watch the video? Abraham was going to do it. Period.
The fact that you justify this and cannot see the evil in it warrants your need for counseling. So again, I urge you, seek counseling.
I didn't see the video (as I made the post at work, where YouTube is blocked).
Again, Abraham (as tough as it was) realized that, had it not been for the Lord, he would not have Isaac in the first place. He came to one simple realization: God keeps His promises. God promised him a son, through Sarah; and He delivered (albeit much later than Abe would have liked). God also promised that, through Isaac, Abe's descendants would be numerous and prosperous. Therefore Abe obeyed, knowing that somehow, someway, he and Isaac would return alive. And, he was right........AGAIN!
The difference is the one you choose the ignore: Collateral damage versus intentionally murdering a innocent child when it's completely avoidable.
The fact that you'd sink yourself to this kind of moral dishonesty that results in the justification of murdering an innocent child warrants your need for counseling. So again, I urge you, seek counseling.
Moral dishonesty? I beg to differ. Dead is DEAD, regardless of the means used and what you choose to ignore that, one way or the other, these children suffered for the evil actions of their parents. There's no getting around that fact. That happened then; it happens NOW! Whether you draw the sword, pull the trigger, or push the button, you are taking action against an enemy, WITH THE FULL KNOWLEDGE that children will die as a result, period.
Either you are just too ignorant to understand the concept of perception and how it relates to the potential to act, or you are fighting to keep this in terms which can differentiate your self from her.
- You are different from her in that you have NOT killed an innocent child
- You are different from her in that your conditions that would compel you to kill an innocent child is different from hers.
- However, you are exactly the same in that you both would kill an innocent child on God's orders.
And for that last point, I urge you, seek counseling.
WRONG, on that last part. I am different from her in that I know how to differentiate what is from God from what is not, based on His word. I also know that, based on that word, how to act in the EXTREMELY UNLIKELY event that I'd ever get such an "order".
And, since God never gave Yates that order (whether she thought He did or not), your last statement is basically moot.
Do you think they should? Or do you think they are the weaker side of the species because Eve was manipulated by the serpent and therefore should be unequal?
What I think makes no difference in this matter, one way or the other. That's what happened. Should they have "equal rights"? It depends on the situation.
Using occasions that God was merciful in other instances does not change the fact that he ordered the genocide of a nation which resulted in the death of thousands of innocent children.
This kind of thinking is what murderers and criminals use to justify themselves. Murder is murder. Isn't there something in Bible that says if you have sinned but yet done many good works you will still be accountable for your sins?
Because you cannot see this, and continue to argue this. I again urge you, to seek counseling.
The point with the Ninevites was that, contrary to your earlier claims, the Lord is anything but an "insecure ego-maniac". He gave the Amalekites the same opportunity to repent that He gave the Ninevites. The latter people took that opportunity; the former DID NOT.
As for your question, you are accountable TO THE LORD, because He's the One making the rules. He has all power and authority, hence He makes the determination of who gets punished and to what degree that punishment extends. And, as stated numerous times, there are sins that people commit that have LONG-REACHING consequences (i.e. the corporate corruption at Enron costs several innocent employees their jobs and pensions, which affected their families. Yet the IRS and other agents were well within their authority to shut Enron down. But, NO, they aren't obligated to get those people new jobs or feed their families).
Since you cannot see this, I again urge YOU to take your own advice and seek counseling. ;D
-
Did they have equal rights as men?
That's already been addressed. However, that wasn't the point. The point was that your claim of women having no intellectual power was categorically FALSE.
Jezebel was a wicked queen, whose edicts persecuted the Israelites for years. Naomi brokered the deal with her late husband's property, that also found a new hubby for her loyal daughter-in-law, Ruth.
And, as Loco mentioned, there was Deborah, of the judges of ancient Israel.
-
First of all, it's HIS Creation. Second of all, the text makes no indication that Issac was a child (Some Biblical scholars, based on the writings of Josephus, claim that Isaac was around 25, when this incident occur; other estimate his age at 37).
Third of all, insecurity has nothing to do with it.
Oh so now it's ok because his son wasn't a child? ::)
SEEK COUNSELING.
There is no difference, because unfortunately they're going to DIE regardless of the outcome, either by sword or by starvation. And, it falls on the hands of their parents, for the continued assaults on Israel without repentance or any attempt to make amends.
SO you are "putting them to sleep" like you'd do to a cat at the SPCA?
Is that how you teach you children? It's ok to kill a child because if you let him live he'll just starve to death anyway?
SEEK COUNSELING.
I didn't see the video (as I made the post at work, where YouTube is blocked).
Again, Abraham (as tough as it was) realized that, had it not been for the Lord, he would not have Isaac in the first place. He came to one simple realization: God keeps His promises. God promised him a son, through Sarah; and He delivered (albeit much later than Abe would have liked). God also promised that, through Isaac, Abe's descendants would be numerous and prosperous. Therefore Abe obeyed, knowing that somehow, someway, he and Isaac would return alive. And, he was right........AGAIN!
Watch the video then: SEEK COUNSELING.
Moral dishonesty? I beg to differ. Dead is DEAD, regardless of the means used and what you choose to ignore that, one way or the other, these children suffered for the evil actions of their parents. There's no getting around that fact. That happened then; it happens NOW! Whether you draw the sword, pull the trigger, or push the button, you are taking action against an enemy, WITH THE FULL KNOWLEDGE that children will die as a result, period.
Dead is dead. Which death is avoidable? Which death is murder?
What you being dishonest about is the difference between lobbing a bomb and going into a village after the adults are dead and then killing children.
You are just dishonest or you are psychotic whack job that should be institutionalized.
WRONG, on that last part. I am different from her in that I know how to differentiate what is from God from what is not, based on His word. I also know that, based on that word, how to act in the EXTREMELY UNLIKELY event that I'd ever get such an "order".
And, since God never gave Yates that order (whether she thought He did or not), your last statement is basically moot.
I used to think you were very different from her. But now as i more and more see how you think, you don't seem that different.
What I think makes no difference in this matter, one way or the other. That's what happened. Should they have "equal rights"? It depends on the situation.
Just curious. Either have have equal rights as men or they don't. If you think it depends on the situation, then i'll take that as a no.
The point with the Ninevites was that, contrary to your earlier claims, the Lord is anything but an "insecure ego-maniac". He gave the Amalekites the same opportunity to repent that He gave the Ninevites. The latter people took that opportunity; the former DID NOT.
As for your question, you are accountable TO THE LORD, because He's the One making the rules. He has all power and authority, hence He makes the determination of who gets punished and to what degree that punishment extends. And, as stated numerous times, there are sins that people commit that have LONG-REACHING consequences (i.e. the corporate corruption at Enron costs several innocent employees their jobs and pensions, which affected their families. Yet the IRS and other agents were well within their authority to shut Enron down. But, NO, they aren't obligated to get those people new jobs or feed their families).
Since you cannot see this, I again urge YOU to take your own advice and seek counseling.
Did the IRS kill the children of those families? ::)
Let it go dude.
I'm serious. Get counseling.
-
Oh so now it's ok because his son wasn't a child? ::)
SEEK COUNSELING.
Yep!! Because, as much as it pains your Ozmo brain, the fact is God makes the rules and does what He sees fit with His creation. Whether you think it’s wrong or not makes absolutely no difference.
SO you are "putting them to sleep" like you'd do to a cat at the SPCA?
Is that how you teach you children? It's ok to kill a child because if you let him live he'll just starve to death anyway?
SEEK COUNSELING.
Since neither my children nor myself will be in such a situation, your question is as laughable as it is stupid. The lesson here, which a child can grasp but you apparently can't, is that something when you do wrong, you aren't the only ones that suffer for it. In extreme cases, that includes death.
Watch the video then: SEEK COUNSELING.
Dead is dead. Which death is avoidable? Which death is murder?
Which is the result of deliberate action against an enemy.....BOTH!!!
What you being dishonest about is the difference between lobbing a bomb and going into a village after the adults are dead and then killing children.
The difference is whether there are any remains to bury. Your dishonesty comes from the fact that you have no issue with destroying an enemy (including the children of that enemy) as long as you have the luxury of hiding behind modern weapons. You don't care what happens to their children and, were they to survive, you'd make no provision to see that they don't starve to death.
You are just dishonest or you are psychotic whack job that should be institutionalized.
I used to think you were very different from her. But now as i more and more see how you think, you don't seem that different.
Then, again, YOU need to take your own advice and SEEK COUNSELING.
Just curious. Either have have equal rights as men or they don't. If you think it depends on the situation, then i'll take that as a no.
They don't. They didn't then; and they don't now. Of course, that wasn't the point. You made the statement that they had NO intellectual power. Since that's been shown to be false, you're now....what was that you called it again.....oh....DEFLECTI NG on this particular issue.
Did the IRS kill the children of those families? ::)
Let it go dude.
I'm serious. Get counseling.
Once again, take your own advice, because this simple concept appears to zip clean over your head: There are sins that people commit that have LONG-REACHING consequences. When people do wrong, at certain levels, the punishment extends BEYOND merely the trangressors. That is how life on this planet is, whether you like or not.
In the Enron case, the punishment was financial ruin, which affect the execs AND EVERYONE UNDER THEM.
In the extreme case of the Amalekites, the punishment was DEATH, which affected the Amalekite leaders, as well as their wives, children, and everyone under them.
-
Yep!! Because, as much as it pains your Ozmo brain, the fact is God makes the rules and does what He sees fit with His creation. Whether you think it’s wrong or not makes absolutely no difference.
I agree he "makes the rules". However, I also have enough common sense not to see a book of stories written by primitive men thousands of years ago followed by ignorant men thousands of years later showing a murderous, insecure, vengeful god as the word of god.
Since neither my children nor myself will be in such a situation, your question is as laughable as it is stupid. The lesson here, which a child can grasp but you apparently can't, is that something when you do wrong, you aren't the only ones that suffer for it. In extreme cases, that includes death.
I grasped it just fine. The only difference is I have common sense enough to see murdering children is wrong. You don't.
Which is the result of deliberate action against an enemy.....BOTH!!!
Like i suggested earlier. You are a potential child murder because you cannot see the difference between unavoidable and avoidable.
The difference is whether there are any remains to bury. Your dishonesty comes from the fact that you have no issue with destroying an enemy (including the children of that enemy) as long as you have the luxury of hiding behind modern weapons. You don't care what happens to their children and, were they to survive, you'd make no provision to see that they don't starve to death.
I very much do have an issue with killing innocent children. So does the US military. However the Jews didn't. After they defeated the Amalikites army in the field of battle they proceeded to the villages and murdered the children.
Or was it that the Jews swords were so long that when they stabbed a Amalikite the sword also when through them 5 miles into the village and stabbed the child at the same time thus making it unavoidable? ::)
They don't. They didn't then; and they don't now. Of course, that wasn't the point. You made the statement that they had NO intellectual power. Since that's been shown to be false, you're now....what was that you called it again.....oh....DEFLECTI NG on this particular issue.
I agree, my assertion was false pending a separate debate. Now do you have the courage to answer the question or not?
Once again, take your own advice, because this simple concept appears to zip clean over your head: There are sins that people commit that have LONG-REACHING consequences. When people do wrong, at certain levels, the punishment extends BEYOND merely the trangressors. That is how life on this planet is, whether you like or not.
In the Enron case, the punishment was financial ruin, which affect the execs AND EVERYONE UNDER THEM.
In the extreme case of the Amalekites, the punishment was DEATH, which affected the Amalekite leaders, as well as their wives, children, and everyone under them.
The concept doesn't skip over my head McVAY. Cause you are as crazy as that guy. I don't use the excuse of "long reaching consequences" to justify murder. YOU DO.
I wonder.
Who would think needs more counseling:
A: Someone who has admitted they would kill a child on god's orders.
or
B: Someone who has maintained that killing innocent children is wrong and wouldn't kill an innocent child on god's orders.
-
I agree he "makes the rules". However, I also have enough common sense not to see a book of stories written by primitive men thousands of years ago followed by ignorant men thousands of years later showing a murderous, insecure, vengeful god as the word of god.
You need to make up your mind here. One minute, you talk about how you like the wisdom of Scripture; the next you claim it's about "ignorant men", when it comes to some parts you don't like. That's sounds awfully like that "hypocrisy" stuff that you keep yelling.
I grasped it just fine. The only difference is I have common sense enough to see murdering children is wrong. You don't.
Wrong again! It is that sense that lets me know the difference between what happened with the Amalekites and the Andrea Yates case, which you (or some of the other posters here) keep trying to equate.
Like i suggested earlier. You are a potential child murder because you cannot see the difference between unavoidable and avoidable.
Au contraire!!! Directly or indirectly, you take a deliberate action of warfare that RESULTS IN DEATH. Your playing the semantics between ancient weapons of warfare and modern ones makes no difference.
I very much do have an issue with killing innocent children. So does the US military. However the Jews didn't. After they defeated the Amalikites army in the field of battle they proceeded to the villages and murdered the children.
Again, you play semantics, with weapons of warfare. As for the Amalekite children, it's right back to what I said earlier: Death, Capture, or Abandonment, all about which you'd be hollering, regardless of the outcome.
Let's take the latter situation. The Amalekite kids are all alone: No dads, no moms, nobody to feed or clothe them. That simply means they either starve to death or are ripe for the picking for someone else to destroy. Of course, considering that, as the prophet Samuel put it, the sword of Amalek has made women childless, I don't think the Israelites (or any of the other victims of Amalek) are shedding too many tears about the situation).
Of course, if someone were to adopt those kiddies, guess what Ozmo would be yelling some 3000 or so years later.......
Or was it that the Jews swords were so long that when they stabbed a Amalikite the sword also when through them 5 miles into the village and stabbed the child at the same time thus making it unavoidable? ::)
Fine! Don't touch the kiddies; let 'em starve to death (with no daddies or mommies to feed or clothe them). Happy now?? ::)
I agree, my assertion was false. Now do you have the courage to answer the question or not?
Ummmmm.......what part of "They don't; They didn't then; and they don't now" didn't you grasp?
The concept doesn't skip over my head McVAY. Cause you are as crazy as that guy. I don't use the excuse of "long reaching consequences" to justify murder. YOU DO.
You use the excuse of modern weapons and the more "impersonal approach".
I wonder.
Who would think needs more counseling:
A: Someone who has admitted they would kill a child on god's orders.
or
B: Someone who has maintained that killing innocent children is wrong and wouldn't kill an innocent child on god's orders.
You forgot....
C: One who would kill an innocent child, providing he can use bombs instead of swords.
So I guess I'll see you on the couch ;D
-
You need to make up your mind here. One minute, you talk about how you like the wisdom of Scripture; the next you claim it's about "ignorant men", when it comes to some parts you don't like. That's sounds awfully like that "hypocrisy" stuff that you keep yelling.
I guess this is too hard for your simple child murderer worshiping mind to grasp. EVERY RELIGION has nuggets of wisdom. Not just the book of stories you follow.
Wrong again! It is that sense that lets me know the difference between what happened with the Amalekites and the Andrea Yates case, which you (or some of the other posters here) keep trying to equate.
Both counts are wrong. You need to seek counseling because you can't see that. That's why you are a borderline threat to society. That's why you are more liken to a cult.
It's kind of funny you writing "wrong again", the same person who would kill a child on God's orders.
Au contraire!!! Directly or indirectly, you take a deliberate action of warfare that RESULTS IN DEATH. Your playing the semantics between ancient weapons of warfare and modern ones makes no difference.
So it doesn't matter if you had the power to prevent collateral damage? It doesn't matter that you deliberately and separately killed children when you didn't have to?
You are a nut job.
Again, you play semantics, with weapons of warfare. As for the Amalekite children, it's right back to what I said earlier: Death, Capture, or Abandonment, all about which you'd be hollering, regardless of the outcome.
Let's take the latter situation. The Amalekite kids are all alone: No dads, no moms, nobody to feed or clothe them. That simply means they either starve to death or are ripe for the picking for someone else to destroy. Of course, considering that, as the prophet Samuel put it, the sword of Amalek has made women childless, I don't think the Israelites (or any of the other victims of Amalek) are shedding too many tears about the situation).
Of course, if someone were to adopt those kiddies, guess what Ozmo would be yelling some 3000 or so years later.......
So kids are like pets now huh? Put them to sleep if you can't take care of them?
that says volumes of the type of person you are.
1. You'd kill an innocent child.
2. You kill them because you couldn't feed them.
You are no more different than the radical muslim we are fighting.
Ummmmm.......what part of "They don't; They didn't then; and they don't now" didn't you grasp?
I asked yo if you think women should have equal rights. Are you gonna answer or are you gonna be a coward?
You forgot....
C: One who would kill an innocent child, providing he can use bombs instead of swords.
The jews could have avoided it. The US Military doesn't intentionally target children. The Jews did.
But you are too much of a coward to admit it.
Oh and PS:
Before you go on your little holy thumper roll on me on what i do or don't do, remember, in the end, killing children is still wrong and you have admitted you'd do just that, REGARDLESS of what i do.
-
I guess this is too hard for your simple child murderer worshiping mind to grasp. EVERY RELIGION has nuggets of wisdom. Not just the book of stories you follow.
Among those "nuggets" of wisdom, that your Amalekite-bleating-let-them-starve-in-the-desert mind can't grasp, that certain sins do (in fact) have LONG-REACHING CONSEQUENCES. Fathers can commit sins that destroy their whole family. And kings can do things that crush their whole nation. And, that's what happened to the Amalekites.
Both counts are wrong. You need to seek counseling because you can't see that. That's why you are a borderline threat to society. That's why you are more liken to a cult.
The only thing to which I am a threat is the nonsensical anti-Biblical blathering you continue to spout.
It's kind of funny you writing "wrong again", the same person who would kill a child on God's orders.
I write "wrong again", because you (someone who would kill a child, God's orders or not, as long as he can use bombs instead of swords) continue your weird habit of being such, when it comes to this issue about Israel's antagonists.
So it doesn't matter if you had the power to prevent collateral damage? It doesn't matter that you deliberately and separately killed children when you didn't have to?
You are a nut job.
So kids are like pets now huh? Put them to sleep if you can't take care of them?
that says volumes of the type of person you are.
1. You'd kill an innocent child.
2. You kill them because you couldn't feed them.
By your boneheaded standards, you can't take care of them. Otherwise, you're a "slaver". That means but one fate for them: DEATH, by starvation or sword.
You are no more different than the radical muslim we are fighting.
The radical Muslims arm their kids, with explosives and make them human shields. Furthermore, I missed the part where the Muslims offered ANY olive branch of peace, repentance, or treaty. So, you can cease with that rock-headed comparison right there.
I asked yo if you think women should have equal rights. Are you gonna answer or are you gonna be a coward?
You, of all people, should know the last thing I fear is your crackpot questions, the answer to this particular one I've already given. But, since you ain't firing on all cylinders in the grey matter, let me reiterate.
It depends on the situation. You don't just give "equal rights" to men and women, because they're not equal; they're different. For example, women get maternity leave when they are pregnant (which they obviously deserve). Men don't, for obvious reasons. Therefore, there are no "equal rights" in that matter.
From a political standpoint (voting issue, holding office, etc), yes, they do and should.
Of course, this is but your feeble way of ducking the fact that you erroneously claimed that women had no intellectual value at all, in OT times, in your continued yet pitiful attempt to rant about Scripture.
The jews could have avoided it. The US Military doesn't intentionally target children. The Jews did.
But you are too much of a coward to admit it.
Come again!! I stated that the target was ALL of AMALEK. The verse states that everyone and everything was to be destroyed. How is that being "too much of a coward to admit it?" Of course, having kids starve to death is far better. After all, the Israelites can't adopt them; otherwise, they'll have to hear you run your mouth about God being "slaver". ::)
Oh and PS:
Before you go on your little holy thumper roll on me on what i do or don't do, remember, in the end, killing children is still wrong and you have admitted you'd do just that, REGARDLESS of what i do.
In the end, the only one who has the right to take life is the One who created it. And, since his name isn't Ozmo, I don't play by Ozmo's rules.
-
side note:
Can you get your quote formatting right? Your posting is starting to get sloppy. I might have to send some angry jews to slap your children around because of your failings.
Among those "nuggets" of wisdom, that your Amalekite-bleating-let-them-starve-in-the-desert mind can't grasp, that certain sins do (in fact) have LONG-REACHING CONSEQUENCES. Fathers can commit sins that destroy their whole family. And kings can do things that crush their whole nation. And, that's what happened to the Amalekites.
Well, what can i say. My mind can't grasp:
- How after defeating the Amalekites on the field of battle the Jews felt it necessary to proceed to the villages and murder innocent women & children
- How anyone in there right might could see that as anything other cold blooded murder
- how anyone could summarily dismiss this cold blooded murder as "LONG-REACHING CONSEQUENCES" when in fact it was completely avoidable
I don't know what it is, McWay, why my mind can't grasp it. My guess is: It's my Christian upbringing that's stopping me from grasping it. Shame on these people for reinforcing some of those morals and ethics in me. how dare they not make concessions for God's occasional desire for genocide to punish children.
The only thing to which I am a thread is the nonsensical anti-Biblical blathering you continue to spout.
Yes the nonsensical anti-Biblical blathering, which is the "it's evil and not godly to murder children" blathering.
Shame on me. Sorry God of the OT, I'm sad I've disappointed you in not seeing the righteousness in your child murdering ways.
The radical Muslims arm their kids, with explosives and make them human shields. Furthermore, I missed the part where the Muslims offered ANY olive branch of peace, repentance, or treaty. So, you can cease with that rock-headed comparison right there.
The comparison is they feel just a justified as you do on God's orders and have God's example set in the OT. The only difference is how.
You, of all people, should know the last thing I fear is your crackpot questions, the answer to this particular one I've already given. But, since you ain't firing on all cylinders in the grey matter, let me reiterate.
It depends on the situation. You don't just give "equal rights" to men and women, because they're not equal; they're different. For example, women get maternity leave when they are pregnant (which they obviously deserve). Men don't, for obvious reasons. Therefore, there are no "equal rights" in that matter.
From a political standpoint (voting issue, holding office, etc), yes, they do and should.
Of course, this is but your feeble way of ducking the fact that you erroneously claimed that women had no intellectual value at all, in OT times, in your continued yet pitiful attempt to rant about Scripture.
Feeble why? I agreed I perhaps may have been mistaken and have admitted so and may debate it on another thread. I guess, however, you are still much of a coward as you can't give a simple yes or no. You really want to run with this one since you have been made (on your own) to pretty much look like a fool elsewhere.
Come again!! I stated that the target was ALL of AMALEK. The verse states that everyone and everything was to be destroyed. How is that being "too much of a coward to admit it?" Of course, having kids starve to death is far better. After all, the Israelites can't adopt them; otherwise, they'll have to hear you run your mouth about God being "slaver". Roll Eyes
You are too much of a coward to admit it was avoidable, you are too much of a coward to admit Germany and Japan in WW2 are great examples of how to rebuild a conquered enemy without having to resort to genocide.
Again, I say you are a COWARD.
In the end, the only one who has the right to take life is the One who created it. And, since his name isn't Ozmo, I don't play by Ozmo's rules.
Obviously you don't play by OzmO's rules, you play by a murderous God's rules and have admitted you kill a child on his orders.
nuff said. I get what you are.
-
side note:
Can you get your quote formatting right? Your posting is starting to get sloppy. I might have to send some angry jews to slap your children around because of your failings.
Well, what can i say. My mind can't grasp:
- How after defeating the Amalekites on the field of battle the Jews felt it necessary to proceed to the villages and murder innocent women & children
- How anyone in there right might could see that as anything other cold blooded murder
- how anyone could summarily dismiss this cold blooded murder as "LONG-REACHING CONSEQUENCES" when in fact it was completely avoidable
I don't know what it is, McWay, why my mind can't grasp it. My guess is: It's my Christian upbringing that's stopping me from grasping it. Shame on these people for reinforcing some of those morals and ethics in me. how dare they not make concessions for God's occasional desire for genocide to punish children.
Your Christian upbringing is based on the SAME GOD from the same Bible, that you keep disparaging. But, for some strange reason, you can't quite grasp that, either. The same God who (per John 3:16) sent Jesus Christ (from whom your Christian upbringing is based) to die for your sins....IS THE EXACT SAME GOD THAT BROUGHT JUDGMENT ONTO THE AMALEKITES. That's the facts, whether you like it or not.
Yes the nonsensical anti-Biblical blathering, which is the "it's evil and not godly to murder children" blathering.
Shame on me. Sorry God of the OT, I'm sad I've disappointed you in not seeing the righteousness in your child murdering ways.
One more time. God of the OT = God of the NT, point blank.
The comparison is they feel just a justified as you do on God's orders and have God's example set in the OT. The only difference is how.
Feeble why? I agreed I perhaps may have been mistaken and have admitted so and may debate it on another thread. I guess, however, you are still much of a coward as you can't give a simple yes or no. You really want to run with this one since you have been made (on your own) to pretty much look like a fool elsewhere.
Try that again! I gave a simple "yes" or "no" to the very question you asked me from the start, when you expected me to duck the question. At the end of the day, my suspicion was correct: This was simply your way of taking potshots at my faith (by either suggesting I have little or none, by not obeying God, or claiming my faith was "blind" by obeying God).
You are too much of a coward to admit it was avoidable, you are too much of a coward to admit Germany and Japan in WW2 are great examples of how to rebuild a conquered enemy without having to resort to genocide.
Again, I say you are a COWARD.
And, again, I say you need to lay off the brewskis. Germany and Japan are examples of enemies who DID NOT PERSECUTE America for over 300 years. And, they are also examples of enemies, who SURRENDERED, STOP ATTACKING US, and MADE AMENDS.
But, at least with Japanese, it took the A-Bomb to make them say "I QUIT". And, that A-Bomb destroyed women and children alike. That enemy would have not been conquered, were it not for using the A-bomb. And, since you think it's a "great example", that means that, by your standards, you are into "genocide". Or, as I said, you WOULD KILL CHILDREN (with the provision of hiding behind modern weapons).
Had the Amalekites done that with Israel, the outcome would have been different (and they had FAR LONGER TO DO SO than Japan or Germany did with the USA). However, they didn't.
What you are too cowardly admit is that, thanks to Saul's disobedience, some of the Amalekites were spared. And, when their numbers grew again, they went right back to doing what they'd been doing beforehand: Raiding and destroying the Israelites and others around them.
Obviously you don't play by OzmO's rules, you play by a murderous God's rules and have admitted you kill a child on his orders.
And, you would kill them on far less.
nuff said. I get what you are.
Ditto!!
Ditto!!!
-
-
Your Christian upbringing is based on the SAME GOD from the same Bible, that you keep disparaging. But, for some strange reason, you can't quite grasp that, either. The same God who (per John 3:16) sent Jesus Christ (from whom your Christian upbringing is based) to die for your sins....IS THE EXACT SAME GOD THAT BROUGHT JUDGMENT ONTO THE AMALEKITES. That's the facts, whether you like it or not.
Actually not. I wasn't raised by a bunch of bible literalists whack jobs who are cult like.
I know that killing children is wrong. You don't.
One more time. God of the OT = God of the NT, point blank.
And once again. You worship a child murderer and have admitted you'd do it yourself.
Try that again! I gave a simple "yes" or "no" to the very question you asked me from the start, when you expected me to duck the question. At the end of the day, my suspicion was correct: This was simply your way of taking potshots at my faith (by either suggesting I have little or none, by not obeying God, or claiming my faith was "blind" by obeying God).
I don't need to take pot shots at your faith. You worship a child murderer and have admitted you do it yourself. No "pot shots" needed. You are what you are.
Someone with the potential to murder a child. Hope you are proud of it.
And, again, I say you need to lay off the brewskis. Germany and Japan are examples of enemines who DID NOT PERSECUTE America for over 300 years
Oh really? The same people for 300 years? They lived 300 years? All of them? Or was it the recent generation that was a reincarnation from the original Amalekites 300 prior? ::)
Only an ignorant person would come to the conclusion that an entire people was evil and reproduced evil off spring.
But, at least with Japanese, it took the A-Bomb to make them say "I QUIT". And, that A-Bomb destroyed women and children alike. That enemy would have not been conquered, were it not for using the A-bomb. And, since you think it's a "great example", that means that, by your standards, you are into "genocide". Or, as I said, you WOULD KILL CHILDREN (with the provision of hiding behind modern weapons).
Had the Amalekites done that with Israel, the outcome would have been different (and they had FAR LONGER TO DO SO than Japan or Germany did with the USA). However, they didn't.
Did we commit genocide with the Japs or Gemrmans? yes or no?
Did the Jews have the option not to kill the women and children? yes or no?
And, you would kill them on far less.
based on what Mr. Desperate?
Ditto!!
Ditto!!!
I am glad you've finally at least admitted to yourself that I'm not so ignorantly blind of a follower of a child murderer that I too would kill a child on God's orders.
I talked to a friend of mine who is a pastor, he agreed, you are potentially dangerous.
PS: thanks for getting your quote formatting right. I'd had have to regret having your children face the dire consequences of your failings.
-
Actually not. I wasn't raised by a bunch of bible literalists whack jobs who are cult like.
I know that killing children is wrong. You don't.
A Christian upbrining is based on the works and teachings of Jesus Christ. That same Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the EXACT SAME GOD who judged the Amalekites, point blank.
And once again. You worship a child murderer and have admitted you'd do it yourself.
By that logic, so do YOU. You just admitted that you were raised in a Christian upbringing and still have Christian faith. That Christian faith comes from Christ, the son of GOD, the same one in the OT.
I don't need to take pot shots at your faith. You worship a child murderer and have admitted you do it yourself. No "pot shots" needed. You are what you are.
You don't need to do so, but you did so, anyway. And, based on your more recent statements, you worship the same "child murderer" (directly or indirectly) that I do.
Someone with the potential to murder a child. Hope you are proud of it.
Right back at 'cha!!! All you need is the warheads!!!
Oh really? The same people for 300 years? They lived 300 years? All of them? Or was it the recent generation that was a reincarnation from the original Amalekites 300 prior? ::)
Only an ignorant person would come to the conclusion that an entire people was evil and reproduced evil off spring.
Only an ignorant person would post something this stupid, especially with the information in front of them. Where exactly are the examples of the 2nd or 3rd generation of Amalekites, who tried their best to make peace with Israel, instead of continuing to war with them, as their forefathers did?
One simple treaty, a few reparations on behalf of their ancestors, something??
Did we commit genocide with the Japs or Gemrmans? yes or no?
NOPE!!! They got smart and said "NO MAS!!!", before that happened. Too bad the Amalekites didn't do the same with Israel.
Did the Jews have the option not to kill the women and children? yes or no?
Per their orders, NOPE!!! Of course, leaving them to starve and die, or get picked off by another of their long list of enemies ain't a much better option. But, why let that stand in the way of a good rant?
based on what Mr. Desperate?
Based on your statement that what the USA did with Japan was one of the "great examples of how to rebuild a conquered enemy". How did Japan get conquered in the first place?
WE DROPPED THE A-BOMB ON JAPAN (and we did it, knowing that it would kill women and children), an action you condone, because it helped your country win against an enemy. As I've said numerous time, all you've done is play semantics with the weapons of warfare.
I am glad you've finally at least admitted to yourself that I'm not so ignorantly blind of a follower of a child murderer that I too would kill a child on God's orders.[/quote]
I talked to a friend of mine who is a pastor, he agreed, you are potentially dangerous.
No more dangerous than you. Next time ask your pastor who sent Christ to die for your sins (and His), and whether it's the same God who judged the Amalekites.
PS: I did get to watch L Dawg videos and (SURPRISE, SURPRISE!!! ::) ) it's filled with the same goofball atheist drivel that I've heard time and time again.
-
Does'nt God ever tell anyone to got take a shit on the salad bar at Ruby Tuesday's?!!!!
-
Does'nt God ever tell anyone to got take a shit on the salad bar at Ruby Tuesday's?!!!!
No god.
-
No god.
It is hard to discern you and your intentions over the internet. As I read your responses, and many others like yours, there are some things that remain consistent. You deny the existence of Jesus, you deny the existence of God and you mock those who do. Again, I do not know why you do this, but there is no doubt as to who inspires your actions. It it time that you are boldly told what you are. You are without a doubt a liar. I am not your enemy, but I am forever an enemy of he who inspires you.
-
It is hard to discern you and your intentions over the internet. As I read your responses, and many others like yours, there are some things that remain consistent. You deny the existence of Jesus, you deny the existence of God and you mock those who do. Again, I do not know why you do this, but there is no doubt as to who inspires your actions. It it time that you are boldly told what you are. You are without a doubt a liar. I am not your enemy, but I am forever an enemy of he who inspires you.
You are off your fucking rocker; go have a drink of reality and get back to me.
-
You are off your fucking rocker; go have a drink of reality and get back to me.
I actally expected more foolishness from you. In any event, that's your opinion, not needed and I would rather not.
-
I actally expected more foolishness from you. In any event, that's your opinion, not needed and I would rather not.
It's also my opinion as well.your a nut job.
-
You are off your fucking rocker; go have a drink of reality and get back to me.
He says you are inspired by the devil! lol
And you are liar for not believing as he believes?
I'm at a loss for words fitt@40
-
Was talking to someone who has spent a lot of time in the Middle East and he said many of them hate us, our way life, and want us wiped off the map. That if we kill a "soldier" (for lack of a better word) and that soldier has a son, that son will be told about his father's death and trained to use a gun at the earliest possible age in preparation for revenge. He said to truly win a war like the one we are raging against extremists, you have to take out their whole family. That no one will ever speak that in public, but that it's a reality, if the goal is to eradicate extremists.
Made me think about Ozmo's anti-baby-killing crusade. :)
-
Was talking to someone who has spent a lot of time in the Middle East and he said many of them hate us, our way life, and want us wiped off the map. That if we kill a "soldier" (for lack of a better word) and that soldier has a son, that son will be told about his father's death and trained to use a gun at the earliest possible age in preparation for revenge. He said to truly win a war like the one we are raging against extremists, you have to take out their whole family. That no one will ever speak that in public, but that it's a reality, if the goal is to eradicate extremists.
Made me think about Ozmo's anti-baby-killing crusade. :)
So every child there is destined to kill Americans so we better kill them first?
Right.
It does sound like a guy who's spent too much time in the middle east.
-
You are off your fucking rocker; go have a drink of reality and get back to me.
Maybe satan does inspire you? huh? How do you know? HOW DO YOU REALY KNOW?!
Unless you prove him otherwise, he is not "off his rocker".
-
Maybe satan does inspire you? huh? How do you know? HOW DO YOU REALY KNOW?!
Unless you prove him otherwise, he is not "off his rocker".
one of the dumbest post's Ive read in a long time...yea if this fitt40 lunatic says you work 4 the devil the onus is on you decide to disprove Satan doesn't inspire you...WTF?
-
one of the dumbest post's Ive read in a long time...yea if this fitt40 lunatic says you work 4 the devil the onus is on you decide to disprove Satan doesn't inspire you...WTF?
Classic nut job/cultist thinking that's what the "F" it is.
Unless he's just being sarcastic lol
-
Was talking to someone who has spent a lot of time in the Middle East and he said many of them hate us, our way life, and want us wiped off the map. That if we kill a "soldier" (for lack of a better word) and that soldier has a son, that son will be told about his father's death and trained to use a gun at the earliest possible age in preparation for revenge. He said to truly win a war like the one we are raging against extremists, you have to take out their whole family. That no one will ever speak that in public, but that it's a reality, if the goal is to eradicate extremists.
Made me think about Ozmo's anti-baby-killing crusade. :)
My point exactly!! You must know the nature of your enemy, in order to deal with him accordingly. I’m all for diplomacy and trying to reach some sort of mutual understanding and peaceful resolution to conflict. And, that’s a two-way street.
But, when you have foes whose deeds and words indicate, in no uncertain terms, that their goal is to destroy you and will do so the instant they obtain the means, the time for talk is over (whether it was the Amalekites then, or Muslim terrorists now).
-
My point exactly!! You must know the nature of your enemy, in order to deal with him accordingly. I’m all for diplomacy and trying to reach some sort of mutual understanding and peaceful resolution to conflict. And, that’s a two-way street.
But, when you have foes whose deeds and words indicate, in no uncertain terms, that their goal is to destroy you and will do so the instant they obtain the means, the time for talk is over (whether it was the Amalekites then, or Muslim terrorists now).
So you advocate the killing of these children?
-
So you advocate the killing of these children?
While I pray it never comes to that, if it takes destroying every last one of that enemy (man, woman, and child) to keep them from doing the same to me and my family or my country, so be it. I make no apology for that, whatsoever.
Of course, I would prefer that some kind of peaceful negotiation would take place (negotiation, involving BOTH sides of the equation) and that the enemies of America would cease fire.
-
He says you are inspired by the devil! lol
And you are liar for not believing as he believes?
I'm at a loss for words fitt@40
Dude is possibly the biggest nut here...
-
While I pray it never comes to that, if it takes destroying every last one of that enemy (man, woman, and child) to keep them from doing the same to me and my family or my country, so be it. I make no apology for that, whatsoever.
Of course, I would prefer that some kind of peaceful negotiation would take place (negotiation, involving BOTH sides of the equation) and that the enemies of America would cease fire.
Ah..back to the primitive days of tribalism; the enemies of America have been created BY America. ::)
-
It's also my opinion as well.your a nut job.
Under your avatar it reads 'If there is a god, he's one evil SOB.'
Of course you are going to think I am crazy. The things I believe are going to appear foolish to anyone who does not believe.
-
He says you are inspired by the devil! lol
And you are liar for not believing as he believes?
I'm at a loss for words fitt@40
Do you believe that satan exists? If so, what do you think his role is in this world?
-
Maybe satan does inspire you? huh? How do you know? HOW DO YOU REALY KNOW?!
Unless you prove him otherwise, he is not "off his rocker".
There is really no need to try and defend me or my position. The Word has told us that such things would happen. Christians should take notice of this type of response. These guys are just anonymous posters on the internet. How are Christians going to respond when colleagues and family members treat them the same way? I am truly blessed in that this type of attitude only makes me stronger in my belief.
-
one of the dumbest post's Ive read in a long time...yea if this fitt40 lunatic says you work 4 the devil the onus is on you decide to disprove Satan doesn't inspire you...WTF?
It was not this "lunatic fitt@40" idea that his attitude is inspired by satan. The Word of God tells us that. Yes, I understand that you do not believe it to be true.
-
I actally expected more foolishness from you. In any event, that's your opinion, not needed and I would rather not.
And, Deicide never disappoints in that area!!!! ;D
-
Do you believe that satan exists? If so, what do you think his role is in this world?
Not in the traditional Christian sense,
-
So every child there is destined to kill Americans so we better kill them first?
Right.
It does sound like a guy who's spent too much time in the middle east.
No. Not what he said and not what I said.
He knows what he's talking about.
-
My point exactly!! You must know the nature of your enemy, in order to deal with him accordingly. I’m all for diplomacy and trying to reach some sort of mutual understanding and peaceful resolution to conflict. And, that’s a two-way street.
But, when you have foes whose deeds and words indicate, in no uncertain terms, that their goal is to destroy you and will do so the instant they obtain the means, the time for talk is over (whether it was the Amalekites then, or Muslim terrorists now).
Yeah. I think the focus on killing kids is a bit hypocritical. War always kills kids. Every war we have been involved in has killed noncombatants. We know going into every war that women and children will die.
-
No. Not what he said and not what I said.
He knows what he's talking about.
He suggested the whole family must be killed because the children would be raised to kill Americans right?
-
Yeah. I think the focus on killing kids is a bit hypocritical. War always kills kids. Every war we have been involved in has killed noncombatants. We know going into every war that women and children will die.
The difference is purposely targeting kids. When Genocide/mass murder is committed with swords and spears, Kids are purposely targeted when it can be avoided.
Versus:
The bombing of suspected terrorist targets that resulted in the unintentional deaths of innocent children.
-
He suggested the whole family must be killed because the children would be raised to kill Americans right?
Pretty much, but mainly just the boys. He was talking about what it would actually take to "win" the war. He didn't say "every child there is destined to kill Americans so we better kill them first." He specifically talked about the men who die in their fight, war, etc.
-
The difference is purposely targeting kids. When Genocide/mass murder is committed with swords and spears, Kids are purposely targeted when it can be avoided.
Versus:
The bombing of suspected terrorist targets that resulted in the unintentional deaths of innocent children.
We draw a distinction, because it makes us sleep better at night, but there really is no difference. No, we don't target noncombatants and we have rules of engagement, but we know that dropping a bomb on a city will kill noncombatants. We know that war will kill kids. At the end of the day, the kids are still dead. And if you support a war that you know will result in dead kids, then you're effectively advocating the killing of kids.
How many kids did we kill in Japan, Vietnam, North Korea, Europe, Iraq, etc.? Had to be thousands.
-
Pretty much, but mainly just the boys. He was talking about what it would actually take to "win" the war. He didn't say "every child there is destined to kill Americans so we better kill them first." He specifically talked about the men who die in their fight, war, etc.
Still who is willing to search out and target a 3 year old boy and kill him simply because of what he might do? Regardless of who his parents are.
How can that be just? How can that be moral? How can that be not Evil? How can we know? No different than aborting a baby (not that you would) because you believe they will grow up to be a criminal/murderer in America.
-
We draw a distinction, because it makes us sleep better at night, but there really is no difference. No, we don't target noncombatants and we have rules of engagement, but we know that dropping a bomb on a city will kill noncombatants. We know that war will kill kids. At the end of the day, the kids are still dead. And if you support a war that you know will result in dead kids, then you're effectively advocating the killing of kids.
How many kids did we kill in Japan, Vietnam, North Korean, Europe, Iraq, etc.? Had to be thousands.
Dropping bombs involve 1 action. Killing soldiers on the field of battle with a sword and then proceeding to a village a killing the children involve 2 actions, 2 separate opportunities to avoid innocent death.
They are VERy different.
-
Dropping bombs involve 1 action. Killing soldiers on the field of battle with a sword and then proceeding to a village a killing the children involve 2 actions, 2 separate opportunities to avoid innocent death.
They are VERy different.
Think about it. What is the end result of war? Dead kids. Dead women. We know that going into any major conflict. It's easy to say our intent is different, and it may be, but the end result is the same. Justifying dead noncombatants is really just a way to ease our conscience. War is hell.
-
Think about it. What is the end result of war? Dead kids. Dead women. We know that going into any major conflict. It's easy to say our intent is different, and it may be, but the end result is the same. Justifying dead noncombatants is really just a way to ease our conscience. War is hell.
Would we, today, take advantage of an option to not kill children in war?
They had that option back then.
-
We draw a distinction, because it makes us sleep better at night, but there really is no difference. No, we don't target noncombatants and we have rules of engagement, but we know that dropping a bomb on a city will kill noncombatants. We know that war will kill kids. At the end of the day, the kids are still dead. And if you support a war that you know will result in dead kids, then you're effectively advocating the killing of kids.
How many kids did we kill in Japan, Vietnam, North Korea, Europe, Iraq, etc.? Had to be thousands.
We love to fight lots of unnecessary wars.
-
Would we, today, take advantage of an option to not kill children in war?
They had that option back then.
Sure. I think the goal is always to avoid killing noncombatants. Very hard to do when the enemy hides behind skirts in residential neighborhoods.
I really don't know what the options were thousands of years ago. Maybe the only way to secure the safety of your family and community against an enemy was to wipe out the entire opposition, including their families. Maybe they did what my friend said they do today: train the boys from as young as possible to kill the enemy. I don't know. And honestly it really isn't relevant to anyone's life today.
-
Sure. I think the goal is always to avoid killing noncombatants. Very hard to do when the enemy hides behind skirts in residential neighborhoods.
I really don't know what the options were thousands of years ago. Maybe the only way to secure the safety of your family and community against an enemy was to wipe out the entire opposition, including their families. Maybe they did what my friend said they do today: train the boys from as young as possible to kill the enemy. I don't know. And honestly it really isn't relevant to anyone's life today.
Our government's covert actions create enemies for Americans that Americans themselves had nothing to do with...I hope you are not drawing an analogy?
-
Our government's covert actions create enemies for Americans that Americans themselves had nothing to do with...I hope you are not drawing an analogy?
Our government's "covert actions" did not create the generational hatred of some of our enemies. Many in the Middle East hate us because we exist. We could remove every boot from the ground and they would still hate us.
-
Our government's "covert actions" did not create the generational hatred of some of our enemies. Many in the Middle East hate us because we exist. We could remove every boot from the ground and they would still hate us.
Uhmm...no.
They hate America because of what it does abroad. End of story. Do you really think people in the Middle East give a rat's ass what some guy in Boise, Idaho is doing on a Friday night?
-
Sure. I think the goal is always to avoid killing noncombatants. Very hard to do when the enemy hides behind skirts in residential neighborhoods.
I really don't know what the options were thousands of years ago. Maybe the only way to secure the safety of your family and community against an enemy was to wipe out the entire opposition, including their families. Maybe they did what my friend said they do today: train the boys from as young as possible to kill the enemy. I don't know. And honestly it really isn't relevant to anyone's life today.
If they wiped out all the Amalikite adults who would train them?
Point is, children were murdered allegedly in cold blood according to God's orders. So what? It happened thousands of years ago. BUt in the context of an on going dialog/debate about the Bible being the infallible word of god, it is relevant.
-
If they wiped out all the Amalikite adults who would train them?
Point is, children were murdered allegedly in cold blood according to God's orders. So what? It happened thousands of years ago. BUt in the context of an on going dialog/debate about the Bible being the infallible word of god, it is relevant.
All those old enough to know what happened to their parents could train whomever is left. Where would you draw the line? Age 18, 16, 13? You've seen kids chanting death to America haven't you?
One of the things I've learned about our enemies in the Middle East is they are very patient. They will wait years to strike.
How do you characterize the death of all the children who die in war? Do you consider that murder too?
-
Maybe satan does inspire you? huh? How do you know? HOW DO YOU REALY KNOW?!
Unless you prove him otherwise, he is not "off his rocker".
Eisenkopf is a much better moniker and ein herz built of stone, might be a better explanation for your views, as it does for all religious bodybuilders. :)
-
All those old enough to know what happened to their parents could train whomever is left. Where would you draw the line? Age 18, 16, 13? You've seen kids chanting death to America haven't you?
One of the things I've learned about our enemies in the Middle East is they are very patient. They will wait years to strike.
How do you characterize the death of all the children who die in war? Do you consider that murder too?
Yes dumbass, I could've been a Dresden never-been-born child who would've never burnt to a crisp in some basement in her never -been-born mother's stomach who would've never been born from her mother. Thankfully, not all Americans are like you. Someone, unlike you, saved my grandmother's ass.
-
All those old enough to know what happened to their parents could train whomever is left. Where would you draw the line? Age 18, 16, 13? You've seen kids chanting death to America haven't you?
One of the things I've learned about our enemies in the Middle East is they are very patient. They will wait years to strike.
How do you characterize the death of all the children who die in war? Do you consider that murder too?
Are you suggesting we should kill those who are chanting death to America? I don't think you are.
It doesn't matter either way, its still wrong to kill someone for what they might grow up and do.
As far as death to children who die from war. If its deliberate, it's murder. If a soldier is walking down a street and sees a child of his enemy and shoots the child it's murder. If a plane drops a bomb on a weapons munition dump and a child gets killed it's collateral damage.
It's a very distinct difference with the same end result. The difference is intention and availability.
-
As far as death to children who die from war. If its deliberate, it's murder. If a soldier is walking down a street and sees a child of his enemy and shoots the child it's murder. If a plane drops a bomb on a weapons munition dump and a child gets killed it's collateral damage.
It's a very distinct difference with the same end result. The difference is intention and availability.
I've been meaning to ask you something OzmO. Hypothetically speaking, If God WERE to take a child's life, would you question His decision? Just asking? :)
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
I've been meaning to ask you something OzmO. Hypothetically speaking, If God WERE to take a child's life, would you question His decision? Just asking? :)
GC/DEA_AGENT
Depends on how. If a child life was taken in a natural disaster one could argue that "god" took the child's life, because God created the physical world in which disasters happen. In that case I would not question it.
However, if God ordered a father to kill his child, I question that. If God orders a Army to kill children I question that.
My assertion is, God doesn't order such things, man does, and in the Bible man ordered it and said God did.
-
Yes dumbass, I could've been a Dresden never-been-born child who would've never burnt to a crisp in some basement in her never -been-born mother's stomach who would've never been born from her mother. Thankfully, not all Americans are like you. Someone, unlike you, saved my grandmother's ass.
I would ask what the heck you're babbling about, but I really don't care. :)
-
Are you suggesting we should kill those who are chanting death to America? I don't think you are.
It doesn't matter either way, its still wrong to kill someone for what they might grow up and do.
As far as death to children who die from war. If its deliberate, it's murder. If a soldier is walking down a street and sees a child of his enemy and shoots the child it's murder. If a plane drops a bomb on a weapons munition dump and a child gets killed it's collateral damage.
It's a very distinct difference with the same end result. The difference is intention and availability.
No I'm not. I'm illustrating that some of our enemies breed their children to hate us. We've both seen it.
But where would you draw the line when dealing with an enemy that trains their kids to engage in irrational acts of violence?
We effectively deliberately kill women and children in war all time because we know they will die when we engage in combat operations in or around residential areas.
I really don't see an intellectually honest distinction. Pointing a gun at a child of the enemy and pulling the trigger and dropping a bomb on the child's neighborhood designed to kill the child's parent still results in a dead child.
This reminds me of the discussions I've had regarding assisted suicide versus prescribing medication that will hasten a person's death. I had a lengthy disagreement with a doctor who is vehemently opposed to assisted suicide, but has no problem with prescribing medication to alleviate suffering, when the required dose results in death. He said the same thing you're saying: the difference is intent. I really view it as sort of a meaningless distinction. In both instances the patient dies and in both instances the doctor knows his actions will cause the patient's death. One method just allows the doctor to sleep better (and avoid losing his license, etc.).
-
No I'm not. I'm illustrating that some of our enemies breed their children to hate us. We've both seen it.
But where would you draw the line when dealing with an enemy that trains their kids to engage in irrational acts of violence?
We effectively deliberately kill women and children in war all time because we know they will die when we engage in combat operations in or around residential areas.
I really don't see an intellectually honest distinction. Pointing a gun at a child of the enemy and pulling the trigger and dropping a bomb on the child's neighborhood designed to kill the child's parent still results in a dead child.
This reminds me of the discussions I've had regarding assisted suicide versus prescribing medication that will hasten a person's death. I had a lengthy disagreement with a doctor who is vehemently opposed to assisted suicide, but has no problem with prescribing medication to alleviate suffering, when the required dose results in death. He said the same thing you're saying: the difference is intent. I really view it as sort of a meaningless distinction. In both instances the patient dies and in both instances the doctor knows his actions will cause the patient's death. One method just allows the doctor to sleep better (and avoid losing his license, etc.).
I see it as intellectually dishonest without the distinction. On one hand you are purposely deliberately killing a child. It's something the person doing can chose to do or not to do in a separate action from the attempt to killing the enemy parent where as dropping a bomb on a enemy fort that results in the unintentional death of children is completely different because the option or the choice was not there.
-
I see it as intellectually dishonest without the distinction. On one hand you are purposely deliberately killing a child. It's something the person doing can chose to do or not to do in a separate action from the attempt to killing the enemy parent where as dropping a bomb on a enemy fort that results in the unintentional death of children is completely different because the option or the choice was not there.
It's not unintentional if you know dropping the bomb will cause the child's death.
-
It's not unintentional if you know dropping the bomb will cause the child's death.
But avoidable if in a separate action a child is murdered with a sword.
I'm not justifying the death of a child due to collateral damage. But the intent is to kill the enemy not the child.
Killing a child after the fact is cold blooded murder.
-
But avoidable if in a separate action a child is murdered with a sword.
I'm not justifying the death of a child due to collateral damage. But the intent is to kill the enemy not the child.
Killing a child after the fact is cold blooded murder.
We're kinda going in circles, but the knowledge (i.e., the act will cause a child's death) before committing each act is the same and the end result is the same. Really a distinction without a difference.
-
We're kinda going in circles, but the knowledge (i.e., the act will cause a child's death) before committing each act is the same and the end result is the same. Really a distinction without a difference.
There's a difference. HUGE one.
In the second action one can chose not to pull the trigger and kill the child. The enemy is already dead why chose to kill the child?
-
There's a difference. HUGE one.
In the second action one can chose not to pull the trigger and kill the child. The enemy is already dead why chose to kill the child?
We could also choose not to drop the bomb that we know will kill the child.
Is the enemy dead if he has offspring who will be trained to kill you? At what age would you draw the line?
-
Depends on how. However, if God ordered a father to kill his child, I question that. If God orders a Army to kill children I question that.
My assertion is, God doesn't order such things, man does, and in the Bible man ordered it and said God did.
What are your thoughts regarding the "Great Tribulation" and the battle of "Armageddon"?. Jesus taught both of those occurrences. There will be children who perish in those situations. :)
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
Do you believe that satan exists? If so, what do you think his role is in this world?
Not in the traditional Christian sense,
What do you mean? Jesus confirmed his (satan) existence, right?
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
We could also choose not to drop the bomb that we know will kill the child.
Is the enemy dead if he has offspring who will be trained to kill you? At what age would you draw the line?
If we choose not to drop the bomb we are choosing not to kill the enemy.
If difference is, in the second scenario, the enemy is already dead then a second decision is made to proceed to kill the children. that's why those scenarios are very different.
Imagine a US soldier after taking out a Taliban strong hold, killing 30 taliban soldiers, then an hour later proceeding to the village and killing ever man woman and child. Would that be the same as collateral damage? Would world see it that way? Would men of honor and goodness see it that way?
As for offspring. How do we know they all will agree to be trained to kill americans? How do we all know they will actually do it? Aren't we sentencing long before the act? Is that right? Is that good? Killing someone because of what they might do, is still cold blooded murder especially if it is resorted to killing children. Until they commit the crime, they are innocent, no matter what age they are.
Are you suggesting we go into villages and kill every one over a certain age because of what they might do?
-
What are your thoughts regarding the "Great Tribulation" and the battle of "Armageddon"?. Jesus taught both of those occurrences. There will be children who perish in those situations. :)
GC/DEA_AGENT
That is in a war. Children/innocent people die in wars unintentionally. That's different than defeating an army on the field of battle then proceeding to a village and killing all the women and children in a second deliberate act of cold blooded murder.
-
If they wiped out all the Amalikite adults who would train them?
If they wiped out all the Amalekite adults, who would FEED them?
How is letting them starve to death in the desert or leaving them wide open to get picked off by other enemies of the Amalekites any different than putting them to the sword?
As Beach Bum said (and as I've mentioned earlier), they're just as DEAD, regardless.
Point is, children were murdered allegedly in cold blood according to God's orders. So what? It happened thousands of years ago. BUt in the context of an on going dialog/debate about the Bible being the infallible word of god, it is relevant.
Indeed. But, the relevance, with regards to the discussion, is that the sins of the Amalekite adults fell onto their children, a fate that could have been avoided had the Amalekites simply repented, made amends, and left Israel alone.
-
If they wiped out all the Amalekite adults, who would FEED them?
1. Who should feed them?
2. What would be the right thing to do with the children?
3. What do people/governments do in modern times?
4. What did the allies do in WW2 with many orphan children of nazis?
How is letting them starve to death in the desert or leaving them wide open to get picked off by other enemies of the Amalekites any different than putting them to the sword?
Who said anything about leaving them in the dessert to starve to death?
As Beach Bum said (and as I've mentioned earlier), they're just as DEAD, regardless.
What both of you refuse to acknowledge is that killing the children separate act from killing the parents.
Indeed. But, the relevance, with regards to the discussion, is that the sins of the Amalekite adults fell onto their children, a fate that could have been avoided had the Amalekites simply repented, made amends, and left Israel alone.
What fell on to the children was cold blooded murder by savage self righteous primitive men. Nothing more.
-
If we choose not to drop the bomb we are choosing not to kill the enemy.
If difference is, in the second scenario, the enemy is already dead then a second decision is made to proceed to kill the children. that's why those scenarios are very different.
Imagine a US soldier after taking out a Taliban strong hold, killing 30 taliban soldiers, then an hour later proceeding to the village and killing ever man woman and child. Would that be the same as collateral damage? Would world see it that way? Would men of honor and goodness see it that way?
As for offspring. How do we know they all will agree to be trained to kill americans? How do we all know they will actually do it? Aren't we sentencing long before the act? Is that right? Is that good? Killing someone because of what they might do, is still cold blooded murder especially if it is resorted to killing children. Until they commit the crime, they are innocent, no matter what age they are.
Are you suggesting we go into villages and kill every one over a certain age because of what they might do?
I'm not suggesting we kill anyone. I'm only focusing on the killing of noncombatants in war and whether that killing is "intentional." I think your attempt to single out a story in the Bible and distinguish it from what we have done throughout history is inconsistent. You have condoned war in the past, just like I have. War always kills noncombatants. From that standpoint, you really cannot reasonably separate yourself from the murderous God you're talking about.
Most noncombatant fatalities are probably innocent. They're still dead. They're still dead as a result of military action. Our military action is always "intentional."
War is tragic. But it's a necessary evil.
You haven't indicated where you draw the line. At what age do you consider a person too young to be targeted in war and how do you make that distinction?
-
I'm not suggesting we kill anyone. I'm only focusing on the killing of noncombatants in war and whether that killing is "intentional." I think your attempt to single out a story in the Bible and distinguish it from what we have done throughout history is inconsistent. You have condoned war in the past, just like I have. War always kills noncombatants. From that standpoint, you really cannot reasonably separate yourself from the murderous God you're talking about. Most noncombatant fatalities are probably innocent. They're still dead. They're still dead as a result of military action. Our military action is always "intentional."
War is tragic. But it's a necessary evil.
You haven't indicated where you draw the line. At what age do you consider a person too young to be targeted in war and how do you make that distinction?
It's very consistent. What happened in the bible with the Amalekites was genocide. After defeating the Amalekites on the field of battle (unless they brought their wives, children and new borns on the field of battle) they proceeded to murder in cold blood every remaining man and all the women and children of that peoples.
That's no different than the USA defeating a country's army and then (separate action) going into the cities and towns and killing every remaining man women and child.
It would be considered genocide now and a barbaric war crime now and it applies back then.
War kills non-combatants. no argument. but when children are murdered in a premeditated, deliberate, unnecessary, avoidable, and separate act that is not involved in the actual battle it is cold blooded murder. Just as I've outlined in a the several examples showing the differences. This is what separates me from the alleged deity described in the OT.
Also, I already told you. If they haven't done anything we have no right to kill them.
-
It's very consistent. What happened in the bible with the Amalekites was genocide. After defeating the Amalekites on the field of battle (unless they brought their wives, children and new borns on the field of battle) they proceeded to murder in cold blood every remaining man and all the women and children of that peoples.
That's no different than the USA defeating a country's army and then (separate action) going into the cities and towns and killing every remaining man women and child.
It would be considered genocide now and a barbaric war crime now and it applies back then.
War kills non-combatants. no argument. but when children are murdered in a premeditated, deliberate, unnecessary, avoidable, and separate act that is not involved in the actual battle it is cold blooded murder. Just as I've outlined in a the several examples showing the differences. This is what separates me from the alleged deity described in the OT.
Also, I already told you. If they haven't done anything we have no right to kill them.
I haven't studied military history much, so I'm not sure what the rules of engagement were thousands of years ago. Maybe the ROE didn't account for collateral damage much. Maybe there were generational problems with the kids of enemies becoming killers.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the moral distinction when it comes to kids being killed in war. Kids who die in war are killed by premeditated, deliberate acts. You can say the intent is different, but it is hard to reach that conclusion when we know that noncombatants will die before we begin the military action. From that standpoint, the kids' deaths are completely avoidable. I think a more consistent position would be to oppose all war.
You haven't told me where you draw the line. I'm asking about the age group. Is it adults? Teenagers? Preteens?
-
That is in a war. Children/innocent people die in wars unintentionally. That's different than defeating an army on the field of battle then proceeding to a village and killing all the women and children in a second deliberate act of cold blooded murder.
OzmO, in that war, Jesus and the Holy angels will be the warriors. Perfect Jesus and his perfect angels can't make mistakes. Whoever dies in that war, will be intentional death brought on by Christ Jesus and his angels. Those children will have been executed by divine forces. Big difference when compared to imperfect men going to do battle. I just don't understand how you only believe the ONE part in the Scriptures that discusses salvation based on faith in Jesus death.
How do you conclude that this part of the Bible IS the WOG, yet the other parts that Jesus, either promoted or directly was quoted as saying, to not be the WOG? I don't understand your reasoning on this. I know how you feel when it comes to destroying innocents, whether adult or child, however, you and I are imperfect people. How can either one of us refute what Jesus taught? If we had complete understanding, reasoning, intellect, and the like, then yeah, I could understand us being able to bring this to his table, although I personally wouldn't argue with Christ. However, we don't have those capabilities. Shouldn't we trust in what Jesus teaches?
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
I haven't studied military history much, so I'm not sure what the rules of engagement were thousands of years ago. Maybe the ROE didn't account for collateral damage much. Maybe there were generational problems with the kids of enemies becoming killers.
In my opinion ROE's have nothing to do with it because they are 2 acts separate from each other.
Also, it's not right to kill someone for something they might or might not do. I've been told there were many Amalekites living in peace with the Jews who were not exterminated.
Kids who die in war are killed by premeditated, deliberate acts.
I can agree with that except for these distinctions:
- The enemy was targeted in those acts not the children and any deaths of innocent people are collateral damage
- Killing the children as I've outlined is a separate act from the battle
- My contention does not involve deaths resulting from collateral damage, although I believe it's unfortunate and should be avoided when ever possible
You can say the intent is different, but it is hard to reach that conclusion when we know that noncombatants will die before we begin the military action.
Another way to show the difference. The killing of children in a separate act after the military action is over (as i outlined) is murder. That's how the genocide of the Amalekites was carried through. And that's how a modern day genocide would occur. The opposition would be destroyed (act 1) and the murdering of the innocent would begin (act 2).
Killing undefended children after (not during) their protection is eliminated is not a military action, it's murder.
From that standpoint, the kids' deaths are completely avoidable
Still more ways to show the difference. In essence they are, however you still have the enemy at large attacking you. The enemy must eliminated and part of that process may unfortunately include the deaths of innocent people. What happened with the Amalikites, because they don't have modern weapons like cluster bombs and JDAM's, is the enemy of the Jews were eliminated and afterwards the rest of the them were murdered allegedly on God's orders.
I think a more consistent position would be to oppose all war.
I oppose murdering innocent children after the enemy on the field of battle has been eliminated.
You haven't told me where you draw the line. I'm asking about the age group. Is it adults? Teenagers? Preteens?
I already told you. If they haven't done anything we have no right to kill them.
-
OzmO, in that war, Jesus and the Holy angels will be the warriors. Perfect Jesus and his perfect angels can't make mistakes. Whoever dies in that war, will be intentional death brought on by Christ Jesus and his angels. Those children will have been executed by divine forces. Big difference when compared to imperfect men going to do battle. I just don't understand how you only believe the ONE part in the Scriptures that discusses salvation based on faith in Jesus death.
How do you conclude that this part of the Bible IS the WOG, yet the other parts that Jesus, either promoted or directly was quoted as saying, to not be the WOG? I don't understand your reasoning on this. I know how you feel when it comes to destroying innocents, whether adult or child, however, you and I are imperfect people. How can either one of us refute what Jesus taught? If we had complete understanding, reasoning, intellect, and the like, then yeah, I could understand us being able to bring this to his table, although I personally wouldn't argue with Christ. However, we don't have those capabilities. Shouldn't we trust in what Jesus teaches?
GC/DEA_AGENT
How can you conclude there is such a thing as a perfect angel?
Also, how can you conclude that the scriptures are WOG since they were decided by men, 300 years after his death?
I'm not arguing what Jesus taught. I'm arguing what man has attached to Jesus's teaching; Paul's letters, the politics involved in the assembly of what is or not is included in the Bible, the lack of real documents, the many contradictions, the barbaric morals of the times it was written, etc..
At the very essence, Jesus's message is clear. the rest is doctrine. the rest is man. Convoluted and used by churches/man through out history.
-
Another thing. If God is omnipotent, why does there have to be a battle in the first place? Why would he need angels or what ever else?
-
1. Who should feed them?
Nobody!!! Reason to be explained below.
2. What would be the right thing to do with the children?
3. What do people/governments do in modern times?
4. What did the allies do in WW2 with many orphan children of nazis?
2,3, and 4 are all predicated on one aspect, something the Amalekites DID NOT do, but the Germans and Japanese did: Surrender, Make Peace, Cease with attacks and assaults.
Because they did this, the allies in WW2 helped out the orphans and aided in putting these countries back together.
Such was NOT the case Amalek. As shown repeatedly throughout the Old Testament, as soon as their numbers grew again, the Amalekites went right back on the attack. And this went on and on, for centuries. Based on that, there is no obligation on Israel’s part to take care of Amalek’s young.
Who said anything about leaving them in the dessert to starve to death?
That would be you, based on your repeated rants about "slavery", regarding Israel's assimilation of the children and women of other enemies.
Were they to do that with the Amalekite remnants, it would have been under the same rules.
Therefore, those children are basically DEAD, either by the sword or by starvation.
What both of you refuse to acknowledge is that killing the children separate act from killing the parents.
Again, you're playing semantics. Leaving them to starve and die (since assimilation is out, based on your "slavery" rants) or to get picked off by someone else is no different than the sword.
What fell on to the children was cold blooded murder by savage self righteous primitive men. Nothing more.
What fell on them was judgment, based on the action of their parents and ancestors. As the Bible has repeatedly shown, the sins of the fathers often had dire consequences, which fell upon their sons.
And, that the one principle that bugs you the most, which has basically spawned all of these threads you've produced over the last month.
Just as God has blessed people collectively, He has also cursed people collectively. Good behavior can bless you and your family; Evil behavior can curse you and your family. And, the higher in authority you are, the more people are affected (one way or the other) by your actions.
-
Nobody!!! Reason to be explained below.
2,3, and 4 are all predicated on one aspect, something the Amalekites DID NOT do, but the Germans and Japanese did: Surrender, Make Peace, Cease with attacks and assaults.
Because they did this, the allies in WW2 helped out the orphans and aided in putting these countries back together.
That's where you don't seem to get it. The Amalikites were already defeated on the field of battle. Even if Germans and the Japanese continued to fight, we wouldn't have exterminated them. As soon as their Army was rendered ineffective and inoperable we would have ceased attack their cities. The example i gave with the US soldier outlines this exactly.
Such was NOT the case Amalek. As shown repeatedly throughout the Old Testament, as soon as their numbers grew again, the Amalekites went right back on the attack. And this went on and on, for centuries. Based on that, there is no obligation on Israel’s part to take care of Amalek’s young.
It wouldn't matter if it were 2000 years. You don't kill children for what they might do when they grow up. Fact is, according to you there were Amalekites living peacefully with the Jews, showing that it's more than possible.
That would be you, based on your repeated rants about "slavery", regarding Israel's assimilation of the children and women of other enemies.
Were they to do that with the Amalekite remnants, it would have been under the same rules.
Therefore, those children are basically DEAD, either by the sword or by starvation.
No, that's you trying to put words in my mouth by tying these 2 issues together.
Did we enslave the Japanese people?
Did we enslave the Germans?
Did we enslave Iraqis?
Again, you're playing semantics. Leaving them to starve and die (since assimilation is out, based on your "slavery" rants) or to get picked off by someone else is no different than the sword.
Leaving them to starve is not the only option.
What did we do with the Germans?
What did we do with the Japanese?
What did we do with the Iraqis?
We defeated their Armies on the field of battle, did we let have to enslave them? did we have to let them starve to death?
What fell on them was judgment, based on the action of their parents and ancestors. As the Bible has repeatedly shown, the sins of the fathers often had dire consequences, which fell upon their sons.
What the bible has repeatedly shown is that it was written by primitive men who justify the murder of a child in cold blood by the cop out of blaming it on the sins of their parents when it was avoidable.
And, that the one principle that bugs you the most, which has basically spawned all of these threads you've produced over the last month.
What bugs me is the dismissive attitude towards the murder of a child when it's avoidable and lame reasoning behind it.
Just as God has blessed people collectively, He has also cursed people collectively. Good behavior can bless you and your family; Evil behavior can curse you and your family. And, the higher in authority you are, the more people are affected (one way or the other) by your actions.
God curses people eh? IS he a witch too? This is more evidence that it's all a book of myths and stories written by primitive men.
-
Wow...just like the energizer bunny.
-
The Amalikites were already defeated on the field of battle.
Please expand on this or post the other person's quote. I am really interested. Were they really already defeated on the filed of battle? Was there even a "filed of battle."? I'm not saying that there was or that there wasn't. I just want to know where you get this from.
Fact is, according to you there were Amalekites living peacefully with the Jews, showing that it's more than possible.
Please expand on this too, or quote MCWAY. I am really interested in this too.
To bring other readers up to speed:
THE TRUTH about The Amalekites
The Amalekites were nomadic, desert people. They were not a settled people like the Canaanites.
The Amalekites attacked the Israelites without apparent provocation as they were travelling during the Exodus:
Exodus 17:8
The Amalekites came and attacked the Israelites at Rephidim.
The Amalekites targeted the weak and weary, children, elders, cripples, etc., who were lagging behind:
Deuteronomy 25:17-18
Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God.
Many years later, The Amalekites attacked Israel again:
Judges 3:13
Getting the Ammonites and Amalekites to join him, Eglon came and attacked Israel, and they took possession of the City of Palms
The Amalekites often raided the Israelites' land after they had planted crops, leaving them with nothing:
Judges 6:2-5
2 Because the power of Midian was so oppressive, the Israelites prepared shelters for themselves in mountain clefts, caves and strongholds. 3 Whenever the Israelites planted their crops, the Midianites, Amalekites and other eastern peoples invaded the country. 4 They camped on the land and ruined the crops all the way to Gaza and did not spare a living thing for Israel, neither sheep nor cattle nor donkeys. 5 They came up with their livestock and their tents like swarms of locusts. It was impossible to count the men and their camels; they invaded the land to ravage it.
After about 300 years of nations suffering in the hands of the Amalekites, God finally punished the Amalekites. Notice that God had given them plenty of time to repent and turn from their evil ways. Notice too that for 300 years, younger generations of the Amalekites were no better than their fathers, but their wickedness only increased and they continued to raid and plunder other cities.
1 Samuel 15:2
This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "
1 Samuel 14:48
He fought valiantly and defeated the Amalekites, delivering Israel from the hands of those who had plundered them.
Although Saul defeated the Amalekites, he disobayed God and, in his own wisdom, decided to let some of the Amalekites live. What were the consequences? Some 30 or so years later, the Amalekites regrouped, multiplied, increased in numbers and wickedness, and resumed their raiding and plundering, again.
The Amalekites burned down cities, raided other people in the land, and took survivors as slaves for slave trade:
1 Samuel 30:1-4
1 David and his men reached Ziklag on the third day. Now the Amalekites had raided the Negev and Ziklag. They had attacked Ziklag and burned it, 2 and had taken captive the women and all who were in it, both young and old. They killed none of them, but carried them off as they went on their way. 3 When David and his men came to Ziklag, they found it destroyed by fire and their wives and sons and daughters taken captive. 4 So David and his men wept aloud until they had no strength left to weep.
Saul should have listened to God and obeyed Him. This is what happens when we think that we know better than God.
It is very unlikely that the Amalekites had among them any weak people(handicapped, elderly, chronically ill, deformed, crippled, weak males, etc.), much like the Spartans. They could not afford to be slowed down by the weak. They had room only for those who could directly or indirectly contribute to their plundering, such as women to produce children who would be raised to become evil raiders like their parents. Their history is evidence of this.
1 Samuel 30:11-13
11 They found an Egyptian in a field and brought him to David. They gave him water to drink and food to eat- 12 part of a cake of pressed figs and two cakes of raisins. He ate and was revived, for he had not eaten any food or drunk any water for three days and three nights. 13 David asked him, "To whom do you belong, and where do you come from?" He said, "I am an Egyptian, the slave of an Amalekite. My master abandoned me when I became ill three days ago.
God gave the Amalekites plenty of time to repent and turn from their evil ways. But not only did God withhold punishing the Amalekites for many years, but God's law also allowed for any good Amalekites, if any existed, and their children to leave their people and join Israel. As evil as the Amalekites were, any good people among them would have been more than willing to leave. But where would they go? The Amalekites' allies were just as evil, and the Amalekites' enemies would not have welcomed them, except Israel.
Leviticus 19:34
The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Exodus 22:21
"Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.
Exodus 23:9
"Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt.
Leviticus 19:10
Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 25:35
" 'If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you.
Deuteronomy 10:18
He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing.
Deuteronomy 14:28-29
At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce and store it in your towns, 29 so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.
Deuteronomy 23:7
Do not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. Do not abhor an Egyptian, because you lived as an alien in his country.
That's history written by the victors.
No, this is not history written by the victors. Israel did not leave what they considered their own criminal acts out of their own writings. Anyone who has read the Old Testament history and prophetic writings could see this. The Old Testament record is literally filled with their evil, especially of the elites and religious authorities! And, they never seem to have a problem describing how frequently they get defeated in battle, for their texts are filled with their defeats too.
If this is not from God, then who is it from? Why would Israel make up a story that God told them not to take anything from the Amalikites, no gold, no animals, no food, no prisoner salves, nothing. If Israel was not allowed to take anything, even after the Amalekites had taken so much from Israel, what was Israel's motivation then? That does not make any sense.
Why would Israel make up a story that God commanded them to completely destroy the Amalekites, and then disobey God's command and let some of the Amalekites go, as king Saul did? That doesn't make any sense either.
The only explanation is that this was from God. God gave the Amalekites plenty of time to repent. God gave any good Amalekite a way out by leaving their people and taking refuge in Israel. Israel was unable to adopt the Amalekite children and did not leave them behind to die a slow, painful death. The blood of the Amalekite children is on the head of their parents, not on Israel and not on God.
-
You, on the other hand, have falsely accused Bible believing Christians on this board of genocide and infanticide.
I'm still waiting for you to show me where I've accused Christians on this board of genocide and infanticide.
In the mean time, read up on warfare in general, what happens before a battle what happens after a battle or war.
-
I'm still waiting for you to show me where I've accused Christians on this board of genocide and infanticide.
In the mean time, read up on warfare in general, what happens before a battle what happens after a battle or war.
-
Not the Kenites, who lived among them, not the Amalekites who lived in Israel (or any who made peace with Israel).
This was in response to me saying every amalikite was killed.
-
I'm still waiting for you to show me where I've accused Christians on this board of genocide and infanticide.
If you insist that you do not accuse Christians and Jews of genocide and infanticide simply for believing that the Old Testament is the word of God, then let that go on record here.
I apologize if I misunderstood you and thank you for making the above clear for everyone here!
In the mean time, read up on warfare in general, what happens before a battle what happens after a battle or war.
Sure, I'll do that. But please answer my questions above. Like I said, I want to know when this was said about the Amalekites specifically and where you get it from. Thanks!
-
This was in response to me saying every amalikite was killed.
Thanks! I will now let MCWAY answer for himself, but saying that any good Amalekites, if any did exist, had the opportunity to join Israel and live in peace with them does not mean that they actually did. I was wondering if there is a record in the Bible of any Amalekite living in peace with Israel.
-
Not in the traditional Christian sense,
In what sense do you believe he exists? Do you believe him to be evil?
-
In what sense do you believe he exists? Do you believe him to be evil?
Why are you so certain it is the Christian god? Why not one of the thousands of others worshipped by men?
-
Why are you so certain it is the Christian god? Why not one of the thousands of others worshipped by men?
If I had to guess it's because that's what his parents brought him up to believe.
-
Why are you so certain it is the Christian god? Why not one of the thousands of others worshipped by men?
As I have said many times before, it is all about faith. My Faith is the result of a combination of many things. As a child, I was not taught any religious beliefs. My mother took me took church only once (around the age of seven or eight). Though I was never taught or read the Bible, things were revealed to me. When I was 13, I had a discussion with a Minister, who also has a Ph.D in theology. I will not bore you with details of our coversation, but he asked me many times, "how could you possibly know that?" I do not say these things to be boastful in any manner, but rather show that I am living proof of God's Truth. I believe that God has had mercy on me long before I accepted Him. I have seen miracles. You have called me crazy (nut-case...or something like that), but I could tell you things that I have witnessed that you, and most people, would not believe. I have tried running away from God, but because He knows my heart, He has had mercy on me. You are correct in that there are thousands of other gods. Some are man-made and many are really gods...so to speak. This is why our Father says not to put any other god before Him. If you truly want to know if my God is real, put away all of your doubt and open your heart, mind and soul to Him. I am not suggesting that you follow some TV Evangelist or even a local minister. I suggesting that go straight to Him. If He is real, and you are sincere, then change will happen. If He is not real, what do you have to lose? Believe it or not, I have actually been praying for you. I understand that you may not want that or could care less, but as I have said to you before, I am not your enemy. I do not have any agendas. I only want that the Will of God be done.
-
If I had to guess it's because that's what his parents brought him up to believe.
You posted this as I was typing my response to Deicide.
-
If I had to guess it's because that's what his parents brought him up to believe.
Exactemente cabron...
-
Exactemente cabron...
;D
big L dawg habla Espańol tambien?
-
Bump for OzmO to answer:
The Amalikites were already defeated on the field of battle.
Please expand on this or post the other person's quote. I am really interested. Were they really already defeated on the field of battle? Was there even a "field of battle."?
The Amalekites did not call Israel and tell only their men to meet them in some battle field to fight. They attacked Israel where they were, with their women, their children, their young and their old.
Israel then did the same. They pursued the Amalekites and fought them where they found them, with their men, their women, their children, their animals and their possessions. They did not meet them in some battle field...unless there is a record in the Bible I missed. If so, please let me see it.
-
Bump for OzmO to answer:
Please expand on this or post the other person's quote. I am really interested. Were they really already defeated on the field of battle? Was there even a "field of battle."?
The Amalekites did not call Israel and tell only their men to meet them in some battle field to fight. They attacked Israel where they were, with their women, their children, their young and their old.
Israel then did the same. They pursued the Amalekites and fought them where they found them, with their men, their women, their children, their animals and their possessions. They did not meet them in some battle field...unless there is a record in the Bible I missed. If so, please let me see it.
I told you, read about military history and how battles/wars are fought. You'll find your answer there
-
I told you, read about military history and how battles/wars are fought. You'll find your answer there
::)
-
::)
It's pretty simple. That's how battles were fought back then. And approaching army was met on "a field of battle". Unless of course they were "raiding" them in which killing children and the elderly is still completely avoidable. That's the thing about swords......they allow the user to discriminate. :D
-
If you insist that you do not accuse Christians and Jews of genocide and infanticide simply for believing that the Old Testament is the word of God, then let that go on record here.
I apologize if I misunderstood you and thank you for making the above clear for everyone here!
Sure, I'll do that. But please answer my questions above. Like I said, I want to know when this was said about the Amalekites specifically and where you get it from. Thanks!
If i insist? You made a false claim and couldn't back it up.
-
If i insist? You made a false claim and couldn't back it up.
::)
I was nice enough to apologize and thank you for clearing that up, but you can't let it go. Don't push your luck, little man!
-
::)
I was nice enough to apologize and thank you for clearing that up, but you can't let it go. Don't push your luck, little man!
I shouldn't have to insist that such a fraudulent baseless claim be cleared up. And it was only after asking you to show proof several times which you ducked. If you had any integrity you wouldn't have made the claim in the first place.
no worries, business as usual from the drama queen. :D
-
It's pretty simple. That's how battles were fought back then. And approaching army was met on "a field of battle". Unless of course they were "raiding" them in which killing children and the elderly is still completely avoidable. That's the thing about swords......they allow the user to discriminate. :D
So that's how all battles were fought back then? ::)
We've had a similar discussion before, one in which you claimed that Israel took women with them on the road to search for and fight the Amalekites, remember? You said all armies back then took women with them to cook for the soldiers, remember? You claimed it was true because "that's how all battles were fought back then." You got owned on that one once I presented the historical evidence that few battles were fought like that back then, as you usually do when it comes to world history. Want me to dig that up to refresh your memory?
Your claim that Israel only fought Amalekite men on a battle field is just as good as if I were to claim that the Amalekites used women and children as human shields, no? Because that never happens in battels, right? ::)
-
I shouldn't have to insist that such a fraudulent baseless claim be cleared up. And it was only after asking you to show proof several times which you ducked.
no worries, business as usual from the drama queen. :D
I did show you, then you claimed I misundertood your post. ::)
-
So that's how all battles were fought back then? ::)
We've had a similar discussion before, one in which you claimed that Israel took women with them on the road to search for and fight the Amalekites, remember? You said all armies back then took women with them to cook for the soldiers, remember? You claimed it was true because "that's how all battles were fought back then." You got owned on that one once I presented the historical evidence that few battles were fought like that back then, as you usually do when it comes to world history. Want me to dig that up to refresh your memory?
Your claim that Israel only fought Amalekite men on a battle field is just as good as if I were to claim that the Amalekites used women and children as human shields, no? Because that never happens in battels, right? ::)
Owned? I didn't get owned back then. Stop smoking bible pages. Traveling armies did take a contingent of support personal with them that many times depending on the distance traveled included women and children. Regardless, they were left away from the field of battle when the battle was fought.
The whole idea of using children as shields doesn't work with swords, dummy.
either way it doesn't matter, children with them or not. They chose to murder children when they didn't have to. end of story.
You worship a murderer of children. ;)
-
I did show you, then you claimed I misundertood your post. ::)
Didn't have to claim anything. I didn't say it and you couldn't show it.
Fess up drama queen.
Or do you have another lie you want to tell?
-
Owned? I didn't get owned back then. Stop smoking bible pages. Traveling armies did take a contingent of support personal with them that many times depending on the distance traveled included women and children. Regardless, they were left away from the field of battle when the battle was fought.
The whole idea of using children as shields doesn't work with swords, dummy.
I dig it up when I get a chance.
Oh, and they did not have spears and arrows back then, did they? ::)
I've tried to keep it civilized, but that's impossible with you. You can't have a discussion without resorting to name calling. How old are you OzmO, if you don't mind me asking?
-
Didn't have to claim anything. I didn't say it and you couldn't show it.
Fess up drama queen.
Or do you have another lie you want to tell?
We all know you were trying to portray Christians and Jews as dangerous people just because we believe that the Old Testament is the word of God.
But after calling you out, your rants have now made it clear that Christians and Jews are not dangerous just for believing that the Old Testament is the word of God. So I'm cool with that. Thanks OzmO! ;D
-
I dig it up when I get a chance.
Oh, and they did not have spears and arrows back then, did they? ::)
I've tried to keep it civilized, but that's impossible with you. You can't have a discussion without resorting to name calling.
No you didn't try to keep it civilized. You still had your arrogant sniveling attitude even then making sound like I was out of line for "insisting" it be cleared up. You made an accusation you couldn't back up. Got any more lies you'd like to tell?
The only weapon indiscriminate is a bomb. Arrows and spears can be aimed and it's ignorant to think that's why ALL the children died.
Come on Loco.
-
No you didn't try to keep it civilized. You still had your arrogant sniveling attitude even then making sound like I was out of line for "insisting" it be cleared up. You made an accusation you couldn't back up. Got any more lies you'd like to tell?
The only weapon indiscriminate is a bomb. Arrows and spears can be aimed and it's ignorant to think that's why ALL the children died.
Come on Loco.
A bomb? ::)
I did not make the claim that they used women and children as human shields. I was saying such a claim is as good as yours since neither is recorded in the Bible. If you are going to make that claim about the specific battle between King Saul and the Amalekites, then back it up.
-
A bomb? ::)
I did not make the claim that they used women and children as human shields. I was saying such a claim is as good as yours since neither is recorded in the Bible. If you are going to make that claim about the specific battle between King Saul and the Amalekites, then back it up.
i don't need to back it up. The Jews met the Amalekites on the field of battle and killed them all and then proceeded to kill every remaining man women and child.
Those fields of battle may have been villages, cities, towns, or hamlets because the Jews may have ambushed them or raided them. Regardless, the resistance was squashed and the killing of innocent people and children followed.
So either way it doesn't really matter.
-
We all know you were trying to portray Christians and Jews as dangerous people just because we believe that the Old Testament is the word of God.
But after calling you out, your rants have now made it clear that Christians and Jews are not dangerous just for believing that the Old Testament is the word of God. So I'm cool with that. Thanks OzmO! ;D
That's not what I'm trying to do at all. I've said many many times, my whole point to this: the Bible isn't the 100% WOG. Simple as that. Willingness to kill an innocent child on God's orders did not come from me.
Does that make a "person" dangerous. I think so. Does that one person make christians and Jews dangerous? No.
Do I believe this person would ever carry out that order? I'd bet against that he would.
-
i don't need to back it up. The Jews met the Amalekites on the field of battle and killed them all and then proceeded to kill every remaining man women and child.
Those fields of battle may have been villages, cities, towns, or hamlets because the Jews may have ambushed them or raided them. Regardless, the resistance was squashed and the killing of innocent people and children followed.
So either way it doesn't really matter.
You may not want to, or you may not be able to, but you do need to back up this bold, detailed claim.
-
You may not want to, or you may not be able to, but you do need to back up this bold, detailed claim.
I need to back up the claim that i don't need to back it up? :-\ ???
-
I need to back up the claim that i don't need to back it up? :-\ ???
I said you have made a claim that you can't back up.
-
As I have said many times before, it is all about faith. My Faith is the result of a combination of many things. As a child, I was not taught any religious beliefs. My mother took me took church only once (around the age of seven or eight). Though I was never taught or read the Bible, things were revealed to me. When I was 13, I had a discussion with a Minister, who also has a Ph.D in theology. I will not bore you with details of our coversation, but he asked me many times, "how could you possibly know that?" I do not say these things to be boastful in any manner, but rather show that I am living proof of God's Truth. I believe that God has had mercy on me long before I accepted Him. I have seen miracles. You have called me crazy (nut-case...or something like that), but I could tell you things that I have witnessed that you, and most people, would not believe. I have tried running away from God, but because He knows my heart, He has had mercy on me. You are correct in that there are thousands of other gods. Some are man-made and many are really gods...so to speak. This is why our Father says not to put any other god before Him. If you truly want to know if my God is real, put away all of your doubt and open your heart, mind and soul to Him. I am not suggesting that you follow some TV Evangelist or even a local minister. I suggesting that go straight to Him. If He is real, and you are sincere, then change will happen. If He is not real, what do you have to lose? Believe it or not, I have actually been praying for you. I understand that you may not want that or could care less, but as I have said to you before, I am not your enemy. I do not have any agendas. I only want that the Will of God be done.
I am sure that is how you feel but for me there is no evidence, so I reject it. It's pretty simple. As for prayer, there's a saying I like.
"One pair of working hands is more useful than a thousand clasped in prayer." :)
-
I said you have made a claim that you can't back up.
Which is?
-
Which is?
i don't need to back it up. The Jews met the Amalekites on the field of battle and killed them all and then proceeded to kill every remaining man women and child.
Those fields of battle may have been villages, cities, towns, or hamlets because the Jews may have ambushed them or raided them. Regardless, the resistance was squashed and the killing of innocent people and children followed.
So either way it doesn't really matter.
Where in the Bible, or any other document for that matter, did you read this? In the same document where you read that king Saul's army always traveled with Israelite women to cook all of their meals?
-
Where in the Bible, or any other document for that matter, did you read this? In the same document where you read that king Saul's army always traveled with Israelite women to cook all of their meals?
Did i read what? They didn't meet them on a field of battle? If not, then where? Was it on a mountain of battle? A McDonalds of Battle?
Or did the Amalekites not put up any resistance and spread there arms and said, here kill us?
what's your point loco?
And whether they traveled with support persons or not, doesn't change much of the issue at hand. God ordered the murder of innocent children. You worship a child murderer that committed genocide.
-
-
I am sure that is how you feel but for me there is no evidence, so I reject it. It's pretty simple. As for prayer, there's a saying I like.
"One pair of working hands is more useful than a thousand clasped in prayer." :)
Fair enough. Let us just agree to disagree. As for these hands, they shall forever remain in prayer. :)
-
Did i read what? They didn't meet them on a field of battle? If not, then where? Was it on a mountain of battle? A McDonalds of Battle?
Or did the Amalekites not put up any resistance and spread there arms and said, here kill us?
what's your point loco?
And whether they traveled with support persons or not, doesn't change much of the issue at hand. God ordered the murder of innocent children. You worship a child murderer that committed genocide.
If you don't know, then why do you even make such claims?
-
If you don't know, then why do you even make such claims?
If i don't know what? How the Amalekites were killed? The Jews killed them right? The Amalekits either let them kill them or put up a fight either way, what's the difference?
If they put up a fight, there was a battle that likely took place on a field.
So what?
What's your point again?
-
If i don't know what? How the Amalekites were killed? The Jews killed them right? The Amalekits either let them kill them or put up a fight either, what's the difference?
If they put up a fight, there was a battle that likely took place on a field.
So what?
What's your point again?
-
You know what that energizer bunny does on viagra don't you?
-
That's where you don't seem to get it. The Amalikites were already defeated on the field of battle. Even if Germans and the Japanese continued to fight, we wouldn't have exterminated them. As soon as their Army was rendered ineffective and inoperable we would have ceased attack their cities. The example i gave with the US soldier outlines this exactly.
The Israelites did the same thing. Over the course of over 300 years, Amalek assaulted Israel numerous times (as Loco indicated). When Israel fought them off, they went on their merry way. But, as has been shown before now, when the Amalekites numbers grew, they resumed their attacks on Israel.
It wouldn't matter if it were 2000 years. You don't kill children for what they might do when they grow up. Fact is, according to you there were Amalekites living peacefully with the Jews, showing that it's more than possible.
And whose responsiblity is it to get them out of harm's way? The parents. Indeed, there were some Amalekites who heeded Saul's warning (and perhaps a few before that) and lived among the Israelites peacefully. The lion's share of them, however, didn't.
No, that's you trying to put words in my mouth by tying these 2 issues together.
No, it isn't. I've said before that, unless these children are assimilated, they will either get put to the sword or die of starvation. We've already shown the rules and regulations, with regards to how Israel was supposed to treat the remnants of enemy combatants. And, when we (me, Loco, Stella, etc)did that, YOU started howling about "slavery". The simple fact is, were the Amalekite children assimilated into Israel's land, it would have been under the same rules that Israel used for other people.
Did we enslave the Japanese people?
Did we enslave the Germans?
Did we enslave Iraqis?
Leaving them to starve is not the only option.
What did we do with the Germans?
What did we do with the Japanese?
What did we do with the Iraqis?
Once again, ALL of that was predicated on the aforementioned people SURRENDERING, making negotiations, and CEASING ALL ATTACKS AND ASSAULTS, none of which the Amalekites did with Israel.
America didn't help to repair the infrastructure or economy or anything of these nations, while their people (en masse) were STILL TRYING TO KILL US.
We defeated their Armies on the field of battle, did we let have to enslave them? did we have to let them starve to death?
They quit; they ceased and desisted; did Amalek do that with Israel.....NO!!
What the bible has repeatedly shown is that it was written by primitive men who justify the murder of a child in cold blood by the cop out of blaming it on the sins of their parents when it was avoidable.
There's no "cop out" involved. Israel made it "avoidable" for over 300 years and the Amalekites, during that stretch, had opportunity after opportunity to end the conflict and make peace and/or amends. They did nothing of the sort. Instead, they ramped up their assaults.
At some point, enough is enough. That point was supposed to be with Saul. But, thanks to his greed and lust for $$$$$$, Israel's most dogged enemy lived to continue persecuting them. THAT'S WHY Saul got booted off the throne of Israel.
What bugs me is the dismissive attitude towards the murder of a child when it's avoidable and lame reasoning behind it.
What bugs me is the dismissive attitude that Israel is supposed to just get whacked for centuries, because some people are worried about the children of Israel's enemies, especially when those enemies have made it clear that their end-goal is Israel's utter destruction.
If someone is trying to destroy me and my family or my country and all attempts for reconciliation get dismissed, it's time to fight. I will do whatever it takes to preserve my people. And the last thing on my mind (at that point) is the fate of that enemy's children.
If they continue to act a fool, then they and their children will pay the price for it, point blank.
God curses people eh? IS he a witch too? This is more evidence that it's all a book of myths and stories written by primitive men.
Of course, He curses people, just as He blesses people. Both depend on obedience vs. disobedience.
-
If I had to guess it's because that's what his parents brought him up to believe.
And, you guessed wrong!
By Fitt’s own words, he was NOT raised in a Christian home. And, it appears that he did not attend a Christian school. He claims his mother took him to church just once.
He became a Christian in his adult life, which would mean that he study Scripture FOR HIMSELF and established a personal relationship with the Lord.
That's something you and Deicide just don't get. You have both erroneously assumed that nearly all Christians are such, because they were raised in home with parents of the Christian faith. You also assumed that these people never had any questions about their faith, under the false premise that (if they did), they would automatically reject their faith.
There are millions of believers, just like Fitt. And, they are every bit as welcome in the eyes of Jesus Christ as those who were raised in the church.
-
And, you guessed wrong!
By Fitt’s own words, he was NOT raised in a Christian home. And, it appears that he did not attend a Christian school. He claims his mother took him to church just once.
He became a Christian in his adult life, which would mean that he study Scripture FOR HIMSELF and established a personal relationship with the Lord.
That's something you and Deicide just don't get. You have both erroneously assumed that nearly all Christians are such, because they were raised in home with parents of the Christian faith. You also assumed that these people never had any questions about their faith, under the false premise that (if they did), they would automatically reject their faith.
There are millions of believers, just like Fitt. And, they are every bit as welcome in the eyes of Jesus Christ as those who were raised in the church.
the religion you prescribe to more times than not are a direct result of your parents beliefs and were you were born in the world.thats a statistical fact.just because someone's mom didn't take them to church doesn't mean there parents aren't Christians.
-
The Israelites did the same thing. Over the course of over 300 years, Amalek assaulted Israel numerous times (as Loco indicated). When Israel fought them off, they went on their merry way. But, as has been shown before now, when the Amalekites numbers grew, they resumed their attacks on Israel.
Doesn't matter. then they strive to find better ways to prevent that from happening without killing innocent children. It's the civilized thing to do.
And whose responsiblity is it to get them out of harm's way? The parents. Indeed, there were some Amalekites who heeded Saul's warning (and perhaps a few before that) and lived among the Israelites peacefully. The lion's share of them, however, didn't.
Does matter again. The parents are one issue. The children are another.
No, it isn't. I've said before that, unless these children are assimilated, they will either get put to the sword or die of starvation. We've already shown the rules and regulations, with regards to how Israel was supposed to treat the remnants of enemy combatants. And, when we (me, Loco, Stella, etc)did that, YOU started howling about "slavery". The simple fact is, were the Amalekite children assimilated into Israel's land, it would have been under the same rules that Israel used for other people.
Who's rules and regulations? Rules and regulations can be changed. Doesn't matter again. Did we have to that with Germany and Japan? No. Then the Jews didn't have to do it either.
Once again, ALL of that was predicated on the aforementioned people SURRENDERING, making negotiations, and CEASING ALL ATTACKS AND ASSAULTS, none of which the Amalekites did with Israel.
America didn't help to repair the infrastructure or economy or anything of these nations, while their people (en masse) were STILL TRYING TO KILL US.
The assumption that every adult was trying to kill Jews is stupid. Even then, what's left to surrender? Children. then you must do as above.
They quit; they ceased and desisted; did Amalek do that with Israel.....NO!!
And what do we do with people who continue to try and fight, won't surrender, but are captured?
There's no "cop out" involved. Israel made it "avoidable" for over 300 years and the Amalekites, during that stretch, had opportunity after opportunity to end the conflict and make peace and/or amends. They did nothing of the sort. Instead, they ramped up their assaults.
At some point, enough is enough. That point was supposed to be with Saul. But, thanks to his greed and lust for $$$$$$, Israel's most dogged enemy lived to continue persecuting them. THAT'S WHY Saul got booted off the throne of Israel.
Again, still doesn't matter if it was 10,000 years. You don't kill children. It's wrong. Very basic moral.
What bugs me is the dismissive attitude that Israel is supposed to just get whacked for centuries, because some people are worried about the children of Israel's enemies, especially when those enemies have made it clear that their end-goal is Israel's utter destruction.
So what? It doesn't make any difference what so ever. Killing children is wrong. Period.
If someone is trying to destroy me and my family or my country and all attempts for reconciliation get dismissed, it's time to fight. I will do whatever it takes to preserve my people. And the last thing on my mind (at that point) is the fate of that enemy's children.
If they continue to act a fool, then they and their children will pay the price for it, point blank.
Act a fool? :D
In addition to all of this as you have stated there was Amalekites living peacefully among the Jews showing that ALL children are not destine to grow up to attack the Jews. It takes rug out form under your assertion that these children would surely grow up to attack Israel again.
-
Doesn't matter. then they strive to find better ways to prevent that from happening without killing innocent children. It's the civilized thing to do.
Does matter again. The parents are one issue. The children are another.
Who's rules and regulations? Rules and regulations can be changed. Doesn't matter again. Did we have to that with Germany and Japan? No. Then the Jews didn't have to do it either.
We didn't fight with either country for 300 years plus. One A-bomb put a stop to Japan's war efforts and they haven't attacked us since that time. Germany hasn't attacked us, either.
As stated earlier, the Amalekites had NUMEROUS opportunities to cease and desist. Their children were spared those 300+ years prior to Saul's being given the edict to end it, once and for all. As Loco has shown, every time the Amalekites were spared and their numbers were replenished, they went right back on the attack.
The assumption that every adult was trying to kill Jews is stupid. Even then, what's left to surrender? Children. then you must do as above.
No, it isn't, especially in light of what actually happened. Again, why do you think this conflict occured for over 300 years, prior to Saul coming onto the scene, and continued after he failed to get the job done?
It's because those Amalekite children (by and large) GREW UP and followed in their ancestors' footsteps.
And what do we do with people who continue to try and fight, won't surrender, but are captured?
They remain in jail. If they're rehabilitated, you released them accordingly. If they are not and continue their ways, you re-capture or kill them.
Again, still doesn't matter if it was 10,000 years. You don't kill children. It's wrong. Very basic moral.
So, for 10,000 years, you're going to continue to war with an enemy whose goal is to eradicate your people off the face of the earth, just because you don't want to hurt their kiddies (never mind the fact that they will hurt yours)............Good luck with that one.
So what? It doesn't make any difference what so ever. Killing children is wrong. Period.
Yet, you condone that happening in modern warfare, when bombs are used.
Act a fool? :D
In addition to all of this as you have stated there was Amalekites living peacefully among the Jews showing that ALL children are not destine to grow up to attack the Jews. It takes rug out form under your assertion that these children would surely grow up to attack Israel again.
No, it doesn't. No sooner did David assume the throne from Saul, than the Amalekites hit Israel once more.
As I asked earlier, at what point do you say "Enough is enough!", after year 10,001? ;D
-
As I have said many times before, it is all about faith. My Faith is the result of a combination of many things. As a child, I was not taught any religious beliefs. My mother took me took church only once (around the age of seven or eight). Though I was never taught or read the Bible, things were revealed to me. When I was 13, I had a discussion with a Minister, who also has a Ph.D in theology. I will not bore you with details of our coversation, but he asked me many times, "how could you possibly know that?" I do not say these things to be boastful in any manner, but rather show that I am living proof of God's Truth. I believe that God has had mercy on me long before I accepted Him. I have seen miracles. You have called me crazy (nut-case...or something like that), but I could tell you things that I have witnessed that you, and most people, would not believe. I have tried running away from God, but because He knows my heart, He has had mercy on me. You are correct in that there are thousands of other gods. Some are man-made and many are really gods...so to speak. This is why our Father says not to put any other god before Him. If you truly want to know if my God is real, put away all of your doubt and open your heart, mind and soul to Him. I am not suggesting that you follow some TV Evangelist or even a local minister. I suggesting that go straight to Him. If He is real, and you are sincere, then change will happen. If He is not real, what do you have to lose? Believe it or not, I have actually been praying for you. I understand that you may not want that or could care less, but as I have said to you before, I am not your enemy. I do not have any agendas. I only want that the Will of God be done.
-
We didn't fight with either country for 300 years plus. One A-bomb put a stop to Japan's war efforts and they haven't attacked us since that time. Germany hasn't attacked us, either.
As stated earlier, the Amalekites had NUMEROUS opportunities to cease and desist. Their children were spared those 300+ years prior to Saul's being given the edict to end it, once and for all. As Loco has shown, every time the Amalekites were spared and their numbers were replenished, they went right back on the attack.
Soooooooooooooo what? The children spared and the children murdered are 2 different things, 2 different people, 2 different instances. When the children were murdered they at that very time were innocent. God ordered the murder of innocent children.
No, it isn't, especially in light of what actually happened. Again, why do you think this conflict occured for over 300 years, prior to Saul coming onto the scene, and continued after he failed to get the job done?
It's because those Amalekite children (by and large) GREW UP and followed in their ancestors' footsteps.
According to the Bible they did. SOOOOOOOOOOO what? Still it's completely different set of children. Still innocent. Still murdered by the Jews on God's orders.
So, for 10,000 years, you're going to continue to war with an enemy whose goal is to eradicate your people off the face of the earth, just because you don't want to hurt their kiddies (never mind the fact that they will hurt yours)............Good luck with that one.
No, it doesn't. No sooner did David assume the throne from Saul, than the Amalekites hit Israel once more.
As I asked earlier, at what point do you say "Enough is enough!", after year 10,001?
Yeah, pretty much. I guess that goal to kill my people is hard wired into their DNA? I'm not that simple minded. I don't kill innocent children. It's an evil thing to do.
-
remember that lady that drowned her kids in the bathtub.she said god told her to do it....well there's some nut job that post's here regularly that would do the same thing.
burn witches at the stake
slavery is not just OK it is right
women are inferior to men
God hates fags
death to America!
"because god says so." The people who hold and act out these sentiments are all cut from the same cloth. ::)
-
Soooooooooooooo what? The children spared and the children murdered are 2 different things, 2 different people, 2 different instances. When the children were murdered they at that very time were innocent. God ordered the murder of innocent children.
According to the Bible they did. SOOOOOOOOOOO what? Still it's completely different set of children. Still innocent. Still murdered by the Jews on God's orders.
Once again, what do you do with them? Since you don't like Israel's assimilation laws, the only other option is that those children will unfortunately DIE. It's just a question of semantics (the sword vs. starvation).
Yeah, pretty much. I guess that goal to kill my people is hard wired into their DNA? I'm not that simple minded. I don't kill innocent children. It's an evil thing to do.
It would be just as "evil" to let your people continue to get assaulted by the Amalekites for centuries on end, just because you're soooooooo concerned about their little kiddies (never mind the fact that your women and children have met the end of their sword).
As I said, diplomacy is a two-way street. But, when you have enemies that are hell-bent on destroying you, the last thing with which you need to concern yourself is the welfare of their offspring.
-
the religion you prescribe to more times than not are a direct result of your parents beliefs and were you were born in the world.thats a statistical fact.just because someone's mom didn't take them to church doesn't mean there parents aren't Christians.
Fitt said, "As a child, I was not taught any religious beliefs.". How does that translate into his parents being Christians?
-
Once again, what do you do with them? Since you don't like Israel's assimilation laws, the only other option is that those children will unfortunately DIE. It's just a question of semantics (the sword vs. starvation).
What do you do with them? You don't kill them that's what you do and you take care of them. Citing the Jews assimilations laws as a reason not to do the right thing is a cop out. Maybe god should have taught them properly instead of teaching them to be so primitive.
It would be just as "evil" to let your people continue to get assaulted by the Amalekites for centuries on end, just because you're soooooooo concerned about their little kiddies (never mind the fact that your women and children have met the end of their sword).
Do you really think I'm suggesting they don't defend themselves? Come on............ sigh.
You don;t kill children. It's wrong. Plain and simple. Killing children because of what they might do is murder.
As I said, diplomacy is a two-way street. But, when you have enemies that are hell-bent on destroying you, the last thing with which you need to concern yourself is the welfare of their offspring.
Of course, while there's still a danger I'm only worried about the children to the extent i can still do what's needed without having to kill innocent people. In the time of swords and bows that's very easy. But at some point the Amalekites were rendered ineffective to attack or defend. Now, I'm still not one to think all the women and elderly or any male adults who weren't involved in the army needed to be genocide like killed, but even then at that point no one is hell bent on killing you because all that's left is children. And killing innocent children is wrong. Killing innocent children is what serial killers do. Killing innocent children is evil. Killing innocent children is what evil men do.
The Nazi's justified it with the "Final Solution".
10,000 years 20,000 years, what ever. Every generation I'm left with a nation of innocent children that i have a choice as to what to do with. I can choose to murder them all because of what they might do or i can chose try to change the cycle. Because of the morals that I have i will always try as our more civilized society in this modern age would. It's worked with some amaekites as you have said. Regardless, killing them off, committing total genocide is wrong, it's murder, it's evil.
-
What do you do with them? You don't kill them that's what you do and you take care of them. Citing the Jews assimilations laws as a reason not to do the right thing is a cop out. Maybe god should have taught them properly instead of teaching them to be so primitive.
Ummmm.....I'm not citing the Jews' assimilation laws as a reason to do anything. YOU ARE! You're the one who was crying "slavery", when the subject was brought up on Israel's laws on how to treat the remnants of their defeated enemies.
And, as mentioned earlier, Israel was under no obligation to take care of the Amalekites' children, while the Amalekites were continuing their attempts to destroy the Israelites.
Do you really think I'm suggesting they don't defend themselves? Come on............ sigh.
You don;t kill children. It's wrong. Plain and simple. Killing children because of what they might do is murder.
Of course, while there's still a danger I'm only worried about the children to the extent i can still do what's needed without having to kill innocent people. In the time of swords and bows that's very easy. But at some point the Amalekites were rendered ineffective to attack or defend. Now, I'm still not one to think all the women and elderly or any male adults who weren't involved in the army needed to be genocide like killed, but even then at that point no one is hell bent on killing you because all that's left is children. And killing innocent children is wrong. Killing innocent children is what serial killers do. Killing innocent children is evil. Killing innocent children is what evil men do.
The Nazi's justified it with the "Final Solution".
10,000 years 20,000 years, what ever. Every generation I'm left with a nation of innocent children that i have a choice as to what to do with. I can choose to murder them all because of what they might do or i can chose try to change the cycle. Because of the morals that I have i will always try as our more civilized society in this modern age would. It's worked with some amaekites as you have said. Regardless, killing them off, committing total genocide is wrong, it's murder, it's evil.
Once again, you don't know your enemy. And as history has shown, once the Amalekites' numbers were replenished, they resumed their attacks on Israel. Don't you think after some 300 years plus, the Israelites tried to "change the cycle"? At some point, you make the call that enough is enough and 300 years is more than enough time to "change the cycle".
The simple fact is that, the AMALEKITES THEMSELVES had no intentions of changing the cycle. And watching your people get assaulted and, at certain points, nearly being driven into starvation, simply because you're worried about their kids, is utterly preposterous. The Amalekites had their opportunites to "change the cycle" yet they didn't. Therefore, the edict was made. It was time for them to go.
Even when Saul botched it up, the Amalekites had YET ANOTHER CHANCE to "change the cycle". Take a wild guess as to what happened. Look at the book of Esther. Of course, this woman became known as the courageous soul who helped save her people from doom, at the hand of Haman who was (you guessed it)......AN AMALEKITE.
As for the Amalekites who did defect, what do think happened to them at the hands of their fellow countrymen, when they resumed their attacks on Israel? They met the sword, just as the Israelites did. Letting your people suffer for thousands of years on end, because of the "morals you have", suggests that your priorities are a bit off.
I will try for peace and reconciliation as well. But, after a reasonable amount of time (and 300 years is more than reasonable for me), when an enemy has made it clear that he and his people will not rest until he destroys me and my people, all bets are off. As stated earlier, if I have to destroy all of them to keep them from destroy all of me and my people, so be it.
-
I must tell you that my sound card failed a few days ago. I do not have the benefit of listening to the video, but it does a good job of stating its intent.
I am an educated Christian, and I have a college degree. I state it as such because the two (educated and college degree) do not always go hand-in-hand.
The video asks, 'Have you ever thought about using your college education to think about your faith?'
My college education is based on man's understanding of things. My faith is based on God's. I think it is foolish to try and compare man's wisdom to God's.
1. Why don't God heal amputees?
I think it would be better asked, 'Why hasn't God healed amputees?' God can do anything, and we know of one instance whereby he restored a body part. When Jesus was first taken, one of the soldiers had his ear cut off. Jesus healed it. Of the amputees that have prayed to be healed, how many prayed to the God of Abraham? Of those who prayed to the God of Abraham, how many were truly born again? Of those who were truly born again, how many prayed without doubt? God brought Lazarus back from the dead after four days. Surely there is no doubt he can restore a missing body part. God tells us that we have the ability to move mountains (literally) if we have faith. God's ability to do these wonders is not in question. It is our faith. Your video says I must create some kind of rationalization. Not true. What I have stated has been, and always will be, God's words.
2. Why are there so many starving people in the world?
Because our world is moving away from God. Why are people quick to blame Godfor all of the wrong in the world, yet at the same time, they do not obey his Word? If you will, let us take God out of the equation for a moment. The greed in mankind is associated with world hunger. We have the ability to ensure that no one goes hungry. However, it is not profitable to do so.
More than likely, you are going to say that the children of Sudan are innocent. There are things a people do that cause generational curses. These curses can be broken through Jesus Christ. Only a foolish person would say God wants these children to suffer.
3. Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people?
Innocent by whose standard? The Scriptures in the video are talking about people who are not innocent according to God's Word. Those things may appear trivial to you, but we are not God. We do not understand all of His actions. I can think of one time when God sought the life of an innocent person. God instructed Abraham to sacrifice his own son. As we know, He did not have Abraham go through with it.
4. Why does the Bible contain such anti-scientific nonsense?
The Bible is not anti-science. When scientists discover something, they are merely learning about something God already knows. I challenge you to name one thing man has made that was not the result of something originally made by God. You cannot because all that there is was created by God. I agree that there are things in the Bible that make no sense from a scientific perspective. However, the same be said within the science field. Can you imagine telling a scientist (400 years ago) that you wanted to build a land vehicle that travels faster that the speed of sound? It would not surprise me that one day we will actually have human transport machines. Science and God only conflicts when science contradicts God's word (evolution). As for the examples in the video, I agree that they do not make sense from a scientific perspective, but God said it and I believe. The last example states, 'God did not crate Adam from a handful of dust like the Bible says.' What is it that we turn (return) to after death?
5.Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery? Not sure what this has to do with science, but anyway...
God was never a proponent of slavery. It was never in His original intent for us. He gave us guidance on slavery because it became a part of mankind. This is like the instructions He gave us on divorce. It was never His intent for a man and woman to divorce. When we read of slavery in the Bible, we instantly think of the type of slavery that happened in America (and other places throughout history). Read the scripture your video stated and you will see that it is not the same.
6. Why do bad things happen to good people?
- Many "good" people do not live according to God's Will.
- The enemy (satan) is forever attacking the children of God.
- As stated before, there are things our ancestors did that cause generational curses.
7. Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles leave behind any evidence?
If you had proof (evidence) of God and Christ, why would you need faith? I personally believe that is evidence everywhere. It is just a matter of believing it is of God or just a random happening.
8. How do we never explain the fact that Jesus never appear to you?
You are making an assumption. The Bible tells us we will know His voice when He calls us. The first time I heard Him call out my name in the middle of the night, I knew it was Him. Without faith, it is impossible to understand this. The Bible teaches us to be careful in how we treat strangers because there are times we entertain Angels and are not aware of it.
9. Why would Jesus want you to drink His blood and eat His body?
Purely symbolic. We are one body in the Lord, and His blood was sacrificed for us.
10. Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?
- Not all who profess to be Christians are Christians
- Christians sometimes drift away from God.
- Christians sometimes marry for the wrong reasons. Many Christian marriages were not put together by God.
Your video states that in order to believe in God, you have to create all sorts of strange rationalization and excuses. I say in order to believe, you must have faith and as the Bible says "lean not to your own understanding (Proverbs 3: 5-6)
Your video also states that those of us who believe are delusional. To all Christians reading this: Our God has told us that this type of stuff was coming. We know that it is going to get much worse. I pray that you all will hang onto the Faith and endure until the end. God Bless.
-
I must tell you that my sound card failed a few days ago. I do not have the benefit of listening to the video, but it does a good job of stating its intent.
I am an educated Christian, and I have a college degree. I state it as such because the two (educated and college degree) do not always go hand-in-hand.
The video asks, 'Have you ever thought about using your college education to think about your faith?'
My college education is based on man's understanding of things. My faith is based on God's. I think it is foolish to try and compare man's wisdom to God's.
1. Why don't God heal amputees?
I think it would be better asked, 'Why hasn't God healed amputees?' God can do anything, and we know of one instance whereby he restored a body part. When Jesus was first taken, one of the soldiers had his ear cut off. Jesus healed it. Of the amputees that have prayed to be healed, how many prayed to the God of Abraham? Of those who prayed to the God of Abraham, how many were truly born again? Of those who were truly born again, how many prayed without doubt? God brought Lazarus back from the dead after four days. Surely there is no doubt he can restore a missing body part. God tells us that we have the ability to move mountains (literally) if we have faith. God's ability to do these wonders is not in question. It is our faith. Your video says I must create some kind of rationalization. Not true. What I have stated has been, and always will be, God's words.
2. Why are there so many starving people in the world?
Because our world is moving away from God. Why are people quick to blame Godfor all of the wrong in the world, yet at the same time, they do not obey his Word? If you will, let us take God out of the equation for a moment. The greed in mankind is associated with world hunger. We have the ability to ensure that no one goes hungry. However, it is not profitable to do so.
More than likely, you are going to say that the children of Sudan are innocent. There are things a people do that cause generational curses. These curses can be broken through Jesus Christ. Only a foolish person would say God wants these children to suffer.
3. Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people?
Innocent by whose standard? The Scriptures in the video are talking about people who are not innocent according to God's Word. Those things may appear trivial to you, but we are not God. We do not understand all of His actions. I can think of one time when God sought the life of an innocent person. God instructed Abraham to sacrifice his own son. As we know, He did not have Abraham go through with it.
4. Why does the Bible contain such anti-scientific nonsense?
The Bible is not anti-science. When scientists discover something, they are merely learning about something God already knows. I challenge you to name one thing man has made that was not the result of something originally made by God. You cannot because all that there is was created by God. I agree that there are things in the Bible that make no sense from a scientific perspective. However, the same be said within the science field. Can you imagine telling a scientist (400 years ago) that you wanted to build a land vehicle that travels faster that the speed of sound? It would not surprise me that one day we will actually have human transport machines. Science and God only conflicts when science contradicts God's word (evolution). As for the examples in the video, I agree that they do not make sense from a scientific perspective, but God said it and I believe. The last example states, 'God did not crate Adam from a handful of dust like the Bible says.' What is it that we turn (return) to after death?
5.Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery? Not sure what this has to do with science, but anyway...
God was never a proponent of slavery. It was never in His original intent for us. He gave us guidance on slavery because it became a part of mankind. This is like the instructions He gave us on divorce. It was never His intent for a man and woman to divorce. When we read of slavery in the Bible, we instantly think of the type of slavery that happened in America (and other places throughout history). Read the scripture your video stated and you will see that it is not the same.
6. Why do bad things happen to good people?
- Many "good" people do not live according to God's Will.
- The enemy (satan) is forever attacking the children of God.
- As stated before, there are things our ancestors did that cause generational curses.
7. Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles leave behind any evidence?
If you had proof (evidence) of God and Christ, why would you need faith? I personally believe that is evidence everywhere. It is just a matter of believing it is of God or just a random happening.
8. How do we never explain the fact that Jesus never appear to you?
You are making an assumption. The Bible tells us we will know His voice when He calls us. The first time I heard Him call out my name in the middle of the night, I knew it was Him. Without faith, it is impossible to understand this. The Bible teaches us to be careful in how we treat strangers because there are times we entertain Angels and are not aware of it.
9. Why would Jesus want you to drink His blood and eat His body?
Purely symbolic. We are one body in the Lord, and His blood was sacrificed for us.
10. Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?
- Not all who profess to be Christians are Christians
- Christians sometimes drift away from God.
- Christians sometimes marry for the wrong reasons. Many Christian marriages were not put together by God.
Your video states that in order to believe in God, you have to create all sorts of strange rationalization and excuses. I say in order to believe, you must have faith and as the Bible says "lean not to your own understanding (Proverbs 3: 5-6)
Your video also states that those of us who believe are delusional. To all Christians reading this: Our God has told us that this type of stuff was coming. We know that it is going to get much worse. I pray that you all will hang onto the Faith and endure until the end. God Bless.
fitt is or was your mother/father atheist?if not were they Christian or something else.
-
Ummmm.....I'm not citing the Jews' assimilation laws as a reason to do anything. YOU ARE! You're the one who was crying "slavery", when the subject was brought up on Israel's laws on how to treat the remnants of their defeated enemies.
What are you talking about? You are the one that brought up assimilation laws.
They don't have to make them slaves. They can change the way they do things.
Again what are you talking about? What's your point? That becuase of their laws and my refusal to justify slavery it's immpossible?
that's stupid. They only need to change the way they do things.
They are primitive people. I'm not surprised.
And, as mentioned earlier, Israel was under no obligation to take care of the Amalekites' children, while the Amalekites were continuing their attempts to destroy the Israelites.
We are you talking about? After the threat is eliminated and all that's left is innocent children.
Once again, you don't know your enemy. And as history has shown, once the Amalekites' numbers were replenished, they resumed their attacks on Israel. Don't you think after some 300 years plus, the Israelites tried to "change the cycle"? At some point, you make the call that enough is enough and 300 years is more than enough time to "change the cycle".
No not at all. In fact I'm willing to bet that a primitive peoples who still bought and sold slaves and killed children never did much to change the cycle. Even then, every time they commit their adult genocide, the slate is wiped clean with the children.
The simple fact is that, the AMALEKITES THEMSELVES had no intentions of changing the cycle.
How could they have any intention of changing a cycle when the adults are dead?
And watching your people get assaulted and, at certain points, nearly being driven into starvation, simply because you're worried about their kids, is utterly preposterous.
I'm not suggesting they don't do anything about it. I'm only saying murdering children and committing genocide isn't the answer.
Aside from that, the order came from God, who, as we established had the power to completely take care of it without murdering children.
The Amalekites had their opportunites to "change the cycle" yet they didn't. Therefore, the edict was made. It was time for them to go
.
The adults had opportunities to change the cycle and failed. The children were not involved so killing them was murder.
Even when Saul botched it up, the Amalekites had YET ANOTHER CHANCE to "change the cycle". Take a wild guess as to what happened. Look at the book of Esther. Of course, this woman became known as the courageous soul who helped save her people from doom, at the hand of Haman who was (you guessed it)......AN AMALEKITE.
Once again, confusing innocent children with guilty adults
As for the Amalekites who did defect, what do think happened to them at the hands of their fellow countrymen, when they resumed their attacks on Israel? They met the sword, just as the Israelites did. Letting your people suffer for thousands of years on end, because of the "morals you have", suggests that your priorities are a bit off.
Not at all. Killing children for what they might do is wrong. It is MURDER. Your morals as we had also established put you on the potentially dangerous list.
I will try for peace and reconciliation as well. But, after a reasonable amount of time (and 300 years is more than reasonable for me), when an enemy has made it clear that he and his people will not rest until he destroys me and my people, all bets are off. As stated earlier, if I have to destroy all of them to keep them from destroy all of me and my people, so be it.
Personally i think the whole 300 years is more revisionist history to justify their act of genocide. But whatever, even then, it doesn't justify murder.
And to think, with the power of God, that's the best he could come up with? Commit genocide? lol
-
fitt is or was your mother/father atheist?if not were they Christian or something else.
Both of my parents are deceased. My parents divorced when I was about nine years old, and I remained with my father. I would say that my mother later became a non-committed Christian. I state it this way because (from what I could tell) her life did not reflect that of a person who dedicated herself to Christ. She was not an influence on me because I didn't have very much contact with her. As for my father, if you were to ask him if he believed in God, he would say yes and he did own a Bible (though I never saw him read it). However, like my mother, he did not live his life as such. Not once in my life did he offer any religious advice and/or guidance. I can say that with absolute certainty. If you are trying to ascertain where I developed my way of thinking, I can tell you it is not that simple. I am not a religious person in the same sense most Christian people are. Most Christians are looking for some rules, and in many cases, ma-made protocols, to guide their lives. Christ means so much more to us than that.
-
As I have said many times before, it is all about faith. My Faith is the result of a combination of many things. As a child, I was not taught any religious beliefs. My mother took me took church only once (around the age of seven or eight). Though I was never taught or read the Bible, things were revealed to me. When I was 13, I had a discussion with a Minister, who also has a Ph.D in theology. I will not bore you with details of our coversation, but he asked me many times, "how could you possibly know that?" I do not say these things to be boastful in any manner, but rather show that I am living proof of God's Truth. I believe that God has had mercy on me long before I accepted Him. I have seen miracles. You have called me crazy (nut-case...or something like that), but I could tell you things that I have witnessed that you, and most people, would not believe. I have tried running away from God, but because He knows my heart, He has had mercy on me. You are correct in that there are thousands of other gods. Some are man-made and many are really gods...so to speak. This is why our Father says not to put any other god before Him. If you truly want to know if my God is real, put away all of your doubt and open your heart, mind and soul to Him. I am not suggesting that you follow some TV Evangelist or even a local minister. I suggesting that go straight to Him. If He is real, and you are sincere, then change will happen. If He is not real, what do you have to lose? Believe it or not, I have actually been praying for you. I understand that you may not want that or could care less, but as I have said to you before, I am not your enemy. I do not have any agendas. I only want that the Will of God be done.
god as you see him does not exist...your life is a sham.
-
god as you see him does not exist...your life is a sham.
How is his life a sham if he believes in something that can be proved yet?
-
god as you see him does not exist...your life is a sham.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I respect that, but you should have all of the facts when forming an opinion.
You say that my life is a sham. From a religious point of view, I am happy with the path I have chosen. I believe, without doubt, in my God. From the world's perspective, I have friends and family who love me, I am extremely good health, I enjoy my work (and the six figure plus salary). I am a happy man. When I have trails and tribulations, I turn to my God for comfort. I say these things not to be boastful, but rather to give you all of the facts. Do you really call that a sham?
-
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I respect that, but you should have all of the facts when forming an opinion.
You say that my life is a sham. From a religious point of view, I am happy with the path I have chosen. I believe, without doubt, in my God. From the world's perspective, I have friends and family who love me, I am extremely good health, I enjoy my work (and the six figure plus salary). I am a happy man. When I have trails and tribulations, I turn to my God for comfort. I say these things not to be boastful, but rather to give you all of the facts. Do you really call that a sham?
faith driven meltdown
-
faith driven meltdown
LOL...okay, you win.
-
LOL...okay, you win.
your kindness has guilted me...
as you can guess im just being an ass. doesn't matter what u believe in.. keep your shit going strong :)
-
your kindness has guilted me...
You win again! :D
-
What are you talking about? You are the one that brought up assimilation laws.
They don't have to make them slaves. They can change the way they do things.
Again what are you talking about? What's your point? That becuase of their laws and my refusal to justify slavery it's immpossible?
that's stupid. They only need to change the way they do things.
So, Israel is supposed to completely change their government and their social structure to accomodate the children of a bunch of people, that have been attacking and assaulting them for over three centuries. That is utterly ridiculous!!!!
You're the one that kept complaining that the Israelites should have assimilated the Amalekite children. As I've stated, were that to have occured, it would have been under the same rules as it was with the remnants of Israel's other enemies. And, it was those rules that you kept howling about "slavery".
Therefore, since you don't like Israel's "slavery" rules, the lone option left is DEATH for the Amalekite children.
They are primitive people. I'm not surprised.
They're no more primitive than you or me.
We are you talking about? After the threat is eliminated and all that's left is innocent children.
How do you think that the Amalekites continued to attack Israel over the centuries? Those "innocent children" grew up and followed right in the footsteps of the ancestors.
Beach Bum made the point, regarding his friend who was stationed in the Middle East, that their children are taught the ways of warfare and to continue the fight against their enemies, should their fathers fall. If that happens TODAY (in the 21st century A.D.), don't you think that such would be the case in 9th/10th century B.C.?
No not at all. In fact I'm willing to bet that a primitive peoples who still bought and sold slaves and killed children never did much to change the cycle. Even then, every time they commit their adult genocide, the slate is wiped clean with the children.
Wrong!! And the reason is as mentioned beforehand.
How could they have any intention of changing a cycle when the adults are dead?
I'm not suggesting they don't do anything about it. I'm only saying murdering children and committing genocide isn't the answer.
Aside from that, the order came from God, who, as we established had the power to completely take care of it without murdering children.
That is predicated on the Amalekites' repentance, which they did not do. And the Amalekites were fully aware that, if they did not change their ways, they and their children would be destroyed as a result.
They chose to continue assaulting Israel and they paid the price for it, period.
The adults had opportunities to change the cycle and failed. The children were not involved so killing them was murder.
Once again, confusing innocent children with guilty adults
I'm confusing nothing of the sort. The children are part of the "collateral damage".
Not at all. Killing children for what they might do is wrong. It is MURDER. Your morals as we had also established put you on the potentially dangerous list.
They do nothing of the sort, not any more so that yours do. Your morals endanger your own people, because you would put their well-being (and their very lives) as risk, being ridiculously concerned about the welfare of the enemy's offspring, especially given the history of that enemy's children growing up and following in their forefathers' footsteps.
Personally i think the whole 300 years is more revisionist history to justify their act of genocide. But whatever, even then, it doesn't justify murder.
If this were an act of "genocide", the Israelites would have destroyed the Amalekites from the get-go, after that initial attack during the transit from Egypt. That didn't happen. They defeated the Amalekites and went on their way. Of course, the Amalekites came right back and attacked them again.
As Loco indicated, from the time of Moses and Joshua, to the time of Saul and David, and even to the time of Esther and Hezekiah, we see the Amalekites persecuting the Israelites, in one form or another.
In other words (though that wasn't the plan after Saul), the Israelites tried your wacky idea. They spared a relative handful of the Amalekites and gave them opportunities to "change the cycle". The end result was that, at certain points, they were nearly driven into starvation.
Again, at some point, you have to make the call that enough is enough. Exposing your people to the repeated attacks of an unrepentant enemy is downright foolish.
And to think, with the power of God, that's the best he could come up with? Commit genocide? lol
The best He could "come up with" was sparing the Amalekites....UPON THEIR REPENTANCE and making peace with Israel. But once agian, the Amalekites did not cease. And per the 2nd commandment, they were cursed for generations to come. The sins of the Amalekites brought consequences which they and their descendants suffered.
-
So, Israel is supposed to completely change their government and their social structure to accomodate the children of a bunch of people, that have been attacking and assaulting them for over three centuries. That is utterly ridiculous!!!!
Not at all especially since what ever they have been doing for 300 in dealing with it hasn't obviously worked. Changing the way they handle this issue is paramount and worth saving innocent children.
You're the one that kept complaining that the Israelites should have assimilated the Amalekite children. As I've stated, were that to have occured, it would have been under the same rules as it was with the remnants of Israel's other enemies. And, it was those rules that you kept howling about "slavery".
Therefore, since you don't like Israel's "slavery" rules, the lone option left is DEATH for the Amalekite children.
You still haven't explained why it "has" to be under those rules.
Anytime you are ready.
They're no more primitive than you or me.
Genocide is renounced by these mordern day primitive people along with killing innocent children.
How do you think that the Amalekites continued to attack Israel over the centuries? Those "innocent children" grew up and followed right in the footsteps of the ancestors.
But at the time, they are still innocent children. You don;t kill someone for something they might do. People, especially children are not guilty until proven innocent.
Beach Bum made the point, regarding his friend who was stationed in the Middle East, that their children are taught the ways of warfare and to continue the fight against their enemies, should their fathers fall. If that happens TODAY (in the 21st century A.D.), don't you think that such would be the case in 9th/10th century B.C.?
I'm sure it would. Doesn't change the evil act when a 3 year old child is murdered because he was taught to hate Jews. Killing and hatred is not something people are born to do automatically. they can be re-taught. Murdering them is certainly not the answer. especially when you have the power of God.
Wrong!! And the reason is as mentioned beforehand.
I'm sure they did somethings, but not everything.
That is predicated on the Amalekites' repentance, which they did not do. And the Amalekites were fully aware that, if they did not change their ways, they and their children would be destroyed as a result.
They chose to continue assaulting Israel and they paid the price for it, period.
So what? the children didn't choose that. Killing them is murder. the children didn't attack israel, the parents did. the parents are dead. all you have is children and infants. Big threat.
I'm confusing nothing of the sort. The children are part of the "collateral damage".
The children were murdered because they weren't part of the battle. The swords would reach them after they went through the adults. lol. They are defenseless innocent children murdered by god as told in the OT after the Amalekites adults were dead. Hence: MURDER.
They do nothing of the sort, not any more so that yours do. Your morals endanger your own people, because you would put their well-being (and their very lives) as risk, being ridiculously concerned about the welfare of the enemy's offspring, especially given the history of that enemy's children growing up and following in their forefathers' footsteps.
Being concerned about innocent children being murdered because of what they might do is ridiculous? And you question my morals? but then, hate to bring this up all the time, but you seem to make it apply so well; you were the one who said you'd kill a child on god's orders, so i'm not so surprised you say that.
If this were an act of "genocide", the Israelites would have destroyed the Amalekites from the get-go, after that initial attack during the transit from Egypt. That didn't happen. They defeated the Amalekites and went on their way. Of course, the Amalekites came right back and attacked them again.
Not according to the Organization that defines genocide and the definition of genocide.
As Loco indicated, from the time of Moses and Joshua, to the time of Saul and David, and even to the time of Esther and Hezekiah, we see the Amalekites persecuting the Israelites, in one form or another.
In other words (though that wasn't the plan after Saul), the Israelites tried your wacky idea. They spared a relative handful of the Amalekites and gave them opportunities to "change the cycle". The end result was that, at certain points, they were nearly driven into starvation.
it doesn't matter how long they attack them. You can't confuse a history of a people's with the innocence of a child.
Again, at some point, you have to make the call that enough is enough. Exposing your people to the repeated attacks of an unrepentant enemy is downright foolish.
There are 2 avenues here:
1. What the Jews did. Which as i said, I'm willing to bet they didn't do everything they could.
2. What god did with his power.
Both of which ended in Murder when it could have been avoided.
-
Not at all especially since what ever they have been doing for 300 in dealing with it hasn't obviously worked. Changing the way they handle this issue is paramount and worth saving innocent children.
My point exactly!!! Sparing the Amalekites didn’t work, as they kept up their attacks on Israel when their numbers replenished. And, since they had no intentions on making any peace or truce, the Israelites are under no obligation to take care of their offspring.
You still haven't explained why it "has" to be under those rules.
Anytime you are ready.
Nor have you explained why Israel (or any other society, for that matter) needs to change their social structure to accomodate the children of an unrepentant enemy, other than the fact that you don't like it.
Anytime you are ready.
Genocide is renounced by these mordern day primitive people along with killing innocent children.
Yet, modern day primitive people have done just that, at least with the killing of innocent children. It's simply become less personal with the advent of modern weapons.
But at the time, they are still innocent children. You don;t kill someone for something they might do. People, especially children are not guilty until proven innocent.
But, those people will suffer nonetheless, due to the actions of their leaders and those in higher authority. That is how it works, both then and now. This is why it is IMPERATIVE that those in positions of power do what is right. Otherwise, the consequences for their ill deeds will not only affect them, it will adversely impact all under their authority.
I'm sure it would. Doesn't change the evil act when a 3 year old child is murdered because he was taught to hate Jews. Killing and hatred is not something people are born to do automatically. they can be re-taught. Murdering them is certainly not the answer. especially when you have the power of God.
God is not obligated to save anyone, who will not repent of their actions. And as His 2nd commandment indicates, the punishment of those who commit evil can (and often does) stretch to the 3rd and 4th generation. Whether you like it or not, there are certain sins that, if committed, could destroy not just you but your entire family.
I'm sure they did somethings, but not everything.
So what? the children didn't choose that. Killing them is murder. the children didn't attack israel, the parents did. the parents are dead. all you have is children and infants. Big threat.
The children were murdered because they weren't part of the battle. The swords would reach them after they went through the adults. lol. They are defenseless innocent children murdered by god as told in the OT after the Amalekites adults were dead. Hence: MURDER.
Being concerned about innocent children being murdered because of what they might do is ridiculous? And you question my morals? but then, hate to bring this up all the time, but you seem to make it apply so well; you were the one who said you'd kill a child on god's orders, so i'm not so surprised you say that.
Nor am I surprised to hear you say that you would foolishly put your own people's lives (children and all) at stake, for centuries/millenia on end, out of blind sympathy for the children of an unrepentant enemy (one who has made it abundantly clear, that their objective is to destroy you and that they will do such, when they get the means).
That is why I question your morals, continuing to let YOUR children die, worried about those of your enemies.
Not according to the Organization that defines genocide and the definition of genocide.
Notwithstanding the fact that this organizaiton's definition is utterly worthless to a soceity several centuries prior to it, this was not a case of genocide, anyway.
it doesn't matter how long they attack them. You can't confuse a history of a people's with the innocence of a child.
On the contrary, it does.
Israel's top concern is NOT the Amalekites' children. Of course, it'd be awfully difficult to support them, especially considering that their dear old dads scorched Israel's crops, making it difficult for Israel to feed its own children, much less those of the people responsible for nearly driving them into starvation in the first place.
There are 2 avenues here:
1. What the Jews did. Which as i said, I'm willing to bet they didn't do everything they could.
2. What god did with his power.
Both of which ended in Murder when it could have been avoided.
In no way, shape, or form, is Israel obligated to overextend itself to help an enemy, bent on their utter demise.
The only way Amalek's fate gets avoided is if, AND ONLY IF, the Amalekites repent and make peace with Israel, which they clearly did not. They had centuries to do that; they chose instead to continue their persecution of Israel. And, since their end-goal was Israel's destruction, the judgment came that their utter destruction was to occur.
-
My point exactly!!! Sparing the Amalekites didn’t work, as they kept up their attacks on Israel when their numbers replenished. And, since they had no intentions on making any peace or truce, the Israelites are under no obligation to take care of their offspring.
They have every obligation since they murdered all the women and elderly who would have taken care of them. which they didn't need to do either and still qualifies as murder.
Nor have you explained why Israel (or any other society, for that matter) needs to change their social structure to accomodate the children of an unrepentant enemy, other than the fact that you don't like it.
Anytime you are ready.
Governments that last from time to time make changes. Our own government has adjusted itself many times. Even on the constitutional level as we have amended the BOR some 17 times. We make mistakes and we try fix them.
Anytime you are ready to explain to me why they couldn't change in order to prevent more bloodshed and murder.
Yet, modern day primitive people have done just that, at least with the killing of innocent children. It's simply become less personal with the advent of modern weapons.
Not true because the modern day equivalent of what the Jews did would be (not in size or numbers) like a company of US soldiers defeating dug in taliban units, killing every one of them and then proceeding to a village and killing every elderly, every woman, and every child. We don't that. That's cold blooded murder. And we are not engaged in Genocide there. The Jews were.
But, those people will suffer nonetheless, due to the actions of their leaders and those in higher authority. That is how it works, both then and now. This is why it is IMPERATIVE that those in positions of power do what is right. Otherwise, the consequences for their ill deeds will not only affect them, it will adversely impact all under their authority.
They will only suffer because some ancient barbaric primitive society chooses to make them suffer. The choice to kill innocent children lays squarely on those ancient Jews.
God is not obligated to save anyone, who will not repent of their actions. And as His 2nd commandment indicates, the punishment of those who commit evil can (and often does) stretch to the 3rd and 4th generation. Whether you like it or not, there are certain sins that, if committed, could destroy not just you but your entire family.
God actually, in this case faulted in 2 areas. First he orders the murder of innocent women and children. And then he order men to carry out this heinous crime for ever damaging those men who shoved spears in the bellies of helpless innocent children.
Nor am I surprised to hear you say that you would foolishly put your own people's lives (children and all) at stake, for centuries/millenia on end, out of blind sympathy for the children of an unrepentant enemy (one who has made it abundantly clear, that their objective is to destroy you and that they will do such, when they get the means).
That is why I question your morals, continuing to let YOUR children die, worried about those of your enemies.
My morals don't allow me to kill an innocent child. I can't live in the past and I cannot live in the future. NOTHING can prove that all those children will grow up to attack Israel regardless of how many times other generations have. At that point those children are innocent and it is evil to murder them. If god was that concerned about he could have done something to prevent it. But this has nothing to do with God. It has everything to do with the barbaric times this was written in.
Notwithstanding the fact that this organizaiton's definition is utterly worthless to a soceity several centuries prior to it, this was not a case of genocide, anyway.
It fits the definition exactly. Doesn't matter if a definition of this time of barbaric mass murder was founded after the fact. The Jews committed genocide. It's not my definition. I didn't write it.
On the contrary, it does.
Israel's top concern is NOT the Amalekites' children. Of course, it'd be awfully difficult to support them, especially considering that their dear old dads scorched Israel's crops, making it difficult for Israel to feed its own children, much less those of the people responsible for nearly driving them into starvation in the first place.
The people "responsible" are dead. The people who could help feed these innocent children are those adults that weren't in the army or remain. Or god could take of it many different ways.
In no way, shape, or form, is Israel obligated to overextend itself to help an enemy, bent on their utter demise.
Innocent children is no one's enemy except the foolish.
The only way Amalek's fate gets avoided is if, AND ONLY IF, the Amalekites repent and make peace with Israel, which they clearly did not. They had centuries to do that; they chose instead to continue their persecution of Israel. And, since their end-goal was Israel's destruction, the judgment came that their utter destruction was to occur.
I think it would have been very easy to get children and infants to repent. Unless of course Israels destruction is hard wired into their genes. lol
-
-
They have every obligation since they murdered all the women and elderly who would have taken care of them. which they didn't need to do either and still qualifies as murder.
No, they don't. Their obligation is to the safety and defense of their own people and to keep the Amalekites from harming them. If the Amalekites don't wish to make peace, Israel is under no requirement to care for their children, whatsoever.
Furthermore, your claim makes even less sense. As stated earlier, the women and elderly would have been sitting ducks for another group of Amalekite foes (and they had quite a few of them).
Governments that last from time to time make changes. Our own government has adjusted itself many times. Even on the constitutional level as we have amended the BOR some 17 times. We make mistakes and we try fix them.
Unfortunately, the Amalekites didn't. And, no matter how Israel's assimilation laws were, the Amalekites CONTINUED to attack their people, nearly driving them to starvation, on a least two occasions.
Anytime you are ready to explain to me why they couldn't change in order to prevent more bloodshed and murder.
Anytime you are ready to explain to me why anyone needs to overhaul their government or social structure to appease or accomodate an enemy hell-bent on destroying them.
Not true because the modern day equivalent of what the Jews did would be (not in size or numbers) like a company of US soldiers defeating dug in taliban units, killing every one of them and then proceeding to a village and killing every elderly, every woman, and every child. We don't that. That's cold blooded murder. And we are not engaged in Genocide there. The Jews were.
They will only suffer because some ancient barbaric primitive society chooses to make them suffer. The choice to kill innocent children lays squarely on those ancient Jews.
What happens to those children is solely the fault of the continued actions of their ancestors, especially when they've had centuries to end the conflict. And whether they're left to starve to death or they meet the sword, their fate is tied to that of their unrepentant forefathers.
God actually, in this case faulted in 2 areas. First he orders the murder of innocent women and children. And then he order men to carry out this heinous crime for ever damaging those men who shoved spears in the bellies of helpless innocent children.
Last time I checked, HE, not you, determined who's innocent and who's guilty and to what degree punishment is to be dealt. Again, all the Amalekites had to do was cease and desist (and perhaps make some restitutions). Instead, they choose to pester Israel. So, the judgment was made.
My morals don't allow me to kill an innocent child. I can't live in the past and I cannot live in the future. NOTHING can prove that all those children will grow up to attack Israel regardless of how many times other generations have. At that point those children are innocent and it is evil to murder them. If god was that concerned about he could have done something to prevent it. But this has nothing to do with God. It has everything to do with the barbaric times this was written in.
This has everything to do with God. As stated earlier, there comes a point where enough is enough. Endangering a people (especially God's chosen people) for centuries on end, based on utter blind and foolish sympathy for an unrepentant enemy make your morals questionable, with regards to the safety and security of those you are expected to protect and defend.
For all of your complaining, you erroneously the blame everywhere but where it belongs.....ON THE AMALEKITES. God gives people the chance to repent and change their ways. The Amalekites didn't take any of the chances given them. Therefore, they are subject to God's judgment.
It fits the definition exactly. Doesn't matter if a definition of this time of barbaric mass murder was founded after the fact. The Jews committed genocide. It's not my definition. I didn't write it.
No, they did not. I've seen the definition, too (I posted it, remember). And what happened to the Amalekites doesn't fit the bill.
The people "responsible" are dead. The people who could help feed these innocent children are those adults that weren't in the army or remain. Or god could take of it many different ways.
None of which matters, if the Amalekites don't repent, which they didn't. And their foolish decision brought death upon themselves and their children.
Innocent children is no one's enemy except the foolish.
I think it would have been very easy to get children and infants to repent. Unless of course Israels destruction is hard wired into their genes. lol
The Israelites were no more obligated to care for the Amalekites' children than your boss would be required to feed your wife and kids, if he fired you for disciplinary reasons.
-
Man, these things just go on and on and on.... ;D
No, they don't. Their obligation is to the safety and defense of their own people and to keep the Amalekites from harming them. If the Amalekites don't wish to make peace, Israel is under no requirement to care for their children, whatsoever.
If they kill all the women that would take care of them they are guilty of war crimes/murder and are obligated to care for those children.
Furthermore, your claim makes even less sense. As stated earlier, the women and elderly would have been sitting ducks for another group of Amalekite foes (and they had quite a few of them).
Kill them so they won't be killed by someone else? I seem to remember a south park episode poking fun of that logic.
Unfortunately, the Amalekites didn't. And, no matter how Israel's assimilation laws were, the Amalekites CONTINUED to attack their people, nearly driving them to starvation, on a least two occasions.
And what does that have to do with the newly orphaned baby girl who just got disemboweled by a soldier?
Anytime you are ready to explain to me why anyone needs to overhaul their government or social structure to appease or accomodate an enemy hell-bent on destroying them.
No need to overhaul the government or change the social structure. Do we overhaul our government every time we make a change?
And how are these children hell bent their destruction? Are their DNA altered to make them grow up wanting to do that?
Any time you are ready to answer those 3 questions.
My answer to your question is that over hauling the government isn't needed. A few simple changes designed to prevent murder is needed.
What happens to those children is solely the fault of the continued actions of their ancestors, especially when they've had centuries to end the conflict. And whether they're left to starve to death or they meet the sword, their fate is tied to that of their unrepentant forefathers.
No their fate is tied to those standing before them who have killed their parents, mothers and caretakers.
The amalikites leadership and soldier's fate was sealed by their decision to continue war with Israel.
Just as it is today. We will not go in a murder women and children after the fact/battle. The jews did.
Last time I checked, HE, not you, determined who's innocent and who's guilty and to what degree punishment is to be dealt. Again, all the Amalekites had to do was cease and desist (and perhaps make some restitutions). Instead, they choose to pester Israel. So, the judgment was made.
Yes the Amalekite adults made bad choices. So did the Jews when they murdered innocent children.
This has everything to do with God. As stated earlier, there comes a point where enough is enough. Endangering a people (especially God's chosen people) for centuries on end, based on utter blind and foolish sympathy for an unrepentant enemy make your morals questionable, with regards to the safety and security of those you are expected to protect and defend.
When have i ever said the Jews shouldn't have defended themselves? They should have and did. But they also committed murder by killing children. There was no guarantee those children were going to attack Israel when they grew up.
For all of your complaining, you erroneously the blame everywhere but where it belongs.....ON THE AMALEKITES. God gives people the chance to repent and change their ways. The Amalekites didn't take any of the chances given them. Therefore, they are subject to God's judgment.
No. Each and every adult or person above the age of consent made a choice. Those that chose to attack and murder innocent jews were punished. I don't know why you keep coming back to that. I agree with you there. We are in agreement. ;D
No, they did not. I've seen the definition, too (I posted it, remember). And what happened to the Amalekites doesn't fit the bill.
No, you ignored the definition, i was the one who posted it. And it fit. If it fits, you cannot acquit. :D
None of which matters, if the Amalekites don't repent, which they didn't. And their foolish decision brought death upon themselves and their children.
There decision force death upon themselves, Death came to their children by genociding murdering jews after the fact.
The Israelites were no more obligated to care for the Amalekites' children than your boss would be required to feed your wife and kids, if he fired you for disciplinary reasons.
My boss didn't kill me. I was still there to take care of them by finding another job. ;)
-