Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Butterbean on June 07, 2007, 06:40:14 AM
-
(Living Waters Publications www.christiananswers.net):
Why the Atheist doesn't exist
by Ray Comfort
There can be no such thing as an atheist. This is why: Let's imagine that you are a professing atheist. Here are two questions for you to answer: First, do you know the combined weight of all the sand on all the beaches of Hawaii? We can safely assume that you don't. This brings us to the second question: Do you know how many hairs are on the back of a fully-grown male Tibetan yak? Probably not. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that there are some things that you don't know. It is important to ask these questions because there are some people who think they know everything.
Let's say that you know an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. To know 100 percent, you would have to know everything. There wouldn't be a rock in the universe that you would not be intimately familiar with, or a grain of sand that you would not be aware of. You would know everything that has happened in history, from that which is common knowledge to the minor details of the secret love life of Napoleon's great-grandmother's black cat's fleas. You would know every hair of every head, and every thought of every heart. All history would be laid out before you, because you would be omniscient (all-knowing).
Bear in mind that one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, Thomas Edison, said, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Let me repeat: Let's say that you have an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God? If you are reasonable, you will be forced to admit that it is possible. Somewhere, in the knowledge you haven't yet discovered, there could be enough evidence to prove that God does exist.
Let's look at the same thought from another angle. If I were to make an absolute statement such as, "There is no gold in China," what is needed for that statement to be proven true? I need absolute or total knowledge. I need to have information that there is no gold in any rock, in any river, in the ground, in any store, in any ring, or in any mouth (gold filling) in China. If there is one speck of gold in China, then my statement is false and I have no basis for it. I need absolute knowledge before I can make an absolute statement of that nature. Conversely, for me to say, "There is gold in China," I don't need to have all knowledge. I just need to have seen a speck of gold in the country, and the statement is then true.
To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe. No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this assertion.
If you insist upon disbelief in God, what you must say is, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God." Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don't know if God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be an atheist. The only true qualifier for the title is the One who has absolute knowledge, and why on earth would God want to deny His own existence?
The professing atheist is what is commonly known as an "agnostic" - one who claims he "doesn't know" if God exists. It is interesting to note that the Latin equivalent for the Greek word is "ignoramus." The Bible tells us that this ignorance is "willful" (Psalm 10:4). It's not that a person can't find God, but that he won't. It has been rightly said that the "atheist" can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman. He knows that if he admits that there is a God, he is admitting that he is ultimately responsible to Him. This is not a pleasant thought for some.
It is said that Mussolini (the Italian dictator), once stood on a pinnacle and cried, "God, if you are there, strike me dead!" When God didn't immediately bow to his dictates, Mussolini then concluded that there was no God. However, his prayer was answered some time later.
Excerpted from God Doesn't Believe in Atheists by Ray Comfort
-
lol, ok fist off nice spin on the logic and critical thinking use i philosphy, in which the weakest argument is most often times the strongest as it has less things to prove in order to be correct. The argument could just as easily be flipped against nonathiests. There are different types of athiests, so for him to say that there is no such thing as atheists is an absolute statement. So to his own effect he contradicts himself. I grew up Catholic, but am now more spiritual than religous. My own reasons and beliefs as i have knwn many people of other reliions and coupled wiht my own reasoning and logic. Although if you skim across the surface of this article, it sounds like a good argumet, barely scratch at it and you find that the argument doesn't stand on its own merits. IMO
-
Weak arguement created by those with weak minds who chose to believe in a religious sect just because it's easy and makes *some* sense part of the time.
-
Psalm 14:1
The fool has said in his heart,“There is no God.”...
1 Corinthians 12:3
Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.
Romans 1:28
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient...
2 Corinthians 4:4
In their case (Atheist) the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Bottom line one can only believe if God (The Holy Spirit) has given them the ability to believe, apart from that we are spiritually dead! Anyone who does not believe in God is spiritually dead!
-
Psalm 14:1
The fool has said in his heart,“There is no God.”...
1 Corinthians 12:3
Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.
Romans 1:28
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient...
2 Corinthians 4:4
In their case (Atheist) the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Bottom line one can only believe if God (The Holy Spirit) has given them the ability to believe, apart from that we are spiritually dead! Anyone who does not believe in God is spiritually dead!
Perhaps dead isn't the right word.......dormant might be better as people who are atheists find god all the time......especially in a fox hole.
-
Perhaps dead isn't the right word.......dormant might be better as people who are atheists find god all the time......especially in a fox hole.
Read Ephesians 2 vss 1 & 5, too much text to post. I do not use my own interpretations when quoting God's word.
-
Read Ephesians 2 vss 1 & 5, too much text to post. I do not use my own interpretations when quoting God's word.
who's interpretation do you use? After all the bible has been edited and interpreted by many.
-
who's interpretation do you use? After all the bible has been edited and interpreted by many.
The Bible's interpretation. You know this is a seperate topic of discussion but yes the bible has been edited by men but overseen by God so the Bible interprets itself. One more thing, interpretation and inspiration are separate actions God inspired and moved Holy Men of old... Men have tried to interpret what God has inspired.
I have read many different translations and the all are saying the same thing: which is to say if you compared the different literary translations. Other than that they all say Jesus is God in the flesh, Creator, Redeemer of men and Lord of Lords!
P.S. When I say Bible I mean the 66 books that makes up the Canon of Scripture as we know it, not the Morman Bible, the Apocrpha or the Jehovas Witness' New World Translation.
-
I don't know everything. I do know Santa Claus doesn't exist...even without knowing everything. There IS such a thing as an atheist. ::)
-
The Bible's interpretation. You know this is a seperate topic of discussion but yes the bible has been edited by men but overseen by God so the Bible interprets itself. One more thing, interpretation and inspiration are separate actions God inspired and moved Holy Men of old... Men have tried to interpret what God has inspired.
I have read many different translations and the all are saying the same thing: which is to say if you compared the different literary translations. Other than that they all say Jesus is God in the flesh, Creator, Redeemer of men and Lord of Lords!
P.S. When I say Bible I mean the 66 books that makes up the Canon of Scripture as we know it, not the Morman Bible, the Apocrpha or the Jehovas Witness' New World Translation.
Or so it's believed. But not a fact. The Bible is suspect as the God identified in it is both hypocritical, vengeful, and bi-polar.
-
ignorant argument.
to say that because you dont know everything you cannot form an opinion or have a staunch beleif is ludicris.
the argument can equally be applied to theists, how do they know there is a god for certain? they would have to know everything as well, and if they have this knowledge then they should be able to provide objective proof(of which, there is none)....
most chirstians would be wise to leave the second grade arguments at the door....
like i always say some people dont deserve to be called chirstians, atheists etc because there views have not been studied well....
-
Or so it's believed. But not a fact. The Bible is suspect as the God identified in it is both hypocritical, vengeful, and bi-polar. Can you please provide references to support these attributes?
ignorant argument. I don't know if I would go that far but I would say it's opinionated.
to say that because you dont know everything you cannot form an opinion or have a staunch beleif is ludicris. I would agree with you but I don't think the argument was whether or not the could have "Atheist" could have an opinion, I think Mr. Comfort's emotions may have been mixed in with his opinions because Atheism is a philosophical view point, that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects any sort of theism.
the argument can equally be applied to theists, how do they know there is a god for certain? they would have to know everything as well, and if they have this knowledge then they should be able to provide objective proof (of which, there is none).... No one can prove or disprove God!
most chirstians would be wise to leave the second grade arguments at the door.... This is not called for in my opinion, if you don't want to discuss this that is your prerogative but to demean others for what they want to discuss does not educate or help others about your views.
like i always say some people dont deserve to be called chirstians, atheists etc because there views have not been studied well.... Again Christianity is not deserved or earned God gives this gift freely. Ref- Ephesians 2, 8-9: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God." and "Not by works, so that no one can boast."
What faith do you hold to and/or do you believe in the God of the Bible, i.e. (The God referenced in the Canon of Scripture as we know it?) Can you provide some proof in what you believe?
-
Must i?
Start with Moses and his killing of 3000 men on the orders from God. I'd say this covers the first 2. The third can be the idea that God in heaven is a jealous raging angry god, and once on earth after centuries of ordering the killing of whole towns, of innocent children he preaches tolerance.....lol There's your bi-polar.
A person I respect in this forum said since God created man he can kill them without moral accountability....what do you say? :)
-
Must i?
Start with Moses and his killing of 3000 men on the orders from God. I'd say this covers the first 2. The third can be the idea that God in heaven is a jealous raging angry god, and once on earth after centuries of ordering the killing of whole towns, of innocent children he preaches tolerance.....lol There's your bi-polar. Please cite some references that are biblical and contextually adherent to your point.
It would be nice if you could quote scripture to validate these characteristics in context here.
A person I respect in this forum said since God created man he can kill them without moral accountability....what do you say? :)
I agree but God is accountable to himself and does not kill without purpose, our finite minds can not see God's purposes or what the future holds. Yes this is very frustrating for believers and unbelievers alike. I must remind you of a terrible truth: Romans 9: 15 "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." Actually Rom 9: 15-23 will answer your question of why or how this happens but you really should read Rom 8,9 & 10
-
What faith do you hold to and/or do you believe in the God of the Bible, i.e. (The God referenced in the Canon of Scripture as we know it?) Can you provide some proof in what you believe?
thats the point, no one has proof, so to say there is no such thing as a strong atheist from the argument above is too invalidate a strong theist of sorts..
the argument is either coming from low intelligence or ignorance. i hate when people use half-wit arguments that only preach to the choir.
most christians, ignoramus, meat-bags, atheists and like would be wise to STFU...
i read this shit all the time.
"To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe. No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this assertion."
hmm... well there goes your beleif or assertion that there is a god, mr speaker...
great argument. anymore fallacies you want to display?
i suppose people gave him a standing ovation if he said this at a church.
this argument is weaker then intelligent design......
point out one good argument in his article..
oh jesus
"If you insist upon disbelief in God, what you must say is, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God." Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don't know if God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be an atheist. The only true qualifier for the title is the One who has absolute knowledge, and why on earth would God want to deny His own existence?"
did this guy write the book on fallacies and illogic?
-
"No one can prove or disprove God!"
exactly, no one can prove the negative.
you also cant prove there is a blueman on the moon or fairies in my shit...
so....
you cant hold a beleif about god positive or negative according to this guy, because you lack complete knowledge. also faith is not rational.
-
thats the point, no one has proof, so to say there is no such thing as a strong atheist from the argument above is too invalidate a strong theist of sorts..
So what you are saying is that you are Agnostic?
-
no.
im saying his argument doesnt make any sense whatsoever....
if he has FAITH in a god, that is not the same thing as knowing something. you cant rationally inquire into the existence of god. FAITH is always needed, so to say beleif requires complete knowledge is to make any beleif invalid and FAITH is always needed in the subject of the unknown.
the argument is wasting the paper it was written on.
im a pantheist to a degree.
-
"No one can prove or disprove God!"
exactly, no one can prove the negative.
you also cant prove there is a blueman on the moon or fairies in my shit...
so....
you cant hold a beleif about god positive or negative according to this guy, because you lack complete knowledge. also faith is not rational. I never agreed with what he said I merely stated the reason why many (Athiest, Agnostics and non-Christians) don't believe in a creator, especially the creator revealed in the Bible.
-
no.
im saying his argument doesnt make any sense whatsoever....
if he has FAITH in a god, that is not the same thing as knowing something. you cant rationally inquire into the existence of god. FAITH is always needed, so to say beleif requires complete knowledge is to make any beleif invalid and FAITH is always needed in the subject of the unknown.
the argument is wasting the paper it was written on.
im a pantheist to a degree. If you are Pantheist you do not believe in the God of the bible (The Creator) because the God of the bible declares there are no other gods besides him.
-
ok, the god of the bible doesnt make any logical sense. i perfer to beleive that god(if he exists) would want us to use our logic.
dont understand how the god of the bible makes any sense.
quick question
is the god of the bible eternal?
-
ok, the god of the bible doesnt make any logical sense. i perfer to beleive that god(if he exists) would want us to use our logic. He does he has given us the capability to logically process infomation but the corruption of sin has deminished our minds greatly.
dont understand how the god of the bible makes any sense. We can't in and of ourselves it takes the Holy Spirit to open our hearts and minds to this.
quick question
is the god of the bible eternal? The Alpha and Omega, with out end!
-
Read Ephesians 2 vss 1 & 5, too much text to post. I do not use my own interpretations when quoting God's word.
Hi Hustle Man! Someone on this forum (I think it was loco) told me about biblegateway.com. It's easy to copy and paste scripture from there if you desire.
Ephesians 2 (New International Version)
Ephesians 2
Made Alive in Christ
1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6And God raised etc! :)
-
I just want to point out that opinions are like opinions, everyone has one! I think this topic can spawn great discuss with those that have open minds but leave the opinions at home! If you want your say to be taken seriously include facts and references which usually make for a more informative a vigorous debate. You can point out any issue you have with God and I am sure God has addressed it in the Bible. I could not careless about what a man thinks I need some kind of ref/s!
-
Hi Hustle Man! Someone on this forum (I think it was loco) told me about biblegateway.com. It's easy to copy and paste scripture from there if you desire.
Ephesians 2 (New International Version)
Ephesians 2
Made Alive in Christ
1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6And God raised etc! :)
Yes I always have it open and I always want them to read it for themselves that way their debate is with God not the messenger lol but thanks.
-
if he was eternal how could he create ???.. creation is a temporal event.
please...
christianity is based on pagan myth and borrowed stories, this is fact...
there are also numerous contradictions many on this forum have posted....
also how could god, know everything yet be omibenevolent? wouldnt he know the fate of the individuals before he creates them?
philosophically and omni everything god makes no sense whatsoever..
there are many logical contradictions like the two i posted above..
william lane craig is a theist philosopher(christian), his beleif is that god is temporal, a much more logical conclusion.
-
if he was eternal how could he create ???.. creation is a temporal event.
Hi usmoke! I guess I don't understand what one has to do w/the other here?
christianity is based on pagan myth and borrowed stories, this is fact...
What are your references for this? And why do you accept them as true?
also how could god, know everything yet be omibenevolent? wouldnt he know the fate of the individuals before he creates them?
philosophically and omni everything god makes no sense whatsoever..
I may have missed the post or reference regarding "omnibenevolence." Where are we getting that and what is your definition of that word Usmoke?
-
Please cite some references that are biblical and contextually adherent to your point.
It would be nice if you could quote scripture to validate these characteristics in context here.
Well, Moses did order the death of 3000 people. Do you know what for?
32:19 And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount.
32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour
32:28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.
Then after all that God's blood thirst is not satisfied. So he plaques them and good 'ole Aaron suffers not.
32:35 And the LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not criticizing God. I'm refuting this account of God.
This is not divinity. Whether it's his right or not, moral accountability exist the moment you tell someone they are forbidden to do something. And by his blood thrity example he is a hypocrite.
really, what happened here is Moses used "God" as justification for his actions and history has written it as "God" telling him. Very much like the justification of violence in the name of GOd through out history. Moses should be tried as a war criminal.
-
Atheists means non belief in super natural things and figures.
These creationists are fucking morons. It is pointless to try and reason with them, as doing so gives them very attention they fucking crave.
Keep preaching fallacies.. My favorite one is morals coming from faith.. hahaha what a fucking joke.
-
Well, Moses did order the death of 3000 people. Do you know what for?
Idolatry
Don't get me wrong. I'm not criticizing God. I'm refuting this account of God.
Then why did you say this:
Then after all that God's blood thirst is not satisfied. So he plaques them and good 'ole Aaron suffers not.
Did you mean Moses' blood thirst?
This is not divinity. Whether it's his right or not, moral accountability exist the moment you tell someone they are forbidden to do something. And by his blood thrity example he is a hypocrite.
Are you saying that they had not been told that idolatry was wrong yet and so were therefore not accountable for the sin of worshipping the calf?
-
Idolatry
Exactly.
And why should 3000 children lose their fathers , 3000 wives lose their husbands becuase they got insecure after being freed as slaves and camped at a mountain? (not to mention the people who lost their lives) We all lose our way from time to time and these people had reason too and Aaron even helped them.
Then why did you say this:Did you mean Moses' blood thirst?
The account shows the suffering doesn't stop there. He then plaques the rest of them. This isn't Moses's blood thirst as he is doing it supposedly under "god's orders" . so moses is either a self righteous blood thirsty liar or God is freaking evil. I think Moses was just blood thirsty.
Are you saying that they had not been told that idolatry was wrong yet and so were therefore not accountable for the sin of worshiping the calf?
They certainly are accountable..... and how did they account for it? They lost their lives, children lost their fathers and wives lost their husbands? These "victims" didn't make others suffer, all they did was get insecure and make a calf of gold and for that they are butchered? Aaron, under those orders, should have been killed too.
It's obvious to me this is murder in the name of GOD.
That's why this "bible" isn't the 100% word of God. God is not a hypocrite, unless you identify him in the Bible.
-
Hi usmoke! I guess I don't understand what one has to do w/the other here?
What are your references for this? And why do you accept them as true?
I may have missed the post or reference regarding "omnibenevolence." Where are we getting that and what is your definition of that word Usmoke?
something that is eternal cannot act? action requires time. in eternity time doesnt exist, so actions cannot either. because for an action to occur it has to have a cause, cause is a temporal(time dependent) event.
as for all-loving(only wanting good things) god cannot know the future and create with only good intentions, if he knows the outcome of the individual. That obviously is wanting only good things.... as he knows bad things will happen to the individual..
also god cannot have wants(it implies imperfection), he wants somethin he doesnt have..also doesnt make sense....
i posted some pagan stuff a while back, ill have a look for it. but loco even agreed with me. christmas, the 25th or december, satan claus, the tree, and many stories in the bible are related to precluding pagan texts..
ill see what i can dig up...
i beleive it because its in older pagan scripture..
-
From what i remember, during the council of the Nicea, they were trying to make Christianity attractive to pagans, that's where they came up with things like the communion of saints and Christmas which is the "festival of the Sun God".
-
From what i remember, during the council of the Nicea, they were trying to make Christianity attractive to pagans, that's where they came up with things like the communion of saints and Christmas which is the "festival of the Sun God".
yes, alot of the parables, stories etc are pagan in origin....
-
i posted some pagan stuff a while back, ill have a look for it. but loco even agreed with me. christmas, the 25th or december, satan claus, the tree, and many stories in the bible are related to precluding pagan texts..
usmokepole,
I know that it was a while back and that you probably don't remember very well, but I never agreed that The Bible or that Christianity is based on ancient, pagan religions or myths. I believe without a doubt that the Bible is the word of God and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
I did however agree with you that some of the Christian "Traditions" which you posted are based on ancient, pagan religions and myths, such as Easter eggs, the Christmas tree, etc. And we owe that to the Roman Catholic Church.
-
Exactly.
And why should 3000 children lose their fathers , 3000 wives lose their husbands becuase they got insecure after being freed as slaves and camped at a mountain? (not to mention the people who lost their lives) We all lose our way from time to time and these people had reason too and Aaron even helped them.
The account shows the suffering doesn't stop there. He then plaques the rest of them. This isn't Moses's blood thirst as he is doing it supposedly under "god's orders" . so moses is either a self righteous blood thirsty liar or God is freaking evil. I think Moses was just blood thirsty.
They certainly are accountable..... and how did they account for it? They lost their lives, children lost their fathers and wives lost their husbands? These "victims" didn't make others suffer, all they did was get insecure and make a calf of gold and for that they are butchered? Aaron, under those orders, should have been killed too.
It's obvious to me this is murder in the name of GOD.
That's why this "bible" isn't the 100% word of God. God is not a hypocrite, unless you identify him in the Bible.
OzmO, I do understand where you are coming from and how you feel when you read about "cruelty" in the Bible. I disagree with you of course, but I do understand you. I know that you and I have already discussed this, but I would like to know what your opinion is on capital punishment.
When a judge sentences a criminal to die for his/her crimes, why is the judge not considered a murderer? When the state executes a criminal, why is the state not considered cruel or murderous? Isn't it because the state and the judge are a "higher" authority, which can judge, condemn and execute a criminal? Why would it be any different with God when God is the highest authority over all?
-
yes, alot of the parables, stories etc are pagan in origin....
I think we have digressed from the main point which is; Is there a such thing as an Atheist?
Maybe we should focus on the different positions which are:
Atheist-Hold the position that either affirms the nonexistence of God or rejects any form of theism.
Agnostics-Claim that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of God or gods, therefore they are skeptics.
Christians-Believe in the existence of God and the authority of the
Bible. Most importantly the person and work of Christ.
-
I think we have digressed from the main point which is; Is there a such thing as an Atheist?
Maybe we should focus on the different positions which are:
Atheist-Hold the position that either affirms the nonexistence of God or rejects any form of theism.
Agnostics-Claim that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of God or gods, therefore they are skeptics.
Christians-Believe in the existence of God and the authority of the
Bible. Most importantly the person and work of Christ.
atheists either displace beleif waiting for evidence, or believe there is no god.
christians beleive there is a god.
both require faith, although atheism is more logical if you think about it.
they simply require proof. they also dont beleive in santa claus etc.... because theres no proof.
if there is no such thing as an atheist, then how can there be a theist?
to have the positive beleif that god does exist, would require you absolutely know he exists and would require omiknowledge... which no one has...
so if factual evidence is what you want to base beleifs on, then neither atheists, nor theists can exist.
the question itself is ludicris actually.
-
the article is a good one to spark debate on the nature of beleif systems..
but i feel the argument is extremely weak
-
the article is a good one to spark debate on the nature of beleif systems..
but i feel the argument is extremely weak
Whether the argument is weak or not, there is a creator and I share the biblical
conviction that it is the fool who says there is no God (Ps. 14:1;
53:1).
After all is said and done, the wise of this world will be shown not to be so wise
after all.
-
OzmO, I do understand where you are coming from and how you feel when you read about "cruelty" in the Bible. I disagree with you of course, but I do understand you. I know that you and I have already discussed this, but I would like to know what your opinion is on capital punishment.
When a judge sentences a criminal to die for his/her crimes, why is the judge not considered a murderer? When the state executes a criminal, why is the state not considered cruel or murderous? Isn't it because the state and the judge are a "higher" authority, which can judge, condemn and execute a criminal? Why would it be any different with God when God is the highest authority over all?
hi ya loco! :)
I don't think we can fairly compare a murderer to a person's choice as to how or who to worship. With a murderer you have a unwilling victim. We these people you don't . So to kill them as a result of it right after the issuing of "thou shalt not kill" is a hypocrisy. Not that God is a hypocrite, but he's identified as such in here, becuase it's really a war crime, or murder cover up in the "orders" from GOD.
This is where i have many odds with what God's word is or is not in the Bible. I believe the root to evil or definition is an act that produces an unwilling victim.
Personally, i don't think any person has the right to take another's life. That's how i feel without being in the emotion of it. If someone killed my daughter i would want to take that person's life, even though i believe it's wrong. But that person, should just be cast out of our society.
-
Whether the argument is weak or not, there is a creator and I share the biblical
conviction that it is the fool who says there is no God (Ps. 14:1;
53:1).
After all is said and done, the wise of this world will be shown not to be so wise
after all.
Speaking as a person who has a very strong belief in God..... I see that as the hardest part of proving GOD's existence with the Bible. I have a book that says my socks are God, therefore becuase the book says it is it must be true.
-
Speaking as a person who has a very strong belief in God..... I see that as the hardest part of proving GOD's existence with the Bible. I have a book that says my socks are God, therefore becuase the book says it is it must be true. Sarcastic Christian how nice. :o
Hmmm, I forgive you for the harmless sarcasm. Now on to your comment. Brother you don't have to prove that God exist simply because his title is in a book. When I am finished, tell me if I have replied infutility and remember the book is his WORD and it was left for US (believers) to share what is in it!
Romans 1: 18-23
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, This is for Athiest and the like.
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. All of creation; birds, trees, flowers, etc.
20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. God is immutable
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Ergo Atheists and Agnostics.
22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Pantheism
Now to comment on the book containing the "sock god":I was really taken aback that a fellow believer would say such a thing. The bible is God's word for yesterday and today but only few can hear his call (spiritual call) the only way you can believe in the words of the bible is that God opened your eyes, gave you ears to hear and took out that stoney heart and replaced it with a fleshly one, please be careful mocking God's word, it is a gift to you it's your link to him and this is how he talks to you.
Hebrews 4: 12
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
Hebrews 11: 1-3
1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
This is the proof and it is only received by faith which is also an irrevocable gift (Rom 11:29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.) No, you can't prove the existence of God to anyone who does not have his Holy Spirit so stop trying to do so. We (believers are to share his WORD (the Bible) and the Holy spirit will do the rest.
We are encouraged to use the word or bible (which can also be memorized) when sharing the gospel. See below!
Romans 10:14
How, then, can they (Atheist/ Agnostics) call on the one (God/Jesus) they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? Example; Sharing the word or what is contained in the bible.
HM
-
Exactly.
And why should 3000 children lose their fathers , 3000 wives lose their husbands becuase they got insecure after being freed as slaves and camped at a mountain? (not to mention the people who lost their lives) We all lose our way from time to time and these people had reason too and Aaron even helped them.
The account shows the suffering doesn't stop there. He then plaques the rest of them. This isn't Moses's blood thirst as he is doing it supposedly under "god's orders" . so moses is either a self righteous blood thirsty liar or God is freaking evil. I think Moses was just blood thirsty.
They certainly are accountable..... and how did they account for it? They lost their lives, children lost their fathers and wives lost their husbands? These "victims" didn't make others suffer, all they did was get insecure and make a calf of gold and for that they are butchered? Aaron, under those orders, should have been killed too.
It's obvious to me this is murder in the name of GOD.
That's why this "bible" isn't the 100% word of God. God is not a hypocrite, unless you identify him in the Bible.
If we assume that God was the one that ordered the killing (and not Moses ordering it in God's name only), it shows to me that God takes sin more seriously than we do. They were told prior to Moses coming down w/the tablets not to engage in Idolatry:
Exodus 20:1-5
And God spoke all these words:
"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
"You shall have no other gods before me.
"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them......"
These "victims" didn't make others suffer,
I don't know that we can say that for certain. They are the ones who pushed Aaron to make the idol. I don't know why he wasn't killed right away w/the others though.
-
something that is eternal cannot act? action requires time. in eternity time doesnt exist, so actions cannot either. because for an action to occur it has to have a cause, cause is a temporal(time dependent) event.
I believe that God transcends time and so doesn't need it to do anything.
satan claus,
hehehe
usmokepole,
I did however agree with you that some of the Christian "Traditions" which you posted are based on ancient, pagan religions and myths, such as Easter eggs, the Christmas tree, etc.
agree
-
Hmmm, I forgive you for the harmless sarcasm. Now on to your comment. Brother you don't have to prove that God exist simply because his title is in a book. When I am finished, tell me if I have replied infutility and remember the book is his WORD and it was left for US (believers) to share what is in it!
Romans 1: 18-23
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, This is for Athiest and the like.
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. All of creation; birds, trees, flowers, etc.
20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. God is immutable
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Ergo Atheists and Agnostics.
22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Pantheism
Now to comment on the book containing the "sock god":I was really taken aback that a fellow believer would say such a thing. The bible is God's word for yesterday and today but only few can hear his call (spiritual call) the only way you can believe in the words of the bible is that God opened your eyes, gave you ears to hear and took out that stoney heart and replaced it with a fleshly one, please be careful mocking God's word, it is a gift to you it's your link to him and this is how he talks to you.
Hebrews 4: 12
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
Hebrews 11: 1-3
1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
This is the proof and it is only received by faith which is also an irrevocable gift (Rom 11:29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.) No, you can't prove the existence of God to anyone who does not have his Holy Spirit so stop trying to do so. We (believers are to share his WORD (the Bible) and the Holy spirit will do the rest.
We are encouraged to use the word or bible (which can also be memorized) when sharing the gospel. See below!
Romans 10:14
How, then, can they (Atheist/ Agnostics) call on the one (God/Jesus) they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? Example; Sharing the word or what is contained in the bible.
HM
Hustle Man, I'm pretty sure OzmO is not a "believer" in the way that you're assuming. Pretty sure he's not a Christian....but he believes that a God exists. It may not be the God of the bible though.
OzmO I think you've shared what you believe but could you please briefly do so for me and HM? Thanks OzmO :)
-
Hustle Man, I'm pretty sure OzmO is not a "believer" in the way that you're assuming. Pretty sure he's not a Christian....but he believes that a God exists. It may not be the God of the bible though.
OzmO I think you've shared what you believe but could you please briefly do so for me and HM? Thanks OzmO :)
Yes, I assumed he was a fellow sheep until the sarcastic remark! Then he became suspect to me hence the long refutation.
P.S. OzmO, do you agree with anything that I wrote to you? If not could you identify those points?
-
OzmO, I do understand where you are coming from and how you feel when you read about "cruelty" in the Bible. I disagree with you of course, but I do understand you. I know that you and I have already discussed this, but I would like to know what your opinion is on capital punishment.
When a judge sentences a criminal to die for his/her crimes, why is the judge not considered a murderer? When the state executes a criminal, why is the state not considered cruel or murderous? Isn't it because the state and the judge are a "higher" authority, which can judge, condemn and execute a criminal? Why would it be any different with God when God is the highest authority over all?
Good questions loco. I don't think there is a distinction between our criminal justice system as judge and God as judge. In both instances, the person being punished is aware of the law (or command), willfully breaks the law, is punished, and there are innocent victims that suffer as a result of the punishment (e.g., the perpetrator's family and friends).
-
I wasn't intending to be sarcastic at all. I was only showing the logical difficulty in proving God's existence with the Bible.
Hmmm, I forgive you for the harmless sarcasm. Now on to your comment. Brother you don't have to prove that God exist simply because his title is in a book. When I am finished, tell me if I have replied infutility and remember the book is his WORD and it was left for US (believers) to share what is in it!
This is purely a belief and not based on any fact. When "God" orders the death of 3000 people for losing their way right after he tells them not to murder is hypocracy and shows this God described has issues with anger. That is among many reasons i don't believe the Bible as the 100% WOG. Maybe 50%. but this is a clear case of humans blaming their transgressions on "orders from God" just like Jim Jones and just like David Curesh.
Romans 1: 18-23
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, This is for Athiest and the like.
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. All of creation; birds, trees, flowers, etc.
20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. God is immutable
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Ergo Atheists and Agnostics.
22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Pantheism
you are assuming it applies to atheists when it doesn't directly say so and for atheists, they believe there is no god and are not suppressing the truth they are only saying what they believe. You are indirectly accusing atheists of knowing God exists and trying to suppress his existence. that's the problem with most people...they try and translate too much rather than just look at the literal meaning adding nothing and taking away nothing.
Classic self righteousness run a muck.
However i do agree that a atheist is spiritually dormant. An atheist is potentially the strongest believer in GOD,......IMO.
Now to comment on the book containing the "sock god":I was really taken aback that a fellow believer would say such a thing. The bible is God's word for yesterday and today but only few can hear his call (spiritual call) the only way you can believe in the words of the bible is that God opened your eyes, gave you ears to hear and took out that stoney heart and replaced it with a fleshly one, please be careful mocking God's word, it is a gift to you it's your link to him and this is how he talks to you.
hopefully you understand that i was making a point of logic and not being sarcastic now.
God opened my eyes in a Christian church. In fact God opened my so much i saw just how ridiculous organized religion can be and how it uses FEAR to control and manipulate it's members. And this books of stories (the bible) have been twisted and used over the ages to condemn, destroy, murder, conquer, and justify all acts of evil in the name of God.
God is inside all of us. He's there anytime you call on him whether you believe in him or not doesn't change the fact he's there. He is my confidence, he takes away my fear and lights the way. I try an honer God every moment of the day and by every choice i make. I don't always succeed of course.
Hebrews 4: 12
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
Hebrews 11: 1-3
1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
it really doesn;t matter to me how this creation all happened. What's more important is living with God in yoru heart. So if it was evolution or intelliegent design it doesn't really matter.
This is the proof and it is only received by faith which is also an irrevocable gift (Rom 11:29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.) No, you can't prove the existence of God to anyone who does not have his Holy Spirit so stop trying to do so. We (believers are to share his WORD (the Bible) and the Holy spirit will do the rest.
We are encouraged to use the word or bible (which can also be memorized) when sharing the gospel. See below!
Romans 10:14
How, then, can they (Atheist/ Agnostics) call on the one (God/Jesus) they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? Example; Sharing the word or what is contained in the bible.
These are all great points but again, you are proving it with a book that says it's true.
-
If we assume that God was the one that ordered the killing (and not Moses ordering it in God's name only), it shows to me that God takes sin more seriously than we do. They were told prior to Moses coming down w/the tablets not to engage in Idolatry:
Exodus 20:1-5
And God spoke all these words:
"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
"You shall have no other gods before me.
"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them......"
Yet at the end of the day we have people being punished with their lives for losing their way and their families suffering. The "God" identified seems over sensitive and prone to rage and over-reaction.
Also, i find it funny that Aaron didn't get killed for this, but then again he is Moses's brother.
-
Again! to tell me that God did this because of child sacrifice is ridiculous when you consider the 300 million other people who were all doing as you suggested.
I didn't say that God did it because of child sacrifice. God did it because they built and worshiped the calf. What I was saying is that you can't bring up "religious freedom" into this and start throwing "Buddhists, Muslim, Jews, Hindus," into the discussion because God did condemn human sacrifice and the worship of the calf did involve human sacrifice.
Deuteronomy 12:31
"in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods."
2 Kings 17:14-17
"But they would not listen and were as stiff-necked as their fathers, who did not trust in the LORD their God. 15 They rejected his decrees and the covenant he had made with their fathers and the warnings he had given them. They followed worthless idols and themselves became worthless. They imitated the nations around them although the LORD had ordered them, "Do not do as they do," and they did the things the LORD had forbidden them to do.
They forsook all the commands of the LORD their God and made for themselves two idols cast in the shape of calves, and an Asherah pole. They bowed down to all the starry hosts, and they worshiped Baal. 17 They sacrificed their sons and daughters in the fire."
Deuteronomy 18:9
"Don't you dare sacrifice your son or daughter in the fire"
The people of the united states gave them the authority.
Really? You? You and who else gave the authority to kill a human being for committing a so called "treason"? Who are you and those others to decide what is treason and to decide who committed it and to take their life?
All of which directly produces harm.
So a person who commits treason directly commits murder? They haven't killed anyone, yet they are put to death(murdered?).
As it happens they get punished.
They get killed(murdered?).
by joining an organization in the USA you do not get punished until you commit a crime that produces victims.
OzmO, this has nothing to do with joining an organization. I dropped that one the minute you told me that joining a murderous terrorist group in the US is not a crime. I never said that joining a group is treason. That is exactly why I posted the definition of what is treason in the US.
These people were not doing that. They were following a religion......like Buddists, Muslim, Jews, Hindus, etc.... Are you justified under God's example to kill all of them?
No, not like "Buddhists, Muslim, Jews, Hindus" You are actually insulting all these religions:
Moloch and Malcom are the same deity. Thus, the tabernacle or Sukkoth was understood to be that of Moloch and the star was of Raiphan as at the translation of the LXX or Malcom and Chiun from the Aramaic (cf. Lamsa's translation of the Peshitta). We are dealing with the fertility rites of Moloch and the Raiphan system. This fertility system has underpinned Israelite idolatry from the Exodus, through the kings and at the time of Amos and right after the captivity to the time of the apostles.
The Minotaur is the same being worshipped in the same way as the god Moloch or Malcom. It is the bull cult transferred to the crescent moon and involved human sacrifice (cf. Frazer The Golden Bough , Macmillan Press, 1976 print, iv, pp. 70-75).
The symbolism surrounding this calf system at Sinai, from Sin as progenitor, ties into the earliest and most primitive sacrificial system employing also temple and cult prostitution on a widespread level. This is the reason the revelry was associated with the Golden Calf. By the invocation, Sin as moon-god represented by the calf, the three-fold or triune aspects of he and his offspring were invoked.
The calf was also a symbol of fertility in the nature religions of the ancient Near-East. These symbols were incorporated into the feasts of Israel by Jeroboam as two calves (cf. 1Kings 12:28; Hos. 8:5; fn. to Oxford Annotated Bible RSV, p. 109).
The worship at the tabernacle of Moloch or Chemosh, was prevalent at the time of the Exodus, as we see from the advice of Balaam to the Moabites, to cast a stumbling-block to the children of Israel. The calf-headed Moloch or Malcom and the Minotaur both involved human sacrifice.
http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p222.html
Deuteronomy 12:31
"You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods."
-
So they sacrificed their children in the fire? Who did that?
Sacrifice has been a consistent thing in ancient religions, even with judism and indirectly with Christianity.
I agree with your thoughts on capital punishment being justice. Like i said, when emotions are involved i'd feel different. If i were to review the cases i'd get emotionally involved and want them dead.
But i still, at the core, i don't believe it's right to take another's life no matter what the reason. God will deal with them in the after life.
-
So they sacrificed their children in the fire? Who did that?
Worshipers of false gods, idols such as Baal, etc. Some disobedient people from Israel did too, when they followed these pagan religions.
Sacrifice has been a consistent thing in ancient religions, even with judism and indirectly with Christianity.
Animal sacrifice is part of Judaism, but human sacrifice was never a part of it and God did not approve of it.
There is no human sacrifice in Christianity either, other than Jesus sacrificing himself for us, which comes from the sacrificial lamb in Judaism. But Christian worship does not include animal or human sacrifice.
-
Worshipers of false gods, idols such as Baal, etc. Some disobedient people from Israel did too, when they followed these pagan religions.
Animal sacrifice is part of Judaism, but human sacrifice was never a part of it and God did not approve of it.
But did those people in exodus sacrifice their children? So God killed them for something they hadn't done, but because others had?
That makes no sense.
-
But did those people in exodus sacrifice their children? So God killed them for something they hadn't done, but because others had?
That makes no sense.
I don't know if they did or not. I believe they didn't because they didn't get a chance to before Moses got there in time. But golden calf and bull images were widely worshiped by pagan religions in those days in Egypt and neighboring nations. They required the sacrifice of children in their worship. So those 3000 men either did sacrifice children or were about to. Just because Moses got there in time to stop them doesn't mean that they are off the hook.
Either way, they were put to death mainly for disobeying God by making the idol and worshiping it, human sacrifice or not. But their idol worship does include the sacrifice of children and they also were teaching their children by example to worship idols and to sacrifice children to them.
-
But did those people in exodus sacrifice their children? So God killed them for something they hadn't done, but because others had?
That makes no sense.
Isaiah 55:8
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.
-
I don't know if they did or not. I believe they didn't because they didn't get a chance to before Moses got there in time. But golden calf and bull images were widely worshiped by pagan religions in those days in Egypt and neighboring nations. They required the sacrifice of children in their worship. So those 3000 men either did sacrifice children or were about to. Just because Moses got there in time to stop them doesn't mean that they are off the hook.
Either way, they were put to death mainly for disobeying God by making the idol and worshiping it, human sacrifice or not. But their idol worship does include the sacrifice of children and they also were teaching their children by example to worship idols and to sacrifice children to them.
Yes, i see what you are saying. but we don't punish people for what they might do, we punish them for what they did. that kind of thinking can lead to horrendous acts of violence and suffering.
That's why it doesn't make sense. Perhaps punish them for making a calf, but kill them?
-
Yes, i see what you are saying. but we don't punish people for what they might do, we punish them for what they did. that kind of thinking can lead to horrendous acts of violence and suffering.
That's why it doesn't make sense. Perhaps punish them for making a calf, but kill them?
OzmO, rejoice in the fact that God is patient with this generation (anno domini) because nothing is new under the sun we deserve the same, BUT God has shown mercy on us all! He is giving us space to repent and answer the call!
-
Yes, i see what you are saying. but we don't punish people for what they might do, we punish them for what they did. that kind of thinking can lead to horrendous acts of violence and suffering.
That's why it doesn't make sense. Perhaps punish them for making a calf, but kill them?
And I see what you are saying, but my point with this is that their choice of worship does create an unwilling victim and it is detrimental to society. These were evil men, as you can see, who less than two months after God Himself had saved them through many miracles and God Himself had spoken to them, turned their back on God and deliberately disobeying, fully knowing and fully understanding the consequences of their choice to disobey.
Look at the damage they did. Fast forward into the not so distant future:
2 Kings 17:14-17
"But they would not listen and were as stiff-necked as their fathers, who did not trust in the LORD their God. 15 They rejected his decrees and the covenant he had made with their fathers and the warnings he had given them. They followed worthless idols and themselves became worthless. They imitated the nations around them although the LORD had ordered them, "Do not do as they do," and they did the things the LORD had forbidden them to do.
They forsook all the commands of the LORD their God and made for themselves two idols cast in the shape of calves, and an Asherah pole. They bowed down to all the starry hosts, and they worshiped Baal. 17 They sacrificed their sons and daughters in the fire."
-
And I see what you are saying, but my point with this is that their choice of worship does create an unwilling victim and it is detrimental to society. These were evil men, as you can see, who less than two months after God Himself had saved them through many miracles and God Himself had spoken to them, turned their back on God and deliberately disobeying, fully knowing and fully understanding the consequences of their choice to disobey.
Look at the damage they did. Fast forward into the not so distant future:
2 Kings 17:14-17
"But they would not listen and were as stiff-necked as their fathers, who did not trust in the LORD their God. 15 They rejected his decrees and the covenant he had made with their fathers and the warnings he had given them. They followed worthless idols and themselves became worthless. They imitated the nations around them although the LORD had ordered them, "Do not do as they do," and they did the things the LORD had forbidden them to do.
They forsook all the commands of the LORD their God and made for themselves two idols cast in the shape of calves, and an Asherah pole. They bowed down to all the starry hosts, and they worshiped Baal. 17 They sacrificed their sons and daughters in the fire."
Did they? Did they know they would be summarily murdered and still chose to do it? I agree, they were doing something that did produce victims in light of what was happening, but their deaths were unwarranted. Should we follow the same example with Atheists? with republicans and democrats? With homosexuals? With Muslims? If i fart in a small room with other people there will be victims, but we must put what they did (calf worshipers) in perspective.
Punishing someone for what they might do is wrong. We must allow people the opportunity to make mistakes and in turn learn form them and make the right choices.
Think about it.
-
Did they? Did they know they would be summarily murdered and still chose to do it? I agree, they were doing something that did produce victims in light of what was happening, but their deaths were unwarranted. Should we follow the same example with Atheists? with republicans and democrats? With homosexuals? With Muslims? If i fart in a small room with other people there will be victims, but we must put what they did (calf worshipers) in perspective.
Punishing someone for what they might do is wrong. We must allow people the opportunity to make mistakes and in turn learn form them and make the right choices.
Think about it.
OzmO, remember that these 3000 men heard the voice of God Himself commanding them not to make an idol and not to worship it, or they would be put to death, God told them. They chose to die.
-
OzmO, remember that these 3000 men heard the voice of God Himself commanding them not to make an idol and not to worship it, or they would be put to death, God told them. They chose to die.
No. Why would people do that? They didn't "hear" god say that anyway. there's obviously some part of the story that are being left out or we are not seeing some parts of it.
-
OzmO, rejoice in the fact that God is patient with this generation (anno domini) because nothing is new under the sun we deserve the same, BUT God has shown mercy on us all! He is giving us space to repent and answer the call!
dude you are clearly a gimmick...
your the biggest jeebus freak ive ever seen.
jonny apollo maybe?
-
dude you are clearly a gimmick...
your the biggest jeebus freak ive ever seen.
jonny apollo maybe?
Now that's funny! You must know that God's children are referred to by him as "peculiar people" so thanks for the affirmation.
BTW who is jonny apollo?
-
No. Why would people do that?
I don't know, but based on their situation and their actions, I would say because they were an evil people, not all of Israel, but these men in particular.
They didn't "hear" god say that anyway.
All of Israel at that time did hear God speak. They even said to Moses:
Exodus 20:18-19
18 When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance 19 and said to Moses, "Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die."
Die of fear? I wonder why they were so afraid. Probably because they were so evil that they could not bear the presence of God or the sound of God's voice.
Based on what I know about these 3000 men, I do not believe that what they did was good. That is why I do not defend them and why I do not defend their actions.
there's obviously some part of the story that are being left out or we are not seeing some parts of it.
I don't believe that anything is being left out. But if you really believe that some part of the story is being left out, why do you judge the Bible and why do you judge those of us who believe that the Bible is the word of God? Shouldn't you at least get all the facts and find those parts of the story that you believe are being left out before judging? And if you cannot find those parts of the story that you believe are missing, can you not conclude that you just don't know for sure if this is the word of God, rather than assure us that it isn't?
Like I said, I don't expect to change your mind on this. I'm just explaining why I do not have any problems with God ordering the execution of these 3000 men. They were given much more than you and I have ever been given, yet they insisted on turning their back on God and going back to idol worship which included sacrificing children and doing other detestable things.
-
OzmO, remember that these 3000 men heard the voice of God Himself commanding them not to make an idol and not to worship it, or they would be put to death, God told them. They chose to die.
Ex 32:6 includes ...."Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry."
According to my study bible the Hebrew word for ""to indulge in revelry" suggests sex play. (same word used in Gen 26:8 ) In light of the drinking and possible nakedness (Ex 32:25 kjv; 1 Cor 10: 8) the scene likely became a drunken sex orgy."
So like loco said even if they weren't sacrificing people it's more than them "becoming insecure" and making an idol to worship.
They were told not to do it or die and they did it anyway. If you told your child not to stick beans up his nose or he'd get a spanking...and then he stuck beans up his nose.....do you not give him the spanking?
-
I don't know, but based on their situation and their actions, I would say because they were an evil people, not all of Israel, but these men in particular.
All of Israel at that time did hear God speak. They even said to Moses:
Exodus 20:18-19
18 When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance 19 and said to Moses, "Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die."
Die of fear? I wonder why they were so afraid. Probably because they were so evil that they could not bear the presence of God or the sound of God's voice.
Based on what I know about these 3000 men, I do not believe that what they did was good. That is why I do not defend them and why I do not defend their actions.
I don't believe that anything is being left out. But if you really believe that some part of the story is being left out, why do you judge the Bible and why do you judge those of us who believe that the Bible is the word of God? Shouldn't you at least get all the facts and find those parts of the story that you believe are being left out before judging? And if you cannot find those parts of the story that you believe are missing, can you not conclude that you just don't know for sure if this is the word of God, rather than assure us that it isn't?
Like I said, I don't expect to change your mind on this. I'm just explaining why I do not have any problems with God ordering the execution of these 3000 men. They were given much more than you and I have ever been given, yet they insisted on turning their back on God and going back to idol worship which included sacrificing children and doing other detestable things.
Loco, we are making assumptions about what the people thought here. You don't kill people because they didn't value what you gave them. I see very few justifications for killing. This is far from any. What these did, sex orgies, idol etc.... (all with Aaron's involvement) is something far from being punishable by death. It looks more like Moses had a minor mutiny on his hands and took care of it.......in the name of God.
-
OzmO, rejoice in the fact that God is patient with this generation (anno domini) because nothing is new under the sun we deserve the same, BUT God has shown mercy on us all! He is giving us space to repent and answer the call!
Space to repent? Is this more fear based motivation? Moses killed 3000 people, in God's name as he told everyone God ordered it and saved his brother from the killing. And we should rejoice he's more forgiving? That's twisted. How about God never told Moses that to begin and God is still the same as he has been for eternity, not changing HIS MOOD LIKE MAN DOES.
-
Ex 32:6 includes ...."Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry."
According to my study bible the Hebrew word for ""to indulge in revelry" suggests sex play. (same word used in Gen 26:8 ) In light of the drinking and possible nakedness (Ex 32:25 kjv; 1 Cor 10: 8) the scene likely became a drunken sex orgy."
So like loco said even if they weren't sacrificing people it's more than them "becoming insecure" and making an idol to worship.
They were told not to do it or die and they did it anyway. If you told your child not to stick beans up his nose or he'd get a spanking...and then he stuck beans up his nose.....do you not give him the spanking?
There's a big difference between spanking someone and killing them.
-
Loco, we are making assumptions about what the people thought here. You don't kill people because they didn't value what you gave them. I see very few justifications for killing. This is far from any. What these did, sex orgies, idol etc.... (all with Aaron's involvement) is something far from being punishable by death. It looks more like Moses had a minor mutiny on his hands and took care of it.......in the name of God.
I am not assuming anything. God told them, with a very loud and very clear voice, not to do it. They heard God tell them not to do it, but they did it anyway. That's no assumption. You may disagree with me, but I believe that God gave them what they deserved. We know that their worship includes child sacrifice. That's no assumption.
For example, you don't join a terrorist group to sing songs and dance around. You join a terrorist group to kill innocent people. And if a group of people from your terrorist group get caught, you'll all be executed, whether or not you got a chance to kill an innocent person. Likewise, the worship of the Golden Calf included child sacrifice and many other detestable things, and they were guilty.
By the way, did you know that more the 3000 people worshipped the calf, but God gave them another chance? Those 3000 men even got a second chance from God, God showed them mercy, yet they rejected that chance.
Exodus 32:14
"Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened"
Exodus 32:26
So he[Moses] stood at the entrance to the camp and said, "Whoever is for the LORD, come to me."
See, even then these 3000 had a chance to repent and stand by Moses like the others did, then God would have spared their lives. I'd say, yup, they deserved to die.
-
There's a big difference between spanking someone and killing them.
There is a big difference between sticking beans up your nose and sacrificing children to an idol.
-
I am not assuming anything. God told them, with a very loud and very clear voice, not to do it. They heard God tell them not to do it, but they did it anyway. That's no assumption. You may disagree with me, but I believe that God gave them what they deserved. We know that their worship includes child sacrifice. That's no assumption.
For example, you don't join a terrorist group to sing songs and dance around. You join a terrorist group to kill innocent people. And if a group of people from your terrorist group get caught, you'll all be executed, whether or not you got a chance to kill an innocent person. Likewise, the worship of the Golden Calf included child sacrifice and many other detestable things, and they were guilty.
By the way, did you know that more the 3000 people worshipped the calf, but God gave them another chance? Those 3000 men even got a second chance from God, God showed them mercy, yet they rejected that chance.
Exodus 32:14
"Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened"
Exodus 32:26
So he[Moses] stood at the entrance to the camp and said, "Whoever is for the LORD, come to me."
See, even then these 3000 had a chance to repent and stand by Moses like the others did, then God would have spared their lives. I'd say, yup, they deserved to die.
Yes, you are correct. but in the end, they were killed for not being obedient, not because they harmed a child.
-
There is a big difference between sticking beans up your nose and sacrificing children to an idol.
Again, very correct. Did they sacrifice a child??????????? no.
You are already punishing them for something they didn't do. :(
So I'm going to follow God's example and punish my son today for something he'll surely do sometime. How much sense does that make?
Then I'm going to kill the first practicing Muslim i find.
-
Yes, you are correct. but in the end, they were killed for not being obedient, not because they harmed a child.
You are correct, in the end they were killed for making and worshiping the calf. But the whole story shows that God is good, merciful and just.
God is good and gave them freedom from the Egyptians, gave them bread from heaven when they asked for bread, gave them meat when they asked for meat, gave them water when they asked for water.
God is good and spoke to them when they asked to hear God's voice as a sign.
God is merciful and gave them a second chance even after they had made and worshiped the golden calf.
God was just when He killed them, not only for their disobedience, but also for refusing to repent. God did not kill them for being good boys. These were evil men. Sorry, I will not defend them! If God had not killed them, God would not be just.
-
So I'm going to follow God's example and punish my son today for something he'll surely do sometime. How much sense does that make?
Then I'm going to kill the first practicing Muslim i find.
No and No. Where do you get this from?
-
You are correct, in the end they were killed for making and worshiping the calf. But the whole story shows that God is good, merciful and just.
God is good and gave them freedom from the Egyptians, gave them bread from heaven when they asked for bread, gave them meat when they asked for meat, gave them water when they asked for water.
God is good and spoke to them when they asked to hear God's voice as a sign.
God is merciful and gave them a second chance even after they had made and worshiped the golden calf.
God was just when He killed them, not only for their disobedience, but also for refusing to repent. God did not kill them for being good boys. These were evil men. Sorry, I will not defend them! If God had not killed them, God would not be just.
so if i give my son 3 and 4 chances before i kill him it makes it all ok?
-
No and No. Where do you get this from?
'
From the point you made about the potential for those 3000 to sacrifice a child.
-
'
From the point you made about the potential for those 3000 to sacrifice a child.
so if i give my son 3 and 4 chances before i kill him it makes it all ok?
What would you have done, OzmO, if you were God? Would you have smacked their hand and told them not to do it again?
-
What would you have done, OzmO, if you were God? Would you have smacked their hand and told them not to do it again?
Do you have kids loco?
What ever i did, i wouldn't have ordered their death for what they did.
-
Do you have kids loco?
What ever i did, i wouldn't have ordered their death for what they did.
No, I don't. And I know you do. And I know that you love your child and that you would not order the death of your child unless...
...God forbid, you became a judge and your child became a criminal and stood in your court and you were forced to condemn him to death. You would be forced as a judge to abide by the law of the land which would require you to condemn and sentence your own child to death. If you did not, out of love for your child, that would make you a bad and unjust judge. Tough situation, that we put God in some times.
Nevertheless, you did not answer my question. You question God's judgement as if our finite minds could understand an infinite God. I always wonder if people think they could do a better job than God at running the universe.
I believe God handled the situation with mercy and justice. But even if I didn't, it does not matter. He is still God, the highest authority, and He can do whatever He wills.
-
No, I don't. And I know you do. And I know that you love your child and that you would not order the death of your child unless...
...God forbid, you became a judge and your child became a criminal and stood in your court and you were forced to condemn him to death. You would be forced as a judge to abide by the law of the land which would require you to condemn and sentence your own child to death. If you did not, out of love for your child, that would make you a bad and unjust judge. Tough situation, that we put God in some times.
Nevertheless, you did not answer my question. You question God's judgement as if our finite minds could understand an infinite God. I always wonder if people think they could do a better job than God at running the universe.
I believe God handled the situation with mercy and justice. But even if I didn't, it does not matter. He is still God, the highest authority, and He can do whatever He wills.
I'm not saying i could run the universe better then God. Remember what I'm saying is that the "god" identified in Exodus that ordered the death of 3000 men and then plaque the others is not God.
Also, think about the comparison you made as a judge ordering my children to death....... What did my children do to deserve that? I can only think that they also killed, something those 3000 didn't do.
-
I'm not saying i could run the universe better then God. Remember what I'm saying is that the "god" identified in Exodus that ordered the death of 3000 men and then plaque the others is not God.
Also, think about the comparison you made as a judge ordering my children to death....... What did my children do to deserve that? I can only think that they also killed, something those 3000 didn't do.
OzmO, is this your whole hang-up with God and how He is depicted in the Bible? Why do you have trouble with God doing away with the 3000 men? God is not only good (which is what I believe you want to hold most dear to your belief in him), but He is also just. Only God can place the judgement that we've seen over history. While God is just is still all-loving.
-
OzmO, is this your whole hang-up with God and how He is depicted in the Bible? Why do you have trouble with God doing away with the 3000 men? God is not only good (which is what I believe you want to hold most dear to your belief in him), but He is also just. Only God can place the judgement that we've seen over history. While God is just is still all-loving.
My hang up, is that the Bible is not a consistent representation of God.
-
I'm not saying i could run the universe better then God. Remember what I'm saying is that the "god" identified in Exodus that ordered the death of 3000 men and then plaque the others is not God.
Also, think about the comparison you made as a judge ordering my children to death....... What did my children do to deserve that? I can only think that they also killed, something those 3000 didn't do.
OzmO, I am honestly interested in what you would do with those 3000 men if you were God, given the exact same situation. Think about it. Take your time. What could God have done to make you believe that the God in Exodus is the One True God?
-
My hang up, is that the Bible is not a consistent representation of God.
But that's just your opinion, OzmO. The God of the Bible is consistent, as I have shown you in the case of the Golden Calf. You may still disagree with me, but I have shown you why I do not see the inconsistency that you see.
-
Also, think about the comparison you made as a judge ordering my children to death....... What did my children do to deserve that? I can only think that they also killed, something those 3000 didn't do.
What if, God forbid, your children joined a terrorist group which had committed numerous murders of innocent people, got caught and ended up in your court, not having had the chance "yet" to kill anyone?
You make it look as if God was being petty and you said that God killed these 3000 men, with no warning and with no chance to repent, only for being insecure. All of these are far from the truth. God was trying to rid Israel of these child killing, detestable forms of worship. God was doing a good thing, because God is good.
-
First, do you know the combined weight of all the sand on all the beaches of Hawaii? We can safely assume that you don't. This brings us to the second question: Do you know how many hairs are on the back of a fully-grown male Tibetan yak?
weight of sand = 40.638 trillion lbs
hair = 40 trillion
prove me wrong!
-
What if, God forbid, your children joined a terrorist group which had committed numerous murders of innocent people, got caught and ended up in your court, not having had the chance "yet" to kill anyone?
You make it look as if God was being petty and you said that God killed these 3000 men, with no warning and with no chance to repent, only for being insecure. All of these are far from the truth. God was trying to rid Israel of these child killing, detestable forms of worship. God was doing a good thing, because God is good.
God is being petty because of the act of killing them for the reasons he did......very un-divine! Not petty for whether or not he gave them chances.
And you call what he did good? :'( That's terrible you'd think killing 3000 people for making a gold calf and dis-obeying orders. In his omnipotence he couldn't find a better way? OM(gosh)! >:( :-X :-\ :P :(
This is a good example of the indifference and detachment from human compassion and moral accountability in the name of religion I've talked about.
If my children had already murdered people they would have to stand trial for that and face the consequences. It's a poor comparison because what those 3000 did is not near as bad as killing someone. Unless of course they disrespected.........whi ch is something God is far above getting all "butt hurt" over. (something my daughter said the other day ;))
-
But that's just your opinion, OzmO. The God of the Bible is consistent, as I have shown you in the case of the Golden Calf. You may still disagree with me, but I have shown you why I do not see the inconsistency that you see.
The inconsistently is "god" acting more like a human vs God acting divine.
-
OzmO, I am honestly interested in what you would do with those 3000 men if you were God, given the exact same situation. Think about it. Take your time. What could God have done to make you believe that the God in Exodus is the One True God?
I'd cast the 3000 out from the group of what was it 600,000? If everything I've done doesn't get them to believe then they should go their own way.
I certainly wouldn't resort to a jealous raging mad man like action like killing them.
-
God is being petty because of the act of killing them for the reasons he did......very un-divine! Not petty for whether or not he gave them chances.
And you call what he did good? :'( That's terrible you'd think killing 3000 people for making a gold calf and dis-obeying orders. In his omnipotence he couldn't find a better way? OM(gosh)! >:( :-X :-\ :P :(
This is a good example of the indifference and detachment from human compassion and moral accountability in the name of religion I've talked about.
OzmO, you yourself said that God left the children of 3000 men fatherless. What God really did was save the lives of 3000 + children who were about to be sacrificed to the golden calf. And you, a father, say that this is not a good thing? They may very well had already sacrificed some children. You assume that they didn't, but we don't know that. These two scriptures show that to be sure that they didn't sacrificed children to the golden calf is nothing but an assumption:
Deuteronomy 12:31
"in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods."
2 Kings 17:14-17
"But they would not listen and were as stiff-necked as their fathers, who did not trust in the LORD their God. 15 They rejected his decrees and the covenant he had made with their fathers and the warnings he had given them. They followed worthless idols and themselves became worthless. They imitated the nations around them although the LORD had ordered them, "Do not do as they do," and they did the things the LORD had forbidden them to do.
They forsook all the commands of the LORD their God and made for themselves two idols cast in the shape of calves, and an Asherah pole. They bowed down to all the starry hosts, and they worshiped Baal. 17 They sacrificed their sons and daughters in the fire."
You honestly are going to tell me that you don't believe it was a matter of time before they would scarify their children to the golden calf?
Were you God, you would have let those children die? That would make you believe the God of Exodus is the One True God?
If my children had already murdered people they would have to stand trial for that and face the consequences. It's a poor comparison because what those 3000 did is not near as bad as killing someone.
That is not what I asked, OzmO. Read my question again. Your children would be executed for joining a murderous terrorist group, even if they had not "YET" had the time or the chance to kill anyone.
-
I'd cast the 3000 out from the group of what was it 600,000? If everything I've done doesn't get them to believe then they should go their own way.
What about their freedom to worship anyway they want that you spoke of earlier? You would cast them out of the nation of Israel because they chose a different way to worship?
You would let them go their way and burn their sons and daughters to their "god"?
-
What about their freedom to worship anyway they want that you spoke of earlier? You would cast them out of the nation of Israel because they chose a different way to worship?
You would let them go their way and burn their sons and daughters to their "god"?
;), In a nation they would be allowed religious freedoms so long as there aren't victims.
But let's see what did "GOD" do? He just killed them. what would happen in this day if BUSH or that Iranian president did that?
That is not GOD that killed those 3000 men.
-
;), In a nation they would be allowed religious freedoms so long as there aren't victims.
In this case there are victims and you know it.
But let's see what did "GOD" do? He just killed them. what would happen in this day if BUSH or that Iranian president did that?
That is not GOD that killed those 3000 men.
These men were not just "insecure" as you put it. They were evil and I really don't understand why you insist on defending them.
-
In this case there are victims and you know it.
These men were not just "insecure" as you put it. They were evil and I really don't understand why you insist on defending them.
We have religious freedoms in this country that don't include human sacrifice. Many other countries through history have been able to do the same thing......and you know it. That's what laws are for. Why am i having to explain this to you? Are you intentionally being obtuse? You allow religious freedom and outlaw human sacrifice.
That's what a reasonable person or entity would have done with the 3000 who wanted to be in Israel but did not believe the voice on the mountain with the power of plagues, sea parting, etc... was GOD. which is a stupid premise to begin with they wouldn't see it as "God" and hints more of rewriting history to make those 3000 look evil and thus justify murdering them.
I agree human sacrifice is evil. But until a crime has been committed you do not punish people. that's barbaric, uncivilized and facist at best. All of which aren't characteristic of a divine God, but instead of a insecure human like moses who had to scare his people into submission.
The more and more you and i explore this area of Exodus the more and more I'm seeing that some of this story is probably a bunch of made up crap to cover up a mass murder...........in the name of God.
-
We have religious freedoms in this country that don't include human sacrifice. Many other countries through history have been able to do the same thing......and you know it. That's what laws are for. Why am i having to explain this to you? Are you intentionally being obtuse? You allow religious freedom and outlaw human sacrifice.
That's what a reasonable person or entity would have done with the 3000 who wanted to be in Israel but did not believe the voice on the mountain with the power of plagues, sea parting, etc... was GOD. which is a stupid premise to begin with they wouldn't see it as "God" and hints more of rewriting history to make those 3000 look evil and thus justify murdering them.
I agree human sacrifice is evil. But until a crime has been committed you do not punish people. that's barbaric, uncivilized and facist at best. All of which are characteristic of a divine God, but instead of a insecure human like moses.
You are dodging the questions, OzmO.
Based on what you know about this event now, you honestly are going to tell me that you don't believe it was a matter of time before they would sacrify their children to the golden calf?
Were you God, you would have let those children die? That's barbaric. That would make you believe the God of Exodus is the One True God?
God saved 3,000+ children and you think this is bad?
You would let them go their way and burn their sons and daughters to their "god"?
What if, God forbid, your children joined a terrorist group which had committed numerous murders of innocent people, got caught and ended up in your court, not having had the chance "YET" to kill anyone?
-
You are dodging the questions, OzmO.
Based on what you know about this event now, you honestly are going to tell me that you don't believe it was a matter of time before they would sacrify their children to the golden calf?
Are you reading what I'm saying????????
You outlaw the practice and the second it happens you punish those responsible.
That's how civilized people operate......are you civilized? Are you one of those who say shoot first ask questions later? Com on LOCO.
Were you God, you would have let those children die? That's barbaric. That would make you believe the God of Exodus is the One True God?
Children hadn't been sacrificed.......and even so loco, God didn't do a dam thing about all the centuries leading up to that in the WORLD so it's a poor argument to say he was just then doing something about then....and he didn't do anything about after that either as it still continued around the world. open your eyes for a minute.
Moses murdered 3000 men. God didn't order him to do so. Moses conveniently said "god told him to do it"
-
Are you reading what I'm saying????????
You outlaw the practice and the second it happens you punish those responsible.
That's like saying "You may join a murderous terrorist group, as long as you don't kill anybody."
Children hadn't been sacrificed
You assume.
.......and even so loco, God didn't do a dam thing about all the centuries leading up to that in the WORLD
You assume. You read about the flood.
You did not directly answer any of my questions:
Based on what you know about this event now, you honestly are going to tell me that you don't believe it was a matter of time before they would sacrify their children to the golden calf?
Were you God, you would have let those children die? That's barbaric. That would make you believe the God of Exodus is the One True God?
God saved 3,000+ children and you think this is bad?
You would let them go their way and burn their sons and daughters to their "god"?
What if, God forbid, your children joined a terrorist group which had committed numerous murders of innocent people, got caught and ended up in your court, not having had the chance "YET" to kill anyone?
-
That's like saying "You may join a murderous terrorist group, as long as you don't kill anybody."
People are allowed to join any group religious or other wise in this country so long as they don;t break the laws. Seems to work just fine here.
You assume.
Goes both ways. But if they had sacrificed children don't you think "god" would have made sure that was noted. and even then, only those who were involved (the killer and those who collected the children) should have been punished.
You assume. You read about the flood.
So between the flood, and moses and moses and now there haven't been human sacrifices practiced for centuries? You have degree in history or science? Com on loco. read some history books.
God saved 3,000+ children and you think this is bad?
You would let them go their way and burn their sons and daughters to their "god"?
What if, God forbid, your children joined a terrorist group which had committed numerous murders of innocent people, got caught and ended up in your court, not having had the chance "YET" to kill anyone?
here:
You outlaw the practice and the second it happens you punish those responsible.
And if my kids joined a terrorist group? If they got caught should they be executed if they didn't participate in murders? Are you seriously asking me this? Of course not, just like those 3000 should not have been murdered.
Loco, there's no way around it. Moses murdered those people, not GOD. The Bible is NOT the 100% word of God.
-
People are allowed to join any group religious or other wise in this country so long as they don;t break the laws. Seems to work just fine here.
Goes both ways. But if they had sacrificed children don't you think "god" would have made sure that was noted. and even then, only those who were involved (the killer and those who collected the children) should have been punished.
So between the flood, and moses and moses and now there haven't been sacrifices? You have degree in history or science? Com on loco. read some history books.
here:
And if my kids joined a terrorist group? If they got caught should they be executed if they didn't participate in murders? Are you seriously asking me this? Of course not, just like those 3000 should not have been murdered.
Loco, there's no way around it. Moses murdered those people, not GOD. The Bible is NOT the 100% word of God.
Oh, people are allowed to join murderous, terrorists groups in the US and that in itself is not against the law? Okay, my mistake.
Like I said, OzmO, I don't expect to change your mind. But a lot of this is just your opinion, to which you are entitled to. These were evil men, not innocent, "insecure" men as you put it. I have good reasons for not sharing your skepticism and I have good reasons for not seeing your inconsistencies.
-
Oh, people are allowed to join murderous, terrorists groups in the US and that in itself is not against the law? Okay, my mistake.
Like I said, OzmO, I don't expect to change your mind. But a lot of this is just your opinion, to which you are entitled to. These were evil men, not innocent, "insecure" men as you put it. I have good reasons for not sharing your skepticism and I have good reasons for not seeing your inconsistencies.
How is it that you join a group loco? Do they have meeting halls? Think about what you just said here. People are allowed in the US to join any group they want....it's guaranteed by the constitution, but if they break laws they will be punished. Like, that group of pedophiles. If you join a terrorist group you won;t get executed unless you murder someone. You may face time. but you won;t get killed.
Call it want you want loco, those men had not committed a crime of worthy of being executed. Moses murdered them in God's name just like some many people have been murdered over the centuries.
-
How is it that you join a group loco? Do they have meeting halls? Think about what you just said here. People are allowed in the US to join any group they want....it's guaranteed by the constitution, but if they break laws they will be punished. Like, that group of pedophiles. If you join a terrorist group you won;t get executed unless you murder someone. You may face time. but you won;t get killed.
Call it want you want loco, those men had not committed a crime of worthy of being executed. Moses murdered them in God's name just like some many people have been murdered over the centuries.
This so called "murderer", Moses, gave Israel the following law. Pretty good for a "murderer", don't you think? Guess we should throw everything this "murderer" said out the window.
Exodus
"Honor thy father and thy mother." 20:12
"Thou shalt not kill." 20:13
"Thou shalt not commit adultery." 20:14
"Thou shalt not steal." 20:15
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." 20:16
Be kind to strangers, widows, and fatherless children. 22:21-22
Value the truth; don't lie. 23:1
Don't do what everyone else does, if what they do is wrong. 23:2
Be kind to your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. 23:4-5
Treat the poor fairly. 23:6
Be honest. Don't kill the innocent. 23:7
Don't mistreat strangers. 23:9
Every seventh year the Israelites were to leave their fields unharvested, so that the poor would have something to eat. 23:11
-
This so called "murderer", Moses, gave Israel the following law. Pretty good for a "murderer", don't you think? Guess we should throw everything this "murderer" said out the window.
Exodus
"Honor thy father and thy mother." 20:12
"Thou shalt not kill." 20:13
"Thou shalt not commit adultery." 20:14
"Thou shalt not steal." 20:15
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." 20:16
Be kind to strangers, widows, and fatherless children. 22:21-22
Value the truth; don't lie. 23:1
Don't do what everyone else does, if what they do is wrong. 23:2
Be kind to your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. 23:4-5
Treat the poor fairly. 23:6
Be honest. Don't kill the innocent. 23:7
Don't mistreat strangers. 23:9
Every seventh year the Israelites were to leave their fields unharvested, so that the poor would have something to eat. 23:11
Yeah, Hitler rebuilt Germany out of the ashes of WW1.
Of course everything Moses did wasn't bad, he did much good. but he also murdered 3000 people. loco, you are well aware that people are rarely black and white, pure good or pure evil when it comes to leadership in a country.
-
Yeah, Hitler rebuilt Germany out of the ashes of WW1.
Of course everything Moses did wasn't bad, he did much good. but he also murdered 3000 people. loco, you are well aware that people are rarely black and white, pure good or pure evil when it comes to leadership in a country.
Now you are comparing Moses to Hitler? :o
That'll go really well with the Jewish community.
So Moses was pure evil?
I believe that Hitler was pure evil, and rebuilding Germany can't compare to the law that the "murderer", Moses, gave Israel.
-
Now you are comparing Moses to Hitler? :o
That'll go really well with the Jewish community.
So Moses was pure evil?
No offense intended loco, are you having problems reading today?
I was only making the point that while Hitler is very evil, he did get Germany back on it's feet from a tragic depression brought about from the treaty of versillies.
You were making a comparison of Moses the murderer between his act of killing 3000 men and establishing the laws.
My point was, that people are rarely black and white, even if they are evil they do some good things, although it's few and far between evil acts.
I amazes me however, that in the face of murdering 3000 people for what's not a just reason, you call this God described in exodus, as just, and merciful.
-
Here's a question for you loco.
All those prisoners we took from Iraq and Afghanistan....should all those people be executed right now?
-
Here's a question for you loco.
All those prisoners we took from Iraq and Afghanistan....should all those people be executed right now?
I don't know. Why?
-
No offense intended loco, are you having problems reading today?
Sorry, OzmO! I wasn't done with my post when I hit post. ;D
-
Sorry, OzmO! I wasn't done with my post when I hit post. ;D
No problem bud. :)
-
I don't know. Why?
Well they are terrorist aren't they? they aim is to kill us isn't it? although they haven't why shouldn't we just kill them now?
-
Well they are terrorist aren't they? they aim is to kill us isn't it? although they haven't why shouldn't we just kill them now?
In my example, about all members of a murderous terrorist group being executed, whether or not they had a chance to kill, I wasn't saying that they should or should not be put to death. If that's the law of the land, to put them to death, then yes. Otherwise, no.
You had asked me if I had kids. So my point was that if a judge is required by the law of the land to sentence his criminal son to death, for whatever crime the law says is punishable by death, then the judge would be unjust and a bad judge to let him go just because the criminal is his son. The judge may be a good, loving father, but he would be a bad, unjust judge if he did something like that. That's all.
-
In my example, about all members of a murderous terrorist group being executed, whether or not they had a chance to kill, I wasn't saying that they should or should not be put to death. If that's the law of the land, to put them to death, then yes. Otherwise, no.
You had asked me if I had kids. So my point was that if a judge is required by the law of the land to sentence his criminal son to death, for whatever crime the law says is punishable by death, then the judge would be unjust and a bad judge to let him go just because the criminal is his son. The judge may be a good, loving father, but he would be a bad, unjust judge if he did something like that. That's all.
If that was the law of the land....I'd move. And the Judge doesn't matter and he would be held accountable for his actions of condemning those to death when he dies before himself and God. We have morals and to hide behind the law of the land is a cop out. If i was in the Army and was ordered to kill a child i would rather face a firing squad or go to jail.
If God told me to kill 3000 men for what they did, he can send me to hell himself because i will not violate my morals to satisfy a jealous angry "God." Now if all 3000 participated in the murder of 3000 children., well then that's a different story.
I brought up the terrorist analogy because they potentially will kill others just like the 3000 men......Should we follow the example god has set for us in Exodus and kill them now before they have a chance to kill any of us?
-
If God told me to kill 3000 men for what they did, he can send me to hell himself because i will not violate my morals to satisfy a jealous angry "God." Now if all 3000 participated in the murder of 3000 children., well then that's a different story.
I see what you are saying, OzmO. If God told you to kill these evil men to prevent the child burning idol worship and save the children, you would refuse because you know better than God. Instead, you would sit and wait until they had thrown their children into the fire and then you would kill these men. So now you would have these evil men killed, and their innocent children dead too. I don't think that's better, OzmO.
Or, as you said earlier, you would cast them out of the group and tell them to go their own way. In other words, you would have them go do their child burning elsewhere. I don't think that's better either.
-
we don't punish people for what they might do, we punish them for what they did.
Yes you do:
As a police officer:
you are in a hostage situation where a man is holding a weapon to a kids head and threatening to kill him. You have a head shot and your commanding officer tells you to take it. Do you take the shot to save the child?
Or, you walk into a cult worship ceremony and find a priest holding a knife right in front of a stone table with a bound child on it. You point your gun at him and tell him to freeze, but he raises his knife over the child instead. You have a shot, do you shoot to kill to save the child?
You run into an alley and find you fellow police officer wounded on the ground with a criminal standing in front of him ready to shoot him dead, do you shoot to kill to save your partner?
If your answer is Yes, then you would be killing somebody for what they might do, not for what they did. If your answer is no, then no offence, but I would not want you serving as a police officer in my police force.
If i was in the Army and was ordered to kill a child i would rather face a firing squad or go to jail.
Even if that child was holding an automatic rifle and was about to shoot dead your wounded, fellow soldiers? You would not shoot and kill the child before he/she killed your wounded fellow soldiers? To make things worse, your fellow soldiers could be your best friend, your brother or sister, or your father. Would you not shoot and kill the child in this case? If your answer is Yes, then you would be killing somebody for what they might do, not for what they did. If your answer is no, then no offence, but I would not want you in my army.
And I hope you don't say that you would not shoot to kill, but that you would shoot to wound. That's naive. Soldiers and law enforcement know that if you try to simply wound a violent person who might kill somebody else, that violent person will very likely still kill the other person or kill you. That's why you must shoot to kill.
So, there you have it. You do kill people for what they might do.
-
If that was the law of the land....I'd move. And the Judge doesn't matter and he would be held accountable for his actions of condemning those to death when he dies before himself and God.
United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002381----000-.html
OzmO, a person may be sentenced to death for treason, not having killed anyone. Why is the US and the courts not considered murderous in this case? Because they are a higher authority. Why should it be any different with God, when God is the highest authority?
-
I see what you are saying, OzmO. If God told you to kill these evil men to prevent the child burning idol worship and save the children, you would refuse because you know better than God. Instead, you would sit and wait until they had thrown their children into the fire and then you would kill these men. So now you would have these evil men killed, and their innocent children dead too. I don't think that's better, OzmO.
Or, as you said earlier, you would cast them out of the group and tell them to go their own way. In other words, you would have them go do their child burning elsewhere. I don't think that's better either.
No, loco, i don't know better then God. But i do know better then Moses in this particular case of murdering 3000 men as per the reasons he gave in his account. Frankly reading between the lines here, those 3000 men represented a threat to his control of the rest and Moses did what any despot would do in that time. We don't know that these men would have started sacrificing children. They were Egyptian slaves. You do not punish somebody for something they might do. You punish them for something they did. this is a modern principle that separates us from barbarians.
Yes you do:
As a police officer:
you are in a hostage situation where a man is holding a weapon to a kids head and threatening to kill him. You have a head shot and your commanding officer tells you to take it. Do you take the shot to save the child?
Or, you walk into a cult worship ceremony and find a priest holding a knife right in front of a stone table with a bound child on it. You point your gun at him and tell him to freeze, but he raises his knife over the child instead. You have a shot, do you shoot to kill to save the child?
You run into an alley and find you fellow police officer wounded on the ground with a criminal standing in front of him ready to shoot him dead, do you shoot to kill to save your partner?
If your answer is Yes, then you would be killing somebody for what they might do, not for what they did. If your answer is no, then no offence, but I would not want you serving as a police officer in my police force.
Did they have kids on an alter ready to kill them? No. If so you punish the dozen or so involved. You are only assuming that they would have sacrificed children and it's no certain they would have and even then they hadn't attempted or otherwise........go back to why they made the calf in the first place.
It's really kind of a weak argument again loco, because are talking about a group pf people who got insecure about their future faith and made a golden calf or idol worship; who reverted to what "God" has turned his head to for centuries; who you are assuming were hell bent on killing children. They didn't have a gun, a knife, they weren't in a alley.
Again you don't kill some one for what they might do because in this case you don't know for sure they will do.
United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002381----000-.html
OzmO, a person may be sentenced to death for treason, not having killed anyone. Why is the US and the courts not considered murderous in this case? Because they are a higher authority. Why should it be any different with God, when God is the highest authority?
You would have to commit an act of treason to be put to death. Joining an organization with in the USA in its self is not an act of treason.
Also, to go in another direction..............I f God had to threaten people to keep them in line.......perhaps the message is not pure which wold indicate the story is about man, not God's word.
And if "God" as you assume is doing this because of potential child sacrifice what of the other 300 million in the world at the time? Like i said, loco it's a weak argument about "god's" intention regarding child sacrifice.
-
God tells the people:
Exodus 20:3-5
You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them.....
Exodus 20:23
Do not make any gods to be alongside me; do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold.
Exodus 22:20
Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the Lord must be destroyed.
and then later they made a golden calf idol and "bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, 'These are your gods, O Israel.......'" (Ex 32:8 )
.....and so were destroyed. Not inconsistent.
-
God tells the people:
Exodus 20:3-5
You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them.....
Exodus 20:23
Do not make any gods to be alongside me; do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold.
Exodus 22:20
Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the Lord must be destroyed.
and then later they made a golden calf idol and "bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, 'These are your gods, O Israel.......'" (Ex 32:8 )
.....and so were destroyed. Not inconsistent.
not inconsistent, but absolutely ridiculous.
this god sounds like and egomaniac with a pension for killing those who do not obey him
also if god knows the future, doesnt he already know who will disobey him and thus be basically killing them before he created them?
please dont post a passage that says god is loving, how can you read that god wants you to worship(implying need) him and only him and if not, you will be destroyed. sounds like we dont have free will according to this snippet also. We MUST worship him or be destroyed, not much of a choice there is there?
the god of the bible doesnt make any sense, and is a horrible god imo.
if god created me with the propensity to act in a multitude of ways, i hope he is not petty enough to punish me if i use those attributes in an incorrect way.
my god would be all-loving, you could do as you please, and if he forbid something, then deny the option. how can you provide outlets to create negativity and expect( well according to the bible he already knows) nothing to occur?
-
But i do know better then Moses in this particular case of murdering 3000 men as per the reasons he gave in his account.
Well, first of all, what we know about Moses is inconsistent with what you are saying. Moses gave up wealth and power in Egypt, so he wasn't interested in that. Moses became a shepherd, got married and had kids, and Moses was not interested in being a leader at all. In fact, Moses despised the idea of leading his people. Moses let Israel through the desert for 40 years and endured heat, hunger, thirst, all kinds of danger. Moses endured complaints, criticism, ridicule and all kinds of head aces from the people of Israel. Moses died poor and homeless. So, no, Moses was not at all who you believe he was. Moses did what he did because God commanded him to do it.
God gave Moses and the people of Israel the law. The people of Israel would not have accepted the "law of Moses" all these centuries had it really come from Moses. They accepted it because they heard God Himself give it to them with a very loud and clear voice which they all heard.
How is that murder, OzmO?
God tells the people:
Exodus 20:3-5
You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them.....
Exodus 20:23
Do not make any gods to be alongside me; do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold.
Exodus 22:20
Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the Lord must be destroyed.
and then later they made a golden calf idol and "bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, 'These are your gods, O Israel.......'" (Ex 32:8 )
.....and so were destroyed. Not inconsistent.
God gave the law, God gave the punishment for breaking it, God exercised justice.
How is that murder?
United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002381----000-.html
How then, is this not murder? Who or what gives the US the right and authority to dictate and define treason, to dictate the punishment? Who gives the US the right and authority to determine that a human being has committed this treason? Who gives the US the right and authority to condemn this person to death and carry out the punishment because this person committed treason?
The fact that the US is a higher authority over its citizens.
In the same way, God gave the law that Israel shall not make an image and worship it and sacrifice to it. In the same way, God said that violating that law was punishable by death. In the same way, God did as He said that He would do and destroyed those men for breaking this law.
God is the highest authority.
-
not inconsistent, but absolutely ridiculous.
this god sounds like and egomaniac with a pension for killing those who do not obey him
also if god knows the future, doesnt he already know who will disobey him and thus be basically killing them before he created them?
please dont post a passage that says god is loving, how can you read that god wants you to worship(implying need) him and only him and if not, you will be destroyed. sounds like we dont have free will according to this snippet also. We MUST worship him or be destroyed, not much of a choice there is there?
the god of the bible doesnt make any sense, and is a horrible god imo.
if god created me with the propensity to act in a multitude of ways, i hope he is not petty enough to punish me if i use those attributes in an incorrect way.
my god would be all-loving, you could do as you please, and if he forbid something, then deny the option. how can you provide outlets to create negativity and expect( well according to the bible he already knows) nothing to occur?
So, in your opinion, an all loving god would give you no free will at all. An all loving god would have no law to protect the innocent from the evil people? An all loving god would not punish those who break those laws?
Idol and false god worship let to many detestable things in those days. What is so bad about God abolishing these type of worship?
Moloch and Malcom are the same deity. Thus, the tabernacle or Sukkoth was understood to be that of Moloch and the star was of Raiphan as at the translation of the LXX or Malcom and Chiun from the Aramaic (cf. Lamsa's translation of the Peshitta). We are dealing with the fertility rites of Moloch and the Raiphan system. This fertility system has underpinned Israelite idolatry from the Exodus, through the kings and at the time of Amos and right after the captivity to the time of the apostles.
The Minotaur is the same being worshipped in the same way as the god Moloch or Malcom. It is the bull cult transferred to the crescent moon and involved human sacrifice (cf. Frazer The Golden Bough , Macmillan Press, 1976 print, iv, pp. 70-75).
The symbolism surrounding this calf system at Sinai, from Sin as progenitor, ties into the earliest and most primitive sacrificial system employing also temple and cult prostitution on a widespread level. This is the reason the revelry was associated with the Golden Calf. By the invocation, Sin as moon-god represented by the calf, the three-fold or triune aspects of he and his offspring were invoked.
The calf was also a symbol of fertility in the nature religions of the ancient Near-East. These symbols were incorporated into the feasts of Israel by Jeroboam as two calves (cf. 1Kings 12:28; Hos. 8:5; fn. to Oxford Annotated Bible RSV, p. 109).
The worship at the tabernacle of Moloch or Chemosh, was prevalent at the time of the Exodus, as we see from the advice of Balaam to the Moabites, to cast a stumbling-block to the children of Israel. The calf-headed Moloch or Malcom and the Minotaur both involved human sacrifice.
http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p222.html
Deuteronomy 12:31
"You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods."
-
this god sounds like and egomaniac with a pension for killing those who do not obey him
the god of the bible doesnt make any sense, and is a horrible god imo.
A God who would give this law does not seem "egomaniac" and "horrible" to me.
Exodus
"Honor thy father and thy mother." 20:12
"Thou shalt not kill." 20:13
"Thou shalt not commit adultery." 20:14
"Thou shalt not steal." 20:15
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." 20:16
Be kind to strangers, widows, and fatherless children. 22:21-22
Value the truth; don't lie. 23:1
Don't do what everyone else does, if what they do is wrong. 23:2
Be kind to your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. 23:4-5
Treat the poor fairly. 23:6
Be honest. Don't kill the innocent. 23:7
Don't mistreat strangers. 23:9
Every seventh year the Israelites were to leave their fields unharvested, so that the poor would have something to eat. 23:11
-
Well, first of all, what we know about Moses is inconsistent with what you are saying. Moses gave up wealth and power in Egypt, so he wasn't interested in that. Moses became a shepherd, got married and had kids, and Moses was not interested in being a leader at all. In fact, Moses despised the idea of leading his people. Moses let Israel through the desert for 40 years and endured heat, hunger, thirst, all kinds of danger. Moses endured complaints, criticism, ridicule and all kinds of head aces from the people of Israel. Moses died poor and homeless. So, no, Moses was not at all who you believe he was. Moses did what he did because God commanded him to do it.
God gave Moses and the people of Israel the law. The people of Israel would not have accepted the "law of Moses" all these centuries had it really come from Moses. They accepted it because they heard God Himself give it to them with a very loud and clear voice which they all heard.
How is that murder, OzmO?
God gave the law, God gave the punishment for breaking it, God exercised justice.
How is that murder?
It's very much murder......under the category of religious persecution.
whether Moses wanted it or not....as the story is told, he had the responsibility before God as the the leader and once his authority was threatened he put them to death instead of sending them away or allowing them to what they wanted under the condition of no child sacrifice.
Again! to tell me that God did this because of child sacrifice is ridiculous when you consider the 300 million other people who were all doing as you suggested.
You remember i told you that i didn't believe anyone has the right to take anothers life? I'm not pro-capital punishment although for emotional reasons i would be.
God exercised justice.
That is not justice to murder 3000 people because they didn't "buy into" your VAIN law of obedience. That's straight bull crap. That wasn't God. It was Moses.
Moses exercised murder and blamed it on orders from God. Moses was the jealous insecure rage-a-holic who was under stress and being questioned all the time. I'm sure the death of the 3000 went far to shut them all up.
How then, is this not murder? Who or what gives the US the right and authority to dictate and define treason, to dictate the punishment? Who gives the US the right and authority to determine that a human being has committed this treason? Who gives the US the right and authority to condemn this person to death and carry out the punishment because this person committed treason?
The fact that the US is a higher authority over its citizens.
The people of the united states gave them the authority. Hence and act of treason that "levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere"
All of which directly produces harm. As it happens they get punished. by joining an organization in the USA you do not get punished until you commit a crime that produces victims.
These people were not doing that. They were following a religion......like Buddists, Muslim, Jews, Hindus, etc.... Are you justified under God's example to kill all of them?
-
Again! to tell me that God did this because of child sacrifice is ridiculous when you consider the 300 million other people who were all doing as you suggested.
I didn't say that God did it because of child sacrifice. God did it because they built and worshiped the calf. What I was saying is that you can't bring up "religious freedom" into this and start throwing "Buddhists, Muslim, Jews, Hindus," into the discussion because God did condemn human sacrifice and the worship of the calf did involve human sacrifice.
Deuteronomy 12:31
"in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods."
2 Kings 17:14-17
"But they would not listen and were as stiff-necked as their fathers, who did not trust in the LORD their God. 15 They rejected his decrees and the covenant he had made with their fathers and the warnings he had given them. They followed worthless idols and themselves became worthless. They imitated the nations around them although the LORD had ordered them, "Do not do as they do," and they did the things the LORD had forbidden them to do.
They forsook all the commands of the LORD their God and made for themselves two idols cast in the shape of calves, and an Asherah pole. They bowed down to all the starry hosts, and they worshiped Baal. 17 They sacrificed their sons and daughters in the fire."
Deuteronomy 18:9
"Don't you dare sacrifice your son or daughter in the fire"
The people of the united states gave them the authority.
Really? You? You and who else gave the authority to kill a human being for committing a so called "treason"? Who are you and those others to decide what is treason and to decide who committed it and to take their life?
All of which directly produces harm.
So a person who commits treason directly commits murder? They haven't killed anyone, yet they are put to death(murdered?).
As it happens they get punished.
They get killed(murdered?).
by joining an organization in the USA you do not get punished until you commit a crime that produces victims.
OzmO, this has nothing to do with joining an organization. I dropped that one the minute you told me that joining a murderous terrorist group in the US is not a crime. I never said that joining a group is treason. That is exactly why I posted the definition of what is treason in the US.
These people were not doing that. They were following a religion......like Buddists, Muslim, Jews, Hindus, etc.... Are you justified under God's example to kill all of them?
No, not like "Buddhists, Muslim, Jews, Hindus" You are actually insulting all these religions:
Moloch and Malcom are the same deity. Thus, the tabernacle or Sukkoth was understood to be that of Moloch and the star was of Raiphan as at the translation of the LXX or Malcom and Chiun from the Aramaic (cf. Lamsa's translation of the Peshitta). We are dealing with the fertility rites of Moloch and the Raiphan system. This fertility system has underpinned Israelite idolatry from the Exodus, through the kings and at the time of Amos and right after the captivity to the time of the apostles.
The Minotaur is the same being worshipped in the same way as the god Moloch or Malcom. It is the bull cult transferred to the crescent moon and involved human sacrifice (cf. Frazer The Golden Bough , Macmillan Press, 1976 print, iv, pp. 70-75).
The symbolism surrounding this calf system at Sinai, from Sin as progenitor, ties into the earliest and most primitive sacrificial system employing also temple and cult prostitution on a widespread level. This is the reason the revelry was associated with the Golden Calf. By the invocation, Sin as moon-god represented by the calf, the three-fold or triune aspects of he and his offspring were invoked.
The calf was also a symbol of fertility in the nature religions of the ancient Near-East. These symbols were incorporated into the feasts of Israel by Jeroboam as two calves (cf. 1Kings 12:28; Hos. 8:5; fn. to Oxford Annotated Bible RSV, p. 109).
The worship at the tabernacle of Moloch or Chemosh, was prevalent at the time of the Exodus, as we see from the advice of Balaam to the Moabites, to cast a stumbling-block to the children of Israel. The calf-headed Moloch or Malcom and the Minotaur both involved human sacrifice.
http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p222.html
Deuteronomy 12:31
"You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods."
-
Loco, you were the one who brought up Child sacrifice as justification for what God (moses) did. not me. Now it's not relevant?
Further more, there's a big difference between committing treason and causing others to die as a result of passing information to the enemy or sabotage versus deciding you want to pray to a calf in god's name.
I'm not insulting other religions....all I'm pointing out is that they don't worship the same way Christians do. so should we put them to death too by God's (Moses) example?
-
Loco, you were the one who brought up Child sacrifice as justification for what God (moses) did. not me. Now it's not relevant?
Further more, there's a big difference between committing treason and causing others to die as a result of passing information to the enemy or sabotage versus deciding you want to pray to a calf in god's name.
I'm not insulting other religions....all I'm pointing out is that they don't worship the same way Christians do. so should we put them to death too by God's (Moses) example?
OzmO,
Discussing this with you any further is pointless because you are now putting words in my mouth: I never said that human sacrifice is the one reason these men were put to death, and I never said that human sacrifice was irrelevant. It is relevant.
You keep ignoring my posts where I show that human sacrifice either happened or was about to happen because we know that it was part if their worship. Why do you think they chose a calf and not a cat or a dog?
You backed yourself into a corner when you said that you don't "punish" people for what they "might do"(ever heard of "intent to kill"?) and that you would never kill a child if you were in the Army and were told to do it, but then you refused to answer all my questions about different situations in war and law enforcement. They were Yes/No answers, but you didn't answer a single one.
Now you are adding to the word of God. When and where did God or moses tell Israel to go kill other nations for not worshiping the way Israel does? Where does God tell Christians to kill others for not worshiping the way Christians do? God said that He did not want Israel to worship like their pagan neighbors, but God never told Israel to kill people of other nations for not worshiping the God of Israel.
So what's the point of discussing this with you any further?
-
OzmO,
Discussing this with you any further is pointless because you are now putting words in my mouth: I never said that human sacrifice is the one reason these men were put to death, and I never said that human sacrifice was irrelevant. It is relevant.
You keep ignoring my posts where I show that human sacrifice either happened or was about to happen because we know that it was part if their worship. Why do you think they chose a calf and not a cat or a dog?
You backed yourself into a corner when you said that you don't "punish" people for what they "might do"(ever heard of "intent to kill"?) and that you would never kill a child if you were in the Army and were told to do it, but then you refused to answer all my questions about different situations in war and law enforcement. They were Yes/No answers, but you didn't answer a single one.
Now you are adding to the word of God. When and where did God or moses tell Israel to go kill other nations for not worshiping the way Israel does? Where does God tell Christians to kill others for not worshiping the way Christians do? God said that He did not want Israel to worship like their pagan neighbors, but God never told Israel to kill people of other nations for not worshiping the God of Israel.
So what's the point of discussing this with you any further?
I answered those questions loco when i asked if there was a child on the alter when God ordered 3000 people to be killed.
Are you saying human sacrifice is the reason god is justified in doing what he did? Becuase if so, he is then ignoring centuries of sacrifice before and after moses. So the whole children sacrifice thing is moot in this instant. It does not make God (moses) just in doing what he did. It makes him a murderer in the category of religious persecution.
What is relevant is God (moses) killed 3000 men because they didn't worship the way he wanted. That it either a VAIN paranoid control freak, raging angry ill tempered God or the same as Moses.
I did not back my self into any corner because the examples you gave
ARE 2 DIFFERENT THINGS........ do you get that? I can't make it anymore simple.
I answered those questions loco when i asked if there was a child on the alter when God ordered 3000 people to be killed.
It was a very weak analogy that didn't match. The criminal has a gun pointed at someone's head....those 3000 didn't. and if they did, the 12 or so involved in sacrificing the baby should be punished not 3000 of them. OM(Gosh) loco! Stop trying to out maneuver me with crappy comparisons!
BTW.....Israel did a fine job killing and waring with other nations for centuries after Moses.
The point of my question about whether Christians should go kill others because they worship differently is to "highlight" just how barbaric and stupid it was to kill those 3000 for making a calf. Hopefully you see that now.
-
OzmO,
You brought this up, not me. You said:
we don't punish people for what they might do, we punish them for what they did.
I asked:
As a police officer:
you are in a hostage situation where a man is holding a weapon to a kids head and threatening to kill him. You have a head shot and your commanding officer tells you to take it. Do you take the shot to save the child?
Or, you walk into a cult worship ceremony and find a priest holding a knife right in front of a stone table with a bound child on it. You point your gun at him and tell him to freeze, but he raises his knife over the child instead. You have a shot, do you shoot to kill to save the child?
You run into an alley and find you fellow police officer wounded on the ground with a criminal standing in front of him ready to shoot him dead, do you shoot to kill to save your partner?
Even if that child was holding an automatic rifle and was about to shoot dead your wounded, fellow soldiers? You would not shoot and kill the child before he/she killed your wounded fellow soldiers? To make things worse, your fellow soldiers could be your best friend, your brother or sister, or your father. Would you not shoot and kill the child in this case?
You did not answer, but now you are saying
The criminal has a gun pointed at someone's head
So you do kill people for what they might do.
-
United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002381----000-.html
OzmO, a person may be sentenced to death for treason, not having killed anyone. Why is the US and the courts not considered murderous in this case? Because they are a higher authority. Why should it be any different with God, when God is the highest authority?
Hence and act of treason that "levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere"
All of which directly produces harm.
Toward the end of WWII, had an American tipped the Japanese that the US was about to nuke them and kill 214,000 civilians, that American would have been put to death for treason.
How exactly is it that this one traitor "directly" harmed or killed people? His/Her intentions are to save people. What gives the US the right and the authority to decide that this person should be put to death?
The fact that the judge and the state are a higher authority. God is the highest authority.
-
OzmO,
You brought this up, not me. You said:
I asked:
You did not answer, but now you are saying
So you do kill people for what they might do.
They are in the act of doing it while the 3000 might have done it (or likely) further down the road. That's the difference. If i have a gun to your head, i am on the brink of committing murder. As i said, they are 2 different things. Lousy comparison.
-
If i have a gun to your head, i am on the brink of committing murder.
But you have not committed murder yet, and nobody knows for sure that you will. So you do admit that you do kill people for what they might do, not for what they did.
-
But you have not committed murder yet, and nobody knows for sure that you will. So you do admit that you do kill people for what they might do, not for what they did.
It's different loco because the danger is imminent in the moment. The issue with the 3000 wasn't.
There wasn't 3000 men holding 3000 children under a knife
-
It's different loco because the danger is imminent in the moment. The issue with the 3000 wasn't.
There wasn't 3000 men holding 3000 children under a knife
I understand that OzmO, but are you saying now that "sometimes", or that "under certain circumstances" you do kill people for what they might do?
-
I understand that OzmO, but are you saying now that "sometimes", or that "under certain circumstances" you do kill people for what they might do?
If you want to debate my intended meaning instead of how moses murdered 3000 who did nothing but start worshiping a calf as a way to worship God then we can do that i suppose.
But the "real" point remains here: There is a BIG difference between a person holding a gun to someone's head and you shooting that person to prevent a murder versus killing 3000 people because they started worshiping God in a different way and eventually might have (not for certain was their intentions, all but assumed in other texts) included child sacrifice.
Again: not consistent with a divine being, rather more like a man.
-
If you want to debate my intended meaning instead of how moses murdered 3000 who did nothing but start worshiping a calf as a way to worship God then we can do that i suppose.
But the "real" point remains here: There is a BIG difference between a person holding a gun to someone's head and you shooting that person to prevent a murder versus killing 3000 people because they started worshiping God in a different way and eventually might have (not for certain was their intentions, all but assumed in other texts) included child sacrifice.
Again: not consistent with a divine being, rather more like a man.
OzmO,
are you saying now that "sometimes", or that "under certain circumstances" you do kill people for what they might do? Yes or No?
-
OzmO,
are you saying now that "sometimes", or that "under certain circumstances" you do kill people for what they might do? Yes or No?
Sure yes. Sometimes you kill people for what they might do depending up on the level of danger at the time.
-
OzmO,
United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002381----000-.html
OzmO, a person may be sentenced to death for treason, not having killed anyone. Why is the US and the courts not considered murderous in this case? Because they are a higher authority. Why should it be any different with God, when God is the highest authority?
Hence and act of treason that "levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere"
All of which directly produces harm.
Toward the end of WWII, had an American tipped the Japanese that the US was about to nuke them and kill 214,000 civilians, that American would have been put to death for treason.
How exactly is it that this one traitor "directly" harmed or killed people? His/Her intentions are to save people. What gives the US the right and the authority to decide that this person should be put to death?
The fact that the judge and the state are a higher authority. God is the highest authority.
-
OzmO,
Toward the end of WWII, had an American tipped the Japanese that the US was about to nuke them and kill 214,000 civilians, that American would have been put to death for treason.
How exactly is it that this one traitor "directly" harmed or killed people? His/Her intentions are to save people. What gives the US the right and the authority to decide that this person should be put to death?
The fact that the judge and the state are a higher authority. God is the highest authority.
I'm not sure i remember it right, but I think we told the Japanese what we were going to do anyway.
If it were something like warning a country of an attack and the success or failure of the attack hangs in the balance along with the lives of those carrying out the attack being that the enemy knows it's coming and can prepare for it would in fact endanger the lives and success of the operation: means treason.
-
I'm not sure i remember it right, but I think we told the Japanese what we were going to do anyway.
If it were something like warning a country of an attack and the success or failure of the attack hangs in the balance along with the lives of those carrying out the attack being that the enemy knows it's coming and can prepare for it would in fact endanger the lives and success of the operation: means treason.
OzmO, acts of treason do not always, as you said "all", "directly" produce harm, yet the punishment is death. As an American, you summit to this law, and you accept the penalty for breaking this law. And if you commit treason, whether your act "directly" produces harm or not, you accept the death penalty for yourself.
-
OzmO, acts of treason do not always, as you said "all", "directly" produce harm, yet the punishment is death. As an American, you summit to this law, and you accept the penalty for breaking this law. And if you commit treason, whether your act "directly" produces harm or not, you accept the death penalty for yourself.
Giving the enemy information of an attack directly puts people's lives at risk.
-
Giving the enemy information of an attack directly puts people's lives at risk.
It doesn't matter. If you give the enemy information of an attack and you get caught, then your country would put you to death. As an American, this is something that you accept, the law and the capital punisment for breaking that law.
In this case, the United States would not be putting you to death because they are angry at you or because they are jealous that your loyalties are with another country. The United States of America would be putting you to death because you broke a law that you had submitted to fully understanding the consequences of breaking it, the consequences being death in this case.
-
It doesn't matter. If you give the enemy information of an attack and you get caught, then your country would put you to death. As an American, this is something that you accept, the law and the capital punisment for breaking that law.
In this case, the United States would not be putting you to death because they are angry at you or because they are jealous that your loyalties are with another country. The United States of America would be putting you to death because you broke a law that you had submitted to fully understanding the consequences of breaking it, death in this case.
I agree and fully accept that. So?
-
I agree and fully accept that. So?
Exactly. So? Why is that not murder?
Why is God exercising capital punishment on those 3000 men murder? Anger or no anger, jealousy or no jealousy, whether it was God or moses, those men were given the law, were told the consequences of breaking that law. They accepted that law and submitted to it. They accepted the consequences. Yet, they broke it.
How is this any different?
-
Exactly. So? Why is that not murder?
Why is God exercising capital punishment on those 3000 men murder? Anger or no anger, jealousy or no jealousy, whether it was God or moses, those men were given the law, were told the consequences of breaking that law. They accepted that law and submitted to it. They accepted the consequences. Yet, they broke it.
How is this any different?
You have to quantify and or put a value on the transgression. Which oddly is a new topic i was going to post to get your input and opinion on and review scripture with. Are sins the same? Is killing some one the same as taking a pencil from work?
In the case of the 3000 men who were murdered by moses, they were not directly harming everyone but only deciding to worship God in a way they chose. Committing treason by giving the enemy information of an attack is directly harming and or endangering someone.
What if the law in the US was not to burn flags under punishment of death? Is that right? No, because the transgression doesn't warrant the punishment.
-
You have to quantify and or put a value on the transgression. Which oddly is a new topic i was going to post to get your input and opinion on and review scripture with. Are sins the same? Is killing some one the same as taking a pencil from work?
In the case of the 3000 men who were murdered by moses, they were not directly harming everyone but only deciding to worship God in a way they chose. Committing treason by giving the enemy information of an attack is directly harming and or endangering someone.
What if the law in the US was not to burn flags under punishment of death? Is that right? No, because the transgression doesn't warrant the punishment.
OzmO, I understand everything that you are saying above, everything.
However, those are good topics for another discussion.
For the sake of our discussion, what you say above does not matter.
God putting these 3000 men to death is not murder just like putting a traitor to death in the US is not murder. Why? Because these 3000 men submitted to this law fully knowing and fully understanding the consequences. This is not murder, even if God had told them that eating rocks was a sin and punishable by death. If they submit to this law and to the consequences for breaking it, putting them to death for eating rocks would not be murder.
If they had protested the law forbidding them to make an idol, to sacrifice to it and to worship it, and if they had walked away and rejected that law, then that would be a different story. If they had accepted that law, but protested the punishment for breaking it, and if they had walked away and rejected the law because of the punishment for breaking it, then that would be a different story. But the truth is that they were given the law, they were told that they would be destroyed if they broke it, and they accepted it and submitted to it, only to break it 40 days later. So they were destroyed as they were told they would be if they broke the law. This is not murder.
-
OzmO, I understand everything that you are saying above, everything.
However, those are good topics for another discussion.
For the sake of our discussion, what you say above does not matter.
God putting these 3000 men to death is not murder just like putting a traitor to death in the US is not murder. Why? Because these 3000 men submitted to this law fully knowing and fully understanding the consequences. This is not murder, even if God had told them that eating rocks was a sin and punishable by death, if they submit to this law and to the consequences for breaking it, putting them to death for eating rocks would not be murder.
If they had protested the law forbidding them to make an idol, to sacrifice to it and to worship it, and if they had walked away and rejected that law, then that would be a different story. If they had accepted that law, but protested the punishment for breaking it, and if they had walked away and rejected the law because of the punishment for breaking it, then that would be a different story. But the truth is that they were given the law, they were told that they would be destroyed if they broke it, and they accepted it and submitted to it, only to break it 40 days later. So they were destroyed as they were told. This is not murder.
Ok, we agree to our disagreement in terms of murder.
I call it murder. You don't. I think the punishment is out of proportion to the offense. You don't.
Would you feel the same way about the morality of laws Hitler enacted that caused the deaths of Jews? Were they justified?
Punishment isn't always justified simply because a law is made and then broken.
Now it goes back to "Angry and Jealous" Both traits and emotions that are far from divine. Then vindictive when he plaques the survivors.
-
Ok, we agree to our disagreement in terms of murder.
OzmO, at this point in the discussion, you are pretty much saying that it is a murder because you say so. You are not giving any valid points in light of what we just discussed above.
I call it murder. You don't. I think the punishment is out of proportion to the offense. You don't.
If you want to argue whether or not the punishment is out of proportion to the offense, we can do that. But that is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing whether putting to death these 3000 men is murder or not. It doesn't matter if the punishment is out of proportion. They accepted the law and the punishment for breaking it 40 days earlier.
If you want to discuss whether they "should" have submitted to this law and whether they "should" have accepted the punishment for breaking it 40 days earlier, then we can discuss that. But that is not the point. You cannot tell them what they should or should not submit to or what they should or should not accept as punishment because they were free to choose and they chose to submit to that law and they chose to accept that punishment for breaking it.
Would you feel the same way about the morality of laws Hitler enacted that caused the deaths of Jews? Were they justified?
OzmO, I'm sorry, but I am really not understanding this analogy. Are you asking if the death of Jews during WWII was justified because it was the law of the land where they lived? The answer is NO. Which one of Hitler's laws about killing Jews did Jews agree to submit to and obey, only to choose to break later? How could they have accepted any law that called for their extermination and how could they break it? What law did they break and what were they being punished for? Please explain.
Punishment isn't always justified simply because a law is made and then broken.
No, it isn't. But that is not what we are talking about here, is it? It is not like they didn't choose to submit to this law and agree to obey it, only to choose to break it later. It is not like God gave them the law and didn't tell them what would happen if they broke it. It was very clear that if they broke it, they would be destroyed. They understood this and chose to submit to the law and to accept the punishment for breaking it. They had a choice and they chose to submit to the law, to accept the punishment for breaking it, then they chose to break it. That is not murder.
If you continue to say that this is murder, then you'll have to say that capital punishment in the United States is murder too. What's the difference?
If you continue to say that this is murder based on the proportion of the punishment, then you are starting to sound like a dictator, who says these 3000 men are not allowed to choose to submit to this law and that they are not allowed to choose to accept the punishment for breaking it because you know what is good for them better than they do. Have you ever lived in a dictatorship? This is the kind of crap that people are submitted to in Venezuela, Cuba and other countries under a dictatorship. The dictator tells you what to choose and what not to choose because "he knows what's best for you better than you do."
Now it goes back to "Angry and Jealous" Both traits and emotions that are far from divine. Then vindictive when he plaques the survivors.
We can discuss whether or not anger and jealousy should be God's attributes. But that is not what we are discussing here. If you commit treason and appear in front of a judge for it, the judge might be very angry at you and he/she might be jealous that your loyalties are with the enemy. But that does not mean that sentencing you to death is murder, because you know that the punishment for treason is death anyway. So you can't argue that the judge sentenced you to death because of anger and jealousy. The judge would sentence you to death because that is the punishment for treason, period. Emotion is beside the point here. So putting to death those 3000 men is not murder because they knew fully well what they were doing from the beginning and they made a choice to break the law, a bad choice. And they were punished according to the law which they had submitted to and accepted.
-
These days, even I'm not an Athiest... so what does that tell you?
-
These days, even I'm not an Athiest... so what does that tell you?
tu_holmes,
What do you mean? Are you saying that you were once an Athiest, but now you are not?
-
tu_holmes,
What do you mean? Are you saying that you were once an Athiest, but now you are not?
It doesn't mean anything... forget I said it.
-
It doesn't mean anything... forget I said it.
ok
-
OzmO, at this point in the discussion, you are pretty much saying that it is a murder because you say so. You are not giving any valid points in light of what we just discussed above.
If you want to argue whether or not the punishment is out of proportion to the offense, we can do that. But that is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing whether putting to death these 3000 men is murder or not. It doesn't matter if the punishment is out of proportion. They accepted the law and the punishment for breaking it 40 days earlier.
If you want to discuss whether they "should" have submitted to this law and whether they "should" have accepted the punishment for breaking it 40 days earlier, then we can discuss that. But that is not the point. You cannot tell them what they should or should not submit to or what they should or should not accept as punishment because they were free to choose and they chose to submit to that law and they chose to accept that punishment for breaking it.
OzmO, I'm sorry, but I am really not understanding this analogy. Are you asking if the death of Jews during WWII was justified because it was the law of the land where they lived? The answer is NO. Which one of Hitler's laws about killing Jews did Jews agree to submit to and obey, only to choose to break later? How could they have accepted any law that called for their extermination and how could they break it? What law did they break and what were they being punished for? Please explain.
No, it isn't. But that is not what we are talking about here, is it? It is not like they didn't choose to submit to this law and agree to obey it, only to choose to break it later. It is not like God gave them the law and didn't tell them what would happen if they broke it. It was very clear that if they broke it, they would be destroyed. They understood this and chose to submit to the law and to accept the punishment for breaking it. They had a choice and they chose to submit to the law, to accept the punishment for breaking it, then they chose to break it. That is not murder.
If you continue to say that this is murder, then you'll have to say that capital punishment in the United States is murder too. What's the difference?
If you continue to say that this is murder based on the proportion of the punishment, then you are starting to sound like a dictator, who says these 3000 men are not allowed to choose to submit to this law and that they are not allowed to choose to accept the punishment for breaking it because you know what is good for them better than they do. Have you ever lived in a dictatorship? This is the kind of crap that people are submitted to in Venezuela, Cuba and other countries under a dictatorship. The dictator tells you what to choose and what not to choose because "he knows what's best for you better than you do."
We can discuss whether or not anger and jealousy should be God's attributes. But that is not what we are discussing here. If you commit treason and appear in front of a judge for it, the judge might be very angry at you and he/she might be jealous that your loyalties are with the enemy. But that does not mean that sentencing you to death is murder, because you know that the punishment for treason is death anyway. So you can't argue that the judge sentenced you to death because of anger and jealousy. The judge would sentence you to death because that is the punishment for treason, period. Emotion is beside the point here. So putting to death those 3000 men is not murder because they knew fully well what they were doing from the beginning and they made a choice to break the law, a bad choice. And they were punished according to the law which they had submitted to and accepted.
Feeling a bit expressive today loco? :)
Here's the definition of murder:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
mur·der /ˈmɜrdər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mur-der] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
2. Slang. something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!
3. a group or flock of crows.
–verb (used with object)
4. Law. to kill by an act constituting murder.
5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
6. to spoil or mar by bad performance, representation, pronunciation, etc.: The tenor murdered the aria.
–verb (used without object)
7. to commit murder.
—Idioms
8. get away with murder, Informal. to engage in a deplorable activity without incurring harm or punishment: The new baby-sitter lets the kids get away with murder.
9. murder will out, a secret will eventually be exposed.
10. yell or scream bloody murder,
a. to scream loudly in pain, fear, etc.
b. to protest loudly and angrily: If I don't get a good raise I'm going to yell bloody murder.
When you kill 3000 for worshiping a different way, whether it's the law or not, it's murder. Hitler enacted laws that could cause your death for aiding and abetting Jews as acts of treason. That was murder too. It was a wholesale slaughter of 3000 people put to the sword in a fit of anger. It wasn't one person committing murder and then getting a lethal injection as a capital punishment.
So your capital punishment point is weak because we don;t put people to death for the anger and jealous laced frenzy that moses did.
It doesn't matter if they agreed. It was once said you can get 12% of people to believe pigs fly with a poll. Just because somebody agrees to something doesn't justify a transgression of killing them. Yes they were warned, yes they acknowledge that warning. Doesn't matter. Just like getting a lethal injection for burning a flag.
Maybe it's an opinion only or maybe not.
But killing 3000 men for what they did is pure EVIL and WRONG. It is not indicative of the wisdom of God that is shown through so much of the Bible.
-
Feeling a bit expressive today loco? :)
Here's the definition of murder:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
mur·der /ˈmɜrdər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mur-der] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
2. Slang. something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!
3. a group or flock of crows.
–verb (used with object)
4. Law. to kill by an act constituting murder.
5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
6. to spoil or mar by bad performance, representation, pronunciation, etc.: The tenor murdered the aria.
–verb (used without object)
7. to commit murder.
—Idioms
8. get away with murder, Informal. to engage in a deplorable activity without incurring harm or punishment: The new baby-sitter lets the kids get away with murder.
9. murder will out, a secret will eventually be exposed.
10. yell or scream bloody murder,
a. to scream loudly in pain, fear, etc.
b. to protest loudly and angrily: If I don't get a good raise I'm going to yell bloody murder.
Thanks OzmO, but I am well aware of what the word murder means.
When you kill 3000 for worshiping a different way, whether it's the law or not, it's murder.
Why? Because you said so? You are still not giving any valid reasons.
Hitler enacted laws that could cause your death for aiding and abetting Jews as acts of treason. That was murder too.
Hitler was an evil dictator that gave people no choice. These 3000 men had a choice. You are taking away their freedom to choose when you say that they should not have chosen to submit to that law and that they should not have chosen to accept the punishment for breaking it. Who are you to tell them what they should or should not accept as punishment for breaking the law? It is their nation, their choice. You sound like a dictator if you insist on this.
It was a wholesale slaughter of 3000 people put to the sword in a fit of anger. It wasn't one person committing murder and then getting a lethal injection as a capital punishment.
Oh, so now it is capital punishment if it is one man, but murder if it is two, three, three hundred, three thousand? It's murder if it is not lethal injection? By they way, I read the other day that the guy who came up with lethal injection admitted that it is a torturous, slow, painful death. They are looking into changing it.
So your capital punishment point is weak because we don;t put people to death for the anger and jealous laced frenzy that moses did.
One, it is not a point. This is capital punishment. Two, I already explained to you that anger or no anger, jealousy or no jealousy, whether it was God or Moses, this is not murder because these men chose to submit to this law, chose to accept death as the punishment for breaking it, and chose to break it later.
It doesn't matter if they agreed. It was once said you can get 12% of people to believe pigs fly with a poll. Just because somebody agrees to something doesn't justify a transgression of killing them. Yes they were warned, yes they acknowledge that warning. Doesn't matter. Just like getting a lethal injection for burning a flag.
It doesn't matter? We are not talking about 12% of the people and we are not talking about flying pigs. We are talking about a nation submitting to a law and accepting death as the punishment for breaking it. It does matter. Are you saying that a nation is not free to choose to submit to laws and to choose to accept death as the punisment for breaking those laws?
Maybe it's an opinion only or maybe not.
But killing 3000 men for what they did is pure EVIL and WRONG. It is not indicative of the wisdom of God that is shown through so much of the Bible.
Why is it evil and why is it wrong? Because you say so? We can argue whether or not it is indicative of the wisdom of God that is shown through so much of the Bible. But that is still not what we are discussing here. The discussion is about whether or not putting to death these 3000 men was murder or not. It is not murder because they all chose to submit to the law, to obey it, and they chose to accept death as the punishment for breaking it. Then, they decided to break it. So they were put to death as they had chosen earlier to be punished for breaking the law that they had chosen to submit to.