Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: OzmO on November 16, 2007, 09:13:33 PM
-
Anyone see just how stupid that is? God ordering someone to kill a child?
He ordered the Jews to murder the amalikite children.
Would you do it?
I wouldn't. He can stick that order in his ass. And if he sends me to hell he's a hypocrite and cannot possibly be god. And if he really is GOD, then to hell i go, becuase i'd rather burn in hell than kill a child, becuase if that's what i'm supposed to do to go to heaven then forget it. I will not kill a child so that i can go to heaven.
i will not lose my soul becuase GOD couldn't in all "his wisdom and power" find a better answer.
-
Anyone see just how stupid that is? God ordering someone to kill a child?
He ordered the Jews to murder the amalikite children.
Would you do it?
I wouldn't. He can stick that order in his ass. And if he sends me to hell he's a hypocrite and cannot possibly be god. And if he really is GOD, then to hell i go, becuase i'd rather burn in hell than kill a child, becuase if that's what i'm supposed to do to go to heaven then forget it. I will not kill a child so that i can go to heaven.
i will not lose my soul becuase GOD couldn't in all "his wisdom and power" find a better answer.
Since it is fiction, it matters little.
-
OzmO, killing children is no big deal at all to the Hebrew god. He killed every first born child in Egypt. He could have spared them, in his infinite power and wisdom, but he killed them.
-
OzmO, killing children is no big deal at all to the Hebrew god. He killed every first born child in Egypt. He could have spared them, in his infinite power and wisdom, but he killed them.
He would have spared them, had Pharoah released the Israelites, the other NINE times he was told to "Let my people go". Once again, my point made earlier regarding what happened to the Amalekites is made. Sometimes when you do wrong, you are not the only one who pays for it. Pharoah's stubborness led to the death of his people.
Anyone see just how stupid that is? God ordering someone to kill a child?
He ordered the Jews to murder the amalikite children.
Would you do it?
I wouldn't. He can stick that order in his ass. And if he sends me to hell he's a hypocrite and cannot possibly be god. And if he really is GOD, then to hell i go, becuase i'd rather burn in hell than kill a child, becuase if that's what i'm supposed to do to go to heaven then forget it. I will not kill a child so that i can go to heaven.
i will not lose my soul becuase GOD couldn't in all "his wisdom and power" find a better answer.
Ummm.....last time I checked, if you end up in the lake of fire, you've already lost your soul. Furthermore, nowhere is it stated that killing a child was a prerequisite to entering the pearly gates. And the Bible gives full explanation as to why the Amalekites got punished the way they did. But, instead of recognizing such, you'd rather go on a tirade, because God doesn't do things the way you think he should.
At the end of the day, He (not you or I) is the Creator. As He is the giver of life, it would follow that He has the right to take life away, when He sees fit, whether we agree with it or not, whether we understand why or not.
-
He would have spared them, had Pharoah released the Israelites, the other NINE times he was told to "Let my people go". Once again, my point made earlier regarding what happened to the Amalekites is made. Sometimes when you do wrong, you are not the only one who pays for it. Pharoah's stubborness led to the death of his people.
Ummm.....last time I checked, if you end up in the lake of fire, you've already lost your soul. Furthermore, nowhere is it stated that killing a child was a prerequisite to entering the pearly gates. And the Bible gives full explanation as to why the Amalekites got punished the way they did. But, instead of recognizing such, you'd rather go on a tirade, because God doesn't do things the way you think he should.
At the end of the day, He (not you or I) is the Creator. As He is the giver of life, it would follow that He has the right to take life away, when He sees fit, whether we agree with it or not, whether we understand why or not.
Spoken like a true fundy nutcase. That is an explanation that explains essentially nothing, hence it is not an explanation.
-
Spoken like a true fundy nutcase. That is an explanation that explains essentially nothing, hence it is not an explanation.
Of course it doesn't explain anything. That statement wasn't supposed to be an explanation. It simply made a point.
BTW, aren't you still due to answer a few questions poised to you that you've ducked for the past 2-3 weeks (regarding certain historical documents)?
-
the bible was written to lead people back to God. It was written to be descriptive (telling what happened to people who obeyed and disobeyed him) and prescriptive (telling what to do inorder to be apart of his kingdom).
-
He would have spared them, had Pharoah released the Israelites, the other NINE times he was told to "Let my people go". Once again, my point made earlier regarding what happened to the Amalekites is made. Sometimes when you do wrong, you are not the only one who pays for it. Pharoah's stubborness led to the death of his people.
Ummm.....last time I checked, if you end up in the lake of fire, you've already lost your soul. Furthermore, nowhere is it stated that killing a child was a prerequisite to entering the pearly gates. And the Bible gives full explanation as to why the Amalekites got punished the way they did. But, instead of recognizing such, you'd rather go on a tirade, because God doesn't do things the way you think he should.
At the end of the day, He (not you or I) is the Creator. As He is the giver of life, it would follow that He has the right to take life away, when He sees fit, whether we agree with it or not, whether we understand why or not.
So then answer the question.....
-
becuase i'd rather burn in hell than kill a child, becuase if that's what i'm supposed to do to go to heaven then forget it. I will not kill a child so that i can go to heaven.
Well, OzmO, you can kill all the children that you want to kill, but that will not get you into heaven. If you think that the Bible teaches that in order to go to heaven you must kill children, then I'm glad that you are not a Christian.
-
Well, OzmO, you can kill all the children that you want to kill, but that will not get you into heaven. If you think that the Bible teaches that in order to go to heaven you must kill children, then I'm glad that you are not a Christian.
Blah blah blah,
i knew you and McVay, and even bet hustle man will do everything you can NOT to answer the question.
You will dodge and distract as much as you can.
I'm asking you right now......God orders you to kill a child, will you do it?
P.s.: And I'm not at all surprised you think i think killing children is a way to get in heaven. It's a straight forward question...do you have the nads to answer it?
-
Of course it doesn't explain anything. That statement wasn't supposed to be an explanation. It simply made a point.
BTW, aren't you still due to answer a few questions poised to you that you've ducked for the past 2-3 weeks (regarding certain historical documents)?
It was an ill considered point.
With regards to the other comment, I have been busy.
I answered questions over and over but magic books are hurled again and again and when I post things like former fundy, Bart Ehrman and his scholarship showing how the bible is riddled with copyist errors, mistakes and interpolations, that stuff IS ignored. If a person wants to believe in magic books without evidence, then there is no evidence you can present to convince him otherwise. Same goes for the creationist folk and evolution.
-
the bible was written to lead people back to God. It was written to be descriptive (telling what happened to people who obeyed and disobeyed him) and prescriptive (telling what to do inorder to be apart of his kingdom).
No, the bible was written by ignorant, nobody goatherders looking to glorify themselves and their tribe through invention, fairy tales and fiction.
-
Blah blah blah,
Blah blah blah what? Kill all the children that you want to kill. That won't get you into heaven. Don't ever become a Chrisian if that's what you think the Bible teaches.
i knew you and McVay, and even bet hustle man will do everything you can NOT to answer the question.
You will dodge and distract as much as you can.
I'm asking you right now......God orders you to kill a child, will you do it?
You are twisting and distorting the word of God, which is very indecent of you. God does not just order anybody to kill a child.
Had I been king Saul? Yes, unlike Saul and unlike you, I would have obeyed God and completely destroyed the Amalekites, both out of obedience to God and to project my people from this 300+ year threat. But that does not guarantee entrance into heaven. Only faith in Jesus Christ can do that.
There is your answer.
P.s.: And I'm not at all surprised you think i think killing children is a way to get in heaven. It's a straight forward question...do you have the nads to answer it?
You shouldn't be surprised, because that is what you said.
becuase i'd rather burn in hell than kill a child, becuase if that's what i'm supposed to do to go to heaven then forget it. I will not kill a child so that i can go to heaven.
-
No I wouldn't kill a child and I don't believe killing a child is a prerequisite to getting into heaven.
-
LOL @ God telling you anything. Monster schizophrenic listening to voices in your head.
-
No I wouldn't kill a child and I don't believe killing a child is a prerequisite to getting into heaven.
What would you have done in Abraham's position?
-
Have a problem with a Biblical verse?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAB7viNJp8o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAB7viNJp8o)
this is a good video.
-
ANY god is imaginary!
-
What would you have done in Abraham's position?
I'm not certain what I would have done if I was alive over 2000 years ago and was someone else. What I can tell you today is that if God or anyone else "ordered" me to kill a child my answer would be "no."
-
Blah blah blah what? Kill all the children that you want to kill. That won't get you into heaven. Don't ever become a Chrisian if that's what you think the Bible teaches.
You are twisting and distorting the word of God, which is very indecent of you. God does not just order anybody to kill a child.
Had I been king Saul? Yes, unlike Saul and unlike you, I would have obeyed God and completely destroyed the Amalekites, both out of obedience to God and to project my people from this 300+ year threat. But that does not guarantee entrance into heaven. Only faith in Jesus Christ can do that.
There is your answer.
You shouldn't be surprised, because that is what you said.
So you would have killed 2 year, 3-year, 4 year, old children babies and the like?
And would you do it today? If God told you to go kill the 1 year old off spring of terrorist would you do it?
-
So you would have killed 2 year, 3-year, 4 year, old children babies and the like?
OzmO, I have already answered your question.
Had I been king Saul those thousand years ago, then yes, I would have completely destroyed the Amalekites to obey God and to protect my people from this 300+ year old threat and to finally put an end to it. At least I would hope that I would not be as weak a king Saul was.
And would you do it today? If God told you to go kill the 1 year old off spring of terrorist would you do it?
Today? No. How is God going to ask me to do that today? That's the beauty of Biblical Christianity. Christians are not to listen to little voices in their heads, not even to angels, but only to the Bible, "Sola Escritura"(Scripture alone.). And the Bible does not teach that in order to enter heaven you must kill children. I have no idea where you go that from. In the contrary, why do you think it is Christians who oppose and take action against legal abortions?
-
OzmO, I have already answered your question.
Had I been king Saul those thousand years ago, then yes, I would have completely destroyed the Amalekites to obey God and to protect my people from this 300+ year old threat and to finally put an end to it. At least I would hope that I would not be as weak a king Saul was.
Today? No. How is God going to ask me to do that today? That's the beauty of Biblical Christianity. Christians are not to listen to little voices in their heads, not even to angels, but only to the Bible, "Sola Escritura"(Scripture alone.). And the Bible does not teach that in order to enter heaven you must kill children. I have no idea where you go that from. In the contrary, why do you think it is Christians who oppose and take action against legal abortions?
I'm asking you whether or not you would kill a child if you were one of those jewish soldiers, not if you were saul.
-
I'm asking you whether or not you would kill a child if you were one of those jewish soldiers, not if you were saul.
What's the difference and why do you keep asking the same question over and over again? Do you really believe that you'll get a different answer? If there is some point to this which you are trying to make, then go ahead and make it.
All the while you have ignored my questions.
Your attempts at portraying Jews and Christians as child murderers is futile, and indecent at best.
-
It's a simple question loco and you are not answering it directly.
If you were a jewish soldier would you kill 2-3-4 year old, infant, amalikite babies if God ordered you to do it?
P.s. stop playing the dumb card again. You know I'm not trying to portray christains and jews as murderers. I'm askikng a simple question and asking follow up questions to clarify your answers.
Can you answer it or not?
If you were a jewish soldier would you kill 2-3-4 year old, infant, amalikite babies if God ordered you to do it?
squirm squirm squirm lol
-
I'm asking you whether or not you would kill a child if you were one of those jewish soldiers, not if you were saul.
You made no specifications about whether Loco (or I) were a Jewish soldier vs. King Saul (to whom God gave the order), earlier. You got your answers and now, you're switching the questions.
It's a simple question loco and you are not answering it directly.
If you were a jewish soldier would you kill 2-3-4 year old, infant, amalikite babies if God ordered you to do it?
P.s. stop playing the dumb card again. You know I'm not trying to portray christains and jews as murderers. I'm askikng a simple question and asking follow up questions to clarify your answers.
Can you answer it or not?
If you were a jewish soldier would you kill 2-3-4 year old, infant, amalikite babies if God ordered you to do it?
squirm squirm squirm lol
You're not portraying the Jews as murderers? Excuse me! That's been the subject of your outrage every time this subject gets mentioned. Loco's answer was (regardless of whether he was a soldier or King Saul himself) that he would carry out God's instructions, protecting his people and put down an enemy that has been assualting his people for over three centuries.
My answer is similar. But, as I stated earlier, there's no one who's been assaulting my people or have been doing so for 300 years.
By the way, you have a question I don't think you've addressed. That would be why, if you claim that the Jews lied about the reason for Saul's orders to deal with the Amalekites, Saul lost his throne?
-
It was an ill considered point.
With regards to the other comment, I have been busy.
I answered questions over and over but magic books are hurled again and again and when I post things like former fundy, Bart Ehrman and his scholarship showing how the bible is riddled with copyist errors, mistakes and interpolations, that stuff IS ignored. If a person wants to believe in magic books without evidence, then there is no evidence you can present to convince him otherwise. Same goes for the creationist folk and evolution.
Try that again. The stuff isn't ignored; it is refuted, a BIG difference. In fact, when I first addressed your rather laborious cut-and-paste jobs, I went through, point by point, and addressed why such statements were inaccurate. Furthermore, I don't see how referring to Ehrman as a "former fundie" helps your case. I can just as easily cite Biblical scholars and believers, who were once atheists. Would that mean that you ignored what they had to say on certain matters?
To top it all off, your claim about wanting to "believe in magic books without evidence" is even more off the mark. I've mentioned it before now, and so has Loco. We cited numerous times where skeptics have that Biblical accounts were false, only to have their statements shattered, when historical and archaeological evidence points to the Bible's accuracy.
Among such was what he and I posted, refuting your first claim that there was no extra-Biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. When that claim of your got sunk, you then reverted to asserting that Josephus was the only one and that it was fradulent. That was picked apart as well. That leads to some of the questions that Loco and I asked you.
1) Loco's question to you was to produce a reference to a copy of the Josephus' Testimonium (in either Greek or Arabic, the two known languages in which it was written) that DOES NOT HAVE any reference to Jesus Christ.
2) My question to you was to produce a reference, showing that the Talmud was originally written in 200 A.D. (as you cited that it was written too late to be of any value, for being an extra-Biblical reference to Jesus, which you said didn't exist in the first place) and that the statement in it, regarding Jesus' death were inaccurate, as you also claimed.
-
Try that again. The stuff isn't ignored; it is refuted, a BIG difference. In fact, when I first addressed your rather laborious cut-and-paste jobs, I went through, point by point, and addressed why such statements were inaccurate. Furthermore, I don't see how referring to Ehrman as a "former fundie" helps your case. I can just as easily cite Biblical scholars and believers, who were once atheists. Would that mean that you ignored what they had to say on certain matters?
To top it all off, your claim about wanting to "believe in magic books without evidence" is even more off the mark. I've mentioned it before now, and so has Loco. We cited numerous times where skeptics have that Biblical accounts were false, only to have their statements shattered, when historical and archaeological evidence points to the Bible's accuracy.
Among such was what he and I posted, refuting your first claim that there was no extra-Biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. When that claim of your got sunk, you then reverted to asserting that Josephus was the only one and that it was fradulent. That was picked apart as well. That leads to some of the questions that Loco and I asked you.
1) Loco's question to you was to produce a reference to a copy of the Josephus' Testimonium (in either Greek or Arabic, the two known languages in which it was written) that DOES NOT HAVE any reference to Jesus Christ.
2) My question to you was to produce a reference, showing that the Talmud was originally written in 200 A.D. (as you cited that it was written too late to be of any value, for being an extra-Biblical reference to Jesus, which you said didn't exist in the first place) and that the statement in it, regarding Jesus' death were inaccurate, as you also claimed.
You refuted nothing. You merely wailed up and down that Josephus is not an interpolation and left it at that and your Talmud crap is nonsense. I never proposed a specific date of composition for it, but hey I have a better offer for you. As get big's staunchest and best apologist for Christianity and its myths I invite to present your views to a different audience. At Koko Cheers all are welcome!
Especially at the sceptic tank!
http://captporridge.com/bb/index.php?board=14.0
-
You refuted nothing. You merely wailed up and down that Josephus is not an interpolation and left it at that and your Talmud crap is nonsense. I never proposed a specific date of composition for it, but hey I have a better offer for you. As get big's staunchest and best apologist for Christianity and its myths I invite to present your views to a different audience. At Koko Cheers all are welcome!
That is DEAD WRONG, Trapezkerl. What I said was that the Greek version did have interpolations, but those involved the DIVINITY of Jesus, not His existence. I further mentioned that there's an Arabic version that does not have those interpolations (which, when referencing the Greek version, were put in brackets) but states much the same thing, regarding the existence of Jesus, His followers, his being put to death by Pilate, and the disciples reporting His resurrection.
You did, in fact, state that the Talmud was written "too late" to be a valid extra-biblical reference to Jesus. And YOU mentioned that it was written in 200 A.D. After which, I asked to show that the 200 A.D. manuscript was the original, as opposed to the earliest-known copy. To this day, you have produced nothing to support your statement.
These are your words:
The Talmud, written centuries after the 'fact' is worthless; moreover it claims hanging and stoning. Worthless document
Not in the habit of fact checking back then; 200 CE is too late to be considered of any value for relevance to events that purportedly happened in 30 CE. That is a fact.
A document written in 200 CE is far to late to contain accurate information about a human Jesus/Yeshua. By then everyone knew what Christians believed and thought their founder was.
Plus, you stated that it was inaccurate anyway, because it mentioned "stoning and hanging". I then explained the reasons for that. To refresh your memory, Jesus was accused of practicing sorcery (as the Talmud states), the normal maximum punishment for that was death by stoning. Had the Jews actually carried out the sentence, that would happened. But, the Romans did so; as such, Jesus was "hanged", or crucified. The Hebrew word for hanging can mean being strung up by the neck, crucifixion, or impalement.
-
At the end of the day, He (not you or I) is the Creator. As He is the giver of life, it would follow that He has the right to take life away, when He sees fit, whether we agree with it or not, whether we understand why or not.
Then let him do it himself.
He shouldn't ask people to do his dirty work.
-
I would just tell him to fuck off.
-
You made no specifications about whether Loco (or I) were a Jewish soldier vs. King Saul (to whom God gave the order), earlier. You got your answers and now, you're switching the questions.
You're not portraying the Jews as murderers? Excuse me! That's been the subject of your outrage every time this subject gets mentioned. Loco's answer was (regardless of whether he was a soldier or King Saul himself) that he would carry out God's instructions, protecting his people and put down an enemy that has been assualting his people for over three centuries.
My answer is similar. But, as I stated earlier, there's no one who's been assaulting my people or have been doing so for 300 years.
By the way, you have a question I don't think you've addressed. That would be why, if you claim that the Jews lied about the reason for Saul's orders to deal with the Amalekites, Saul lost his throne?
Who ordered the Jews to kill the children? Saul or God? I need some clarification. ;)
BTW, feel free the answer the question:
If you were a jewish soldier would you have killed 2-3-4-year olds and infants on God's orders?
-
Who ordered the Jews to kill the children? Saul or God? I need some clarification. ;)
BTW, feel free the answer the question:
If you were a jewish soldier would you have killed 2-3-4-year olds and infants on God's orders?
I already did. But, just in case you missed it, I would carry out the order: Destroy Amalek, everything and everyone. It's either Amalek or Israel. If I were an ancient Israelite, I know what side I'm picking.
Now, it's your turn. If this account, as you claimed, was all a big lie (with regards to God giving the order to destroy all the Amalekites), why did Saul lose his throne, for keeping the choice livestock, silver and gold, as well as sparing the Amalekite king? By all earthly standards, that's a big, BIG victory for the Israelites.
-
I already did. But, just in case you missed it, I would carry out the order: Destroy Amalek, everything and everyone. It's either Amalek or Israel. If I were an ancient Israelite, I know what side I'm picking.
Now, it's your turn. If this account, as you claimed, was all a big lie (with regards to God giving the order to destroy all the Amalekites), why did Saul lose his throne, for keeping the choice livestock, silver and gold, as well as sparing the Amalekite king? By all earthly standards, that's a big, BIG victory for the Israelites.
Ok, so you would have killed children, killed babies, infants etc.
Thanks for answering.
So Saul, ordered the deaths of the children but kept the livestock and then lost his throne because of it?
-
Anyone see just how stupid that is? God ordering someone to kill a child?
He ordered the Jews to murder the amalikite children.
Would you do it?
I wouldn't. He can stick that order in his ass. And if he sends me to hell he's a hypocrite and cannot possibly be god. And if he really is GOD, then to hell i go, becuase i'd rather burn in hell than kill a child, becuase if that's what i'm supposed to do to go to heaven then forget it. I will not kill a child so that i can go to heaven.
i will not lose my soul becuase GOD couldn't in all "his wisdom and power" find a better answer.
Because of course you are much wiser than him.
Do not be decieved my friend, God will not be mocked.
It would be my guess that you have much deeper lying issues than what God has asked people to do. Throwing up smokescreens isn't going to get you anywhere with God. He sees right through it. He knows your every thought.
God doesnt want you to go to hell, it's His desire that "none should perish but for all to come to repentance."
-
Because of course you are much wiser than him.
Do not be decieved my friend, God will not be mocked.
It would be my guess that you have much deeper lying issues than what God has asked people to do. Throwing up smokescreens isn't going to get you anywhere with God. He sees right through it. He knows your every thought.
God doesnt want you to go to hell, it's His desire that "none should perish but for all to come to repentance."
Oh boy, another bible thumping fundy nutcase...
-
Doesn't matter if the law changes.
Abortion will still happen.
but what will change is the fall out from abortion being illegal.
- Health issues from Illegal abortions
- Criminal and Court cost from illegal abortions will cost tax payers more
- Foster care and welfare costs will rise
And this is coming from the same guy who posted this:
Anyone see just how stupid that is? God ordering someone to kill a child?
He ordered the Jews to murder the amalikite children.
Would you do it?
I wouldn't. He can stick that order in his ass. And if he sends me to hell he's a hypocrite and cannot possibly be god. And if he really is GOD, then to hell i go, becuase i'd rather burn in hell than kill a child, becuase if that's what i'm supposed to do to go to heaven then forget it. I will not kill a child so that i can go to heaven.
i will not lose my soul becuase GOD couldn't in all "his wisdom and power" find a better answer.
::)
OzmO,
It's so easy to whine and complain about Israel completely destroying the Amalekites who for centuries had killed Israeli women and children, something that happened thousands of years ago, something that you and the rest of the skeptics here don't even believe even happened.
But when it comes to the here and now, when it comes to abortion, you believe that abortion is murder, yet you are pro-choice. You are a man of many words, but no action. While Christians rally and protest legal abortion, to defend those who can't defend themselves and speaking for those you can't speak for themselves, you do nothing but sit in front of your computer and post on getbig.
Christians will eventually abolish legal abortions, just like it was primarily Christians who abolished slavery in England and in the US. And many years from now, people will look back in disbelief at how abortion was once legal, and people will forget that it was primarily Christians who opposed and abolished it, just as was the case with slavery. But you go ahead and, for the sake of your personal interests, oppose those who attempt to abolish legal abortions, all the while posting on getbig about how bad Israel was for destroying the wicked Amalekites.
-
I would just tell him to fuck off.
Honestly, you would? Even if you were an Israeli man who had witnessed the Amalekites rape and murder your grand parents, only to come back a few years later and murder your parents and baby sister, only to come back a few years later and murder your wife, sons and daughters...even if you had witnessed your brothers and their families starve to death because the Amalekites kept coming back and destroying your crops and stealing your possessions, generation after generation for three centuries?
-
That's different. If I'd seen such, then I'd go after the perps, their families, and their friends a la Keyser Söze.
But a random kill order from this 'God' fella? I'd tell him to fuck off, because I'm not a murderer.
-
It depends on the child.If they were a fu**ing brat....sure.
-
That is DEAD WRONG, Trapezkerl. What I said was that the Greek version did have interpolations, but those involved the DIVINITY of Jesus, not His existence. I further mentioned that there's an Arabic version that does not have those interpolations (which, when referencing the Greek version, were put in brackets) but states much the same thing, regarding the existence of Jesus, His followers, his being put to death by Pilate, and the disciples reporting His resurrection.
You did, in fact, state that the Talmud was written "too late" to be a valid extra-biblical reference to Jesus. And YOU mentioned that it was written in 200 A.D. After which, I asked to show that the 200 A.D. manuscript was the original, as opposed to the earliest-known copy. To this day, you have produced nothing to support your statement.
These are your words:
The Talmud, written centuries after the 'fact' is worthless; moreover it claims hanging and stoning. Worthless document
Not in the habit of fact checking back then; 200 CE is too late to be considered of any value for relevance to events that purportedly happened in 30 CE. That is a fact.
A document written in 200 CE is far to late to contain accurate information about a human Jesus/Yeshua. By then everyone knew what Christians believed and thought their founder was.
Plus, you stated that it was inaccurate anyway, because it mentioned "stoning and hanging". I then explained the reasons for that. To refresh your memory, Jesus was accused of practicing sorcery (as the Talmud states), the normal maximum punishment for that was death by stoning. Had the Jews actually carried out the sentence, that would happened. But, the Romans did so; as such, Jesus was "hanged", or crucified. The Hebrew word for hanging can mean being strung up by the neck, crucifixion, or impalement.
does god know the future?
-
And this is coming from the same guy who posted this:
::)
OzmO,
It's so easy to whine and complain about Israel completely destroying the Amalekites who for centuries had killed Israeli women and children, something that happened thousands of years ago, something that you and the rest of the skeptics here don't even believe even happened.
Again you get it wrong! Why are you so thick sometimes? Is it a language barrier?
I don't believe God ordered innocent children to be killed. Because that would make God an evil murderer. But Conservative Christians are OK with that. They'll kill children on God's orders. They'll believe God has a wiser purpose to do so and that they shouldn't question it even though KILLING CHILDREN DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS GOD'S TEACHINGS.
This is the root of suffering under religious persecution. This is were it is born. From people who blindly follow and disregard their compassion and common sense.
But when it comes to the here and now, when it comes to abortion, you believe that abortion is murder, yet you are pro-choice. You are a man of many words, but no action.
You call me a man with no action? What the frick do you know loco? Look at one of the older abortion threads in the Politics board were i tell Cap about my brother who recently found out that his girl friend was pregnant and had called me and our father to lend him money for an abortion. You'll read that i talked him out of it and urged him to keep the baby (which he is now) telling him that aborting is murder. He's keeping his baby because of what my father and i did.
That's action on a personal level. That's where i can make a difference. I can make a difference influencing the people in my life. But fact is whether abortion is legal or illegal my brother's girl friend could get a abortion if she chose to. AND the fall out from making abortion illegal out weighs making it legal.
But what the frick do i know about you loco? I know you'd ram a spear through an innocent child because you've blinded your common sense with a book of stories which in my book brings to question your moral compass and makes you a potentially dangerous person.
So don't tell me about actions. You don't know a dam thing about that.
-
But Conservative Christians are OK with that. They'll kill children on God's orders.
Please name one conservative Christian who kills children on orders from God.
Please do tell us how God would order a conservative Christian to kill a child, with a little voice in his/her head, by sending an angel of light with the message? Conservative Christians don't listen to little voices in their head or to angels, they listen only to the Bible.
Look at one of the older abortion threads in the Politics board were i tell Cap about my brother who recently found out that his girl friend was pregnant and had called me and our father to lend him money for an abortion. You'll read that i talked him out of it and urged him to keep the baby (which he is now) telling him that aborting is murder. He's keeping his baby because of what my father and i did.
That's action on a personal level. That's where i can make a difference. I can make a difference influencing the people in my life. But fact is whether abortion is legal or illegal my brother's girl friend could get a abortion if she chose to. AND the fall out from making abortion illegal out weighs making it legal.
That's awesome, OzmO. It really is and I'm impressed. But that does not justify your reasons for not defending or speaking for the many unborn babies that get murdered every year and the many murderers who go unpunished. How is this different from saying
"I owned a slave, but I let him go free. I did my part. I made a difference at a personal level, but I still think slavery should be legal for the health of the nation's economy."?
-
Please name one conservative Christian who kills children on orders from God.
There is no one currently killing innocent children on orders from God. But if i were to name 2 that would kill children on orders from God they would be:
1. loco
2. McWay
Please do tell us how God would order a conservative Christian to kill a child, with a little voice in his/her head, by sending an angel of light with the message? Conservative Christians don't listen to little voices in their head or to angels, they listen only to the Bible.
kind of sounds like you worship a book. ;) Anyways......
A another good question wold be: If God contacted you and you knew it was God beyond a shadow of a doubt and he ordered you to kill 10 innocent babies who's fathers were Al Queda, would you do it?
That's awesome, OzmO. It really is and I'm impressed. But that does not justify your reasons for not defending or speaking for the many unborn babies that get murdered every year and the many murderers who go unpunished. How is this different from saying
"I owned a slave, but I let him go free. I did my part. I made a difference at a personal level, but I still think slavery should be legal for the health of the nation's economy."?
It's different because i would never own a slave to begin with.
BTW, The economy is one concern but the health of the mothers who will get abortions in places and from doctors that are regulated and whose practices are held to the current standard is another. Because then you potentially kill nmothers and babies.
I realize i walk a fine line in my views. I'm being practical and think the answer to the problem isn't to make it illegal, it's to raise the level of morality in our society. In a perfect world no one would chose to have an abortion and it wouldn't even be needed to make it illegal. But we are far from it and even if it's illegal it will still happen.
I can only make a difference in the people i influence. Something i will always do. Had my Daughter got pregnant at any age, i'd make sure she had the baby. Anyone who i know who ever thinks of having an abortion i strongly encourage them to keep it telling them they will regret it for the rest of their lives if they abort.
-
There is no one currently killing innocent children on orders from God. But if i were to name 2 that would kill children on orders from God they would be:
1. loco
2. McWay
kind of sounds like you worship a book. ;) Anyways......
A another good question wold be: If God contacted you and you knew it was God beyond a shadow of a doubt and he ordered you to kill 10 innocent babies who's fathers were Al Queda, would you do it?
It's different because i would never own a slave to begin with.
BTW, The economy is one concern but the health of the mothers who will get abortions in places and from doctors that are regulated and whose practices are held to the current standard is another. Because then you potentially kill nmothers and babies.
I realize i walk a fine line in my views. I'm being practical and think the answer to the problem isn't to make it illegal, it's to raise the level of morality in our society. In a perfect world no one would chose to have an abortion and it wouldn't even be needed to make it illegal. But we are far from it and even if it's illegal it will still happen.
I can only make a difference in the people i influence. Something i will always do. Had my Daughter got pregnant at any age, i'd make sure she had the baby. Anyone who i know who ever thinks of having an abortion i strongly encourage them to keep it telling them they will regret it for the rest of their lives if they abort.
Thanks OzmO! You call me a child murderer for no reason, but God bless you anyway!
I call you a man of many words and no action, because that is what you are, and you meltdown. Touchy touchy.
Sure, let's not defend those who can't defend themselves. Let's not speak for those who can't speak for themselves. Why? For the sake of the murderer's health and for the sake of the state's economy. But yeah, let's post on getbig and try to portray all Jews and Christians as child murderers. That's the whole point of this thread. Great job! ::)
Have a Happy Thanksgiving Day, OzmO! ;D
-
Thanks OzmO! You call me a child murderer for no reason, but God bless you anyway!
First off i didn't call you a child murderer.
You are not one until you actually kill a child. But potentially you are, by YOUR words. NOT mine.
I call you a man of many words and no action, because that is what you are, and you meltdown. Touchy touchy.
Not a meltdown. (you must be really grasping now for claiming i melted down) Simply stating you don't know what you are talking about when you claim i don't take action.
Sure, let's not defend those who can't defend themselves. Let's not speak for those who can't speak for themselves. Why? For the sake of the murderer's health and for the sake of the state's economy. But yeah, let's post on getbig and try to portray all Jews and Christians as child murderers. That's the whole point of this thread. Great job! Roll Eyes
You are the one who claim that's i claim all Jew and Christian are child murders..... I never have done that. Am i touching a nerve loco, because you can't seem to see that.
You have a great Thanksgiving too loco and God bless you.
-
It depends on the child.
L O L
-
There is no one currently killing innocent children on orders from God. But if i were to name 2 that would kill children on orders from God they would be:
1. loco
2. McWay
kind of sounds like you worship a book. ;) Anyways......
A another good question wold be: If God contacted you and you knew it was God beyond a shadow of a doubt and he ordered you to kill 10 innocent babies who's fathers were Al Queda, would you do it?
It's different because i would never own a slave to begin with.
BTW, The economy is one concern but the health of the mothers who will get abortions in places and from doctors that are regulated and whose practices are held to the current standard is another. Because then you potentially kill nmothers and babies.
I realize i walk a fine line in my views. I'm being practical and think the answer to the problem isn't to make it illegal, it's to raise the level of morality in our society. In a perfect world no one would chose to have an abortion and it wouldn't even be needed to make it illegal. But we are far from it and even if it's illegal it will still happen.
I can only make a difference in the people i influence. Something i will always do. Had my Daughter got pregnant at any age, i'd make sure she had the baby. Anyone who i know who ever thinks of having an abortion i strongly encourage them to keep it telling them they will regret it for the rest of their lives if they .
abort
Very subjective. When I was living in Germany a friend of mine got pregnant after being raped and whilst the rape had left deep scars on her, the abortion was an ugly necessity. As I said before abortion in the real world is an ugly reality and only in the hee-haw USA is this an issue, usually turned into one by religious nutcases who want to murder homosexuals and enforce a Christian theocracy on the country.
It is a great irony that the USA, often lauded for its scientific and technological advancements, is still crawling on its hands and knees in worship of ancient fables and mythology. Strange indeed...
-
Thanks OzmO! You call me a child murderer for no reason, but God bless you anyway!
I call you a man of many words and no action, because that is what you are, and you meltdown. Touchy touchy.
Sure, let's not defend those who can't defend themselves. Let's not speak for those who can't speak for themselves. Why? For the sake of the murderer's health and for the sake of the state's economy. But yeah, let's post on getbig and try to portray all Jews and Christians as child murderers. That's the whole point of this thread. Great job! ::)
Have a Happy Thanksgiving Day, OzmO! ;D
does god know the future?
-
does god know the future?
He's having issues becuase he admitted he'd murder children. ;) ;D
-
add me.I would be too scared to go against God.
28Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe
-
Ok, so you would have killed children, killed babies, infants etc.
Thanks for answering.
So Saul, ordered the deaths of the children but kept the livestock and then lost his throne because of it?
That's pretty much been established, Ozmo. My question to you was why did such happen if, as you have claimed on multiple occasions, the Israelites lied about being given directions to completely destroy Amalek (everyone and everything)?
Saul not only did NOT carry out God's instructions, but he lied about it, boldy proclaiming that he did to the prophet, Samuel. When Samuel asked why he heard mooing and bleating of cattle and sheep (if Saul did as he was told), the soon-to-be-deposed king of Israel blamed his troops for keeping the livestock and booty of war, instead of destroying them as he supposedly intended to do.
On the surface, the Israelites came away with a HUGE victory. So why did their king end up getting the heave-ho because of that and why would someone report that such happened if that were not the case?
-
That's pretty much been established, Ozmo. My question to you was why did such happen if, as you have claimed on multiple occasions, the Israelites lied about being given directions to completely destroy Amalek (everyone and everything)?
Thank Zeus it's all fiction anyway...phui...
-
Thank Zeus it's all fiction anyway...phui...
So, the Amalekites were fictional; the Israelites were fictional; King David (Saul's replacement) was fictional, etc.?
I'll just add that blurb of yours to the increasingly-growing lists of false and inaccurate statements you've made.
BTW, there's still the matter of your backing your claims about the Talmud and the Testimonium of Josephus by producing references to the former as actually being ORIGINATED in 200 A.D. and the latter having a original copy with absolutely NO references to Jesus Christ at all.
-
the bible was written by man, not God....
get it?
-
So, the Amalekites were fictional; the Israelites were fictional; King David (Saul's replacement) was fictional, etc.?
I'll just add that blurb of yours to the increasingly-growing lists of false and inaccurate statements you've made.
BTW, there's still the matter of your backing your claims about the Talmud and the Testimonium of Josephus by producing references to the former as actually being ORIGINATED in 200 A.D. and the latter having a original copy with absolutely NO references to Jesus Christ at all.
Sure, when you learn English. Originate does not have passive forms and if you are a native speaker you ought to know that.
-
add me.I would be too scared to go against God.
28Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe
you people are ridiculous, cant you see how your in fear of this imaginary creature and it has all the inklings of a man made legend.
if you dont do this you will burn in hell, follow these ten commandments, accept jesus, otherwise you die. its all about control.
i find fundy nut bags hilarious, they cant even reason and are too afraid to let go because remember god has everything waiting for them.
-
you people are ridiculous, cant you see how your in fear of this imaginary creature and it has all the inklings of a man made legend.
if you dont do this you will burn in hell, follow these ten commandments, accept jesus, otherwise you die. its all about control.
i find fundy nut bags hilarious, they cant even reason and are too afraid to let go because remember god has everything waiting for them.
Unfortunately there seem to be far too many fundies here at getbig...
-
So, the Amalekites were fictional; the Israelites were fictional; King David (Saul's replacement) was fictional, etc.?
There are some sparse historical details in the OT but the individual stories, the divine elements, etc. are no where else attested to, save in the OT.
I'll just add that blurb of yours to the increasingly-growing lists of false and inaccurate statements you've made.
BTW, there's still the matter of your backing your claims about the Talmud and the Testimonium of Josephus by producing references to the former as actually being ORIGINATED in 200 A.D. and the latter having a original copy with absolutely NO references to Jesus Christ at all.
BOOM!
Criticism of the identification of Yeshu with Jesus
Critics of the identification of Yeshu with Jesus point to inconsistencies between the Talmudic references to Yeshu and ben-Stada and the stories about Jesus in the New Testament. The oppression by King Jannĉus mentioned in the Talmud occurred about 87 BCE, which would put the events of the story about a century before Jesus. The Yeshu who taught Jacob of Sechania would have lived a century after Jesus. The forty day waiting period before execution is absent from the Christian tradition and moreover Jesus did not have connections with the government. Jesus was crucified not stoned. Jesus was executed in Jerusalem not Lod. Jesus did not burn his food in public and moreover the Yeshu who did this corresponds to Manasseh of Judah in the Shulkhan Arukh. Jesus did not make incisions in his flesh, nor was he caught by hidden observers. In the 13th century Jehiel ben Joseph of Paris wrote that the Yeshu in rabbinic literature was a disciple of Joshua ben Perachiah, and not to be confused with Jesus the Nazarene (Vikkuah Rabbenu Yehiel mi-Paris). Nahmanides too makes this point, and Rabbis Jacob ben Meir (Rabbeinu Tam) (12th century) and Jehiel Heilprin (17th century) also belong to this school.
The resemblance of the name Yeshu to Yeshua which some assume to be the original Hebrew or Aramaic for Jesus, is of questionable importance. The guttural consonant ayin (ע) at the end of the latter name (Yeshua - ישוע) forms part of the root but is absent from Yeshu (ישו). Although, as remarked above, the ayin (ע) became a silent letter no other case is known of where this led to a dropping of the consonant in spelling.
There are significant phonetic difficulties in seeing the epithet son of Pandera as a corruption of parthenos. Moreover, Jesus was not commonly referred to as son of the Virgin making an intentional play on such an expression very unlikely. Regarding the names of the disciples, the accepted origins of Thaddaeus is Thaddai and not Todah.
R. Travers Herford and others caution that not all mentions of Yeshu refer to the Christian Jesus. Furthermore, many critical historical scholars hold that for a variety of reasons, early Christianity was simply one of many factions competing with rabbinical Judaism, and the early sages of the Talmud paid no special attention to Jesus or Christianity.
http://www.juliantrubin.com/encyclopedia/bible/jesus_in_talmud.html
The Talmud has two components: the Mishnah (c. 200 CE), the first written compendium of Judaism's Oral Law; and the Gemara (c. 500 CE), a discussion of the Mishnah and related Tannaitic writings that often ventures onto other subjects and expounds broadly on the Tanakh. The terms Talmud and Gemara are often used interchangeably. The Gemara is the basis for all codes of rabbinic law and is much quoted in other rabbinic literature. The whole Talmud is also traditionally referred to as Shas (ש"ס (a Hebrew abbreviation of shisha sedarim, the "six orders" of the Mishnah).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud
-
you people are ridiculous, cant you see how your in fear of this imaginary creature and it has all the inklings of a man made legend.
if you dont do this you will burn in hell, follow these ten commandments, accept jesus, otherwise you die. its all about control.
i find fundy nut bags hilarious, they cant even reason and are too afraid to let go because remember god has everything waiting for them.
why do you keep posting here if we are so wrong?
-
So, the Amalekites were fictional; the Israelites were fictional; King David (Saul's replacement) was fictional, etc.?
I'll just add that blurb of yours to the increasingly-growing lists of false and inaccurate statements you've made.
BTW, there's still the matter of your backing your claims about the Talmud and the Testimonium of Josephus by producing references to the former as actually being ORIGINATED in 200 A.D. and the latter having a original copy with absolutely NO references to Jesus Christ at all.
BOOM!
The Jewish community of Palestine suffered horrendous losses during the Great Revolt and the Bar-Kokhba rebellion. Well over a million Jews were killed in the two ill-fated uprisings, and the leading yeshivot, along with thousands of their rabbinical scholars and students, were devastated.
This decline in the number of knowledgeable Jews seems to have been a decisive factor in Rabbi Judah the Prince's decision around the year 200 C.E. to record in writing the Oral Law. For centuries, Judaism's leading rabbis had resisted writing down the Oral Law. Teaching the law orally, the rabbis knew, compelled students to maintain close relationships with teachers, and they considered teachers, not books, to be the best conveyors of the Jewish tradition. But with the deaths of so many teachers in the failed revolts, Rabbi Judah apparently feared that the Oral Law would be forgotten unless it were written down.
In the Mishna, the name for the sixty-three tractates in which Rabbi Judah set down the Oral Law, Jewish law is systematically codified, unlike in the Torah. For example, if a person wanted to find every law in the Torah about the Sabbath, he would have to locate scattered references in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. Indeed, in order to know everything the Torah said on a given subject, one either had to read through all of it or know its contents by heart. Rabbi Judah avoided this problem by arranging the Mishna topically. All laws pertaining to the Sabbath were put into one tractate called Shabbat (Hebrew for "Sabbath"). The laws contained in Shabbat's twenty-four chapters are far more extensive than those contained in the Torah, for the Mishna summarizes the Oral Law's extensive Sabbath legislation. The tractate Shabbat is part of a larger "order" called Mo'ed (Hebrew for "holiday"), which is one of six orders that comprise the Mishna. Some of the other tractates in Mo'ed specify the Oral Laws of Passover (Pesachim); Purim (Megillah); Rosh haShana; Yom Kippur (Yoma); and Sukkot.
The first of the six orders is called Zera'im (Seeds), and deals with the agricultural rules of ancient Palestine, particularly with the details of the produce that were to be presented as offerings at the Temple in Jerusalem. The most famous tractate in Zera'im, however, Brakhot (Blessings) has little to do with agriculture. It records laws concerning different blessings and when they are to be recited.
Another order, called Nezikin (Damages), contains ten tractates summarizing Jewish civil and criminal law.
Another order, Nashim (Women), deals with issues between the sexes, including both laws of marriage, Kiddushin, and of divorce, Gittin.
A fifth order, Kodashim, outlines the laws of sacrifices and ritual slaughter. The sixth order, Taharot, contains the laws of purity and impurity.
Although parts of the Mishna read as dry legal recitations, Rabbi Judah frequently enlivened the text by presenting minority views, which it was also hoped might serve to guide scholars in later generations (Mishna Eduyot 1:6). In one famous instance, the legal code turned almost poetic, as Rabbi Judah cited the lengthy warning the rabbinic judges delivered to witnesses testifying in capital cases:
"How are witnesses inspired with awe in capital cases?" the Mishna begins. "They are brought in and admonished as follows: In case you may want to offer testimony that is only conjecture or hearsay or secondhand evidence, even from a person you consider trustworthy; or in the event you do not know that we shall test you by cross-examination and inquiry, then know that capital cases are not like monetary cases. In monetary cases, a man can make monetary restitution and be forgiven, but in capital cases both the blood of the man put to death and the blood of his [potential] descendants are on the witness's head until the end of time. For thus we find in the case of Cain, who killed his brother, that it is written: 'The bloods of your brother cry unto Me' (Genesis 4:10) that is, his blood and the blood of his potential descendants.... Therefore was the first man, Adam, created alone, to teach us that whoever destroys a single life, the Bible considers it as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a single life, the Bible considers it as if he saved an entire world. Furthermore, only one man, Adam, was created for the sake of peace among men, so that no one should say to his fellow, 'My father was greater than yours.... Also, man [was created singly] to show the greatness of the Holy One, Blessed be He, for if a man strikes many coins from one mold, they all resemble one another, but the King of Kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He, made each man in the image of Adam, and yet not one of them resembles his fellow. Therefore every single person is obligated to say, 'The world was created for my sake"' (Mishna Sanhedrin 4:5). (One commentary notes, "How grave the responsibility, therefore, of corrupting myself by giving false evidence, and thus bringing [upon myself the moral guilt of [murdering] a whole world.")
One of the Mishna's sixtythree tractates contains no laws at all. It is called Pirkei Avot (usually translated as Ethics of the Fathers), and it is the "Bartlett's" of the rabbis, in which their most famous sayings and proverbs are recorded.
During the centuries following Rabbi Judah's editing of the Mishna, it was studied exhaustively by generation after generation of rabbis. Eventually, some of these rabbis wrote down their discussions and commentaries on the Mishna's laws in a series of books known as the Talmud. The rabbis of Palestine edited their discussions of the Mishna about the year 400: Their work became known as the Palestinian Talmud (in Hebrew, Talmud Yerushalmi, which literally means "Jerusalem Talmud").
More than a century later, some of the leading Babylonian rabbis compiled another editing of the discussions on the Mishna. By then, these deliberations had been going on some three hundred years. The Babylon edition was far more extensive than its Palestinian counterpart, so that the Babylonian Talmud (Talmud Bavli) became the most authoritative compilation of the Oral Law. When people speak of studying "the Talmud," they almost invariably mean the Bavli rather than the Yerushalmi.
The Talmud's discussions are recorded in a consistent format. A law from the Mishna is cited, which is followed by rabbinic deliberations on its meaning. The Mishna and the rabbinic discussions (known as the Gemara) comprise the Talmud, although in Jewish life the terms Gemara and Talmud usually are used interchangeably.
The rabbis whose views are cited in the Mishna are known as Tanna'im (Aramaic for "teachers"), while the rabbis quoted in the Gemara are known as Amora'im ("explainers" or "interpreters"). Because the Tanna'im lived earlier than the Amora'im, and thus were in closer proximity to Moses and the revelation at Sinai, their teachings are considered more authoritative than those of the Amora'im. For the same reason, Jewish tradition generally regards the teachings of the Amora'im, insofar as they are expounding the Oral Law, as more authoritative than contemporary rabbinic teachings.
In addition to extensive legal discussions (in Hebrew, halakha), the rabbis incorporated into the Talmud guidance on ethical matters, medical advice, historical information, and folklore, which together are known as aggadata.
As a rule, the Gemara's text starts with a close reading of the Mishna. For example, Mishna Bava Mezia 7:1 teaches the following: "If a man hired laborers and ordered them to work early in the morning and late at night, he cannot compel them to work early and late if it is not the custom to do so in that place." On this, the Gemara (Bava Mezia 83a) comments: "Is it not obvious [that an employer cannot demand that they change from the local custom]? The case in question is where the employer gave them a higher wage than was normal. In that case, it might be argued that he could then say to them, 'The reason I gave you a higher wage than is normal is so that you will work early in the morning and late at night.' So the law tells us that the laborers can reply: 'The reason that you gave us a higher wage than is normal is for better work [not longer hours].'"
Among religious Jews, talmudic scholars are regarded with the same awe and respect with which secular society regards Nobel laureates. Yet throughout Jewish history, study of the Mishna and Talmud was hardly restricted to an intellectual elite. An old book saved from the millions burned by the Nazis, and now housed at the YIVO library in New York, bears the stamp THE SOCIETY OF WOODCHOPPERS FOR THE STUDY OF MISHNA IN BERDITCHEV. That the men who chopped wood in Berditchev, an arduous job that required no literacy, met regularly to study Jewish law demonstrates the ongoing pervasiveness of study of the Oral Law in the Jewish community.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/talmud_&_mishna.html
-
He knows what you do "trapezkerl" :-*
-
He knows what you do "trapezkerl" :-*
What I do? There's nothing wrong with posting credible links from the people who concocted this bullshit in the first place...
-
OzmO, killing children is no big deal at all to the Hebrew god. He killed every first born child in Egypt. He could have spared them, in his infinite power and wisdom, but he killed them.
true. FSM, bless His name, would never do such a thing to innocents.
-
There are some sparse historical details in the OT but the individual stories, the divine elements, etc. are no where else attested to, save in the OT.
And that makes them false how? Plus, your claim was that it was ALL fiction.
BOOM!
Criticism of the identification of Yeshu with Jesus
Critics of the identification of Yeshu with Jesus point to inconsistencies between the Talmudic references to Yeshu and ben-Stada and the stories about Jesus in the New Testament. The oppression by King Jannĉus mentioned in the Talmud occurred about 87 BCE, which would put the events of the story about a century before Jesus. The Yeshu who taught Jacob of Sechania would have lived a century after Jesus. The forty day waiting period before execution is absent from the Christian tradition and moreover Jesus did not have connections with the government. Jesus was crucified not stoned. Jesus was executed in Jerusalem not Lod. Jesus did not burn his food in public and moreover the Yeshu who did this corresponds to Manasseh of Judah in the Shulkhan Arukh. Jesus did not make incisions in his flesh, nor was he caught by hidden observers. In the 13th century Jehiel ben Joseph of Paris wrote that the Yeshu in rabbinic literature was a disciple of Joshua ben Perachiah, and not to be confused with Jesus the Nazarene (Vikkuah Rabbenu Yehiel mi-Paris). Nahmanides too makes this point, and Rabbis Jacob ben Meir (Rabbeinu Tam) (12th century) and Jehiel Heilprin (17th century) also belong to this school.
The resemblance of the name Yeshu to Yeshua which some assume to be the original Hebrew or Aramaic for Jesus, is of questionable importance. The guttural consonant ayin (ע) at the end of the latter name (Yeshua - ישוע) forms part of the root but is absent from Yeshu (ישו). Although, as remarked above, the ayin (ע) became a silent letter no other case is known of where this led to a dropping of the consonant in spelling.
There are significant phonetic difficulties in seeing the epithet son of Pandera as a corruption of parthenos. Moreover, Jesus was not commonly referred to as son of the Virgin making an intentional play on such an expression very unlikely. Regarding the names of the disciples, the accepted origins of Thaddaeus is Thaddai and not Todah.
R. Travers Herford and others caution that not all mentions of Yeshu refer to the Christian Jesus. Furthermore, many critical historical scholars hold that for a variety of reasons, early Christianity was simply one of many factions competing with rabbinical Judaism, and the early sages of the Talmud paid no special attention to Jesus or Christianity.
http://www.juliantrubin.com/encyclopedia/bible/jesus_in_talmud.html
First, nobody claimed that Jesus Christ was stoned to death. In fact, I pointed out that, had the Jews carried out the sentence, He would have been stoned (as that was the normal punishment for people convicted of sorcery). Instead, since the Romans carried out the execution, he was hanged or crucified.
Nor was there any claim that every Yeshua referred to Jesus Christ. The reference that Loco mentioned stated that this particular Yeshua was:
- Accused of sorcery
- Put to death by being hanged (crucified)
- Death occurred on the eve of Passover
- No one spoke up for Him.
All of those match what happened to Jesus Christ.
And, the "waiting period" isn't silent in Christian tradition. According to John 11:54, Jesus made Himself scarce after the Pharisees and priests plotted His death. The reason can be found in verses 47-50:
Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we: for this man doeth many miracles(this would be the sorcery charge). If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
Verse 57:
Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where he were, he should shew it, that they might take him..
This would explain a decree for 40 days, that Christ was to be stoned to death for practicing sorcery. They simply couldn't find Him.
The Talmud has two components: the Mishnah (c. 200 CE), the first written compendium of Judaism's Oral Law; and the Gemara (c. 500 CE), a discussion of the Mishnah and related Tannaitic writings that often ventures onto other subjects and expounds broadly on the Tanakh. The terms Talmud and Gemara are often used interchangeably. The Gemara is the basis for all codes of rabbinic law and is much quoted in other rabbinic literature. The whole Talmud is also traditionally referred to as Shas (ש"ס (a Hebrew abbreviation of shisha sedarim, the "six orders" of the Mishnah).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud
BAM!! ;D
There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.. The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."
Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus. So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do. If so, Roman involvement changed their plans!
The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?
Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons." But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching. Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament. Probe Ministries (with references to The Historical Jesus by Dr. Gary Habermas)
If the compilation of these items started about 70 A.D., that would mean that the Talmuds construction occurred as close as 40 years after Jesus death and Resurrection, which would (once again) refute your claims that the Talmud was written too far removed to be of any value. One of the men who organized the Talmud, Rabbi Akiba, died in 135 A.D., which would the suggest that the information about "Yeshua" that corresponds to Jesus Christ, was written a lot sooner than 200 A.D.
-
does god know the future?
Yes
-
Again you get it wrong! Why are you so thick sometimes? Is it a language barrier?
I'm not wrong. Yes, it must be the language barrier, but don't worry OzmO, your English is getting a little better.
He's having issues becuase he admitted he'd murder children. ;) ;D
The only thing that I have admitted, like any Orthodox Jew and like any conservative Christian, is faith that the Bible is the word of God. That, according to OzmO, makes us all(Orthodx Jews and conservative Christians) child murderers. OzmO, way to promote religious hatred. You sound just like the men who indoctrinate Taliban, al'Qaeda and Hamas children.
OzmO, you on the other hand have repeatedly admitted to supporting legal abortion, the murder of millions of unborn babies. And why? For the health of the economy and for the health of the murderers. You support the murder, protect the murderer and ignore the victim. In this thread, you make the Amalekites the heroes and victims, while portraying Jews and Christians as villains and child murderers.
You must be proud of yourself.
-
OzmO, you love to ask questions, ignore the answer given to you and then claim that people ignore or dodge your question, but in this thread you've not answered many questions.
If you were a jewish soldier would you have killed 2-3-4-year olds and infants on God's orders?
And you wouldn't? Even if you were an Israeli soldier who had witnessed the Amalekites rape and murder your grand parents, only to come back a few years later and murder your parents and baby sister, only to come back a few years later and murder your wife, sons and daughters...even if you had witnessed your brothers and their families starve to death because the Amalekites kept coming back and destroying your crops and stealing your possessions, generation after generation for three centuries?
By the way, you have a question I don't think you've addressed. That would be why, if you claim that the Jews lied about the reason for Saul's orders to deal with the Amalekites, Saul lost his throne?
If you demand that God or that Israel have found a better way to deal with the Amalekite babies, why can you conveniently not find a better way to deal with legal abortions other than to just let it happen for the health of the economy and for the health of the murderers?
-
the bible was written by man, not God....
get it?
IF - as Christians claim - God is 'perfect', then the Bible, by definition, cannot be.
If they want the Bible to be perfect, then God cannot be. There is no grey area here.
-
you people are ridiculous, cant you see how your in fear of this imaginary creature and it has all the inklings of a man made legend.
if you dont do this you will burn in hell, follow these ten commandments, accept jesus, otherwise you die. its all about control.
i find fundy nut bags hilarious, they cant even reason and are too afraid to let go because remember god has everything waiting for them.
No offense taken. ;D
Thanks for sharing your opinion!
I may be "ridiculous" to you, but I'm not in fear, God is not imaginary and following the ten commandments won't get me into heaven.
If it is about control, wealth and power, then why is it that Moses, Jesus, his early followers and many Christians of our time(Lottie moon, George Muller, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Philip James Elliot, etc.) leave whatever they have going for them for a life of rejection, suffering, poverty and death for the cause of God, to help others? Sure, you hear about secular charities, but you don't hear of secular people leaving all they have to help other people. You don't hear of secular charities voluntarily suffering pain and death for the cause.
this "fundy nut bag" is not afraid to let go. Let go of what? I voluntarily embraced Christianity at some point in my life. Before then, I rejected it. I would have let go a long time ago if my faith wasn't real.
Thank God for "fundy nut bags"! At most, we abolish slavery, advance science, defend those who can't defend themselves, speak up for those who can't speak for themselves, we help the needy and bring them hope, food, shelter, medicine, education, etc. At least, we amuse you. ;D
-
IF - as Christians claim - God is 'perfect', then the Bible, by definition, cannot be.
If they want the Bible to be perfect, then God cannot be. There is no grey area here.
Tre, good point! I agree with you in part. God is perfect, and God's word is perfect. The Bible, the means through which a perfect God decided to preserve His perfect word, is not perfect. Why? because no human language is perfect, no human being is perfect and no media is perfect.
Hebrew, Greek, English are not perfect languages. The Bible was written on stone, animal skins, paper, etc., none of which are perfect. The authors, though inspired by God, are not perfect.
God could have given us His word written by Him in a perfect Heavenly language written on tablets made of a perfect, unknown material. But then we would not understand it. So God would have had to provide an imperfect human translator, to have it translated into an imperfect human language, on an imperfect piece of paper, so that we could understand it.
-
Tre, good point! I agree with you in part. God is perfect, and God's word is perfect. The Bible, the means through which a perfect God decided to preserve His perfect word, is not perfect. Why? because no human language is perfect, no human being is perfect and no media is perfect.
Hebrew, Greek, English are not perfect languages. The Bible was written on stone, animal skins, paper, etc., none of which are perfect. The authors, though inspired by God, are not perfect.
God could have given us His word written by Him in a perfect Heavenly language written on tablets made of a perfect, unknown material. But then we would not understand it. So God would have had to provide an imperfect human translator, to have it translated into an imperfect human language, on an imperfect piece of paper, so that we could understand it.
That must be the reason that insects have four legs in the bible huh? ::)
-
That's pretty much been established, Ozmo. My question to you was why did such happen if, as you have claimed on multiple occasions, the Israelites lied about being given directions to completely destroy Amalek (everyone and everything)?
Saul not only did NOT carry out God's instructions, but he lied about it, boldy proclaiming that he did to the prophet, Samuel. When Samuel asked why he heard mooing and bleating of cattle and sheep (if Saul did as he was told), the soon-to-be-deposed king of Israel blamed his troops for keeping the livestock and booty of war, instead of destroying them as he supposedly intended to do.
On the surface, the Israelites came away with a HUGE victory. So why did their king end up getting the heave-ho because of that and why would someone report that such happened if that were not the case?
Sorry i don't get what you are saying.
My assertion is that they lied about receiving orders from GOD regarding killing children. Are you telling me Saul was disposed becuase he took the cattle and Gold? That goes right along with my assertion becuase, they probably disposed of him because of killing the children NOT the taking of the gold. But to justify what they did they claimed Saul didn't follow God's orders regarding the cattle.
-
That must be the reason that insects have four legs in the bible huh? ::)
"Today we refer to an insects six appendages as "legs". The ancient Israelites had a different convention. They distinguished the front four appendages from the two rear appendages. The front four they called "feet", the two to the rear they called "legs". This distinction probably came about because some insects such as grasshoppers leapthe two rear appendages are "leaper legs".
"Go on all fours" refers to what the front four feet i.e. front four legs do they walk. What the rear legs do, whether they contribute to walking or are used for leaping, is excluded from the meaning of "go on all fours".
Some skeptics make fun of the phrase "legs above the feet". However, the leaper legs are longer than the front four legs. When the insect is resting on the ground, part of the leaper legs are higher than the "feet" i.e. higher than the front four legs. In that sense the legs are "above the feet".
There is no profound biological point in all of this just a case of semantics."
http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BBiology95.htm
"Although these legs are used to walk (even as the grasshopper's can be and are), in function and appearance they are clearly, vastly different. It does not take "mind-reading" to get the point that the Hebrews were just as able (and by extension of the same scheme used with grasshoppers, katydids, etc) to regard the back legs of other types of flying insects as being of a different order, of being something different, so that only the first four were called plain old "feet" as only the first four on the hoppers, etc. were called feet, while the others were given a differing name such as "legs above their feet"."
http://www.tektonics.org/af/buglegs.html
"Today, locusts are considered migratory grasshoppers. They all have two large hind legs, quite different in appearance, size, and function from the front four legs. Their front legs are used for "crawling, clinging, and climbing," while their back legs rest "above" their front legs and feet, and are used for "jumping.""
http://www.icr.org/article/1844/
-
I'm not wrong. Yes, it must be the language barrier, but don't worry OzmO, your English is getting a little better.
I believe it happen loco, but i don't believe God is a hypocrite while you struggle to find justification for killing children.
The only thing that I have admitted, like any Orthodox Jew and like any conservative Christian, is faith that the Bible is the word of God. That, according to OzmO, makes us all(Orthodx Jews and conservative Christians) child murders. OzmO, way to promote religious hatred. You sound just like the men who indoctrinate Taliban, al'Qaeda and Hamas children.
You must really be desperate loco. It's sad that you must sink this low to defend the book you worship.
Let's clear things up so that maybe it will harder for you to words in my mouth which you do so often do when you are faced the cold hard fact the BIBLE is not the word of GOD
- You've admitted you would have killed innocent babies, infants, children
- A person is not a child murder until they actually murder a child. So when you say "all" that's far from true and i do not accuse all or any Christians or jews save those who killed the amalikite children.
- 2 conservative Christians on this board have admitted they would have killed children and you are one of them. That's as far as my accusation has gone.
- Now you are comparing me to Al Queda? ::) grasping grasping grasping lol. Maybe you should pull you nose out fo the bible you worship long enough to see what exactly the issues are that Al Queda has with the USA. you'll see it's not the jews murdering children thousands of years ago.
OzmO, you on the other hand have repeatedly admitted to supporting legal abortion, the murder of millions of unborn babies. And why? For the health of the economy and for the health of the murderers. You support the murder, protect the murderer and ignore the victim. In this thread, you make the Amalekites the heroes and victims, while portraying Jews and Christians as villains and child murderers.
You must be proud of yourself.
Now this is the funny part. In your desperation to defend the book you worship, you try and distract from the issue by bringing up an unrelated issue involving my views as if that makes what the Jews did ok or as if discrediting the critic distracts from the issue of killing innocent children.
It's too bad that the alleged word of God in the bible is soo weak and full inconsistencies that you have to go through this trouble to defend it huh loco?
Too bad this word isn't as full of wisdom and beyond reproach the way the real word of an all powerful God should be huh loco?
Too bad your are relegated to defending the murder of innocent children huh loco?
OzmO, you love to ask questions, ignore the answer given to you and then claim that people ignore or dodge your question, but in this thread you've not answered many questions.
You do the same buddy, but what ever.
Ask me some questions and give them a number and i'll answer them. While you are at it maybe you can answer this one:
If you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that God contacted you and it was GOD and he ordered you to kill 30 babies would you do it?
And you wouldn't? Even if you were an Israeli soldier who had witnessed the Amalekites rape and murder your grand parents, only to come back a few years later and murder your parents and baby sister, only to come back a few years later and murder your wife, sons and daughters...even if you had witnessed your brothers and their families starve to death because the Amalekites kept coming back and destroying your crops and stealing your possessions, generation after generation for three centuries?
I wouldn't loco becuase it's an immoral thing to do. Killing children is wrong under any circumstances. "I will not kill people becuase of what they might do. Just i don't see you as a child murderer until you actually kill a child. Killing people in self defense is one thing as it would justified to killed those amalikite soldiers but to kill children goes against GOD, goes against: Thou shalt not kill.
You can't see this and will never see it becuase you have put your self in a spiritual limbo by worshiping that book and have traded your common sense for blind allegiance.
That's a very sad thing loco becuase you are good man. You have much you do for people with the example you set but have limited yourself.
You can still be everything a Christian is loco and have the common sense that the bible is not the 100% word of God.
If you demand that God or that Israel have found a better way to deal with the Amalekite babies, why can you conveniently not find a better way to deal with legal abortions other than to just let it happen for the health of the economy and for the health of the murderers?
I really am all ears to finding a better way. If being fully against legal abortion is a 10 and being fully for legalized abortion is a 1 and 5 is the line, i'm a 4.99999999.
I see the answer in society changing their moral standards kind of like it has when it comes to killing innocent children. ;D
-
I believe it happen loco, but i don't believe God is a hypocrite while you struggle to find justification for killing children.
You must really be desperate loco. It's sad that you must sink this low to defend the book you worship.
Let's clear things up so that maybe it will harder for you to words in my mouth which you do so often do when you are faced the cold hard fact the BIBLE is not the word of GOD
- You've admitted you would have killed innocent babies, infants, children
- A person is not a child murder until they actually murder a child. So when you say "all" that's far from true and i do not accuse all or any Christians or jews save those who killed the amalikite children.
- 2 conservative Christians on this board have admitted they would have killed children and you are one of them. That's as far as my accusation has gone.
- Now you are comparing me to Al Queda? ::) grasping grasping grasping lol. Maybe you should pull you nose out fo the bible you worship long enough to see what exactly the issues are that Al Queda has with the USA. you'll see it's not the jews murdering children thousands of years ago.
Now this is the funny part. In your desperation to defend the book you worship, you try and distract from the issue by bringing up an unrelated issue involving my views as if that makes what the Jews did ok or as if discrediting the critic distracts from the issue of killing innocent children.
It's too bad that the alleged word of God in the bible is soo weak and full inconsistencies that you have to go through this trouble to defend it huh loco?
Too bad this word isn't as full of wisdom and beyond reproach the way the real word of an all powerful God should be huh loco?
Too bad your are relegated to defending the murder of innocent children huh loco?
You do the same buddy, but what ever.
Ask me some questions and give them a number and i'll answer them. While you are at it maybe you can answer this one:
If you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that God contacted you and it was GOD and he ordered you to kill 30 babies would you do it?
I wouldn't loco becuase it's an immoral thing to do. Killing children is wrong under any circumstances. "I will not kill people becuase of what they might do. Just i don't see you as a child murderer until you actually kill a child. Killing people in self defense is one thing as it would justified to killed those amalikite soldiers but to kill children goes against GOD, goes against: Thou shalt not kill.
You can't see this and will never see it becuase you have put your self in a spiritual limbo by worshiping that book and have traded your common sense for blind allegiance.
That's a very sad thing loco becuase you are good man. You have much you do for people with the example you set but have limited yourself.
You can still be everything a Christian is loco and have the common sense that the bible is not the 100% word of God.
I really am all ears to finding a better way. If being fully against legal abortion is a 10 and being fully for legalized abortion is a 1 and 5 is the line, i'm a 4.99999999.
I see the answer in society changing their moral standards kind of like it has when it comes to killing innocent children. ;D
The only thing that McWay and I have admitted, like any Orthodox Jew and like any conservative Christian, is faith that the Bible is the word of God. That, according to you, makes us all(Orthodx Jews and conservative Christians) child murderers.
OzmO, this is nothing but your way to promote religious hatred. The Taliban, al'Qaeda and Hamas would welcome you with open arms to help indoctrinate their children.
-
The only thing that McWay and I have admitted, like any Orthodox Jew and like any conservative Christian, is faith that the Bible is the word of God. That, according to you, makes us all(Orthodx Jews and conservative Christians) child murderers.
OzmO, this is nothing but your way to promote religious hatred. The Taliban, al'Qaeda and Hamas would welcome you with open arms to help indoctrinate their children.
Why criticise Muslim organisations when you indoctrinate your own DNA with mythological bullshit...!
-
The only thing that McWay and I have admitted, like any Orthodox Jew and like any conservative Christian, is faith that the Bible is the word of God. That, according to you, makes us all(Orthodx Jews and conservative Christians) child murderers.
OzmO, this is nothing but your way to promote religious hatred. The Taliban, al'Qaeda and Hamas would welcome you with open arms to help indoctrinate their children.
I asked you a question and you answered it. When i asked it again or asked for clarification you repeated stated that you have answered it.
You would kill children. Deal with it. Stop trying to hide from it. Your book teaches it and justifies it and YOU agree with it.
Now becuase of your answer I'm promoting religious hatred? ::) Your are starting to remind of the characteristics of a cult.
Is this what your book teaches? to avoid responsibility for your actions?
I'm not surprised. The Jews in the OT did it often and you are following suite.
Monster example of you avoiding the truth.
p.s. Your desperate acts of trying to turn this into "religious hatred" are very disappointing. So you don't have to pull out your dumb card again as usual i will state my core assertion for the umpteenth time: The Bible is not the 100% word of God.
-
Why criticise Muslim organisations when you indoctrinate your own DNA with mythological bullshit...!
He's just desperate becuase he's been pinned and painted.
-
I am still waiting on a christian to explain to me how Cane got married and had children when Eve did not have a daughter...at least not at that time.
-
I am still waiting on a christian to explain to me how Cane got married and had children when Eve did not have a daughter...at least not at that time.
Well, in fairy tales not everything needs to make sense or add up, that's why it's a fairy tale...
-
You must really be desperate loco. It's sad that you must sink this low to defend the book you worship.
Defend a book? You are not attacking a book. You are attacking individuals, and groups of individuals (Orthodox Jews and Conservative Christians). You are spewing ignorance and hatred. Can you quote me or McWay saying that I or that he would murder children? No. You label all who believe that the Bible is the word of God child murderers.
-
Why criticise Muslim organisations when you indoctrinate your own DNA with mythological bullshit...!
Muslims? No, not all Muslims. The Taliban, al'Qaeda and Hamas are terrorists organizations who would very much enjoy OzmO's lecture on how all Bible believing Jews and Christians are child murderers. These terrorists organizations do not represent all Muslims.
-
Muslims? No, not all Muslims. The Taliban, al'Qaeda and Hamas are terrorists organizations who would very much enjoy OzmO's lecture on how all Bible believing Jews and Christians are child murderers. These terrorists organizations do not represent all Muslims.
Well as a bible thumping fundy nutcase you DO believe that your desert strewn god is infallible, that is, that he determines what is moral or not, meaning according to you if god told you to murder your parents and all your friends with the admonition that you cannot understand his 'will', you would happily go ahead and do it.
-
Defend a book? You are not attacking a book. You are attacking individuals, and groups of individuals (Orthodox Jews and Conservative Christians). You are spewing ignorance and hatred. Can you quote me or McWay saying that I or that he would murder children? No. You label all who believe that the Bible is the word of God child murderers.
So me where i say that all who the believe the bible as the word of God are child murders loco.
SHOW ME!
aside from that...
Do you deny what you said?
Is you belief in the bible so weak you cannot stand by what you said?
If you cannot handle someone questioning what you said, but instead get all defensive about it, maybe you shouldn't have said it in the first place.
So now what's next? Are you gonna start saying i support the nazi's to deflect from you admitting you'd kill innocent babies?
In case you don't get it loco, Word of god means every word and everything in it. You can't just conveniently shove aside murdering innocent children and at the same use other passages in the bible to claim you have the total truth.
-
I believe it happen loco, but i don't believe God is a hypocrite while you struggle to find justification for killing children.
You must really be desperate loco. It's sad that you must sink this low to defend the book you worship.
Let's clear things up so that maybe it will harder for you to words in my mouth which you do so often do when you are faced the cold hard fact the BIBLE is not the word of GOD
- You've admitted you would have killed innocent babies, infants, children
- A person is not a child murder until they actually murder a child. So when you say "all" that's far from true and i do not accuse all or any Christians or jews save those who killed the amalikite children.
- 2 conservative Christians on this board have admitted they would have killed children and you are one of them. That's as far as my accusation has gone.
- Now you are comparing me to Al Queda? ::) grasping grasping grasping lol. Maybe you should pull you nose out fo the bible you worship long enough to see what exactly the issues are that Al Queda has with the USA. you'll see it's not the jews murdering children thousands of years ago.
Now this is the funny part. In your desperation to defend the book you worship, you try and distract from the issue by bringing up an unrelated issue involving my views as if that makes what the Jews did ok or as if discrediting the critic distracts from the issue of killing innocent children.
It's too bad that the alleged word of God in the bible is soo weak and full inconsistencies that you have to go through this trouble to defend it huh loco?
Too bad this word isn't as full of wisdom and beyond reproach the way the real word of an all powerful God should be huh loco?
Too bad your are relegated to defending the murder of innocent children huh loco?
You do the same buddy, but what ever.
Ask me some questions and give them a number and i'll answer them. While you are at it maybe you can answer this one:
If you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that God contacted you and it was GOD and he ordered you to kill 30 babies would you do it?
I wouldn't loco becuase it's an immoral thing to do. Killing children is wrong under any circumstances. "I will not kill people becuase of what they might do. Just i don't see you as a child murderer until you actually kill a child. Killing people in self defense is one thing as it would justified to killed those amalikite soldiers but to kill children goes against GOD, goes against: Thou shalt not kill.
You can't see this and will never see it becuase you have put your self in a spiritual limbo by worshiping that book and have traded your common sense for blind allegiance.
That's a very sad thing loco becuase you are good man. You have much you do for people with the example you set but have limited yourself.
You can still be everything a Christian is loco and have the common sense that the bible is not the 100% word of God.
I really am all ears to finding a better way. If being fully against legal abortion is a 10 and being fully for legalized abortion is a 1 and 5 is the line, i'm a 4.99999999.
I see the answer in society changing their moral standards kind of like it has when it comes to killing innocent children. ;D
So what part is the word of God and what part isn't, if your claim that "the Bible is not the 100% word of God" is valid?
Of course, that leads me back to my initial question about this Amalekite scenario. You claim that the edict to destroy the Amalekites was NOT one from God, but a lie made up by the Israelites to justify their actions. Once again, if that's the case, why, despite a huge victory by the Israelites (in which they got Amalek's choice livestock and the booty of war and kept Amalek's king as a hostage) did Saul LOSE his throne? Where was the "lie" about that?
-
I asked you a question and you answered it. When i asked it again or asked for clarification you repeated stated that you have answered it.
You would kill children. Deal with it. Stop trying to hide from it. Your book teaches it and justifies it and YOU agree with it.
Now becuase of your answer I'm promoting religious hatred? ::) Your are starting to remind of the characteristics of a cult.
Is this what your book teaches? to avoid responsibility for your actions?
I'm not surprised. The Jews in the OT did it often and you are following suite.
Avoid responsibility to whom? The Jews of the Old Testament did nothing of the sort, in particular king Saul (with regards to the Amalekites).
God did not order the Israelites to spare any of the Amalekites or their possessions. Saul did and lost his throne, because of it. And you seem to forget that Israel got punished on several occasions for not obeying God's instructions. In fact, you complained about that earlier, with regards to the golden calf thing.
Monster example of you avoiding the truth.
p.s. Your desperate acts of trying to turn this into "religious hatred" are very disappointing. So you don't have to pull out your dumb card again as usual i will state my core assertion for the umpteenth time: The Bible is not the 100% word of God.
Again, which parts are and which parts aren't and why? Are only the portions that don't outrage you the word of God? Or, you don't think that the portions that describe God's judgment (on the Israelites or anyone else) is the word of God? Which is it?
-
So me where i say that all who the believe the bible as the word of God are child murders loco.
SHOW ME!
aside from that...
Do you deny what you said?
Is you belief in the bible so weak you cannot stand by what you said?
If you cannot handle someone questioning what you said, but instead get all defensive about it, maybe you shouldn't have said it in the first place.
So now what's next? Are you gonna start saying i support the nazi's to deflect from you admitting you'd kill innocent babies?
In case you don't get it loco, Word of god means every word and everything in it. You can't just conveniently shove aside murdering innocent children and at the same use other passages in the bible to claim you have the total truth.
Can you quote me or McWay saying that I or that he would murder children? No. You label all who believe that the Bible is the word of God child murderers.
-
Can you quote me or McWay saying that I or that he would murder children? No. You label all who believe that the Bible is the word of God child murderers.
Once again, you believe that god determines what is moral, hence if he commanded you to murder children, it would be in your eyes a) moral and right and b) necessary to perform.
-
Well as a bible thumping fundy nutcase you DO believe that your desert strewn god is infallible, that is, that he determines what is moral or not, meaning according to you if god told you to murder your parents and all your friends with the admonition that you cannot understand his 'will', you would happily go ahead and do it.
I, like all Orthodox Jews and like all conservative Christians, believe that the Bible is the word of God. Does that = "bible thumping fundy nutcase"? Does that = parent, friend, child murderer?
OzmO,
you are quickly gaining followers. You got Trapezkerl believing the above, and you got him believing in abortion as birth/population control. Great job! ::)
-
Our God is infallible "trapezkerl".check it out .his name is
JEHOVAH
he owns you
ps you sorted out your gender confusion?I know i get confused with who is male and who aint round here.
God bless you ;D
-
Can you quote me or McWay saying that I or that he would murder children? No. You label all who believe that the Bible is the word of God child murderers.
You can't even answer anything directly can you?
Now are you even denying what you said?
Do i need to ask you again so that you can tip toe around once more?
If you were a Jewish soldier would you kill the amalikite children on God's order?
Here's what you said:
Had I been king Saul? Yes, unlike Saul and unlike you, I would have obeyed God and completely destroyed the Amalekites, both out of obedience to God and to project my people from this 300+ year threat. But that does not guarantee entrance into heaven. Only faith in Jesus Christ can do that.
There is your answer.
Hence you would either order the death of innocent children or kill them yourself.
Live with your answer and stop trying to hide from the truth like you do with the Bible.
Next issue:
Can you quote me or McWay saying that I or that he would murder children? No. You label all who believe that the Bible is the word of God child murderers.
Why are you so desperate that you act so weak using words like only every and ALL?
do i have to draw a picture for you?
do i have to constantly repeat myself?
How many times must correct you?
how many times must repeat my self?
Hopefully this will help:
1. The Jews who killed innocent children in the OT are child murderers and those who said they would do the same thing on God's orders are not child murderers until they actually do it.
2. The Jews who killed innocent children in the OT are child murderers and those who said they would do the same thing on God's orders are not child murderers until they actually do it.
3. The Jews who killed innocent children in the OT are child murderers and those who said they would do the same thing on God's orders are not child murderers until they actually do it.
4.The Jews who killed innocent children in the OT are child murderers and those who said they would do the same thing on God's orders are not child murderers until they actually do it.
5.The Jews who killed innocent children in the OT are child murderers and those who said they would do the same thing on God's orders are not child murderers until they actually do it.
6.The Jews who killed innocent children in the OT are child murderers and those who said they would do the same thing on God's orders are not child murderers until they actually do it.
7.The Jews who killed innocent children in the OT are child murderers and those who said they would do the same thing on God's orders are not child murderers until they actually do it.
is 7 times enough for you to finally get that I'm not saying ALL jews and Christians or do you need more?
-
Avoid responsibility to whom? The Jews of the Old Testament did nothing of the sort, in particular king Saul (with regards to the Amalekites).
God did not order the Israelites to spare any of the Amalekites or their possessions. Saul did and lost his throne, because of it. And you seem to forget that Israel got punished on several occasions for not obeying God's instructions. In fact, you complained about that earlier, with regards to the golden calf thing.
McWay, it doesn't change the fact that killing innocent children is murder and is not right and goes against the commandments. Hence: contradiction and hypocrisy.
Looks to me, (if i got what you are saying about Saul right) that in order to justify killing the children and removing Saul, they blamed removing Saul for not following the orders of leaving the live stock and supplies in order to cover up the embarrassment and ensuing outrage of murdering children. That why the nation is free from guilt of the atrocity they committed and they found a scapegoat to remove Saul.
Again, which parts are and which parts aren't and why? Are only the portions that don't outrage you the word of God? Or, you don't think that the portions that describe God's judgment (on the Israelites or anyone else) is the word of God? Which is it?
I think first off, any contradictions direct or indirect are the obvious ones. 3 we've talked about in detail: Slavery, the 3000 in exodus and this one. Additionally, much of the Bible contains religious doctrine that christains take a the WOG.
And your question here is pretty much my whole point: we don't know. And becuase the bible is full of crap like this we will never know. So when you people so fondly quote crap using words like: ONLY we know that there is strong possibility that it might not be true.
-
Can you quote me or McWay saying that I or that he would murder children? No. You label all who believe that the Bible is the word of God child murderers.
I showed you where you would kill children loco, can you now show me what i asked you?
::)
BTW, you are now absent from answering about a half dozen of my questions lol
-
I, like all Orthodox Jews and like all conservative Christians, believe that the Bible is the word of God. Does that = "bible thumping fundy nutcase"? Does that = parent, friend, child murderer?
OzmO,
you are quickly gaining followers. You got Trapezkerl believing the above, and you got him believing in abortion as birth/population control. Great job! ::)
Answer the question bible thumper: is morality a set of principles that supersede your goatherder god or are these principles derived from him? If so, that would make murder, if commanded by god 'moral' and you would be obligated to follow the command of your god to murder someone, a) because coming from god it would be moral and b) you must obey your deity....don't avoid the question, answer it!
-
I was talking to a couple friends about this Amelikite issue the other day. One of them said those folks were into things like sorcery and child sacrifice. Another said it was the custom in that day for kids, particularly males, to avenge their parents.
We also talked about how the killing of their entire group wasn't really any different than the destruction of entire cities (Sodom and Gomorrah) and the entire planet (the flood), which also included kids.
-
I was talking to a couple friends about this Amelikite issue the other day. One of them said those folks were into things like sorcery and child sacrifice. Another said it was the custom in that day for kids, particularly males, to avenge their parents.
We also talked about how the killing of their entire group wasn't really any different than the destruction of entire cities (Sodom and Gomorrah) and the entire planet (the flood), which also included kids.
(probably even a 10 year old) but definitely a 3 year old and under can be influence to give up their evil ways they were taught and become living productive members of society.
It doesn't matter what they were into. We are talking about the children who didn't know better. Innocent children. We wouldn't do something as barbaric as that today becuase of how wrong and evil it it would be to kill innocent children and infants and it's still an evil and wrong thing to do back then.
God supposedly ordered men to kill innocent children that could have been looked after. Monster hypocrisy. God did no such thing. Man did.
-
GOD IS IMAGINARY... why is it so hard to understand?
-
(probably even a 10 year old) but definitely a 3 year old and under can be influence to give up their evil ways they were taught and become living productive members of society.
It doesn't matter what they were into. We are talking about the children who didn't know better. Innocent children. We wouldn't do something as barbaric as that today becuase of how wrong and evil it it would be to kill innocent children and infants and it's still an evil and wrong thing to do back then.
God supposedly ordered men to kill innocent children that could have been looked after. Monster hypocrisy. God did no such thing. Man did.
You're right, because there is no god.
-
(probably even a 10 year old) but definitely a 3 year old and under can be influence to give up their evil ways they were taught and become living productive members of society.
It doesn't matter what they were into. We are talking about the children who didn't know better. Innocent children. We wouldn't do something as barbaric as that today becuase of how wrong and evil it it would be to kill innocent children and infants and it's still an evil and wrong thing to do back then.
God supposedly ordered men to kill innocent children that could have been looked after. Monster hypocrisy. God did no such thing. Man did.
I understand the point you're trying to make, but the Amelikite story isn't unique. Innocent children were killed in the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah and the flood.
-
I understand the point you're trying to make, but the Amelikite story isn't unique. Innocent children were killed in the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah and the flood.
It certainly isn't unique and the flood, sodom and Gomorrah are other examples of the same thing but in a different way. In this particular instance God orders other men to murder children.
-
It certainly isn't unique and the flood, sodom and Gomorrah are other examples of the same thing but in a different way. In this particular instance God orders other men to murder children.
What's the difference? Innocent children were still intentionally killed.
-
What's the difference? Innocent children were still intentionally killed.
No difference as i said. I guess God (as described in the OT) kills innocent children.
-
No difference as i said. I guess God (as described in the OT) kills innocent children.
According to the story of Noah, He killed the entire planet.
-
No difference as i said. I guess God (as described in the OT) kills innocent children.
I guess He should have just ignored the fact that people were deliberately disobeying His laws, IN SPITE OF KNOWING THE CONSEQUNCES and being WARNED SEVRERAL times of the coming wrath!
Hmmmmm...... people mocking God, His commands and His punishments....... sounds kinda familiar ;)
That's like a cop telling you, "stop or I'll shoot" and you keep running at him with a gun.
I think I would call that suicide not murder!
-
I guess He should have just ignored the fact that people were deliberately disobeying His laws, IN SPITE OF KNOWING THE CONSEQUNCES and being WARNED SEVRERAL times of the coming wrath!
Hmmmmm...... people mocking God, His commands and His punishments....... sounds kinda familiar ;)
That's like a cop telling you, "stop or I'll shoot" and you keep running at him with a gun.
I think I would call that suicide not murder!
Yes, disobeying laws equals death. ::) (eye for and eye? oh yeah, do as i say not as i do, so sayeth the lord ::)) If a government treated it's citizens like god treated people in the OT would that government be considered just? Would it be just, if it killed every man woman and child for disobeying it's laws? Would we now consider that government moral and civilized if it ordered it's generals to kill every child in a nation as was done with the amalikites?
i think not.
Rule by fear is privative and far from divine. It only works on primitive minded poeple.
BTW your analogy about a cop is silly cause i hardly think anyone was threatening God especially 3 year olds.
that's what cracks me up about people who try and defend the senseless slaughter and murder that was attributed to God in the OT. they are so blinded and detached from their common sense that they actually try to justify cold blooded murder as something godly.
-
McWay, it doesn't change the fact that killing innocent children is murder and is not right and goes against the commandments. Hence: contradiction and hypocrisy.
Looks to me, (if i got what you are saying about Saul right) that in order to justify killing the children and removing Saul, they blamed removing Saul for not following the orders of leaving the live stock and supplies in order to cover up the embarrassment and ensuing outrage of murdering children. That why the nation is free from guilt of the atrocity they committed and they found a scapegoat to remove Saul.
Where was this alleged outrage and embarrassment? The people didn't blame Saul for anything. To the contrary, they were celebrating the victory. It was the prophet Samuel, who pointed out Saul's deliberate disobedience and he told Saul that, because of his actions, the Lord rejected him as king. Furthermore, Samuel was charged with finding Saul's replacement, which ended up being David. There was no outcry for Saul to be removed by Israel's populace, especially with Amalek's spoils and groveling king lying before them.
And from whom were the Israelites supposedly covering things up?
I was talking to a couple friends about this Amelikite issue the other day. One of them said those folks were into things like sorcery and child sacrifice. Another said it was the custom in that day for kids, particularly males, to avenge their parents.
We also talked about how the killing of their entire group wasn't really any different than the destruction of entire cities (Sodom and Gomorrah) and the entire planet (the flood), which also included kids.
Indeed, the Amalekites were into such practices. That, along with their continued attacks on Israel is why God's judgment fell on them. Recall the words of Samuel to the Amalekite king, Agag, that as Agag's sword made women childless, his mother would be made childless. That sounds like a reference to Agag's assaults on (at least) Israel.
-
Answer the question bible thumper: is morality a set of principles that supersede your goatherder god or are these principles derived from him? If so, that would make murder, if commanded by god 'moral' and you would be obligated to follow the command of your god to murder someone, a) because coming from god it would be moral and b) you must obey your deity....don't avoid the question, answer it!
You answer my questions and stop tip toeing around them:
I, like all Orthodox Jews and like all conservative Christians, believe that the Bible is the word of God. Does that = "bible thumping fundy nutcase"? Does that = parent, friend, child murderer?
Show me where in the Bible God tells Christians to murder?
And who are we going to get our moral standards from? You and OzmO? Murder unborn babies for birth/population control? Murder unborn babies for the good of the economy? Spread ignorance and religious hatred? ::)
-
Now are you even denying what you said?
Do i need to ask you again so that you can tip toe around once more?
If you were a Jewish soldier would you kill the amalikite children on God's order?
Here's what you said:
Had I been king Saul? Yes, unlike Saul and unlike you, I would have obeyed God and completely destroyed the Amalekites, both out of obedience to God and to project my people from this 300+ year threat. But that does not guarantee entrance into heaven. Only faith in Jesus Christ can do that.
There is your answer.
Hence you would either order the death of innocent children or kill them yourself.
Hence, that makes me a potential child murderer by defaul? Honestly, OzmO, aren't you stretching things a bit here? What's the purpose?
So, anyone who says:
"Had I been king Saul? Yes, unlike Saul and unlike you, I would have obeyed God and completely destroyed the Amalekites, both out of obedience to God and to project my people from this 300+ year threat."
Is by default a child murderer? That's ignorance, OzmO, and a futile attempt to portray all Orthodox Jews and all conservative Christians as child murderers.
Do you realize how many Orthodox Jews and how many conservative Christians would agree with my quote above and would say the same thing?
Do you realize how many people, regardless of their belief, would say the same thing I said above?
I even asked Tre, who is neither a Jew nor a Christian, if under those circumstances he would have completely destroyed the Amalekites and he said yes, he definitely would have if the Amalekites had done to him and to his people what they did to Israel.
So the only hypocrite, "holier than thou" here is you.
-
Just for the record, you still haven't answered the question or many of my other questions. But i'll answer yours. ;D
Hence, that makes me a potential child murderer by defaul? Honestly, OzmO, aren't you stretching things a bit here? What's the purpose?
So, anyone who says:
"Had I been king Saul? Yes, unlike Saul and unlike you, I would have obeyed God and completely destroyed the Amalekites, both out of obedience to God and to project my people from this 300+ year threat."
Yes becuase you would have ordered the death of innocent children or as a soldier you'd have killed them yourself. Same difference.
You are a potential child murderer. Meaning there are instances you would kill innocent children when there are other options.
You can't seem to stand by what you said can you?
Maybe it's becuase you lost the common sense that would illustrate to you just how senseless what you said is. I donno. I really am amazed by it frankly.
Is by default a child murderer? That's ignorance, OzmO, and a futile attempt to portray all Orthodox Jews and all conservative Christians as child murders.
No, dear loco it doesn't make you or any and all who would by default a child murderers. i guess stating it 7 times didn't help you get it. Should i go for 20 this time?
Do you realize how many Orthodox Jews and how many conservative Christians would agree with my quote above and would say the same thing?
I sure some would. Certainly not all. Probably about 28% of Christians ( i don't know how many jews) which is estimated percentage of people who still believe the Bible word for word.
Many of them however would have the courage to answer directly instead indirectly answering the question(s) like you have.
Do you realize how many people, regardless of their belief, would say the same thing I said above?
Yes i do. there is still a small percentage of people who are so blinded by there beliefs they would potentially kill children and babies. We aren't far from that as the nazi's demonstrated so well in ww2 when many camp guards impaled children in front of parents believing they were doing the right thing just as you believe you'd be doing the right thing when you ordered your men to kill amalikite children and babies.
And then on the other side, do you realize how many people still don't believe a fetus is a living person?
It's sad. loco, so sad. Because in a way you are one of them. You would kill innocent children just like a mother kills an unborn child.
And i know you've been trying so desperately to discredit me and my arguments by attempting to connect my stance on abortion with this issue. But you know what the difference is? I would never ever abort a child just as i would never ever murder an innocent child like you would order to be done. But you would, you would order the death of children and babies! And if i was Saul, i would have took the live stock, gold etc.. and integrated surviving children into my society and God can go kiss my ass, becuase if he's not even going to uphold his own commandments i will. but none of that really happened loco. god never ordered that. The whole story has been altered to let the jews off the hook for murdering innocent children.
I even asked Tre, who is neither a Jew nor a Christian, if under those circumstances he would have completely destroyed the Amalekites and he said yes, he definitely would have if the Amalekites had done to him and to his people what they did to Israel.
So becuase tre said the same thing as you it's ok to kill innocent children loco? another example of your pathetic desperation to justify killing children.
So the only hypocrite, "holier than thou" here is you.
And this is the brilliant conclusion of a person who would order the murder of innocent children and still professes to follow the 10 commandments? yeah right ::)
-
And if i was Saul, i would have took the live stock, gold etc.. and integrated surviving children into my society and God can go kiss my ass, becuase if he's not even going to uphold his own commandments i will. but none of that really happened loco. god never ordered that. The whole story has been altered to let the jews off the hook for murdering innocent children.
In a sense, Saul did what you suggested you would do if you were he. Guess what!! It cost him his throne (and none of his descendants follow him as king). And to top it all off, guess what the surviving Amalekites did (Hint: they didn't become noble citizens of Israel).
When their numbers swelled up again, they went right back to doing what their ancestors did: assaulting Israelites (and their children, by the way). And all of this occured, because Saul did NOT follow God's instructions. He wasn't supposed to keep the livestock, gold or silver; nor was he to spare ANY of the Amalekites.
By the way, if the story was altered, what did the alleged original one say? The account is "letting the Jews off the hook".....off the hook from WHOM?
-
In a sense, Saul did what you suggested you would do if you were he. Guess what!! It cost him his throne (and none of his descendants follow him as king). And to top it all off, guess what the surviving Amalekites did (Hint: they didn't become noble citizens of Israel).
When their numbers swelled up again, they went right back to doing what their ancestors did: assaulting Israelites (and their children, by the way). And all of this occured, because Saul did NOT follow God's instructions. He wasn't supposed to keep the livestock, gold or silver; nor was he to spare ANY of the Amalekites.
By the way, if the story was altered, what did the alleged original one say? The account is "letting the Jews off the hook".....off the hook from WHOM?
I'm still a bit confused on the Saul thing, did Saul order the killing of the children? And were all the amalikites including the children killed save the king?
In a sense, Saul did what you suggested you would do if you were he. Guess what!! It cost him his throne (and none of his descendants follow him as king). And to top it all off, guess what the surviving Amalekites did (Hint: they didn't become noble citizens of Israel).
All he had to do, was integrate the children into his society.
If not killing children meant losing my throne i'd have no problem doing it. I'm not here on earth to live out some legacy. My actions good and bad is what i will take to the after life and i'd rather be known as a person who gave up being king and all that goes with it in exchange for saving the lives of innocent children rather some fearful follower who does what they are told when it goes against the morals God has set out for me.
-
Yes, disobeying laws equals death. ::) (eye for and eye? oh yeah, do as i say not as i do, so sayeth the lord ::)) If a government treated it's citizens like god treated people in the OT would that government be considered just? Would it be just, if it killed every man woman and child for disobeying it's laws? Would we now consider that government moral and civilized if it ordered it's generals to kill every child in a nation as was done with the amalikites?
i think not.
Rule by fear is privative and far from divine. It only works on primitive minded poeple.
BTW your analogy about a cop is silly cause i hardly think anyone was threatening God especially 3 year olds.
that's what cracks me up about people who try and defend the senseless slaughter and murder that was attributed to God in the OT. they are so blinded and detached from their common sense that they actually try to justify cold blooded murder as something godly.
The Government didn't "CREATE" the people!
God can not be threatened. He sets the rules and you obey them, period.
I don't need to "defend" God. Honestly, I could care less what you think. Your blood is on your own hands. As a Christian man who is saved by God's grace, I just try to reach out to others and show them what I have found in Jesus. If you choose not to believe, that doesn't affect me in any way. However, I can honestly say that I do grieve when I hear people reject God. Not because God gets some great benefit if you accepted Him (although that's what most people seem to think), but because of what you are missing. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the LIFE". He truly is LIFE! There's a verse in one of my favorite hip-hop songs that sums it up pretty well, "Life without HIM is a contradiction, it's like being poor with Prada." You can't really live life, without the giver of life. I couldn't imagine my life without him. People truly don't know what they're missing.
Why do you think Christians get so excited about telling everyone about Jesus?? Do you think it's because of all of the ridicule they get for it???
BTW, I don't serve God out of fear (although I do have a reverent fear for Him). I serve him because I love him!
-
I'm still a bit confused on the Saul thing, did Saul order the killing of the children? And were all the amalikites including the children killed save the king?
The order came from God, via the prophet Samuel. Long after Saul's death and the reign of King David, we read of the Amalekites attacking Israel again. That further shows that Saul failed to follow God's instrcutions.
All he had to do, was integrate the children into his society.
He was NOT supposed to integrate them. His orders were to destroy Amalek, everyone and everything.
If not killing children meant losing my throne i'd have no problem doing it. I'm not here on earth to live out some legacy. My actions good and bad is what i will take to the after life and i'd rather be known as a person who gave up being king and all that goes with it in exchange for saving the lives of innocent children rather some fearful follower who does what they are told when it goes against the morals God has set out for me.
It's not as if Saul did any special pleading on the Amalekites' behalf. Remember that he lied his behind off, boldly telling Samuel that he obeyed the word of the Lord. Saul acted out of greed, keeping the livestock and treasure of Amalek for himself, destroying the sick and diseased livestock and anything that wasn't of value. When Samuel asked Saul why he heard cattle mooing and sheep bleating, Saul lied again, blaming his troops for keeping the loot. Plus, he was supposed to destroy Amalek's king; instead, Saul paraded him around like a war trophy.
And, it was God's instruction that the Amalekites be destroyed for their actions against Israel (among others). And, with the Amalekites resurfacing and renewing their assaults on Israelites, Saul (and you, if you did what he did) would be remembered as the man who didn't get the job done and allowed a cruel and wicked enemy to continually harass them.
-
I'm still a bit confused on the Saul thing, did Saul order the killing of the children? And were all the amalikites including the children killed save the king?
OzmO, if you are going to criticize the Bible, at least read it first. ::)
-
OzmO,
I stand by my answer. I will stick with the Bible believing Jews and Christians. If that, according to you, makes us potential child murderers, so be it. What you say here does not change the fact that it is us, not you, defending unborn babies and speaking up for them, who can't speak for themselves. God speaks to me through the Bible, not through a little voice in my head and not through angels. And the Bible tells us Christians, and we act on this:
Proverbs 31:8
"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute."
James 1:27
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
Joshua 24:15
"But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve...But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."
Have a nice day, OzmO!
-
I'm still a bit confused on the Saul thing, did Saul order the killing of the children? And were all the amalikites including the children killed save the king?
All he had to do, was integrate the children into his society.
If not killing children meant losing my throne i'd have no problem doing it. I'm not here on earth to live out some legacy. My actions good and bad is what i will take to the after life and i'd rather be known as a person who gave up being king and all that goes with it in exchange for saving the lives of innocent children rather some fearful follower who does what they are told when it goes against the morals God has set out for me.
Ozmo, haven't you learnt that it is waste of time arguing with bible thumpers like this? They believe at any cost and refuse to look at anything that might even be remotely contradictory in their holy book of holes....honestly, your time would be better spend popping pimples...
-
The Government didn't "CREATE" the people!
God can not be threatened. He sets the rules and you obey them, period.
I don't need to "defend" God. Honestly, I could care less what you think. Your blood is on your own hands. As a Christian man who is saved by God's grace, I just try to reach out to others and show them what I have found in Jesus. If you choose not to believe, that doesn't affect me in any way. However, I can honestly say that I do grieve when I hear people reject God. Not because God gets some great benefit if you accepted Him (although that's what most people seem to think), but because of what you are missing. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the LIFE". He truly is LIFE! There's a verse in one of my favorite hip-hop songs that sums it up pretty well, "Life without HIM is a contradiction, it's like being poor with Prada." You can't really live life, without the giver of life. I couldn't imagine my life without him. People truly don't know what they're missing.
Why do you think Christians get so excited about telling everyone about Jesus?? Do you think it's because of all of the ridicule they get for it???
BTW, I don't serve God out of fear (although I do have a reverent fear for Him). I serve him because I love him!
So becuase you create them you are not morally accountable to what you do to them? ::) (sounds like an abortionists argument)
Yeah, exactly god cannot be threatened, that's why your police analogy was non-applicable.
-
OzmO,
I stand by my answer. I will stick with the Bible believing Jews and Christians. If that, according to you, makes us potential child murderers, so be it. What you say here does not change the fact that it is us, not you, defending unborn babies and speaking up for them, who can't speak for themselves. God speaks to me through the Bible, not through a little voice in my head and not through angels. And the Bible tells us Christians, and we act on this:
Proverbs 31:8
"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute."
James 1:27
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
Joshua 24:15
"But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve...But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."
Have a nice day, OzmO!
You really didn't answer the question, you think you did, but you didn't. (also, you haven't answered a bunch more, but whatever. They are reality questions that you refuse to answer)
And yes, i defend unborn babies loco. I have my way you have yours, which in only just makes you feel better but does nothing.
God speaks to me through the Bible,
Like i said earlier, you worship a book of stories written by primitive men and refuse to think God would inspire and speak to people now.
-
The order came from God, via the prophet Samuel. Long after Saul's death and the reign of King David, we read of the Amalekites attacking Israel again. That further shows that Saul failed to follow God's instrcutions.
He was NOT supposed to integrate them. His orders were to destroy Amalek, everyone and everything.
It's not as if Saul did any special pleading on the Amalekites' behalf. Remember that he lied his behind off, boldly telling Samuel that he obeyed the word of the Lord. Saul acted out of greed, keeping the livestock and treasure of Amalek for himself, destroying the sick and diseased livestock and anything that wasn't of value. When Samuel asked Saul why he heard cattle mooing and sheep bleating, Saul lied again, blaming his troops for keeping the loot. Plus, he was supposed to destroy Amalek's king; instead, Saul paraded him around like a war trophy.
And, it was God's instruction that the Amalekites be destroyed for their actions against Israel (among others). And, with the Amalekites resurfacing and renewing their assaults on Israelites, Saul (and you, if you did what he did) would be remembered as the man who didn't get the job done and allowed a cruel and wicked enemy to continually harass them.
So i guess Saul didn't kill all of them when he thought he did. Because i doubt the King would spawn an new nation all on his own. lol
In end it doesn't matter much what Saul did or didn't do. Looks to me like Samuel was a primitive sort who thought killing children was the answer, (i know he allegedly got orders from god ::)).
Which still brings us back to the point: there is no justification for killing children.
-
So becuase you create them you are not morally accountable to what you do to them? ::) (sounds like an abortionists argument)
Yeah, exactly god cannot be threatened, that's why your police analogy was non-applicable.
Who would he be accountable to??? You?????
My police analogy is clearly applicable. Apparently a simple analogy is too difficult for you to understand. How can I possibly expect you to contemplate the origins of the universe and the ways all of all powerful, holy, and perfectly moral and just God??
Let me explain the analogy for you,
If you are breaking the law and refuse to stop breaking the law even when warned, you should expect the punishment the law giver said you would receive. Hence, if a police officer tells you Stop or Ill shoot and you keep running at him with a gun, HE WILL SHOOT YOU!
If God gives you laws and you continue to break them, he will punish you with the punishment he forewarned. Its real simple.
Take you for example, you have been clearly given the way to salvation and have refused to accept it. When the day of judgment comes you will have no excuse. And please dont think you are going to argue with God.
-
Who would he be accountable to??? You?????
He's accountable to the laws he imposes otherwise he's a hypocrite.
Get it?
And before you run off accusing me of disrespecting God and if you don't have the patience to read all of my posts my point is this:
The bible is not the 100% word of God but rather the word of man describing what they think is god.
God would not be a hypocrite.
God would not order men to kill innocent children.
However men, would use God as an excuse to commit murder which has been done for centuries.
My police analogy is clearly applicable. Apparently a simple analogy is too difficult for you to understand. How can I possibly expect you to contemplate the origins of the universe and the ways all of all powerful, holy, and perfectly moral and just God??
Let me explain the analogy for you,
If you are breaking the law and refuse to stop breaking the law even when warned, you should expect the punishment the law giver said you would receive. Hence, if a police officer tells you Stop or Ill shoot and you keep running at him with a gun, HE WILL SHOOT YOU!
Running at police with a gun implies you are threatening the officer's life that's why gives the warning.
No one is threatening god's life,
Get it?
The idea that you call the God describe in the OT moral shows just how brainwashed people can get in the face of their own facts.
and then you say: who are you to question God? LOLOLOLOL ::) That's not God, that's man.
If God gives you laws and you continue to break them, he will punish you with the punishment he forewarned. Its real simple.
Yeah? and how does that apply to those who did not break the law and he killed them?
And how does fit into the eye for a eye principle?
Take you for example, you have been clearly given the way to salvation and have refused to accept it. When the day of judgment comes you will have no excuse. And please dont think you are going to argue with God.
No, i have been given religious doctrine written by religious fanatics laced with exclusivity that denounces any all that are not the same. All of which are based on beliefs and an incomplete politically influenced collection of letters and scriptures. And you like so many other thumpers use as the bases for condemning any that don't share the same beliefs.
-
He's accountable to the laws he imposes otherwise he's a hypocrite.
God is not accountable to the laws that he requires man to obey. They are for man NOT God.
And before you run off accusing me of disrespecting God and if you don't have the patience to read all of my posts my point is this:
The bible is not the 100% word of God but rather the word of man describing what they think is god.
The bible itself states that it is the Word of God. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" 2Timothy 3:16 So by you saying that it is only what man thinks God is, is being disrespectful.
God would not order men to kill innocent children.
God had warned the people that their sins would be carried over into many generations of their children and that their children would also suffer the consequences of their sin. So the children were not innocent. They were carrying the sins of their fathers. So essentially, it is their own fathers who killed their children by their own disobedience. . [/quote]
However men, would use God as an excuse to commit murder which has been done for centuries.
That is true, and I'm not condoning that. Man will use all kinds of excuses to do what they do. But you cannot discount everything God says because some nut job wants to use religion as an excuse to commit murder.
That's why it's important to have ABSOLUTE TRUTH. That's why God gave use the Bible as the SOLE IMMUTABLE AUTHORITY on which to validate His Word. If you don't have an immutable source than you can claim that God told you to do anything. However, God said what He is going to say and that's the end of it.
Running at police with a gun implies you are threatening the officer's life that's why gives the warning.
Dont impose your views on why he gave you the command. What you believe is irrelevant. If the officer to you to "Stop or I'll shoot", you stop or he'll shoot, period. Regardless of why he gave the command. The point is, he gave you a SPECIFIC command detailing the consequences of ignoring it. If you choose to ignore it, you get shot! He did NOT say, "I'm feeling threatened so stop or I'll shoot". [/quote]
No one is threatening god's life,
Get it?
No, they are not. However, they are deliberately disobeying His commands. Hence, they will suffer the consequences. When you were a kid and your dad said, "Be inside before the street lights come on or youll be put on restriction." He doesn't have to be threatened by you not coming in before the street lights come on. You just decided to disobey what he told you and now you'll be put on restriction. No threat needed. Its DISOBEDIENCE.
The idea that you call the God describe in the OT moral shows just how brainwashed people can get in the face of their own facts.
and then you say: who are you to question God? LOLOLOLOL ::) That's not God, that's man.
He is moral. He created morality. You call people brainwashed because they believe what God says???
Yeah? and how does that apply to those who did not break the law and he killed them?
So do you think the fathers that disobeyed God were moral??? If they were, they would NOT have been judged.
What is the first commandment??? You shall have no other gods before me.
So were they really innocent????
And how does fit into the eye for a eye principle?
Has nothing to do with it. Punishment was in response to direct disobedience to a command.
No, i have been given religious doctrine written by religious fanatics laced with exclusivity that denounces any all that are not the same. All of which are based on beliefs and an incomplete politically influenced collection of letters and scriptures. And you like so many other thumpers use as the bases for condemning any that don't share the same beliefs.
So you want a more "all inclusive" doctrine with no absolute authority??? What about the God who created you (your Father), doesn't He get to decide who His legitimate children are??? If someone claims your mother is their real mother because they don't believe in the doctrines of their real biological mother, does that make your mother their biological mother?????? Is your mother just being unfair?? Shouldn't she be less "exclusive"???? Isn't she just being too "political"????
-
God is not accountable to the laws that he requires man to obey. They are for man NOT God.
Yes it does, unless of course you want to ignore that fact putting your common sense on hold for fear of the foundation of your beliefs falling apart. But in the real world, that's hypocrisy plain and simple.
The bible itself states that it is the Word of God. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" 2Timothy 3:16 So by you saying that it is only what man thinks God is, is being disrespectful.
Yeah, but i have a different book that states it's the word of god and because it states that mine is true and yours is not.
Because something is written in a book that supports itself doesn't make it true. Anyone can write anything. Zeus is true becuase it says so in this book, this book is true becuase the book says so...... ::)
This is how some people think; primitive, like the people who wrote the books of he bible.
God had warned the people that their sins would be carried over into many generations of their children and that their children would also suffer the consequences of their sin. So the children were not innocent. They were carrying the sins of their fathers. So essentially, it is their own fathers who killed their children by their own disobedience. .
It was the hand of God, well in this case the hand of the Jewish soldiers, that kill them. We always have choices and so does God. If God was al powerful he would have raptured the children right in front of the amalikites and then gave them one more chance and then killed them if they screwed up again.
This would have been a divine thing to do, what did happen was a human fearful, vengeful, barbaric thing to do. The Moral thing to do would have been to assimilate them (children) into their culture.
That is true, and I'm not condoning that. Man will use all kinds of excuses to do what they do. But you cannot discount everything God says because some nut job wants to use religion as an excuse to commit murder.
That's why it's important to have ABSOLUTE TRUTH. That's why God gave use the Bible as the SOLE IMMUTABLE AUTHORITY on which to validate His Word. If you don't have an immutable source than you can claim that God told you to do anything. However, God said what He is going to say and that's the end of it.
God gave the Bible as SOLE IMMUTABLE AUTHORITY on which to validate His Word?
That Bible is the most incompetent thing written and if that was it's purpose, there wouldn't be the hundreds for denominations and freak cults that get their source of truth from the Bible.
The same bible that has helped spur countless instances of suffering form the crusades to the inquisition to what helped some Germans justify the genocide of the Jews?
That alone proves that God is either stupid or it isn't the word of God.
Dont impose your views on why he gave you the command. What you believe is irrelevant. If the officer to you to "Stop or I'll shoot", you stop or he'll shoot, period. Regardless of why he gave the command. The point is, he gave you a SPECIFIC command detailing the consequences of ignoring it. If you choose to ignore it, you get shot! He did NOT say, "I'm feeling threatened so stop or I'll shoot".
[/quote]
Cops will not threaten to shoot you unless you are threatening them or someone else with bodily harm. So again, your comparison is very unrealistic and doesn't apply.
No, they are not. However, they are deliberately disobeying His commands. Hence, they will suffer the consequences. When you were a kid and your dad said, "Be inside before the street lights come on or youll be put on restriction." He doesn't have to be threatened by you not coming in before the street lights come on. You just decided to disobey what he told you and now you'll be put on restriction. No threat needed. Its DISOBEDIENCE.
Yeah, but he did not kill me because of it, like he (allegedly) ordered the slaughter of 3000 men and plague the families for being insecure and making a gold calf.
That shows rage, ego, anger and jealousy. all traits of men not God.
He is moral. He created morality. You call people brainwashed because they believe what God says???
No people are brainwashed who think God killing innocent children is not subject to morality. Moral is defined by actions. God's actions (alleged) in the OT show insecure, jealous, murder, dedicative etc... MAN not God and not moral.
So do you think the fathers that disobeyed God were moral??? If they were, they would NOT have been judged.
What is the first commandment??? You shall have no other gods before me.
So were they really innocent?
I'm talking about children.
Has nothing to do with it. Punishment was in response to direct disobedience to a command.
One of the things that define our progress as a society is proportional responses. If your neighbor takes your morning paper you don't rape his wife as a punishment. That's part of what eye for an eye means. Again more ungodly behavior by the alleged God in the OT.
So you want a more "all inclusive" doctrine with no absolute authority??? What about the God who created you (your Father), doesn't He get to decide who His legitimate children are??? If someone claims your mother is their real mother because they don't believe in the doctrines of their real biological mother, does that make your mother their biological mother??? Is your mother just being unfair?? Shouldn't she be less "exclusive"? Isn't she just being too "political"?
You really didn't get what i was saying there.
My point is there isn't an absolute doctrine save only that which is contained in different religions including Christianity. We are all creations of God. Loved by him. He speaks to us in many different ways and provides vehicles (different religions) based on what we will respond to considering our environment the culture we are in and the society we live in. to accept that would take the power of exclusivity these different religions have away from them. That's were this doctrine was born, by the hand of man to control and keep followers. Christianity is no different. the NT is full of it. Your beliefs are so ingrained you can't even see the blatantness of this.
Miracles happen every day outside of Christianity, prayers are answered, the holy spirit helps those you ask giving hope and strength. all of which have nothing to do the christian church's view of the truth.
-
Yes it does, unless of course you want to ignore that fact putting your common sense on hold for fear of the foundation of your beliefs falling apart. But in the real world, that's hypocrisy plain and simple.
Yeah, but i have a different book that states it's the word of god and because it states that mine is true and yours is not.
Because something is written in a book that supports itself doesn't make it true. Anyone can write anything. Zeus is true becuase it says so in this book, this book is true becuase the book says so...... ::)
This is how some people think; primitive, like the people who wrote the books of he bible.
It was the hand of God, well in this case the hand of the Jewish soldiers, that kill them. We always have choices and so does God. If God was al powerful he would have raptured the children right in front of the amalikites and then gave them one more chance and then killed them if they screwed up again.
This would have been a divine thing to do, what did happen was a human fearful, vengeful, barbaric thing to do. The Moral thing to do would have been to assimilate them (children) into their culture.
God gave the Bible as SOLE IMMUTABLE AUTHORITY on which to validate His Word?
That Bible is the most incompetent thing written and if that was it's purpose, there wouldn't be the hundreds for denominations and freak cults that get their source of truth from the Bible.
The same bible that has helped spur countless instances of suffering form the crusades to the inquisition to what helped some Germans justify the genocide of the Jews?
That alone proves that God is either stupid or it isn't the word of God.
Cops will not threaten to shoot you unless you are threatening them or someone else with bodily harm. So again, your comparison is very unrealistic and doesn't apply.
Yeah, but he did not kill me because of it, like he (allegedly) ordered the slaughter of 3000 men and plague the families for being insecure and making a gold calf.
That shows rage, ego, anger and jealousy. all traits of men not God.
No people are brainwashed who think God killing innocent children is not subject to morality. Moral is defined by actions. God's actions (alleged) in the OT show insecure, jealous, murder, dedicative etc... MAN not God and not moral.
I'm talking about children.
One of the things that define our progress as a society is proportional responses. If your neighbor takes your morning paper you don't rape his wife as a punishment. That's part of what eye for an eye means. Again more ungodly behavior by the alleged God in the OT.
You really didn't get what i was saying there.
My point is there isn't an absolute doctrine save only that which is contained in different religions including Christianity. We are all creations of God. Loved by him. He speaks to us in many different ways and provides vehicles (different religions) based on what we will respond to considering our environment the culture we are in and the society we live in. to accept that would take the power of exclusivity these different religions have away from them. That's were this doctrine was born, by the hand of man to control and keep followers. Christianity is no different. the NT is full of it. Your beliefs are so ingrained you can't even see the blatantness of this.
Miracles happen every day outside of Christianity, prayers are answered, the holy spirit helps those you ask giving hope and strength. all of which have nothing to do the christian church's view of the truth.
Well, there you have it. You have all of the answers.
It's interesting to see how people "Create" God in their own image. The way they want Him to be, regardless of what God the Creator has to say.
You have created for yourself a god that is NOT absolute and is subject to perform the way you tell him too (the ultimate form of narcissism). Going as fas as to tell God what "Godly" behavior is.
You have chosen to disregard the Bible, in your own words as "the most incompetent thing written". Sad to see. If you ever took an unbiased critical look at the Bible, you'd find that it is in fact the immutable Word of God. I know that there is no convincing you of that, because you already have all of the answers.
There's an account in the Bible of a man who rejected the truth, died and went to hell. He begged an pleaded to have God raise him from the dead so that they would believe what was said about God was true:
"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.' 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' " Luke 16:27-31
I find it interesting that God did in fact allow for Jesus to die a public death and then be raised from the dead and people like you still do not believe. It's exactly as the Scripture says.
So if Jesus being raised from the dead won't convince you, then there's no possible way on earth that I will be able to.
-
So i guess Saul didn't kill all of them when he thought he did. Because i doubt the King would spawn an new nation all on his own. lol
In end it doesn't matter much what Saul did or didn't do. Looks to me like Samuel was a primitive sort who thought killing children was the answer, (i know he allegedly got orders from god ::)).
Which still brings us back to the point: there is no justification for killing children.
Well, the voice the Lord is how he got his job. It was God who told Samuel, as a boy, that he would replace his mentor, Eli, as high priest, because Eli stood idly by and watched his grown sons (also priests) extort money from the Israelites and fornicate with the women in the temple. Eli's boys were drunks and whoremongers. The text states that Eli's sons "made themselves vile and he (Eli) restrained them not".
And, it was Samuel who, through God's leading, chose Saul to be Israel's initial king.
Regardless of whether you think Samuel was a primitive sort, he got the message to Saul (regarding the Amalekites) and Saul agreed to obey it. However, not only did he not do so, but he lied to Samuel's face, claiming that he did. Saul didn't plea for the Amalekites or ask that any of them be spared.
Plus, he was supposed to destroy everything, NOT take the choice livestock or treasure of Amalek for himself, later feigning that he got it to offer before God.
That brings us back to the point: The Amalekites sins caused judgment to be handed to them. And their children suffered as well.
Yes it does, unless of course you want to ignore that fact putting your common sense on hold for fear of the foundation of your beliefs falling apart. But in the real world, that's hypocrisy plain and simple.
The foundation of his beliefs hasn't fallen apart in over 2000 years. I seriously doubt it's going to fall apart now, simply due to the wailing of Biblical skeptics.
Yeah, but i have a different book that states it's the word of god and because it states that mine is true and yours is not.
Because something is written in a book that supports itself doesn't make it true. Anyone can write anything. Zeus is true becuase it says so in this book, this book is true becuase the book says so...... ::)
Anyone can write anything. To have those writings preserved and validated in history over thousands of years is quite another thing. The Bible has that; Zeus' book, whatever it is, does not.
This is how some people think; primitive, like the people who wrote the books of he bible.
It was the hand of God, well in this case the hand of the Jewish soldiers, that kill them. We always have choices and so does God. If God was al powerful he would have raptured the children right in front of the amalikites and then gave them one more chance and then killed them if they screwed up again.
This would have been a divine thing to do, what did happen was a human fearful, vengeful, barbaric thing to do. The Moral thing to do would have been to assimilate them (children) into their culture.
Now, you're claiming that God isn't omnipotent, simply because He didn't do things the way YOU THINK He should have done them. That's rich!
We do have choices, indeed. The Amalekites chose to continually harrass Israel and, as FreakShow stated, they paid the price for it.
The Amalekites had over 300 years to repent; that's more than enough time, as far as I'm concerned. And what did they do, during that span of time? Continue to assault the Israelites, targeting primarily their weak and feeble; destroy their crops, nearly pushing Israel to starvation; etc., etc. I think it's safe to say that sparing the Amalekites any longer would have done little-to-nothing to change their ways.
Plus, as FreakShow also mentioned (and I have, on multiple occasions), in certain instances, the sins of the fathers affect the children. You aren't the only one who pays for your trangressions. On a larger and more tragic scale, that's what happened to the Amalekites.
God gave the Bible as SOLE IMMUTABLE AUTHORITY on which to validate His Word?
That Bible is the most incompetent thing written and if that was it's purpose, there wouldn't be the hundreds for denominations and freak cults that get their source of truth from the Bible.
The same bible that has helped spur countless instances of suffering form the crusades to the inquisition to what helped some Germans justify the genocide of the Jews?
That alone proves that God is either stupid or it isn't the word of God.
The Bible had nothing to do with the actions of the Crusaders of the Third Reich, anymore than converting Africans to Christianity had anything to with whites subjecting blacks to chattel slavery hundreds of years ago.
Cops will not threaten to shoot you unless you are threatening them or someone else with bodily harm. So again, your comparison is very unrealistic and doesn't apply.
Threatening somebody else? That's part of the point. The Amalekites weren't just threatening the Israelites; they're were flat-out assaulting them and had been doing such for three centuries. They had a chance to repent, to apologize, to make amends. They got worse, instead of better. God placed judgment on them; they got wiped out.
If you get warned of the consequences of certain actions and continue your course, then you're subject to have those consequences
Yeah, but he did not kill me because of it, like he (allegedly) ordered the slaughter of 3000 men and plague the families for being insecure and making a gold calf.
That shows rage, ego, anger and jealousy. all traits of men not God.
And God isn't supposed to feel anything, because His chosen people, who prayed for Him to deliver them from slavery and bondage (and did so, without one Jew dying in combat) are now using the very treasure (that He gave them from the Egyptians) to make a golden calf and credit it for their deliverance?
As I said before, the Israelites weren't praying to "Bessie", when Pharoah had his foot in their behinds.
And, based on the religious practices of Israel's neighbors, human sacrifice and sexual perversion were likely involved in Israel's newfound (but short-lived) praise ceremonies. To top it all off, Moses offered the idolators a chance to repent, Who is on the Lord's side? Let him come to me!. Those who did were spared; those who didn't..........
No people are brainwashed who think God killing innocent children is not subject to morality. Moral is defined by actions. God's actions (alleged) in the OT show insecure, jealous, murder, dedicative etc... MAN not God and not moral.
Subject to whose morality, yours or that of God? It's His creation. He can do with it, as He sees fit, whether you or any other skeptic likes it or not.
I'm talking about children.
The second commandment states that God visits the iniquity of those that hate Him unto the third and fourth generations. The greater the sin, unfortunately, the more people get affected by it. Certain sins carry grave consequences, which are not just limited to the transgressors.
One of the things that define our progress as a society is proportional responses. If your neighbor takes your morning paper you don't rape his wife as a punishment. That's part of what eye for an eye means. Again more ungodly behavior by the alleged God in the OT.
Now, that's an analogy that doesn't make sense, especially in light of the Amalekite scenario. What was not proportional about the judgment handed to Amalek? Samuel said it best, when dealing with King Agag (king of Amalek). His sword made women childless; now his mother (and mothers of his people) would be made childless. The Amalekites killed women and children, unapologetically for hundreds of years; now their women and children would meet the same fate, as would they.
You really didn't get what i was saying there.
My point is there isn't an absolute doctrine save only that which is contained in different religions including Christianity. We are all creations of God. Loved by him. He speaks to us in many different ways and provides vehicles (different religions) based on what we will respond to considering our environment the culture we are in and the society we live in. to accept that would take the power of exclusivity these different religions have away from them. That's were this doctrine was born, by the hand of man to control and keep followers. Christianity is no different. the NT is full of it. Your beliefs are so ingrained you can't even see the blatantness of this.
Miracles happen every day outside of Christianity, prayers are answered, the holy spirit helps those you ask giving hope and strength. all of which have nothing to do the christian church's view of the truth.
He does speak to us in many ways. Among the things He says to us is how He wants us to obey Him, which includes the blessings that come with obeying Him and the curses that come with disobeying Him.
If the above spiel is true, then anyway you slice it, there are rules and principles to obeying God, with consequences (good and bad) that accompany them. This has nothing to do with "exclusivity" or "control". Your entire complaint is based simply on your disliking the severity of the consequences, metted on a group of people (the Amalekites) for their continued disobedience and disregard.
[/quote]
-
That brings us back to the point: The Amalekites sins caused judgment to be handed to them. And their children suffered as well
No, not at all, the Children needlessly suffered and were given an undue punishment. they were murdered and slaughtered and it wasn't neccessary (which it never is).
To dismiss it as an consequence is barbaric and shows a lack of morality.
Hence: not godly.
The foundation of his beliefs hasn't fallen apart in over 2000 years. I seriously doubt it's going to fall apart now, simply due to the wailing of Biblical skeptics.
I wasn't suggesting it was falling apart, My point was that in order for him to have common sense would mean his and your foundation of beliefs would dissolve or fall apart. So in way you are locked into this barbaric immoral way of thinking that says there is justification for killing innocent children if their parents have sinned.
How would that fly today McVay? Would that kind of behavior be considered Christian? I think not. It would be worse than 9/11.
Anyone can write anything. To have those writings preserved and validated in history over thousands of years is quite another thing. The Bible has that; Zeus' book, whatever it is, does not.
I think the oldest known writings are Sumerian text on clay tablets. But what ever the case, there are many ancient religious writings so that's a moot point really. Further more how do you qualify validated? Writings that identify an ancient city in turn prove that someone lived in the belly of a whale for 3 days? ::)
Now, you're claiming that God isn't omnipotent, simply because He didn't do things the way YOU THINK He should have done them. That's rich!
My Point is, there was a better more MORAL way to deal with the problem, but you believe it was God who dealt with it this way when he has all this power.
Plus, as FreakShow also mentioned (and I have, on multiple occasions), in certain instances, the sins of the fathers affect the children. You aren't the only one who pays for your trangressions. On a larger and more tragic scale, that's what happened to the Amalekites.
Well you both are living in the stone age, Society has far progressed from that and realizes that killing innocent children regardless of the sins of the parents is wrong and immoral. (I guess the God of the OT was still immature ::))
The Bible had nothing to do with the actions of the Crusaders of the Third Reich, anymore than converting Africans to Christianity had anything to with whites subjecting blacks to chattel slavery hundreds of years ago.
It has everything to do with it. That's where they get their justification. If the book was written properly people wouldn't get instructions on how to trade and train slaves, how to be angry and jealous, or how to murder children instead of finding a solution.
Yes, it's the Bible that has helped to sanctify and legitimatize much of the suffering we've seen in the world in our history, Murder, slavery, repression, displacement etc....
What if the Bible only contained the commandments and the NT? Slavery would have been abolished much sooner, displacing families and nations wouldn't have been thought to be proper, murdering on the scale of the crusades wouldn't been done with religious justification and in turn probably not happen on the scale it did.
Yes, this book has help to as much bad as it has done to do much good.
Threatening somebody else? That's part of the point. The Amalekites weren't just threatening the Israelites; they're were flat-out assaulting them and had been doing such for three centuries. They had a chance to repent, to apologize, to make amends. They got worse, instead of better. God placed judgment on them; they got wiped out.
If you get warned of the consequences of certain actions and continue your course, then you're subject to have those consequences
Again we are talking about the kids, a hard thing for even thumpers to swallow that's why you keep thinking i"m talking about the parents.
And God isn't supposed to feel anything, because His chosen people, who prayed for Him to deliver them from slavery and bondage (and did so, without one Jew dying in combat) are now using the very treasure (that He gave them from the Egyptians) to make a golden calf and credit it for their deliverance?
As I said before, the Israelites weren't praying to "Bessie", when Pharoah had his foot in their behinds.
And, based on the religious practices of Israel's neighbors, human sacrifice and sexual perversion were likely involved in Israel's newfound (but short-lived) praise ceremonies. To top it all off, Moses offered the idolators a chance to repent, Who is on the Lord's side? Let him come to me!. Those who did were spared; those who didn't..........
God is supposed to be in control of his emotions at the very least. If not he's certainly not a God (which is my point about the OT not being the WOG) Not like some raged mad-man.
::)
Thump ::)
That's just stupid McVay.
Subject to whose morality, yours or that of God? It's His creation. He can do with it, as He sees fit, whether you or any other skeptic likes it or not.
God wisdom to be Godly would not include hypocrisy.
Its a principle.
Talk the talk and walk the walk.
The second commandment states that God visits the iniquity of those that hate Him unto the third and fourth generations. The greater the sin, unfortunately, the more people get affected by it. Certain sins carry grave consequences, which are not just limited to the transgressors.
huh?
Now, that's an analogy that doesn't make sense, especially in light of the Amalekite scenario. What was not proportional about the judgment handed to Amalek? Samuel said it best, when dealing with King Agag (king of Amalek). His sword made women childless; now his mother (and mothers of his people) would be made childless. The Amalekites killed women and children, unapologetically for hundreds of years; now their women and children would meet the same fate, as would they.
Again, you fail to see I'm talking about the children.
McVay talk all that logic or what ever you call it and apply it to a scenario today. How outrageous would that be?
But you can't get that can you? to do so, would mean to question the Bible, the word.....
You know it's a good thing people like you aren't in power. Because many innocent people might die from this righteousness crap.
Your entire complaint is based simply on your disliking the severity of the consequences, metted on a group of people (the Amalekites) for their continued disobedience and disregard.
Again it's about innocent children, something you can't seem to get, children you would have killed.
-
it would be my duty as a christian soldier...
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
forward into battle see his banners go!
-
Again it's about innocent children, something you can't seem to get, children you would have killed.
Something to ponder; If God created the children, doesn't He have the right to do with them what He choses??
It never ceases to amaze me at how most people look at God. They treat God as if He is obligated to act the way "they" think He should. They talk about Him as if He is just another person, they talk down at Him and disrespect Him. They don't even think about the fact that He is the Creator of the universe, He is holy. Think about the fact that they couldn't even stand in His presence because they are not worthy. Even Moses who God gave the Ten Commandments, hit the ground with His face in the dirt because He couldn't even look at God's splendor, holiness and His majesty. Yet people talk about God as if they would tell Him a thing or two. Give me a break!
Something to think about.
-
Something to ponder; If God created the children, doesn't He have the right to do with them what He choses??
No he doesn't if he at the same time tells you to love thy neighbor, do on to others, thou shalt not kill, etc.... No entity or being is above the morality they impose on others with out becoming a hypocrite.
Use some logic:
1. This God described in the OT is a hypocrite
2. God is not a hypocrite
3. therefore the Bible is not the infallible WOG
It never ceases to amaze me at how most people look at God. They treat God as if He is obligated to act the way "they" think He should. They talk about Him as if He is just another person, they talk down at Him and disrespect Him. They don't even think about the fact that He is the Creator of the universe, He is holy. Think about the fact that they couldn't even stand in His presence because they are not worthy. Even Moses who God gave the Ten Commandments, hit the ground with His face in the dirt because He couldn't even look at God's splendor, holiness and His majesty. Yet people talk about God as if they would tell Him a thing or two. Give me a break!
Something to think about.
That's only because you've accepted the premised and identity of God as describe in the OT which was written by primitive superstitious men.
So there's is very little to think about in that regard because i live in the modern world where our society (which still has far to go) has progressed far beyond that, far beyond surrendering my common sense and morality in favor of awe and wonderment or excluding the leader or creator from accountability for their actions.
-
Something to remember....
I have the similar respect and awe for God as most Christians do. I just don't let that cloud my common sense when it comes to someone else telling me who God is, be it in a book (bible) or personal experience.
-
No he doesn't if he at the same time tells you to love thy neighbor, do on to others, thou shalt not kill, etc.... No entity or being is above the morality they impose on others with out becoming a hypocrite.
Use some logic:
1. This God described in the OT is a hypocrite
2. God is not a hypocrite
3. therefore the Bible is not the infallible WOG
That's only because you've accepted the premised and identity of God as describe in the OT which was written by primitive superstitious men.
So there's is very little to think about in that regard because i live in the modern world where our society (which still has far to go) has progressed far beyond that, far beyond surrendering my common sense and morality in favor of awe and wonderment or excluding the leader or creator from accountability for their actions.
So in other words, God has no authority other than the authority that "you" allow Him to have. A God that is not omnipotent.
So essentially, you are god and you say how it's going to be done.
-
Something to remember....
I have the similar respect and awe for God as most Christians do. I just don't let that cloud my common sense when it comes to someone else telling me who God is, be it in a book (bible) or personal experience.
However, your god would act according to your design. A genie in a bottle kind of god.
-
So in other words, God has no authority other than the authority that "you" allow Him to have. A God that is not omnipotent.
So essentially, you are god and you say how it's going to be done.
You are missing the point again and thinking in simple terms.
Of course God has authority and ultimate power as he created everything, but he also gave us free will. And my point is that God will act Godly, above petty jealousy and rage that's indicative of imperfect man. If not, then God is not god but instead a man. Go back to the logic i showed you 1-2-3
However, your god would act according to your design. A genie in a bottle kind of god.
Not my design, Something close if not exact to the example Jesus set. Jesus, ordering the death of children? Think about it and save the me the man made explanation trying create idea that god changed his approach. BTW it's not my God, it's God, yours and mine regardless of how inaccurate you and i are at describing him.
But one thing is for sure..... God is not a man, rage murder and jealousy are things men do.
-
You are missing the point again and thinking in simple terms.
Of course God has authority and ultimate power as he created everything, but he also gave us free will. And my point is that God will act Godly, above petty jealousy and rage that's indicative of imperfect man. If not, then God is not god but instead a man. Go back to the logic i showed you 1-2-3
The logic YOU showed me.
Not my design, Something close if not exact to the example Jesus set.
Which God would that be??? Where did you hear about him??? It's sounds like something you created to match your beliefs.
Jesus, ordering the death of children? Think about it and save the me the man made explanation trying create idea that god changed his approach. BTW it's not my God, it's God, yours and mine regardless of how inaccurate you and i are at describing him.
Well our God is not the same. My God is the God of the Bible. He is the only one true God. The God of Jesus, whom you deny.
I am not inaccurate in describing Him. How do I know? Because it's not how I describe Him, but how He describes Himself. Anything different is not God. It may be "a" god but it's not God.
God is very clear in the Bible, you are either for Him or against Him. If you deny Him (the God of the Bible), He will deny you.
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:21-23
-
The logic YOU showed me.
Which God would that be??? Where did you hear about him??? It's sounds like something you created to match your beliefs.
Well our God is not the same. My God is the God of the Bible. He is the only one true God. The God of Jesus, whom you deny.
I am not inaccurate in describing Him. How do I know? Because it's not how I describe Him, but how He describes Himself. Anything different is not God. It may be "a" god but it's not God.
God is very clear in the Bible, you are either for Him or against Him. If you deny Him (the God of the Bible), He will deny you.
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:21-23
Which makes your daddy in the sky figure all the more transparent...he sounds like an angry teenager....
-
OzmO - Please don't misunderstand me. I am not trying to disrespect you or offend you in any way.
I'm just trying to make clear that the God of the Bible is different than any other God. They are not and cannot be the same. The God of the Bible is the God of Jesus. Any God that denies that Jesus is part of the Godhead can't be the God of the Bible.
I'm sure you are a great guy and very intellegent. So please don't take anything I say as an attack on you personally, because that is not my intention.
-
Which makes your daddy in the sky figure all the more transparent...he sounds like an angry teenager....
You're problem is not with me, it's with God.
-
You're problem is not with me, it's with God.
Hard to have a problem with the non-existent... ;D
-
Hard to have a problem with the non-existent... ;D
Then I guess you don't have a problem at all, huh ;)
-
Then I guess you don't have a problem at all, huh ;)
Nope.
BTW, I have to say, you guys are the nicest bunch of bible thumping fundies I have ever encountered (You, Loco and Stella)...and I mean that in all seriousness... ;)
-
No, not at all, the Children needlessly suffered and were given an undue punishment. they were murdered and slaughtered and it wasn't neccessary (which it never is).
To dismiss it as an consequence is barbaric and shows a lack of morality.
Hence: not godly.
When you continue to pursue bad behavior, knowing that the ramifications will affect not just you, but those under your charge, then it does become an act of consequence. As I said some time ago, if I do something immoral that costs me my job and can't pay the rent/mortgage, my entire family will be out on the street, not just me. And, NO, my landlord/the bank foreclosers are not obligated to find a place for my children to stay, because of my actions.
I wasn't suggesting it was falling apart, My point was that in order for him to have common sense would mean his and your foundation of beliefs would dissolve or fall apart. So in way you are locked into this barbaric immoral way of thinking that says there is justification for killing innocent children if their parents have sinned.
How would that fly today McVay? Would that kind of behavior be considered Christian? I think not. It would be worse than 9/11.
First of all, the name's MCWAY (not MCVAY, an obvious play on words regarding a certain dead criminal). Second of all, this "barbaric" behavior has happened before. Again, I refer you to Hiroshima and the A-bomb. Did that bomb just kill adult Japanese? NOPE!!! Did our country exhaust every other means to get the Japanese to stop their assaults? Yes!!!
I think the oldest known writings are Sumerian text on clay tablets. But what ever the case, there are many ancient religious writings so that's a moot point really. Further more how do you qualify validated? Writings that identify an ancient city in turn prove that someone lived in the belly of a whale for 3 days? ::)
My Point is, there was a better more MORAL way to deal with the problem, but you believe it was God who dealt with it this way when he has all this power.
Says who? God does have all this power. He chose to deal with Amalekites, as described in 1 Samuel. You don't like His decision? TOO BAD!!! That takes nothing away from His power and omnipotence.
Well you both are living in the stone age, Society has far progressed from that and realizes that killing innocent children regardless of the sins of the parents is wrong and immoral. (I guess the God of the OT was still immature ::))
Again, I refer you to the A-bomb and Hiroshima. That was only about 60-70 years ago; so it's safe to say that this was past the "stone age".
It has everything to do with it. That's where they get their justification. If the book was written properly people wouldn't get instructions on how to trade and train slaves, how to be angry and jealous, or how to murder children instead of finding a solution.
Properly based on whose standards, yours? The solution was found: After 300+ years of giving the Amalekites opportunity after opportunity after opportunity to repent and make amends, the time had come for judgment. The simple fact is that over the centuries, the Amalekites got worse, not better. Therefore, it was time to deal with them, once and for all. As Samuel put it, Amalek's sword made women childless; now mothers of Amalek would be childless.
Yes, it's the Bible that has helped to sanctify and legitimatize much of the suffering we've seen in the world in our history, Murder, slavery, repression, displacement etc....
The Bible has done nothing of the sort. The people who did this did so and would have done so, regardless of what the Bible has to say.
What if the Bible only contained the commandments and the NT? Slavery would have been abolished much sooner, displacing families and nations wouldn't have been thought to be proper, murdering on the scale of the crusades wouldn't been done with religious justification and in turn probably not happen on the scale it did.
Slavery (specifically chattel slavery) was institutionalized for one reason: MONEY!!! Same goes for the Crusaders, the leaders of whom could have cared less whether their enemies repented/converted or not.
Yes, this book has help to as much bad as it has done to do much good.
Again we are talking about the kids, a hard thing for even thumpers to swallow that's why you keep thinking i"m talking about the parents.
Wrong! Nobody here is thinking you're talking about the parents. What's hard for you to swallow is the fact that, in life, as tragic as it is, chidren do pay for the sins of their parents. That's why the parents/leaders/kings need to do what's right. Their sins don't just affect them; they affect other people. Just as their righteous behavior can bless their people, their wicked behavior can curse their people.
God is supposed to be in control of his emotions at the very least. If not he's certainly not a God (which is my point about the OT not being the WOG) Not like some raged mad-man.
Thump ::)
That's just stupid McVay.
Who says that he isn't? Oh, I forgot. He isn't doing things the way you think He should ::) . Once again, my name (on this forum) is MCWAY!!
God wisdom to be Godly would not include hypocrisy.
Its a principle.
Talk the talk and walk the walk.
And, He does. Righteous behavior blesses man and those under his charge; wicked behavior curses man and those under his charge.
huh?
"huh?" about what? "Third and fourth generations" means descendants. And, that's what I've said from the start. Other people can suffer for YOUR sins. What part of that don't you get?
Again, you fail to see I'm talking about the children.
McVay talk all that logic or what ever you call it and apply it to a scenario today. How outrageous would that be?
But you can't get that can you? to do so, would mean to question the Bible, the word.....
You know it's a good thing people like you aren't in power. Because many innocent people might die from this righteousness crap.
Again it's about innocent children, something you can't seem to get, children you would have killed.
What you don't get is that, on certain scales, when you mess up or do something wrong (read this very slowly, so it sinks into your head)......YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO PAYS THE PRICE!!! That is true in this life, regardless of how much wailing or blubbering about it you do.
My sins don't just affect me; your sins don't just affect you (I can guarantee that you've done something wrong in your life and it has adversely affected someone else; I know that's happened in my life). And, the sins of the Amalekite men didn't just affect them. It brought judgment on their entire population. Plus, I forgot to mention the Israelites. How many of them later died at the sword of the resurging Amalekites, because Saul failed to follow instructions?
-
BTW, I have to say, you guys are the nicest bunch of bible thumping fundies I have ever encountered (You, Loco and Stella)...and I mean that in all seriousness... ;)
Thanks, Trapezkerl! :-\
-
OzmO - Please don't misunderstand me. I am not trying to disrespect you or offend you in any way.
I'm just trying to make clear that the God of the Bible is different than any other God. They are not and cannot be the same. The God of the Bible is the God of Jesus. Any God that denies that Jesus is part of the Godhead can't be the God of the Bible.
I'm sure you are a great guy and very intellegent. So please don't take anything I say as an attack on you personally, because that is not my intention.
Thank you freakshow, i understand where you are coming from now.
Back to God.
"...............god of the bible is different than any other god."
God is God regardless of what the Bible says or you and i say. It's not about my god or your God or the bible's God. My only point is that the God described in the OT is not God. The description fits a being with the emotions of man. Therefore the Bible is not the 100% word of God.
-
First of all, the name's MCWAY (not MCVAY, an obvious play on words regarding a certain dead criminal). Second of all, this "barbaric" behavior has happened before. Again, I refer you to Hiroshima and the A-bomb. Did that bomb just kill adult Japanese? NOPE!!! Did our country exhaust every other means to get the Japanese to stop their assaults? Yes!!!
First of all, the name's MCWAY (not MCVAY, an obvious play on words regarding a certain dead criminal).
Once again, my name (on this forum) is MCWAY!!
The vast majority of the time when I'm writing these responses I'm multi-tasking. So i don't always pay attention when i write your name.
Writing your name the wrong way was not intentional and certainly not meant to imply anything. If it wasn't for spell check on Firefox there would be tons more errors. I'll try and make sure i get it right from now on. (If i was trying to make a play on words i can assure I'd cop to it, but i wasn't)
When you continue to pursue bad behavior, knowing that the ramifications will affect not just you, but those under your charge, then it does become an act of consequence. As I said some time ago, if I do something immoral that costs me my job and can't pay the rent/mortgage, my entire family will be out on the street, not just me. And, NO, my landlord/the bank foreclosers are not obligated to find a place for my children to stay, because of my actions.
I don't disagree with the principle that what you do as a parent affects your children.
But we are not talking about not eating well, losing your house, not being able to buy certain things you need etc...
We are talking about killing innocent children as a result of what a parent did. There's a big difference with that. That's considered barbaric, unjust, immoral etc.... There isn't situation you can show me that would justify killing children no matter how much you try and connect that above principle it doesn't change the immorality or wrongness of the act. Hence: Not God.
Second of all, this "barbaric" behavior has happened before. Again, I refer you to Hiroshima and the A-bomb. Did that bomb just kill adult Japanese? NOPE!!! Did our country exhaust every other means to get the Japanese to stop their assaults? Yes!!!
Did God exhaust every means? Being that God is all powerful here's a list off the top of my head that god could have done with the Amalikites.
1. Made all of them teleport to the most remote place in the amazon.
2. Made their weapons disappear every time they used them for violence
3. Made an invisible wall preventing the Amilkites from venturing into Jewish territory.
4. Once the adults were killed erased the memory from the survivors and had them integrated into the Jewish culture.
I know i could think of many more. Before you get on your high horse and accuse of knowing better than God, i'm not doing that. I'm simply showing you that your comparison with Hiroshima is bunk because God (all powerful) has plenty of options.
Says who? God does have all this power. He chose to deal with Amalekites, as described in 1 Samuel. You don't like His decision? TOO BAD!!! That takes nothing away from His power and omnipotence.
My point is because he has all that power, morality and wisdom he would choose not to be a hypocrite. Hence: Killing the amalikites children was an act of man not God, therefore: The bible is not the 100% WOG.
Again, I refer you to the A-bomb and Hiroshima. That was only about 60-70 years ago; so it's safe to say that this was past the "stone age".
What we did there was debatably needed. If we had the power of God would we have done that? Go back to my list of things God cold have done with the Amalikites and i'm sure you'll come up with some ideas on how we could have ended the war without dropping those bombs.
The Bible has done nothing of the sort. The people who did this did so and would have done so, regardless of what the Bible has to say.
Not likely, as much or as long, because the most evil and dangerous thing is a person who enacts violence while believing they are justified. The Bible helped give them this justification.
Slavery (specifically chattel slavery) was institutionalized for one reason: MONEY!!! Same goes for the Crusaders, the leaders of whom could have cared less whether their enemies repented/converted or not.
And God tells us how to trade and train them? ::)
And, He does. Righteous behavior blesses man and those under his charge; wicked behavior curses man and those under his charge.
Killing innocent children is immoral. That's what the God of the OT did.
"huh?" about what? "Third and fourth generations" means descendants. And, that's what I've said from the start. Other people can suffer for YOUR sins. What part of that don't you get?
I get it, but what you don;t get is that it doesn't apply when it comes to killing innocent children in the terms of morality.
What you don't get is that, on certain scales, when you mess up or do something wrong (read this very slowly, so it sinks into your head)......YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO PAYS THE PRICE!!! That is true in this life, regardless of how much wailing or blubbering about it you do.
Same crap again, which i agree with, but not in the choice that was made to kill innocent children.
What cracks me up about you is that you think killing innocent children was unavoidable because of the sins of the parents. That's primitive.
-
Nope.
BTW, I have to say, you guys are the nicest bunch of bible thumping fundies I have ever encountered (You, Loco and Stella)...and I mean that in all seriousness... ;)
Thanks Trapezkerl :)
-
if god ordered me to kill a child i'd start on lithium right away...
-
christians should try this logic game, and read the responses they get.
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/whatisgod.htm
-
christians should try this logic game, and read the responses they get.
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/whatisgod.htm
Yeah, that's real scientific. The only way to get what they call a "plausible" explanation, or a perfect score on the game. You need to deny that God exists.
Philosophers probably sit around and Philosophize about what it would be like to Philosophize if there were no Philosophy. Think about that ;)
-
Yeah, that's real scientific. The only way to get what they call a "plausible" explanation, or a perfect score on the game. You need to deny that God exists.
Philosophers probably sit around and Philosophize about what it would be like to Philosophize if there were no Philosophy. Think about that ;)
basically, no real good philosophical work has been done in the last century by theists. most of the good philosophy is from atheists.
according to philosophy, god is not plausible, thats correct. why do you think atheism is increasing.
-
basically, no real good philosophical work has been done in the last century by theists. most of the good philosophy is from atheists.
according to philosophy, god is not plausible, thats correct. why do you think atheism is increasing.
That's interesting and sad at the same time.
I think people are just getting smarter and are seeing the Bible for it is: a book of stories. Without things like the internet, which speeds the exchange of information, the Bible and all it's contradictions was daunting for a person to read critically. Now you don't have to research every word because other people's work have been published and are accessible to the verse online.
What's unfortunate is that many people identify the existence of God with the Bible. To them if the Bible is untrue then God must be untrue also.
-
That's interesting and sad at the same time.
I think people are just getting smarter and are seeing the Bible for it is: a book of stories.
::)
That's not very smart of you, OzmO!
So people who believe in the Bible today are retards, right? People like Arthur Peacocke, Russell Stannard, John Polkinghorne, and Francis Collins?
I know plenty of atheists who are not that smart or educated.
Without things like the internet, which speeds the exchange of information, the Bible and all it's contradictions was daunting for a person to read critically. Now you don't have to research every word because other people's work have been published and are accessible to the verse online.
It goes both ways. The Internet also speeds the exchange of information, bible apologetics and explanations to all the alleged contradictions. To Christians who sincerely believe and live the Christian life, read their Bible and pray, their faith is only strengthened by all the information they now have at their fingertips: history, archeology, theology, philosophy, apologetics, Bible search engines, etc.
What's unfortunate is that many people identify the existence of God with the Bible. To them if the Bible is untrue then God must be untrue also.
OzmO,
The majority of the world's population is theist if I'm not mistaken, but only a minority believes in the Bible.
Christians 33.03% (of which Roman Catholics 17.33%, Protestants 5.8%, Orthodox 3.42%, Anglicans 1.23%), Muslims 20.12%, Hindus 13.34%, Buddhists 5.89%, Sikhs 0.39%, Jews 0.23%, other religions 12.61%, non-religious 12.03%, atheists 2.36% (2004 est.)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html#People
You are a theist too since you believe in a personal god. So that statement about philosophy applies to you as well and has nothing to do with the Bible:
basically, no real good philosophical work has been done in the last century by theists. most of the good philosophy is from atheists.
according to philosophy, god is not plausible, thats correct. why do you think atheism is increasing.
-
::)
That's not very smart of you, OzmO!
So people who believe in the Bible today are retards, right? People like Arthur Peacocke, Russell Stannard, John Polkinghorne, and Francis Collins?
I know plenty of atheists who are not that smart or educated.
I can see where you might have taken that meaning. It was not my intention to infer people who believe in the bible word for word are retarded even though some of the arguments that the bible is the 100% word of god are.
There are plenty of very smart people in the world who lack common sense. Also, I sure you'll agree that beliefs are rarely objective.
It goes both ways. The Internet also speeds the exchange of information, bible apologetics and explanations to all the alleged contradictions. To Christians who sincerely believe and live the Christian life, read their Bible and pray, their faith is only strengthened by all the information they now have at their fingertips: history, archeology, theology, philosophy, apologetics, Bible search engines, etc.
yes, but if what smoke said is true, it's not working for the side who says the bible is the 100% word of God.
OzmO,
The majority of the world's population is theist if I'm not mistaken, but only a minority believes in the Bible.
I don;t know about all that loco, but if you look at the discussions on this board by atheists they seem to use the lunacy of the Bible as one of the core examples of why they don't believe in God.
Again, the premise of the Bible being the 100% "Word of God" is so ambiguous in it's delivery that it has spurred 100's of denominations and requires fantastical explanations to address it's many contradictions. If the Bible was a car it would be a 3 wheeled Yugo with a tranny that's slipping. It will get you to heaven eventually, but there are better cars out there.
BTW i don't know that i am a theist becuase i don't believe in a personal GOD. God is god and that has nothing to do with what i believe and i certainly don;t believe God is what each of us decides he is. I just don't identify God with the Bible or any other organized religion becuase they are infected with man's righteousness. Paul and Company, Luther and all the Popes, pastor's etc.. included.
-
That's interesting and sad at the same time.
I think people are just getting smarter and are seeing the Bible for it is: a book of stories. Without things like the internet, which speeds the exchange of information, the Bible and all it's contradictions was daunting for a person to read critically. Now you don't have to research every word because other people's work have been published and are accessible to the verse online.
What's unfortunate is that many people identify the existence of God with the Bible. To them if the Bible is untrue then God must be untrue also.
this is true, but no real philosophical inquiry can be made past aquinas for instance because of the nature of the beast. you cant make logical arguments and reasoning from something that is merely a hypothesis. atheism has a much stronger philosophical backing, actually let me re phrase that. it has more quality work overall and has continued to put out new material that improves thinking and possibly quality of life, as well as helping people form value systems based on reality. theism is based on untestable tenats and assumptions that are often have no stury logical underpinnings. and then philosophy not even based on religious inquiry has mostly come from atheists.
the best that can argued for god existing is really that it would be impossible to even argue for a beings existence that is that far above us, that is able to create organic matter on a whim. there is nothing we can really say about him, because like i said before, when your dealing with things foreign to experience characteristics you give or dont give are equally wrong. i beleive decker referred to this in another thread.
however, i dont think that means you cant form cogent arguments which may help you form a better opinion, i just wouldnt count on them being right.
all logic goes out the window at certain points in the argument, making it almost asanine for laymen to involve themselves. for example, christians claim that god lives in eternity. this makes no sense. first off how can something exist outside of time. and secondly how can something ACT without time? time creates action. then you have people with no knowledge asking what happened before the big bang? or where is the edge of universe? if you head in one direction in the universe for long enough you would end up at the place you began from, this is known, or accepted better yet, but it boggles peoples minds. i imagine the true nature of life and the universe is so foreign , more so then these concepts that we couldnt even begin to fathom it. again this is just a geuss ;D.
sorry for the rant. just wanted to make a couple points.
-
apologies for the spelling and grammar i wrote that shit on the fly. reading it is even hard for me :D
-
this is true, but no real philosophical inquiry can be made past aquinas for instance because of the nature of the beast. you cant make logical arguments and reasoning from something that is merely a hypothesis. atheism has a much stronger philosophical backing, actually let me re phrase that. it has more quality work overall and has continued to put out new material that improves thinking and possibly quality of life, as well as helping people form value systems based on reality. theism is based on untestable tenats and assumptions that are often have no stury logical underpinnings. and then philosophy not even based on religious inquiry has mostly come from atheists.
the best that can argued for god existing is really that it would be impossible to even argue for a beings existence that is that far above us, that is able to create organic matter on a whim. there is nothing we can really say about him, because like i said before, when your dealing with things foreign to experience characteristics you give or dont give are equally wrong. i beleive decker referred to this in another thread.
however, i dont think that means you cant form cogent arguments which may help you form a better opinion, i just wouldnt count on them being right.
all logic goes out the window at certain points in the argument, making it almost asanine for laymen to involve themselves. for example, christians claim that god lives in eternity. this makes no sense. first off how can something exist outside of time. and secondly how can something ACT without time? time creates action. then you have people with no knowledge asking what happened before the big bang? or where is the edge of universe? if you head in one direction in the universe for long enough you would end up at the place you began from, this is known, or accepted better yet, but it boggles peoples minds. i imagine the true nature of life and the universe is so foreign , more so then these concepts that we couldnt even begin to fathom it. again this is just a geuss ;D.
sorry for the rant. just wanted to make a couple points.
You are wrong.
The true god is living inside us all:
(http://www.nndb.com/people/848/000022782/gary.jpg)
-
You are wrong.
The true god is living inside us all:
(http://www.nndb.com/people/848/000022782/gary.jpg)
debussey was a god, yes.
-
debussey was a god, yes.
yes, it was :'(
the spirit of the gary busey/alien hybrid will return