Killing children/your child because god told you to

[OzmO]

I wonder sometimes if people are just arguing for the sake of argument. Here is an account where Sarah, Abraham's wife, was granted her request. Ten years after having originally entered Canaan, 75-year-old Sarah requested that Abraham have relations with her Egyptian maidservant Hagar in order to have children from her. (Ge 16:1-3) The resultant difficulties made it apparent that this was not God's way of fulfilling the promise previously made to Abraham concerning the “seed.” (Ge 15:1-16) Becoming aware of her pregnancy, Hagar began despising her mistress. When Sarah voiced complaint, Abraham granted his wife full authority to deal with Hagar as her maidservant. Humiliated by Sarah, Hagar ran away from her mistress but returned in obedience to divine direction, after which she gave birth to Ishmael.(Ge 16:4-16).

I was talking about Eve.  Our Great (x infinity) Grandmother who failed us all.   

[MCWAY]

I wonder sometimes if people are just arguing for the sake of argument. Here is an account where Sarah, Abraham's wife, was granted her request. Ten years after having originally entered Canaan, 75-year-old Sarah requested that Abraham have relations with her Egyptian maidservant Hagar in order to have children from her. (Ge 16:1-3) The resultant difficulties made it apparent that this was not God's way of fulfilling the promise previously made to Abraham concerning the “seed.” (Ge 15:1-16) Becoming aware of her pregnancy, Hagar began despising her mistress. When Sarah voiced complaint, Abraham granted his wife full authority to deal with Hagar as her maidservant. Humiliated by Sarah, Hagar ran away from her mistress but returned in obedience to divine direction, after which she gave birth to Ishmael.(Ge 16:4-16).

That's a great point, with regards to Ozmo's claim about women having no intellectual power. Apparently, he's never heard of (for better or worse): Jezebel, Ruth, Naomi, Deborah, Esther, Tamar, Jacob's wives (who played him like a fiddle), etc.

[OzmO]

That's a great point, with regards to Ozmo's claim about women having no intellectual power. Apparently, he's never heard of (for better or worse): Jezebel, Ruth, Naomi, Deborah, Esther, Tamar, Jacob's wives (who played him like a fiddle), etc.

Really? They had the same rights as men back then?  Influence and power are 2 different things.

[MCWAY]

Anyone or being who would tell a father to kill his son as some sort of test to prove faith or loyalty is insecure and should seek conseling if not be institutionalized.  But because God is the creator of heaven and earth, it's ok.   

Lest you forget, it was that same God who gave Isaac to Abraham, in the first place (a supernatural act, considering that Isaac was the product of a barren mother who, even if she weren't such initially, was WAAAAAAAY past her child-bearing years). And, lost in all of this was Abe's faith that somehow, someway, both he and Isaac would return from Mt. Moriah alive (Gen. 22:5).

There's a difference between war and genocide

There's a difference between collateral damage and walking up to a 3 year old girl and clubbing her until her brains spill out and proceeding to do it to every child in a nation.

There's a difference between unavoidable deaths and avoidable murder.

There is no difference between death by sword and death by bomb/missile. Hiding behind modern weapons doesn't change that.

If you worship the murderous being in the OT, you aren't smart enough to know those differences.  You are only able and willing to kill your son or another child on God's orders.  Because you are taught that blind obedience pleases this God.

Blind obedience is hardly the case, especially (in Abe's scenario) when it involves a son that a father WOULD NEVER HAVE HAD IN THE FIRST PLACE, were it not for this "murderous being".

And, at the end of the day, that "murderous being" kept his promise to Abraham, giving him a son from the woman he loves (who was barren from the start) and multiplying his offspring to form a nation. Why, Mr "Murderous Being" (despite being under absolutely NO OBLIGATION to do so) even made a prosperous nation from Abe's other son, who should have never been born but was due to Abe's disobedience and impatience with the original covenant.

The very idea that you could find justification for killing innocent children because of the sins of the parents is disturbing.

Again,  I urge you to seek counseling.

By that logic you should take your own advice and seek counseling, as the only difference here is your semantics about the weapons involved. When push comes to shove, you would destroy any threat to your existence and/or that of your family, with virtually no concern for the fate of your enemies' children.

It doesn't matter if god did or not.  She believed he did and because she was a "blind follower",  who didn't know the difference between right and wrong and believed the INSANE BULL SHIT that God is morally absolved from killing children because he's the creator of heaven and earth. She did in fact kill her children on god's orders. 

Listen to what you just said. Whatever Yates was blindly following, it was not an order from the Lord. And, she certainly couldn't demonstrate that it was such. The Israelites believed, from a false prophet named Hananiah, that they'd be freed from Babylonian bondage and have that kingdom's riches, within a 2-year span of time. That didn't happen (and that particular prophet ended up dead, because of it, as did those who "blindly" followed him).

Jer. 28:15, Then said the prophet Jeremiah unto Hananiah the prophet, "Hear now, Hananiah; The LORD hath not sent thee; but thou makest this people to trust in a lie."

The point, of course, is claiming that God ordered something and that actually being the case are two different issues (which is the point, you've been trying to make). While there is ample evidence that the edict on the Amalekites was a divine order, there is absolutely NONE as it relates to the Yates case.

I'm not equating what Yates did with the Amalikites.  I'm equating what Yates did to what you said you do if God ordered you to.

And, that is an equation that is supremely flawed, for the reasons I explained earlier. In the EXTREMELY unlikely event that such would occur, He'd would explain why and, more importantly, I would have the option (as Moses and Abraham did) of interceding on my child's behalf. And, upon certain acts of repentance, my children would be spared.

Really?  So women in those times had full equal rights in every way that men enjoyed?   

Try reading that again. You claimed that the women had "NO intellectual or spiritual value". That is categorically false. They did have intellectual and spiritual value. Whether such was "full equal rights" in every way that men enjoyed makes no difference. I would say they did not then, just they don't NOW, either in America or elsewhere.

And he lived 3 days int eh belly of a whale?   

Oh BTW,  If you go into a pre school some time and "spare" 99 children but kill one, you are still a child murderer.   

Only the warped would see otherwise.

Missed the point by a county mile.....again! By your claim of God supposedly being "insecure", the Ninevites should have been destroyed immediately, with no warning or chance to repent. But, that's not what happened.

And, lost in all of this is the simple fact, whether you like or not, that the Lord can do as He sees fit with His creation, as He (not YOU, ME, or anyone else) alone created life.

[big L dawg]

[loco]

Really? They had the same rights as men back then?  Influence and power are 2 different things.

Judges 4:4-5 (New International Version)

Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time. She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites came to her to have their disputes decided.

[big L dawg]

miracles at work

[OzmO]

Lest you forget, it was that same God who gave Isaac to Abraham, in the first place (a supernatural act, considering that Isaac was the product of a barren mother who, even if she weren't such initially, was WAAAAAAAY past her child-bearing years). And, lost in all of this was Abe's faith that somehow, someway, both he and Isaac would return from Mt. Moriah alive (Gen. 22:5).

So what?  It doesn't matter if he the creator and he gave it to him or not.  Telling him to kill is child is EVIL.  It shows God is insecure about how people worship him and is on a power trip.

The fact I have to explain killing innocent children is wrong and you have admitted you'd kill an innocent child on God's orders strongly warrants your need for counseling.  So again, I urge you, seek counseling.

There is no difference between death by sword and death by bomb/missile. Hiding behind modern weapons doesn't change that.

Very true, there is no difference between killing people with a sword and a bomb in the sense that they both have been killed.

The difference is that, one is collateral damage and the other is the pre meditated murder of an innocent child that was completely avoidable.

The fact I have to explain this simple difference warrants your need for counseling.  So again, I urge you, seek counseling.

Blind obedience is hardly the case, especially (in Abe's scenario) when it involves a son that a father WOULD NEVER HAVE HAD IN THE FIRST PLACE, were it not for this "murderous being"

And, at the end of the day, that "murderous being" kept his promise to Abraham, giving him a son from the woman he loves (who was barren from the start) and multiplying his offspring to form a nation. Why, Mr "Murderous Being" (despite being under absolutely NO OBLIGATION to do so) even made a prosperous nation from Abe's other son, who should have never been born but was due to Abe's disobedience and impatience with the original covenant.

That has everything to do with blind obedience.  Did you watch the video?  Abraham was going to do it.  Period.

The fact that you justify this and cannot see the evil in it warrants your need for counseling.  So again, I urge you, seek counseling.

By that logic you should take your own advice and seek counseling, as the only difference here is your semantics about the weapons involved. When push comes to shove, you would destroy any threat to your existence and/or that of your family, with virtually no concern for the fate of your enemies' children

The difference is the one you choose the ignore:  Collateral damage versus intentionally murdering a innocent child when it's completely avoidable.

The fact that you'd sink yourself to this kind of moral dishonesty that results in the justification of murdering an innocent child warrants your need for counseling.  So again, I urge you, seek counseling.

Listen to what you just said. Whatever Yates was blindly following, it was not an order from the Lord. And, she certainly couldn't demonstrate that it was such. The Israelites believed, from a false prophet named Hananiah, that they'd be freed from Babylonian bondage and have that kingdom's riches, within a 2-year span of time. That didn't happen (and that particular prophet ended up dead, because of it, as did those who "blindly" followed him).

Jer. 28:15, Then said the prophet Jeremiah unto Hananiah the prophet, "Hear now, Hananiah; The LORD hath not sent thee; but thou makest this people to trust in a lie."

The point, of course, is claiming that God ordered something and that actually being the case are two different issues (which is the point, you've been trying to make). While there is ample evidence that the edict on the Amalekites was a divine order, there is absolutely NONE as it relates to the Yates case.

nd, that is an equation that is supremely flawed, for the reasons I explained earlier. In the EXTREMELY unlikely event that such would occur, He'd would explain why and, more importantly, I would have the option (as Moses and Abraham did) of interceding on my child's behalf. And, upon certain acts of repentance, my children would be spared.

Either you are just too ignorant to understand the concept of perception and how it relates to the potential to act, or you are fighting to keep this in terms which can differentiate your self from her.

-  You are different from her in that you have NOT killed an innocent child
-  You are different from her in that your conditions that would compel you to kill an innocent child is different from hers.
-  However, you are exactly the same in that you both would kill an innocent child on God's orders.

And for that last point, I urge you, seek counseling.

Try reading that again. You claimed that the women had "NO intellectual or spiritual value". That is categorically false. They did have intellectual and spiritual value. Whether such was "full equal rights" in every way that men enjoyed makes no difference. I would say they did not then, just they don't NOW, either in America or elsewhere.

Do you think they should?  Or do you think they are the weaker side of the species because Eve was manipulated by the serpent and therefore should be unequal?

Missed the point by a county mile.....again! By your claim of God supposedly being "insecure", the Ninevites should have been destroyed immediately, with no warning or chance to repent. But, that's not what happened.

And, lost in all of this is the simple fact, whether you like or not, that the Lord can do as He sees fit with His creation, as He (not YOU, ME, or anyone else) alone created lif

Using occasions that God was merciful in other instances does not change the fact that he ordered the genocide of a nation which resulted in the death of thousands of innocent children.

This kind of thinking is what murderers and criminals use to justify themselves.  Murder is murder.  Isn't there something in Bible that says if you have sinned but yet done many good works you will still be accountable for your sins?

Because you cannot see this, and continue to argue this.  I again urge you, to seek counseling.

[OzmO]

Judges 4:4-5 (New International Version)

Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time. She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites came to her to have their disputes decided.

Did they have equal rights as men?

[MCWAY]

So what?  It doesn't matter if he the creator and he gave it to him or not.  Telling him to kill is child is EVIL.  It shows God is insecure about how people worship him and is on a power trip.

First of all, it's HIS Creation. Second of all, the text makes no indication that Issac was a child (Some Biblical scholars, based on the writings of Josephus, claim that Isaac was around 25, when this incident occur; other estimate his age at 37).

Third of all, insecurity has nothing to do with it.

The fact I have to explain killing innocent children is wrong and you have admitted you'd kill an innocent child on God's orders strongly warrants your need for counseling.  So again, I urge you, seek counseling.

You don't have to explain squat. And, I urge you to take your own advice.

Very true, there is no difference between killing people with a sword and a bomb in the sense that they both have been killed.

The difference is that, one is collateral damage and the other is the pre meditated murder of an innocent child that was completely avoidable.

The fact I have to explain this simple difference warrants your need for counseling.  So again, I urge you, seek counseling.

There is no difference, because unfortunately they're going to DIE regardless of the outcome, either by sword or by starvation. And, it falls on the hands of their parents, for the continued assaults on Israel without repentance or any attempt to make amends.

That has everything to do with blind obedience.  Did you watch the video?  Abraham was going to do it.  Period.

The fact that you justify this and cannot see the evil in it warrants your need for counseling.  So again, I urge you, seek counseling.

I didn't see the video (as I made the post at work, where YouTube is blocked).

Again, Abraham (as tough as it was) realized that, had it not been for the Lord, he would not have Isaac in the first place. He came to one simple realization: God keeps His promises. God promised him a son, through Sarah; and He delivered (albeit much later than Abe would have liked). God also promised that, through Isaac, Abe's descendants would be numerous and prosperous. Therefore Abe obeyed, knowing that somehow, someway, he and Isaac would return alive. And, he was right........AGAIN!

The difference is the one you choose the ignore:  Collateral damage versus intentionally murdering a innocent child when it's completely avoidable.

The fact that you'd sink yourself to this kind of moral dishonesty that results in the justification of murdering an innocent child warrants your need for counseling.  So again, I urge you, seek counseling.

Moral dishonesty? I beg to differ. Dead is DEAD, regardless of the means used and what you choose to ignore that, one way or the other, these children suffered for the evil actions of their parents. There's no getting around that fact. That happened then; it happens NOW! Whether you draw the sword, pull the trigger, or push the button, you are taking action against an enemy, WITH THE FULL KNOWLEDGE that children will die as a result, period.

Either you are just too ignorant to understand the concept of perception and how it relates to the potential to act, or you are fighting to keep this in terms which can differentiate your self from her.

-  You are different from her in that you have NOT killed an innocent child
-  You are different from her in that your conditions that would compel you to kill an innocent child is different from hers.
-  However, you are exactly the same in that you both would kill an innocent child on God's orders.

And for that last point, I urge you, seek counseling.

WRONG, on that last part. I am different from her in that I know how to differentiate what is from God from what is not, based on His word. I also know that, based on that word, how to act in the EXTREMELY UNLIKELY event that I'd ever get such an "order".

And, since God never gave Yates that order (whether she thought He did or not), your last statement is basically moot.

Do you think they should?  Or do you think they are the weaker side of the species because Eve was manipulated by the serpent and therefore should be unequal?

What I think makes no difference in this matter, one way or the other. That's what happened. Should they have "equal rights"? It depends on the situation.

Using occasions that God was merciful in other instances does not change the fact that he ordered the genocide of a nation which resulted in the death of thousands of innocent children.

This kind of thinking is what murderers and criminals use to justify themselves.  Murder is murder.  Isn't there something in Bible that says if you have sinned but yet done many good works you will still be accountable for your sins?

Because you cannot see this, and continue to argue this.  I again urge you, to seek counseling.

The point with the Ninevites was that, contrary to your earlier claims, the Lord is anything but an "insecure ego-maniac". He gave the Amalekites the same opportunity to repent that He gave the Ninevites. The latter people took that opportunity; the former DID NOT.

As for your question, you are accountable TO THE LORD, because He's the One making the rules. He has all power and authority, hence He makes the determination of who gets punished and to what degree that punishment extends. And, as stated numerous times, there are sins that people commit that have LONG-REACHING consequences (i.e. the corporate corruption at Enron costs several innocent employees their jobs and pensions, which affected their families. Yet the IRS and other agents were well within their authority to shut Enron down. But, NO, they aren't obligated to get those people new jobs or feed their families).

Since you cannot see this, I again urge YOU to take your own advice and seek counseling. 

[MCWAY]

Did they have equal rights as men?

That's already been addressed. However, that wasn't the point. The point was that your claim of women having no intellectual power was categorically FALSE.

Jezebel was a wicked queen, whose edicts persecuted the Israelites for years. Naomi brokered the deal with her late husband's property, that also found a new hubby for her loyal daughter-in-law, Ruth.

And, as Loco mentioned, there was Deborah, of the judges of ancient Israel.

[OzmO]

First of all, it's HIS Creation. Second of all, the text makes no indication that Issac was a child (Some Biblical scholars, based on the writings of Josephus, claim that Isaac was around 25, when this incident occur; other estimate his age at 37).

Third of all, insecurity has nothing to do with it.

Oh so now it's ok because his son wasn't a child?   

SEEK COUNSELING. 

There is no difference, because unfortunately they're going to DIE regardless of the outcome, either by sword or by starvation. And, it falls on the hands of their parents, for the continued assaults on Israel without repentance or any attempt to make amends.

SO you are "putting them to sleep" like you'd do to a cat at the SPCA? 

Is that how you teach you children?  It's ok to kill a child because if you let him live he'll just starve to death anyway?

SEEK COUNSELING. 

I didn't see the video (as I made the post at work, where YouTube is blocked).

Again, Abraham (as tough as it was) realized that, had it not been for the Lord, he would not have Isaac in the first place. He came to one simple realization: God keeps His promises. God promised him a son, through Sarah; and He delivered (albeit much later than Abe would have liked). God also promised that, through Isaac, Abe's descendants would be numerous and prosperous. Therefore Abe obeyed, knowing that somehow, someway, he and Isaac would return alive. And, he was right........AGAIN!

Watch the video then:  SEEK COUNSELING. 

Moral dishonesty? I beg to differ. Dead is DEAD, regardless of the means used and what you choose to ignore that, one way or the other, these children suffered for the evil actions of their parents. There's no getting around that fact. That happened then; it happens NOW! Whether you draw the sword, pull the trigger, or push the button, you are taking action against an enemy, WITH THE FULL KNOWLEDGE that children will die as a result, period.

Dead is dead.  Which death is avoidable?  Which death is murder? 

What you being dishonest about is the difference between lobbing a bomb and going into a village after the adults are dead and then killing children.

You are just dishonest or you are psychotic whack job that should be institutionalized. 

WRONG, on that last part. I am different from her in that I know how to differentiate what is from God from what is not, based on His word. I also know that, based on that word, how to act in the EXTREMELY UNLIKELY event that I'd ever get such an "order".

And, since God never gave Yates that order (whether she thought He did or not), your last statement is basically moot.

I used to think you were  very different from her.  But now as i more and more see how you think, you don't seem that different.

What I think makes no difference in this matter, one way or the other. That's what happened. Should they have "equal rights"? It depends on the situation.

Just curious.  Either have have equal rights as men or they don't.  If you think it depends on the situation, then i'll take that as a no.

The point with the Ninevites was that, contrary to your earlier claims, the Lord is anything but an "insecure ego-maniac". He gave the Amalekites the same opportunity to repent that He gave the Ninevites. The latter people took that opportunity; the former DID NOT.

As for your question, you are accountable TO THE LORD, because He's the One making the rules. He has all power and authority, hence He makes the determination of who gets punished and to what degree that punishment extends. And, as stated numerous times, there are sins that people commit that have LONG-REACHING consequences (i.e. the corporate corruption at Enron costs several innocent employees their jobs and pensions, which affected their families. Yet the IRS and other agents were well within their authority to shut Enron down. But, NO, they aren't obligated to get those people new jobs or feed their families).

Since you cannot see this, I again urge YOU to take your own advice and seek counseling.   

Did the IRS kill the children of those families?   

Let it go dude.

I'm serious.  Get counseling.

[MCWAY]

Oh so now it's ok because his son wasn't a child?   

SEEK COUNSELING. 

Yep!! Because, as much as it pains your Ozmo brain, the fact is God makes the rules and does what He sees fit with His creation. Whether you think it’s wrong or not makes absolutely no difference.

SO you are "putting them to sleep" like you'd do to a cat at the SPCA? 

Is that how you teach you children?  It's ok to kill a child because if you let him live he'll just starve to death anyway?

SEEK COUNSELING. 

Since neither my children nor myself will be in such a situation, your question is as laughable as it is stupid. The lesson here, which a child can grasp but you apparently can't, is that something when you do wrong, you aren't the only ones that suffer for it. In extreme cases, that includes death.

Watch the video then:  SEEK COUNSELING. 

Dead is dead.  Which death is avoidable?  Which death is murder? 

Which is the result of deliberate action against an enemy.....BOTH!!!

What you being dishonest about is the difference between lobbing a bomb and going into a village after the adults are dead and then killing children.

The difference is whether there are any remains to bury. Your dishonesty comes from the fact that you have no issue with destroying an enemy (including the children of that enemy) as long as you have the luxury of hiding behind modern weapons. You don't care what happens to their children and, were they to survive, you'd make no provision to see that they don't starve to death.

You are just dishonest or you are psychotic whack job that should be institutionalized. 

I used to think you were  very different from her.  But now as i more and more see how you think, you don't seem that different.

Then, again, YOU need to take your own advice and SEEK COUNSELING.

Just curious.  Either have have equal rights as men or they don't.  If you think it depends on the situation, then i'll take that as a no.

They don't. They didn't then; and they don't now. Of course, that wasn't the point. You made the statement that they had NO intellectual power. Since that's been shown to be false, you're now....what was that you called it again.....oh....DEFLECTI NG on this particular issue.

Did the IRS kill the children of those families?   

Let it go dude.

I'm serious.  Get counseling.

Once again, take your own advice, because this simple concept appears to zip clean over your head: There are sins that people commit that have LONG-REACHING consequences. When people do wrong, at certain levels, the punishment extends BEYOND merely the trangressors. That is how life on this planet is, whether you like or not.

In the Enron case, the punishment was financial ruin, which affect the execs AND EVERYONE UNDER THEM.

In the extreme case of the Amalekites, the punishment was DEATH, which affected the Amalekite leaders, as well as their wives, children, and everyone under them.

[OzmO]

Yep!! Because, as much as it pains your Ozmo brain, the fact is God makes the rules and does what He sees fit with His creation. Whether you think it’s wrong or not makes absolutely no difference.

I agree he "makes the rules".  However, I also have enough common sense not to see a book of stories written by primitive men thousands of years ago followed by ignorant men thousands of years later showing a murderous, insecure, vengeful god as the word of god. 

Since neither my children nor myself will be in such a situation, your question is as laughable as it is stupid. The lesson here, which a child can grasp but you apparently can't, is that something when you do wrong, you aren't the only ones that suffer for it. In extreme cases, that includes death.

I grasped it just fine.  The only difference is I have common sense enough to see murdering children is wrong.  You don't.

Which is the result of deliberate action against an enemy.....BOTH!!!

Like i suggested earlier.  You are a potential child murder because you cannot see the difference between unavoidable and avoidable. 

The difference is whether there are any remains to bury. Your dishonesty comes from the fact that you have no issue with destroying an enemy (including the children of that enemy) as long as you have the luxury of hiding behind modern weapons. You don't care what happens to their children and, were they to survive, you'd make no provision to see that they don't starve to death.

I very much do have an issue with killing innocent children.  So does the US military.  However the Jews didn't.  After they defeated the Amalikites army in the field of battle they proceeded to the villages and murdered the children.

Or was it that the Jews swords were so long that when they stabbed a Amalikite the sword also when through them 5 miles into the village and stabbed the child at the same time thus making it unavoidable?   

 

They don't. They didn't then; and they don't now. Of course, that wasn't the point. You made the statement that they had NO intellectual power. Since that's been shown to be false, you're now....what was that you called it again.....oh....DEFLECTI NG on this particular issue.

I agree, my assertion was false pending a separate debate.  Now do you have the courage to answer the question or not?

Once again, take your own advice, because this simple concept appears to zip clean over your head: There are sins that people commit that have LONG-REACHING consequences. When people do wrong, at certain levels, the punishment extends BEYOND merely the trangressors. That is how life on this planet is, whether you like or not.

In the Enron case, the punishment was financial ruin, which affect the execs AND EVERYONE UNDER THEM.

In the extreme case of the Amalekites, the punishment was DEATH, which affected the Amalekite leaders, as well as their wives, children, and everyone under them.

The concept doesn't skip over my head McVAY.  Cause you are as crazy as that guy.  I don't use the excuse of "long reaching consequences" to justify murder.  YOU DO.


I wonder.

Who would think needs more counseling:

A:  Someone who has admitted they would kill a child on god's orders.

or

B:  Someone who has maintained that killing innocent children is wrong and wouldn't kill an innocent child on god's orders.

[MCWAY]

I agree he "makes the rules".  However, I also have enough common sense not to see a book of stories written by primitive men thousands of years ago followed by ignorant men thousands of years later showing a murderous, insecure, vengeful god as the word of god. 

You need to make up your mind here. One minute, you talk about how you like the wisdom of Scripture; the next you claim it's about "ignorant men", when it comes to some parts you don't like. That's sounds awfully like that "hypocrisy" stuff that you keep yelling.
 

I grasped it just fine.  The only difference is I have common sense enough to see murdering children is wrong.  You don't.

Wrong again! It is that sense that lets me know the difference between what happened with the Amalekites and the Andrea Yates case, which you (or some of the other posters here) keep trying to equate.

Like i suggested earlier.  You are a potential child murder because you cannot see the difference between unavoidable and avoidable. 

Au contraire!!! Directly or indirectly, you take a deliberate action of warfare that RESULTS IN DEATH. Your playing the semantics between ancient weapons of warfare and modern ones makes no difference.

I very much do have an issue with killing innocent children.  So does the US military.  However the Jews didn't.  After they defeated the Amalikites army in the field of battle they proceeded to the villages and murdered the children.

Again, you play semantics, with weapons of warfare. As for the Amalekite children, it's right back to what I said earlier: Death, Capture, or Abandonment, all about which you'd be hollering, regardless of the outcome.

Let's take the latter situation. The Amalekite kids are all alone: No dads, no moms, nobody to feed or clothe them. That simply means they either starve to death or are ripe for the picking for someone else to destroy. Of course, considering that, as the prophet Samuel put it, the sword of Amalek has made women childless, I don't think the Israelites (or any of the other victims of Amalek) are shedding too many tears about the situation).

Of course, if someone were to adopt those kiddies, guess what Ozmo would be yelling some 3000 or so years later.......

Or was it that the Jews swords were so long that when they stabbed a Amalikite the sword also when through them 5 miles into the village and stabbed the child at the same time thus making it unavoidable?   

Fine! Don't touch the kiddies; let 'em starve to death (with no daddies or mommies to feed or clothe them). Happy now??

I agree, my assertion was false.  Now do you have the courage to answer the question or not?

Ummmmm.......what part of "They don't; They didn't then; and they don't now" didn't you grasp?

The concept doesn't skip over my head McVAY.  Cause you are as crazy as that guy.  I don't use the excuse of "long reaching consequences" to justify murder.  YOU DO.

You use the excuse of modern weapons and the more "impersonal approach".

I wonder.

Who would think needs more counseling:

A:  Someone who has admitted they would kill a child on god's orders.

or

B:  Someone who has maintained that killing innocent children is wrong and wouldn't kill an innocent child on god's orders.

You forgot....

C: One who would kill an innocent child, providing he can use bombs instead of swords.

So I guess I'll see you on the couch 

[OzmO]

You need to make up your mind here. One minute, you talk about how you like the wisdom of Scripture; the next you claim it's about "ignorant men", when it comes to some parts you don't like. That's sounds awfully like that "hypocrisy" stuff that you keep yelling.

I guess this is too hard for your simple child murderer worshiping mind to grasp.  EVERY RELIGION has nuggets of wisdom.  Not just the book of stories you follow.

Wrong again! It is that sense that lets me know the difference between what happened with the Amalekites and the Andrea Yates case, which you (or some of the other posters here) keep trying to equate.

Both counts are wrong.  You need to seek counseling because you can't see that.  That's why you are a borderline threat to society.  That's why you are more liken to a cult.

It's kind of funny you writing "wrong again", the same person who would kill a child on God's orders.   

Au contraire!!! Directly or indirectly, you take a deliberate action of warfare that RESULTS IN DEATH. Your playing the semantics between ancient weapons of warfare and modern ones makes no difference.

So it doesn't matter if you had the power to prevent collateral damage?  It doesn't matter that you deliberately and separately killed children when you didn't have to?

You are a nut job.

Again, you play semantics, with weapons of warfare. As for the Amalekite children, it's right back to what I said earlier: Death, Capture, or Abandonment, all about which you'd be hollering, regardless of the outcome.

Let's take the latter situation. The Amalekite kids are all alone: No dads, no moms, nobody to feed or clothe them. That simply means they either starve to death or are ripe for the picking for someone else to destroy. Of course, considering that, as the prophet Samuel put it, the sword of Amalek has made women childless, I don't think the Israelites (or any of the other victims of Amalek) are shedding too many tears about the situation).

Of course, if someone were to adopt those kiddies, guess what Ozmo would be yelling some 3000 or so years later.......

So kids are like pets now huh?  Put them to sleep if you can't take care of them?

that says volumes of the type of person you are.

1.  You'd kill an innocent child.
2.  You kill them because you couldn't feed them. 

You are no more different than the radical muslim we are fighting. 

Ummmmm.......what part of "They don't; They didn't then; and they don't now" didn't you grasp?

I asked yo if you think women should have equal rights.  Are you gonna answer or are you gonna be a coward? 

You forgot....

C: One who would kill an innocent child, providing he can use bombs instead of swords.

The jews could have avoided it.  The US Military doesn't intentionally target children.  The Jews did. 

But you are too much of a coward to admit it. 


Oh and PS:

Before you go on your little holy thumper roll on me on what i do or don't do, remember, in the end, killing children is still wrong and you have admitted you'd do just that, REGARDLESS of what i do.

[MCWAY]

I guess this is too hard for your simple child murderer worshiping mind to grasp.  EVERY RELIGION has nuggets of wisdom.  Not just the book of stories you follow.

Among those "nuggets" of wisdom, that your Amalekite-bleating-let-them-starve-in-the-desert mind can't grasp, that certain sins do (in fact) have LONG-REACHING CONSEQUENCES. Fathers can commit sins that destroy their whole family. And kings can do things that crush their whole nation. And, that's what happened to the Amalekites.

Both counts are wrong.  You need to seek counseling because you can't see that.  That's why you are a borderline threat to society.  That's why you are more liken to a cult.

The only thing to which I am a threat is the nonsensical anti-Biblical blathering you continue to spout.

It's kind of funny you writing "wrong again", the same person who would kill a child on God's orders. 

I write "wrong again", because you (someone who would kill a child, God's orders or not, as long as he can use bombs instead of swords) continue your weird habit of being such, when it comes to this issue about Israel's antagonists. 

So it doesn't matter if you had the power to prevent collateral damage?  It doesn't matter that you deliberately and separately killed children when you didn't have to?

You are a nut job.


So kids are like pets now huh?  Put them to sleep if you can't take care of them?

that says volumes of the type of person you are.

1.  You'd kill an innocent child.
2.  You kill them because you couldn't feed them. 

By your boneheaded standards, you can't take care of them. Otherwise, you're a "slaver". That means but one fate for them:  DEATH, by starvation or sword.

You are no more different than the radical muslim we are fighting. 

The radical Muslims arm their kids, with explosives and make them human shields. Furthermore, I missed the part where the Muslims offered ANY olive branch of peace, repentance, or treaty. So, you can cease with that rock-headed comparison right there.

I asked yo if you think women should have equal rights.  Are you gonna answer or are you gonna be a coward? 

You, of all people, should know the last thing I fear is your crackpot questions, the answer to this particular one I've already given. But, since you ain't firing on all cylinders in the grey matter, let me reiterate.

It depends on the situation. You don't just give "equal rights" to men and women, because they're not equal; they're different. For example, women get maternity leave when they are pregnant (which they obviously deserve). Men don't, for obvious reasons. Therefore, there are no "equal rights" in that matter.

From a political standpoint (voting issue, holding office, etc), yes, they do and should.

Of course, this is but your feeble way of ducking the fact that you erroneously claimed that women had no intellectual value at all, in OT times, in your continued yet pitiful attempt to rant about Scripture.

The jews could have avoided it.  The US Military doesn't intentionally target children.  The Jews did. 

But you are too much of a coward to admit it. 

Come again!! I stated that the target was ALL of AMALEK. The verse states that everyone and everything was to be destroyed. How is that being "too much of a coward to admit it?" Of course, having kids starve to death is far better. After all, the Israelites can't adopt them; otherwise, they'll have to hear you run your mouth about God being "slaver".

Oh and PS:

Before you go on your little holy thumper roll on me on what i do or don't do, remember, in the end, killing children is still wrong and you have admitted you'd do just that, REGARDLESS of what i do.

In the end, the only one who has the right to take life is the One who created it. And, since his name isn't Ozmo, I don't play by Ozmo's rules.

[OzmO]

side note:   

Can you get your quote formatting right?  Your posting is starting to get sloppy.  I might have to send some angry jews to slap your children around because of your failings.

Among those "nuggets" of wisdom, that your Amalekite-bleating-let-them-starve-in-the-desert mind can't grasp, that certain sins do (in fact) have LONG-REACHING CONSEQUENCES. Fathers can commit sins that destroy their whole family. And kings can do things that crush their whole nation. And, that's what happened to the Amalekites.

Well, what can i say.  My mind can't grasp:

-  How after defeating the Amalekites on the field of battle the Jews felt it necessary to proceed to the villages and murder innocent women & children

-  How anyone in there right might could see that as anything other cold blooded murder

-  how anyone could summarily dismiss this cold blooded murder as "LONG-REACHING CONSEQUENCES" when in fact it was completely avoidable

I don't know what it is, McWay, why my mind can't grasp it.  My guess is:   It's my Christian upbringing that's stopping me from grasping it.  Shame on these people for reinforcing some of those morals and ethics in me.  how dare they not make concessions for God's occasional desire for genocide to punish children.

The only thing to which I am a thread is the nonsensical anti-Biblical blathering you continue to spout.

Yes the nonsensical anti-Biblical blathering, which is the "it's evil and not godly to murder children" blathering.

Shame on me.  Sorry God of the OT, I'm sad I've disappointed you in not seeing the righteousness in your child murdering ways.

The radical Muslims arm their kids, with explosives and make them human shields. Furthermore, I missed the part where the Muslims offered ANY olive branch of peace, repentance, or treaty. So, you can cease with that rock-headed comparison right there.

The comparison is they feel just a justified as you do on God's orders and have God's example set in the OT.  The only difference is how.

You, of all people, should know the last thing I fear is your crackpot questions, the answer to this particular one I've already given. But, since you ain't firing on all cylinders in the grey matter, let me reiterate.

It depends on the situation. You don't just give "equal rights" to men and women, because they're not equal; they're different. For example, women get maternity leave when they are pregnant (which they obviously deserve). Men don't, for obvious reasons. Therefore, there are no "equal rights" in that matter.

From a political standpoint (voting issue, holding office, etc), yes, they do and should.

Of course, this is but your feeble way of ducking the fact that you erroneously claimed that women had no intellectual value at all, in OT times, in your continued yet pitiful attempt to rant about Scripture.

Feeble why?  I agreed I perhaps may have been mistaken and have admitted so and may debate it on another thread.   I guess, however, you are still much of a coward as you can't give a simple yes or no.  You really want to run with this one since you have been made (on your own) to pretty much look like a fool elsewhere. 

Come again!! I stated that the target was ALL of AMALEK. The verse states that everyone and everything was to be destroyed. How is that being "too much of a coward to admit it?" Of course, having kids starve to death is far better. After all, the Israelites can't adopt them; otherwise, they'll have to hear you run your mouth about God being "slaver". Roll Eyes

You are too much of a coward to admit it was avoidable, you are too much of a coward to admit Germany and Japan in WW2 are great examples of how to rebuild a conquered enemy without having to resort to genocide.

Again, I say you are a COWARD.

In the end, the only one who has the right to take life is the One who created it. And, since his name isn't Ozmo, I don't play by Ozmo's rules.

Obviously you don't play by OzmO's rules, you play by a murderous God's rules and have admitted you kill a child on his orders.

nuff said.  I get what you are. 

[MCWAY]

side note:   

Can you get your quote formatting right?  Your posting is starting to get sloppy.  I might have to send some angry jews to slap your children around because of your failings.


Well, what can i say.  My mind can't grasp:

-  How after defeating the Amalekites on the field of battle the Jews felt it necessary to proceed to the villages and murder innocent women & children

-  How anyone in there right might could see that as anything other cold blooded murder

-  how anyone could summarily dismiss this cold blooded murder as "LONG-REACHING CONSEQUENCES" when in fact it was completely avoidable

I don't know what it is, McWay, why my mind can't grasp it.  My guess is:   It's my Christian upbringing that's stopping me from grasping it.  Shame on these people for reinforcing some of those morals and ethics in me.  how dare they not make concessions for God's occasional desire for genocide to punish children.

Your Christian upbringing is based on the SAME GOD from the same Bible, that you keep disparaging. But, for some strange reason, you can't quite grasp that, either. The same God who (per John 3:16) sent Jesus Christ (from whom your Christian upbringing is based) to die for your sins....IS THE EXACT SAME GOD THAT BROUGHT JUDGMENT ONTO THE AMALEKITES. That's the facts, whether you like it or not.

Yes the nonsensical anti-Biblical blathering, which is the "it's evil and not godly to murder children" blathering.

Shame on me.  Sorry God of the OT, I'm sad I've disappointed you in not seeing the righteousness in your child murdering ways.

One more time. God of the OT = God of the NT, point blank.

The comparison is they feel just a justified as you do on God's orders and have God's example set in the OT.  The only difference is how.
Feeble why?  I agreed I perhaps may have been mistaken and have admitted so and may debate it on another thread.   I guess, however, you are still much of a coward as you can't give a simple yes or no.  You really want to run with this one since you have been made (on your own) to pretty much look like a fool elsewhere. 

Try that again! I gave a simple "yes" or "no" to the very question you asked me from the start, when you expected me to duck the question. At the end of the day, my suspicion was correct: This was simply your way of taking potshots at my faith (by either suggesting I have little or none, by not obeying God, or claiming my faith was "blind" by obeying God).

You are too much of a coward to admit it was avoidable, you are too much of a coward to admit Germany and Japan in WW2 are great examples of how to rebuild a conquered enemy without having to resort to genocide.

Again, I say you are a COWARD.

And, again, I say you need to lay off the brewskis. Germany and Japan are examples of enemies who DID NOT PERSECUTE America for over 300 years. And, they are also examples of enemies, who SURRENDERED, STOP ATTACKING US, and MADE AMENDS.

But, at least with Japanese, it took the A-Bomb to make them say "I QUIT". And, that A-Bomb destroyed women and children alike. That enemy would have not been conquered, were it not for using the A-bomb. And, since you think it's a "great example", that means that, by your standards, you are into "genocide". Or, as I said, you WOULD KILL CHILDREN (with the provision of hiding behind modern weapons).

Had the Amalekites done that with Israel, the outcome would have been different (and they had FAR LONGER TO DO SO than Japan or Germany did with the USA). However, they didn't.

What you are too cowardly admit is that, thanks to Saul's disobedience, some of the Amalekites were spared. And, when their numbers grew again, they went right back to doing what they'd been doing beforehand: Raiding and destroying the Israelites and others around them.

Obviously you don't play by OzmO's rules, you play by a murderous God's rules and have admitted you kill a child on his orders.

And, you would kill them on far less.

nuff said.  I get what you are. 

Ditto!!

Ditto!!!

[big L dawg]

[OzmO]

Your Christian upbringing is based on the SAME GOD from the same Bible, that you keep disparaging. But, for some strange reason, you can't quite grasp that, either. The same God who (per John 3:16) sent Jesus Christ (from whom your Christian upbringing is based) to die for your sins....IS THE EXACT SAME GOD THAT BROUGHT JUDGMENT ONTO THE AMALEKITES. That's the facts, whether you like it or not.

Actually not.  I wasn't raised by a bunch of bible literalists whack jobs who are cult like.

I know that killing children is wrong.  You don't.

One more time. God of the OT = God of the NT, point blank.

And once again.  You worship a child murderer and have admitted you'd do it yourself.

Try that again! I gave a simple "yes" or "no" to the very question you asked me from the start, when you expected me to duck the question. At the end of the day, my suspicion was correct: This was simply your way of taking potshots at my faith (by either suggesting I have little or none, by not obeying God, or claiming my faith was "blind" by obeying God).

I don't need to take pot shots at your faith.  You worship a child murderer and have admitted you do it yourself.  No "pot shots" needed.  You are what you are.

Someone with the potential to murder a child.  Hope you are proud of it.

And, again, I say you need to lay off the brewskis. Germany and Japan are examples of enemines who DID NOT PERSECUTE America for over 300 years

Oh really?  The same people for 300 years?   They lived 300 years?  All of them?  Or was it the recent generation that was a reincarnation from the original Amalekites 300 prior?  

Only an ignorant person would come to the conclusion that an entire people was evil and reproduced evil off spring.

But, at least with Japanese, it took the A-Bomb to make them say "I QUIT". And, that A-Bomb destroyed women and children alike. That enemy would have not been conquered, were it not for using the A-bomb. And, since you think it's a "great example", that means that, by your standards, you are into "genocide". Or, as I said, you WOULD KILL CHILDREN (with the provision of hiding behind modern weapons).

Had the Amalekites done that with Israel, the outcome would have been different (and they had FAR LONGER TO DO SO than Japan or Germany did with the USA). However, they didn't.

Did we commit genocide with the Japs or Gemrmans?  yes or no?

Did the Jews have the option not to kill the women and children?  yes or no?

And, you would kill them on far less.

based on what Mr. Desperate?

Ditto!!

Ditto!!!

I am glad you've finally at least admitted to yourself that I'm not so ignorantly blind of a follower of a child murderer that I too would kill a child on God's orders.

I talked to a friend of mine who is a pastor, he agreed, you are potentially dangerous.  


PS:  thanks for getting your quote formatting right.  I'd had have to regret having your children face the dire consequences of your failings. 

[MCWAY]

Actually not.  I wasn't raised by a bunch of bible literalists whack jobs who are cult like.

I know that killing children is wrong.  You don't.

A Christian upbrining is based on the works and teachings of Jesus Christ. That same Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the EXACT SAME GOD who judged the Amalekites, point blank.

And once again.  You worship a child murderer and have admitted you'd do it yourself.

By that logic, so do YOU. You just admitted that you were raised in a Christian upbringing and still have Christian faith. That Christian faith comes from Christ, the son of GOD, the same one in the OT.

I don't need to take pot shots at your faith.  You worship a child murderer and have admitted you do it yourself.  No "pot shots" needed.  You are what you are.

You don't need to do so, but you did so, anyway. And, based on your more recent statements, you worship the same "child murderer" (directly or indirectly) that I do.

Someone with the potential to murder a child.  Hope you are proud of it.

Right back at 'cha!!! All you need is the warheads!!!

Oh really?  The same people for 300 years?   They lived 300 years?  All of them?  Or was it the recent generation that was a reincarnation from the original Amalekites 300 prior?  


Only an ignorant person would come to the conclusion that an entire people was evil and reproduced evil off spring.

Only an ignorant person would post something this stupid, especially with the information in front of them. Where exactly are the examples of the 2nd or 3rd generation of Amalekites, who tried their best to make peace with Israel, instead of continuing to war with them, as their forefathers did?

One simple treaty, a few reparations on behalf of their ancestors, something??

Did we commit genocide with the Japs or Gemrmans?  yes or no?

NOPE!!! They got smart and said "NO MAS!!!", before that happened. Too bad the Amalekites didn't do the same with Israel.

Did the Jews have the option not to kill the women and children?  yes or no?

Per their orders, NOPE!!! Of course, leaving them to starve and die, or get picked off by another of their long list of enemies ain't a much better option. But, why let that stand in the way of a good rant?

based on what Mr. Desperate?

Based on your statement that what the USA did with Japan was one of the "great examples of how to rebuild a conquered enemy". How did Japan get conquered in the first place?

WE DROPPED THE A-BOMB ON JAPAN (and we did it, knowing that it would kill women and children), an action you condone, because it helped your country win against an enemy. As I've said numerous time, all you've done is play semantics with the weapons of warfare.


I am glad you've finally at least admitted to yourself that I'm not so ignorantly blind of a follower of a child murderer that I too would kill a child on God's orders.[/quote]

I talked to a friend of mine who is a pastor, he agreed, you are potentially dangerous.  

No more dangerous than you. Next time ask your pastor who sent Christ to die for your sins (and His), and whether it's the same God who judged the Amalekites.

PS: I did get to watch L Dawg videos and (SURPRISE, SURPRISE!!! ) it's filled with the same goofball atheist drivel that I've heard time and time again.

[yng466]

Does'nt God ever tell anyone to got take a shit on the salad bar at Ruby Tuesday's?!!!!

[Deicide]

Does'nt God ever tell anyone to got take a shit on the salad bar at Ruby Tuesday's?!!!!

No god.

[fitt@40]

No god.

It is hard to discern you and your intentions over the internet.  As I read your responses, and many others like yours, there are some things that remain consistent.  You deny the existence of Jesus, you deny the existence of God and you mock those who do.  Again, I do not know why you do this, but there is no doubt as to who inspires your actions.  It it time that you are boldly told what you are.  You are without a doubt a liar.  I am not your enemy, but I am forever an enemy of he who inspires you.