Does the God of the Bible like to rape too?

[MCWAY]

Oh mean like the part where i cite definitions and you create your own custom ones to cover up for you murderous God?   

Or the part where you see propaganda as the absolute truth?   

I didn't re-create anything. I used the very definition YOU cited. Then, when you realized that you screwed up, you quickly posted extra definitions to feebly try and save your point.

Well good for the jews and Samuel.  Doesn't change anything, doesn't change Genocide.  Any justification or absolution from the guilt of Genocide in this is a fabrication.

The term wasn't even coined unil the mid 1900s. So how exactly are the Jews or anyone else going to be guilty of something that didn't exist?

I'm just going from the definition.  You mean what the jew did wasn't deliberate  they just accidentally killed every man women and child?     You seem to be making yours up as you see fit to justify your genocide.  They Targeted the Amalikites.  And Killed them all, men women and children.

Again, I'm not making up JACK. I posted the definition of genocide from the guy WHO COINED THE TERM. Per his definition, the inicident with the Amalekites was NOT genocide.

Again, that's stupid to think that 3rd and generations of children are to be murdered when it isn't neccesary.  Unless of course you are a person who'd kill on god's orders then it makes perfect sense.

Whether you think it's stupid or not makes precious little difference.

You mean the Gospels that were written many years after his death and the ones we don't have the originals of. 


You mean the ones that were written to reinforce the prophecies of the selected books of the OT?

Yeah, ok.   

We don't have the originals of a LOT of ancient documents. In fact, notwithstanding the separate debate about the authorship of the Gospels and the dates thereof, most of what you know about ancient history comes from sources that are copies of the originals.

But, that's not the point. The point is that the establishment has been made that Jesus Christ is, in fact, the son of God, the same God who judged the Alamekites. The fact that you can't deal with it, because it puts you in the predicament of acknowledging your parents' Christian faith is of the same source as mine, is of little consequence.

Who do you suppose is the Muslim god?  The Hindue God?  The 800 zillion Christian versions of what's the true way? (Baptist, Pentecostal, Lutheren, etc..)

Last time I checked, the Muslim's god was Allah, and Krishna was that of the Hindus.

But again, that's hardly the point. You're simply ducking the issue about Jesus Christ, because of the predicament in which your claims have just placed you.

I was raised by people who believe God was what ever they believed God to be.  God is god, regardless of what you or I believe.  You believe in a book of stories written by primitive men.  I see it for what it is and see God in it.  I see god in other writings too.  And "if" God is good and just, and merciful and loving, he doesn't order other men to kill innocent children.  Otherwise he's a murderer.  I know that not to be true. 

Then, your earlier assertion of being raised in a "Christian upbringing" was INCORRECT. The Christian faith DOES NOT indicate that God is "whatever they believed God to be". Christ has commandments; Scripture dictates what those are. What you've described is little more than a watered-down version of pantheism. If that's the case, so be it. But, to call your upbringing or your current belief system as a "Christian" one is categorically false.

To top it all off, if you see "god in other writings", then by your own words, you also "believe in a book of stories written by primitive men". 

Your last staement is also quite the false one. God doesn't conform to your standards (or those of any mortal man). He is all of those things: good, just, merciful, and loving. As I've said elsewhere, He blesses and curses individually; He also blesses and curses collectively.

Jesus Christ is the ultimate example of God's love. Just as "by one man, did sin enter into all the world", by one Man (Christ) did redemption enter into all the world. Or, as a lyric to an old Gospel song goes, "I owed a debt I could not pay; Christ paid a debt He did not owe."

It is only your arrogance that fuels your belief that the Bible is the 100% WOG, that you are the "chosen" whom God has "found".  So you must defend, twist, and even skew definitions, to maintain the integrity of a book of stories. 

That's funny!! I don't recall my claiming to be Jewish  . And, I'm not the one skewing defintions. I used the very definition YOU posted (until you realized that you screwed up) and demonstrated just how inaccurate your assertion is.

If anyone is being arrogant, it's you. You have the gall to think that you determine what God can and can't do. You are but a mortal man, just like me. You don't dictate to the Almighty, based on your current (but long over-extended) temper tantrum.

NO.  Once again you run hiding behind you BS, claiming the only alternative is to leave them to starve.  What did we do with Japan and Germany?

That's YOUR alternative, since (by your crackpot claims) assimilation is off the table. As for Japan and Germany, I've answered that more times than the law allows. One, they didn't attack us for over 300 years; and, two, once we put the hammer down (via the A-bomb).....THEY QUIT!!! They stopped attacking and stopped assaulting. And, they were smart enough to do so, while there was still something left of their country.

  They worship who they believe God to be as you worship who you believe god to be.  They are 2 different beliefs.  In end God is God.  GOD is not a murderer. 

You identified your upbringing as being "Christian", NOT as being "whatever you believe god to be". The basics of the Christian faith are given within the pages of Scripture. If your belief system doesn't mirror those tenets, they are NOT Christian beliefs. Again, if that's the case, so be it.

But, identifying them as such, only to tuck tail about the situation, when certain aspects come up that you don't like simply doesn't cut it.

The fact that remains is GOD ordered Genocide.   You worship one that commit genocide.

The fact remains is your statements is as wrong as two left shoes.

Only an evil entity could kill innocent infants and children no matter what their parents may have done.

Wrong!!! See the A-Bomb and Hiroshima.

[Necrosis]

What are you smoking today, Ozmo??? Because, apparently, it's affected your ability to READ!!

Name one part of that text that says the woman in question was being RAPED!

If the maiden is betrothed, that means she in a "waiting" status, of sorts. But, for all practical purposes, she is married. Therefore, if she has sex with another dude than her husband-to-be, she's COMMITTING ADULTERY, which was a capital offense.

If, on the other hand, the maiden was raped, guess what happened to the rapist, and ONLY THE RAPIST.....(Hint: it's in verse 25, the part that you "conveniently" left out    )......

But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

why are gods rules seemingly devoid of logic? So during those times adultery was punisable by death, and god agrees with this? I assume since he is all knowing this is the best solution and cheating today should be punishable by death?

God sounds alot like primitive man, Even his rules.

[OzmO]

why are gods rules seemingly devoid of logic? So during those times adultery was punisable by death, and god agrees with this? I assume since he is all knowing this is the best solution and cheating today should be punishable by death?

God sounds alot like primitive man, Even his rules.

Because the God identified in the O.T. IS primitive man worshiped by modern day primitive people whose blind obedience will compelled to murder innocent children on it's orders.

[OzmO]

I'm still taken back by the shear level of your dishonestly to yourself demonstrated on this forum regarding this.  You will stop at no lengths to twist or ignore facts.  You are a dangerous human being. 

I didn't re-create anything. I used the very definition YOU cited. Then, when you realized that you screwed up, you quickly posted extra definitions to feebly try and save your point.

I didn't "screw up" I simply provided more definitions outside of the what my apple had in it. Let's go back to the original definition I posted. 

genocide
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

Was what the jews did to them a deliberate killing?  yes.
Were the amalekites a large group of people?  yes
Were the Amalekites an ethnic group or nation?  yes.

3 for 3 here.

Let's try dictionary.coms  definition:

The deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Was what the jews did to them a deliberate killing?  yes.
Was it a systematic extermination?  yes
Were the Amalekites a national, racial, political, or cultural group?  yes.

3 for 3 again.

Let's try websters:

the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Was what the jews did to them a deliberate killing?  yes.
Was it a systematic extermination?  yes
Were the Amalekites a national, racial, political, or cultural group?  yes.

3 for 3 again.

Now let's try McDishonest:

If you have a good enough reason and you are God then it's not genocide, But if you kill and entire nation for no reason it is.  
 
Let's look at Wiki's definition:

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

Wow, same thing.  seems like only the brainwashed primitive worshipping few only see it the way you do.

Was this what you were hiding behind from wiki:?

According to R. J. Rummel, genocide has 3 different meanings. The ordinary meaning is murder by government of people due to their national, ethnic, racial, or religious group membership.

let's look at eh other meanings shall we?  come now, don't be afraid...the truth will set you free from the bonds of feeling like whale shit.


How about the legal meaning of genocide from wiki that cited the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" definitions of it:

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
– Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2[2]

Really McWay com on dude, how can you even look at your self in the mirror with the bull shit that comes out of your mouth?

Oh wait, you did post a comment by the person who coin the term:

"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation.   Did they kill members of the nation of the Amalikites?  Yes.

It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.  They wanted them (Amaekites) gone didn't they(jews)?  and they made them gone didn't they?

The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups."

They wanted them wiped off the face of the earth right? So they never attacked them again tight?  And God order them to kill them all.  right?

In other words, (as I said earlier), it's the destruction of a people, based on ethnicity, race, or religion. It is NOT merely the deliberate destruction of a ethnicity, race, or religion.

the term deliberate is used in the definitions.  The Amalekites were a nation, they were a group, they were a culture.

So again, I ask, why are you making up you own definitions?  Because you are dishonest with yourself and it's displayed very well on this forum.

More fun with wiki:

Determining which historical events constitute genocide and which are merely criminal or inhuman behavior is not a clear-cut matter. Furthermore, in nearly every case where accusations of genocide have circulated, partisans of various sides have fiercely disputed the interpretation and details of the event, often to the point of promoting wildly different versions of the facts. An accusation of genocide is certainly not taken lightly and will almost always be controversial. Revisionist attempts to deny or challenge genocides (mainly the Holocaust) are, in some countries, illegal.

Seems like one of our resident thumpers are doing the same thing.

Would you feel better if i just said you worship a mass murder?   

The term wasn't even coined unil the mid 1900s. So how exactly are the Jews or anyone else going to be guilty of something that didn't exist?

SO WHAT?  If it wasn't ever coined then we'd be calling it mass murder and i be telling you you worship a mass murderer.  Are you gonna twist that deinfition around too?   

Again, I'm not making up JACK. I posted the definition of genocide from the guy WHO COINED THE TERM. Per his definition, the inicident with the Amalekites was NOT genocide.

Your just an idiot.  I've shown it meets all the requirements of the definition.  You and your cult are either too stupid to understand that, or are just lying to your selves which makes you dangerous.

Whether you think it's stupid or not makes precious little difference.

So says the guy who has challenges the definition fo genocide.   

We don't have the originals of a LOT of ancient documents. In fact, notwithstanding the separate debate about the authorship of the Gospels and the dates thereof, most of what you know about ancient history comes from sources that are copies of the originals.

Copies in question.  Copies made by men with much to lose or gain. 

But, that's not the point. The point is that the establishment has been made that Jesus Christ is, in fact, the son of God, the same God who judged the Alamekites. The fact that you can't deal with it, because it puts you in the predicament of acknowledging your parents' Christian faith is of the same source as mine, is of little consequence.

Its not a fact.  It's a belief shared but many modern day primitive people who would kill an innocent child on god's orders who belong to the cult of bible literalists.  That's one of the signs of cult like behavior, beliefs are facts.

Last time I checked, the Muslim's god was Allah, and Krishna was that of the Hindus.

Your mind can't grasp what I'm saying it's too primitive.  It can only grasp concepts in the realm of righteous as it relates to your book of stories.

But again, that's hardly the point. You're simply ducking the issue about Jesus Christ, because of the predicament in which your claims have just placed you.

Then, your earlier assertion of being raised in a "Christian upbringing" was INCORRECT. The Christian faith DOES NOT indicate that God is "whatever they believed God to be". Christ has commandments; Scripture dictates what those are. What you've described is little more than a watered-down version of pantheism. If that's the case, so be it. But, to call your upbringing or your current belief system as a "Christian" one is categorically false.

All of which are beliefs and your beliefs put a "mass murderer" in the place of the worship of God.  I say mass murder because your primitive mind can't even comprehend a modern day term.  I hope mass murder isn't to modern for you.  Perhaps God killing is better? 

To top it all off, if you see "god in other writings", then by your own words, you also "believe in a book of stories written by primitive men". 

No, I see you are getting desperate again.   Maybe you find another definition to ignore or change.  I see nuggets of God in the "books of Stories".  Of course I've maintained that through and through.  It's only your dishonesty that causes you write that.

These others who have accused you of being dishonest have hit the nail on the head.  You are a danger to society.

Your last staement is also quite the false one. God doesn't conform to your standards (or those of any mortal man). He is all of those things: good, just, merciful, and loving. As I've said elsewhere, He blesses and curses individually; He also blesses and curses collectively.

They aren't just my standards, they are originally his.  Not the murdering jews who wrote of a fictitious instance of god regard the extermination of the Amalekites that you worship.

Jesus Christ is the ultimate example of God's love. Just as "by one man, did sin enter into all the world", by one Man (Christ) did redemption enter into all the world. Or, as a lyric to an old Gospel song goes, "I owed a debt I could not pay; Christ paid a debt He did not owe."

Blah blah blah, so says a man who would kill a child on god's orders and worships a genocider.

That's funny!! I don't recall my claiming to be Jewish  . And, I'm not the one skewing defintions. I used the very definition YOU posted (until you realized that you screwed up) and demonstrated just how inaccurate your assertion is.

see above.  If you get confused, see the definition of the words "see"and "above".

If anyone is being arrogant, it's you. You have the gall to think that you determine what God can and can't do. You are but a mortal man, just like me. You don't dictate to the Almighty, based on your current (but long over-extended) temper tantrum.

I'm going by his morality, his rules, and his edicts.  Not my problem you worship a hypocirte who is, unless you belong the bible literalists cult, a mass murderer, genocider, god thats kills, etc....

That's YOUR alternative, since (by your crackpot claims) assimilation is off the table. As for Japan and Germany, I've answered that more times than the law allows. One, they didn't attack us for over 300 years; and, two, once we put the hammer down (via the A-bomb).....THEY QUIT!!! They stopped attacking and stopped assaulting. And, they were smart enough to do so, while there was still something left of their country.

And what did we do afterwards coward? 

You identified your upbringing as being "Christian", NOT as being "whatever you believe god to be". The basics of the Christian faith are given within the pages of Scripture. If your belief system doesn't mirror those tenets, they are NOT Christian beliefs. Again, if that's the case, so be it.

You cowards still haven't addressed whether or not a christian must believe the bible is the 100% WOG to be saved.

Wrong!!! See the A-Bomb and Hiroshima.

Is the USA God?  There's no comparison, unless you are a member of your cult.

[MCWAY]

I'm still taken back by the shear level of your dishonestly to yourself demonstrated on this forum regarding this.  You will stop at no lengths to twist or ignore facts.  You are a dangerous human being. 

I didn't "screw up" I simply provided more definitions outside of the what my apple had in it. Let's go back to the original definition I posted. 

genocide
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

Was what the jews did to them a deliberate killing?  yes.
Were the amalekites a large group of people?  yes
Were the Amalekites an ethnic group or nation?  yes.

3 for 3 here.

As mentioned earlier, by that limited definition, what we did to Japan at Hiroshima would be "genocide".

Was what we did to the Japanese a deliberate killing? YES!
Were the Japanese a large group of people? YES!
Were the Japanese an ethnic group or nation? YES!

3 for 3 here!!!

Once you realized that the truncated definition you got from your computer was incomplete (hence undercutting your own argument), you scrambled to rectify the situation.

Let's try dictionary.coms  definition:

The deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Was what the jews did to them a deliberate killing?  yes.
Was it a systematic extermination?  yes
Were the Amalekites a national, racial, political, or cultural group?  yes.

3 for 3 again.

Not quite, Ozmo. Had there been a "systematic extermination", the Amalekites wouldn't have been around for the 300+ years to harass Israel. Nor would Amalekites have been allowed to live among the Israelites (as was the case in the OT).

Let's try websters:

the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Was what the jews did to them a deliberate killing?  yes.
Was it a systematic extermination?  yes
Were the Amalekites a national, racial, political, or cultural group?  yes.

Make that 2 for 3; see above:

Now let's try McDishonest:

If you have a good enough reason and you are God then it's not genocide, But if you kill and entire nation for no reason it is.  

Wrong again, Ozmo. What I stated is that, based on the examples of the Holocaust and the conflict in Rwanda, "genocide" is based primarily (if not exclusively) on RACE or ETHNICITY. Hitler killed the Jews, simply for being Jews; the similar reason goes for the Hutu/Tutsi thing in Rwanda. And nothing the Jews did or said would have stopped the Nazi. Same goes for the Rwanda thing.

However, that was NOT the case with the Amalekites. They were the aggressors against Israel, as this all started when they ambushed the Israelites, unprovoked, as they were transiting from Egypt to their eventual promised land. This continued for centuries afterward. Yet, all the Amalekites had to do was cease and desist, repent, and make amends. And the issue would have been settled.

Yet, because they did not despite numerous opportunities to do so, including one last warning when the Kenites started bailing, the judgment came upon Amalek.
 

Let's look at Wiki's definition:

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

Wow, same thing.  seems like only the brainwashed primitive worshipping few only see it the way you do.

I'm sorry!! Didn't we deliberately and systemactially destroy the Japanesse (in part), via the A-bomb?

Once again, it's foot-in-mouth time for Ozmo.

Was this what you were hiding behind from wiki:?

According to R. J. Rummel, genocide has 3 different meanings. The ordinary meaning is murder by government of people due to their national, ethnic, racial, or religious group membership.


let's look at eh other meanings shall we?  come now, don't be afraid...the truth will set you free from the bonds of feeling like whale shit.

Apparently, you must be projecting, as I hardly feel like that. On the contrary, I feel fantastic. And, as woefully wrong as you tend to be, you should know by now that I need not hide behind anything or from anyone, least of all, you.

Of course, that would leave you with the task of explaining why I would "hide" behind the Wiki's definition, when I'm the one who brought it to the forefront, in the first place.

How about the legal meaning of genocide from wiki that cited the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" definitions of it:

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
– Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2[2]

Really McWay com on dude, how can you even look at your self in the mirror with the bull shit that comes out of your mouth?

When you have a handsome mug like mine, it's easy!!! (as for the BS stuff, I defer that to you).


Notwithstanding the fact that the ancient Israelites would hardly be concerned about a term that would be coined 2 millenia after this event, clauses a) through e) would all fit under what happened to Japan.

Oh wait, you did post a comment by the person who coin the term:

"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation.   Did they kill members of the nation of the Amalikites?  Yes.

As we did with the member of the nation of Japan. NEXT!!!!

It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.  They wanted them (Amaekites) gone didn't they(jews)?  and they made them gone didn't they?

They wanted them wiped off the face of the earth right? So they never attacked them again tight?  And God order them to kill them all.  right?

They wanted them to cease and desist with the attacks on their people, hence the reason the Amalekites were given CENTURIES to repent of their ways. And, it also why they were warned one last time, before Saul commenced with his marching orders. Now, what would have happened had those Amalekites surrendered and repented (Hint: the same thing that happened with the Ninevites).

But, no sooner than they survived the beating they took from Saul than they turned right around and went after Israel AGAIN (see 1 Sam. 30).

No surrendering like the Japanese, no restitution for previous attacks, no peace treaty......NOTHING.

the term deliberate is used in the definitions.  The Amalekites were a nation, they were a group, they were a culture.

And so were/are the Japanese. Only, unlike the Amalekites, they were smart enough to throw in the towel (after nearly being atomized) and haven't attacked us since then.

So again, I ask, why are you making up you own definitions?  Because you are dishonest with yourself and it's displayed very well on this forum.

I'm not making up any definitions. I don't need to do so. The point, which you can't quite digest is that, what happened to the Amalekites is no more genocide than what happened to the Japanese. Yet, you continue to cluck away about the former being genocide, while denying that the latter was such.

By the definitions that YOU used, either they're BOTH genocide or NEITHER is genocide. Which is it?

More fun with wiki:

Determining which historical events constitute genocide and which are merely criminal or inhuman behavior is not a clear-cut matter. Furthermore, in nearly every case where accusations of genocide have circulated, partisans of various sides have fiercely disputed the interpretation and details of the event, often to the point of promoting wildly different versions of the facts. An accusation of genocide is certainly not taken lightly and will almost always be controversial. Revisionist attempts to deny or challenge genocides (mainly the Holocaust) are, in some countries, illegal.

Seems like one of our resident thumpers are doing the same thing.

And those alleged different versions of the facts would be.........

Would you feel better if i just said you worship a mass murder?   

I would feel better, seeing how many bulletholes are in your shoes, right about now.

SO WHAT?  If it wasn't ever coined then we'd be calling it mass murder and i be telling you you worship a mass murderer.  Are you gonna twist that deinfition around too?   

The simple fact is you're the one picking and choosing what is genocide and what isn't. You SCREAM to the heavens that what happened to the Amalekites was genocide; yet what happened to the Japanese wasn't, despite the fact that by the definition that YOU JUST POSTED (with no twisting from me), BOTH instances can be coined as "genocide". In fact, you just cited that defining such was not a "clear-cut matter".

Your just an idiot.  I've shown it meets all the requirements of the definition.  You and your cult are either too stupid to understand that, or are just lying to your selves which makes you dangerous.

So does what happened to the Japanese. Yet, you are NOT calling that "genocide". Therefore, you are projecting once again. You call one incident "genocide" but don't call the other such.

As Lemkin's explanation stated, simply killing a large group of a particular race does NOT equate to genocide. And the examples of genocide cited are primarily (if not exclusively) BASED ON RACE/ETHNICITY and carried out BECAUSE OF RACE/ETHNICITY. Such was not with the case with the Amalekites (or the Japanese, for that matter).

Both were hit, due their actions against an enemy (Amalek with Israel; Japan with the USA). And both would have ended, with far fewer casualties, had the initiators (Amalek and Japan) surrendered and made amends. Japan did that (after the A-Bomb); Amalek did not, even after Saul's military strike.

So says the guy who has challenges the definition fo genocide.   

What challenge?

Copies in question.  Copies made by men with much to lose or gain. 

I'm sorry!! I could have sworn that ALL the New Testament was written, while Israel was in ROMAN BONDAGE!! Where was all of this stuff to "gain" or "lose"?

Its not a fact.  It's a belief shared but many modern day primitive people who would kill an innocent child on god's orders who belong to the cult of bible literalists.  That's one of the signs of cult like behavior, beliefs are facts.

That would mean you're in the "cult" of denial. First, you trumpeted your Christian upbrining as to being a significant part of your current belief system. Of course, when it dawned on you that the same Christ (from which this upbringing originates) is the Son of the same God who judged the Amalekites, you go off on some tangent claiming that a different God sent Jesus than the one of the OT.

When that didn't work, you then claimed that your upbringing was that God was "whatever you wanted God to be", which is actually NOT a Christian upbringing. Your story keeps changing every time your takes get dropped.

Your mind can't grasp what I'm saying it's too primitive.  It can only grasp concepts in the realm of righteous as it relates to your book of stories.

I grasp what you're saying quite well, which is why it's so easy to dismantle it, for the foolishness that it is.

All of which are beliefs and your beliefs put a "mass murderer" in the place of the worship of God.  I say mass murder because your primitive mind can't even comprehend a modern day term.  I hope mass murder isn't to modern for you.  Perhaps God killing is better? 

No, I see you are getting desperate again.   Maybe you find another definition to ignore or change.  I see nuggets of God in the "books of Stories".  Of course I've maintained that through and through.  It's only your dishonesty that causes you write that.

If you're using the "book of stories" evein for "nuggets" of wisdom, then that puts you in the same boat.

These others who have accused you of being dishonest have hit the nail on the head.  You are a danger to society.

Considering who they are (and that they used the same tired arguments that you do, that I've refuted numerous times), that's hardly a concern on my part. Like them, you make accusations that you can't back, and when presented with the fact, you resort to the standard name-calling, flip-flopping, and dismissal. I've cut their arguments down, just as I've done with yours.

As the saying goes, "You can't be the first; but you can be the next"!!!

They aren't just my standards, they are originally his.  Not the murdering jews who wrote of a fictitious instance of god regard the extermination of the Amalekites that you worship.

Blah blah blah, so says a man who would kill a child on god's orders and worships a genocider.

Blah, blah, blah!! So says the man would killa child for much less, as long as he can use bombs!!!

I'm going by his morality, his rules, and his edicts.  Not my problem you worship a hypocirte who is, unless you belong the bible literalists cult, a mass murderer, genocider, god thats kills, etc....

Are you talking about your folks again...WAIT A MINUTE!!! They aren't Christians, anymore. As being such now puts you back in that proverbial pickle again.

And what did we do afterwards coward? 

Again, check the Alzheimer's disease. They quit; they stopped attacking (have not attacked us since then).....NO MORE BEEF!!! What part of that ain't sinking in to that grey matter.

You cowards still haven't addressed whether or not a christian must believe the bible is the 100% WOG to be saved.

More memory loss!!! Fitt@40 answered your question, as did Loco, Stella, Beach Bum, and yours truly.

In fact, O amnesia-possesing one, you were the one asked Stella and me.......

"McWay or Stella, is there scripture to back it up? Or is this just personal interpretation?  "


This begs the question of why you would do such, if we "cowards" never addressed your question.

But, since you want to call people out, TO THIS DAY, you have fused them lips shut on the issue of whom this supposed mystery God of the OT is that you swear isn't the same as the one who sent Jesus Christ.

Plus, (unless you just recently posted there), no one's heard a peep from you, since I dismantled your silly claim about women having to "shut up like good little b*&@^^#", with regards to their roles in Israel's society.

Tick....Tick....Tick.... .

Is the USA God?  There's no comparison, unless you are a member of your cult.

The USA doesn't have to be, when it comes to this issue. By the definition that YOU used, either both instances (the A-Bomb on Japan and Saul's strike on the Amalekites) were "genocide"; or neither were such.

Both were deliberate; both were systematic; both killed a large group of ethnic people (in part).

[MCWAY]

why are gods rules seemingly devoid of logic? So during those times adultery was punisable by death, and god agrees with this? I assume since he is all knowing this is the best solution and cheating today should be punishable by death?

God sounds alot like primitive man, Even his rules.

I explained this elsewhere. But, in a society where family integrity was IMPERATIVE for rights of inheritance and economic issues, adultery was seen as a grievous offense.

Add to that the disease factor. If diseases like AIDS can devastate countries and communities in the 21st century (A.D), can you imagine what such diseases could do to people some 3000 years ago. Syphillis or gonnorhea would wipe out as many people then as AIDS does now. For those reasons (not to mention the devastating emotional toll such put on families), it's not hard to see why adultery would be a capital offense.

[Necrosis]

Because the God identified in the O.T. IS primitive man worshiped by modern day primitive people whose blind obedience will compelled to murder innocent children on it's orders.

exactly however, if it is god would wrote the bible per se and these are his laws they should be the best laws. So we should stone people who cheat as god would have, in all his infinite knowledge this is the best answer.

[OzmO]

As mentioned earlier, by that limited definition, what we did to Japan at Hiroshima would be "genocide".

Was what we did to the Japanese a deliberate killing? YES!
Were the Japanese a large group of people? YES!
Were the Japanese an ethnic group or nation? YES!

3 for 3 here!!!

Once you realized that the truncated definition you got from your computer was incomplete (hence undercutting your own argument), you scrambled to rectify the situation.

What America did to to Japan in WW2 is irrelevant to what God did to the Amalekites.  It's still Genocide.  You can call What America did to Hiroshima or Nagasaki genocide.  But the differences are plain.  And when you consider the options we had versus the options God had, it's tragic that we didn't have god's power and it's tragic that god use his power for murder, that's is of course if that was God, which is wasn't.

Not quite, Ozmo. Had there been a "systematic extermination", the Amalekites wouldn't have been around for the 300+ years to harass Israel. Nor would Amalekites have been allowed to live among the Israelites (as was the case in the OT). Make that 2 for 3; see above:

I doubt they synchronized their watches and kill everyone at the same time.  It probably took a quite while.  Maybe months for them to systematically exterminate the Amalekites.

Wrong again, Ozmo. What I stated is that, based on the examples of the Holocaust and the conflict in Rwanda, "genocide" is based primarily (if not exclusively) on RACE or ETHNICITY. Hitler killed the Jews, simply for being Jews; the similar reason goes for the Hutu/Tutsi thing in Rwanda. And nothing the Jews did or said would have stopped the Nazi. Same goes for the Rwanda thing.

You need to read your history books.  Hitler and his henchmen believed the jews were the source of all of Germany's problems after WW1.  They saw them as evil and the "only" "solution" was to exterminate them.   No you and I know better.  But only one us of knows better that that there isn't such a thing as an evil race of people that needed to be exterminated down to the infant.

However, that was NOT the case with the Amalekites. They were the aggressors against Israel, as this all started when they ambushed the Israelites, unprovoked, as they were transiting from Egypt to their eventual promised land. This continued for centuries afterward. Yet, all the Amalekites had to do was cease and desist, repent, and make amends. And the issue would have been settled.Yet, because they did not despite numerous opportunities to do so, including one last warning when the Kenites started bailing, the judgment came upon Amalek.

Yes, those who ruled the Amalekites were aggressors according to the account in the bible.  NOT the women and children.

I'm sorry!! Didn't we deliberately and systemactially destroy the Japanesse (in part), via the A-bomb?  Once again, it's foot-in-mouth time for Ozmo.

We completely destroyed two cities.  More people were in fact killed in fire bombings in tokyo.  I believe they were a country of 40-50 at the time, not sure.  
The difference you refuse to admit to be it cowardice or dishonesty, is we weren't out to wipe them off the face of the earth like the OT god and the hews were.  We wanted to do just enough to end the war.  And how we rebuilt their country, preserved their cultrure etc...  has help made them an ally which is another critical difference you run from.  It wouldn't matter if we were at war with them on and off for 300 years as it is alleged in your book of propaganda and fables.  This country along with most of the world, save a few madmen of the years knows the EVIL of genocide.  The same genocide ordered by the God of the OT.  There are actually standards, you know things like "don't kill innocent children" because it's evil and wrong, something you have admitted you'd do.  Good thing, cult literalists like you don't call the shots.  

Of course, that would leave you with the task of explaining why I would "hide" behind the Wiki's definition, when I'm the one who brought it to the forefront, in the first place.

You have been running and hiding from just about any assertion that has been challenged by me.  You actually draw comparisons to what we did to the Japanese with what god has done with the Amalekites.  Even 5 year old know how to stupid that is.  

Notwithstanding the fact that the ancient Israelites would hardly be concerned about a term that would be coined 2 millenia after this event, clauses a) through e) would all fit under what happened to Japan.

What would it matter what they thought?  They did what they did.  they committed genocide.  thought of a mass murder then, but because they wrote God told to do it and likely fabricated or embellished the reasons for doing it, thousands of years later primitive people like your self, eat it up and make excuses deflecting the evil in it by say things like "the creator is not morally accountable".  

As we did with the member of the nation of Japan. NEXT!!!!

Again the difference among many you dishonestly choose to ignore:  We did murder every Japanese person on earth.  

They wanted them to cease and desist with the attacks on their people, hence the reason the Amalekites were given CENTURIES to repent of their ways. And, it also why they were warned one last time, before Saul commenced with his marching orders. Now, what would have happened had those Amalekites surrendered and repented (Hint: the same thing that happened with the Ninevites).

But, no sooner than they survived the beating they took from Saul than they turned right around and went after Israel AGAIN (see 1 Sam. 30).

So what?  I'm not defending those who may be guilty of crimes.  I'm defending the cold murder of innocent children.  Innocent children you have admitted you'd kill on god's orders

No surrendering like the Japanese, no restitution for previous attacks, no peace treaty......NOTHING.

From the small one sided written account.  Still wouldn't matter.  We aren't defending the possible guilt of the amalekites here.  We are talking about the cold blooded murder of children.

I'm not making up any definitions. I don't need to do so. The point, which you can't quite digest is that, what happened to the Amalekites is no more genocide than what happened to the Japanese. Yet, you continue to cluck away about the former being genocide, while denying that the latter was such.

It doesn't matter if we did worse than the what God did to the Amalekites.  In the end you still worship a God that kills children in cold blood.

By the definitions that YOU used, either they're BOTH genocide or NEITHER is genocide. Which is it?

By the definitions I've used.  yes they both are.  But which fills the definition better?  The complete deliberate extermination of an entire race and nation of people or large groups of people who died in the war?

And those alleged different versions of the facts would be.........

That what god did to the amalekites was not genocide.

I would feel better, seeing how many bulletholes are in your shoes, right about now.

The simple fact is you're the one picking and choosing what is genocide and what isn't. You SCREAM to the heavens that what happened to the Amalekites was genocide; yet what happened to the Japanese wasn't, despite the fact that by the definition that YOU JUST POSTED (with no twisting from me), BOTH instances can be coined as "genocide". In fact, you just cited that defining such was not a "clear-cut matter".

So does what happened to the Japanese. Yet, you are NOT calling that "genocide". Therefore, you are projecting once again. You call one incident "genocide" but don't call the other such.

see above...again.

As Lemkin's explanation stated, simply killing a large group of a particular race does NOT equate to genocide.

see above

And the examples of genocide cited are primarily (if not exclusively) BASED ON RACE/ETHNICITY and carried out BECAUSE OF RACE/ETHNICITY. Such was not with the case with the Amalekites (or the Japanese, for that matter).Both were hit, due their actions against an enemy (Amalek with Israel; Japan with the USA). And both would have ended, with far fewer casualties, had the initiators (Amalek and Japan) surrendered and made amends. Japan did that (after the A-Bomb); Amalek did not, even after Saul's military strike.

Based in what way?  They all had reasons.  People don't commit mass murder for the heck of it.  there are reasons they hate a race enough to exterminate it that particular race.   The Jews did just that as hitler did just that.  

What challenge?

See above, you are the one who challenges the definition of genocide and the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" definitions of it.

I'm just repeating what they say.

I'm sorry!! I could have sworn that ALL the New Testament was written, while Israel was in ROMAN BONDAGE!! Where was all of this stuff to "gain" or "lose"?

You mean every jews was in prison?  There were no kings?  There were no guilds?  There was not churches?   There were no rabbis?  

That would mean you're in the "cult" of denial. First, you trumpeted your Christian upbrining as to being a significant part of your current belief system. Of course, when it dawned on you that the same Christ (from which this upbringing originates) is the Son of the same God who judged the Amalekites, you go off on some tangent claiming that a different God sent Jesus than the one of the OT.

When that didn't work, you then claimed that your upbringing was that God was "whatever you wanted God to be", which is actually NOT a Christian upbringing. Your story keeps changing every time your takes get dropped

.

No skippy, I brought up my Christian upbringing because it taught me that killing children is wrong.  You have only tried to use it as a way to twist it around.  The problems is, no one in my family is that stupid to believe the bible literally.  

I grasp what you're saying quite well, which is why it's so easy to dismantle it, for the foolishness that it is.

If you're using the "book of stories" evein for "nuggets" of wisdom, then that puts you in the same boat.

No it doesn't it only proves that i have the wisdom to see it for what it is along with all the other thousands of religious books.  You on the other hand believe  it so much that you'd kill a child on God's orders.  Speaks volumes of you.

Considering who they are (and that they used the same tired arguments that you do, that I've refuted numerous times), that's hardly a concern on my part. Like them, you make accusations that you can't back, and when presented with the fact, you resort to the standard name-calling, flip-flopping, and dismissal. I've cut their arguments down, just as I've done with yours.

You haven't refuted anything honestly.  You lie for what you believe.  You lie here.  You lie to yourself.  that's what makes you dangerous.  You are a brainwashed nut job.  Sorry, just call it as i see it.

Blah, blah, blah!! So says the man would killa child for much less, as long as he can use bombs!!!

Another good example of your dishonesty.  

Are you talking about your folks again...WAIT A MINUTE!!! They aren't Christians, anymore. As being such now puts you back in that proverbial pickle again.

Again, check the Alzheimer's disease. They quit; they stopped attacking (have not attacked us since then).....NO MORE BEEF!!! What part of that ain't sinking in to that grey matter.

More memory loss!!! Fitt@40 answered your question, as did Loco, Stella, Beach Bum, and yours truly.

In fact, O amnesia-possesing one, you were the one asked Stella and me.......

"McWay or Stella, is there scripture to back it up? Or is this just personal interpretation?  "

This begs the question of why you would do such, if we "cowards" never addressed your question.

Show me in scripture where is says a person must believe in the selected books (selected some 300 years later by men) as the 100% WOG to be saved.

But, since you want to call people out, TO THIS DAY, you have fused them lips shut on the issue of whom this supposed mystery God of the OT is that you swear isn't the same as the one who sent Jesus Christ.

When have i sworn it isn't?

Plus, (unless you just recently posted there), no one's heard a peep from you, since I dismantled your silly claim about women having to "shut up like good little b*&@^^#", with regards to their roles in Israel's society.

Tick....Tick....Tick.... .

I haven't got there yet.  I will though.  Meanwhile be nice to your wife.  Let her talk once in a while.

The USA doesn't have to be, when it comes to this issue. By the definition that YOU used, either both instances (the A-Bomb on Japan and Saul's strike on the Amalekites) were "genocide"; or neither were such.

Both were deliberate; both were systematic; both killed a large group of ethnic people (in part).

refer to above.

[MCWAY]

What America did to to Japan in WW2 is irrelevant to what God did to the Amalekites.  It's still Genocide.  You can call What America did to Hiroshima or Nagasaki genocide.  But the differences are plain.  And when you consider the options we had versus the options God had, it's tragic that we didn't have god's power and it's tragic that god use his power for murder, that's is of course if that was God, which is wasn't.

That’s just it. I DON’T call (what happened to Hiroshima or Nagasaki) genocide. The point was, based on the definition you used, if you referred to what happened to the Amalekites as such, you must do so with regards to the Japanese.

I doubt they synchronized their watches and kill everyone at the same time.  It probably took a quite while.  Maybe months for them to systematically exterminate the Amalekites.

That can’t quite be determined, not that it’s relevant, regarding the issue at hand.

You need to read your history books.  Hitler and his henchmen believed the jews were the source of all of Germany's problems after WW1.  They saw them as evil and the "only" "solution" was to exterminate them.   No you and I know better.  But only one us of knows better that that there isn't such a thing as an evil race of people that needed to be exterminated down to the infant.

When did Hitler give the Jews the opportunity to make amends or repent of whatever actions the Jews supposedly did that gave Germany its problems? Again, Hitler rounded up Jews that weren’t even in Germany. And he whacked anyone he remotely suspected of being Jewish or who helped the Jews out.

That wasn’t the case with the Amalekites. We know the deal with them. They attacked the Israelites unprovoked, as they were leaving Egypt. They continued their assault against Israel, nearly driving them to starvation, at one point.

Yes, those who ruled the Amalekites were aggressors according to the account in the bible.  NOT the women and children.

We completely destroyed two cities.  More people were in fact killed in fire bombings in tokyo.  I believe they were a country of 40-50 at the time, not sure. 
The difference you refuse to admit to be it cowardice or dishonesty, is we weren't out to wipe them off the face of the earth like the OT god and the hews were.  We wanted to do just enough to end the war.  And how we rebuilt their country, preserved their cultrure etc...  has help made them an ally which is another critical difference you run from.  It wouldn't matter if we were at war with them on and off for 300 years as it is alleged in your book of propaganda and fables.  This country along with most of the world, save a few madmen of the years knows the EVIL of genocide.  The same genocide ordered by the God of the OT.  There are actually standards, you know things like "don't kill innocent children" because it's evil and wrong, something you have admitted you'd do.  Good thing, cult literalists like you don't call the shots. 

The critical difference, that you can’t seem to grasp, is that the Japanese did the one thing that the Amalekites did not. THEY SURRENDERED! They stopped the attacks, stopped the assaults, and made peace. That’s why we helped them rebuild their country; that’s why they became an ally.

This may come as a shock to you, but Israel did much the same thing with people with whom they once had conflict (the Gibeonites, Amorites, Kenites, etc.). But, all of that was predicated on PEACE being made between Israel and those other folks. That DID NOT happen with the Amalekites, because they kept up their offensives against Israel, despite numerous opportunities (over a period of at least 300 years) to cease and make peace.

You have been running and hiding from just about any assertion that has been challenged by me.  You actually draw comparisons to what we did to the Japanese with what god has done with the Amalekites.  Even 5 year old know how to stupid that is. 

I’ve done nothing of the sort. You used the definition of genocide as “the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation”. After I pointed out to you that, by such a standard, what we did to the Japanese would be genocide, guess who went scrambling (foot wedged cleanly in mouth) looking to clean up his mess……..YOU!

What would it matter what they thought?  They did what they did.  they committed genocide.  thought of a mass murder then, but because they wrote God told to do it and likely fabricated or embellished the reasons for doing it, thousands of years later primitive people like your self, eat it up and make excuses deflecting the evil in it by say things like "the creator is not morally accountable". 

And your evidence that the account was “likely fabricated or embellished” would be…….OH! What’s it’s been since the moment you made the accusation….NOTHING!!!

You have nothing to indicate that they made up the point of being ordered to destroy the gold, silver, and choice livestock, something no ancient society in its right mind would have done, ESPECIALLY with regards to a long-time enemy (much less, the king losing his throne for actually keeping the loot).


I make no excuse for what happen. I understand the issue and the circumstances surrounding the events.

Again the difference among many you dishonestly choose to ignore:  We did murder every Japanese person on earth.

You might want to correct that last statement of yours. “We didn’t murder every Japanese person on earth”. The reason that the USA didn’t target all Japanese is that 1) we had Japanese who fought on our side; 2) they hadn’t been attacking us for centuries on end; and  3), the part you missed yet again…..THE JAPANESE SURRENDERED.

Had the Amalekites done the same, the conflict would have been over. They however did not, even after being warned via the Kenites, who would have been wiped out with the Amalekites, for mere guilt by association (as Hitler did, killing not only Jews but non-Jewish sympathizers), if this were “genocide”.

 
So what?  I'm not defending those who may be guilty of crimes.  I'm defending the cold murder of innocent children.  Innocent children you have admitted you'd kill on god's orders

The Japanese children that died at Hiroshima are JUST AS DEAD as the Amalekite children were. And, all it would take is the luxury of hiding behind modern weapons for you would do the same (on far less).

 

From the small one sided written account.  Still wouldn't matter.  We aren't defending the possible guilt of the amalekites here.  We are talking about the cold blooded murder of children.

We are talking about them, much like the Japanese children, being casualties of war. And, as mentioned earlier, since assimilating them is off the table (thanks to your silly “slavery” rants), those kids are unfortunately faced with DEATH (sword or starvation).

It doesn't matter if we did worse than the what God did to the Amalekites.  In the end you still worship a God that kills children in cold blood.

And, by your statements, so do your mother and father. And because of your “Christian upbringing” (unless you’ve officially denounced it) so do YOU.

By the definitions I've used.  yes they both are.  But which fills the definition better?  The complete deliberate extermination of an entire race and nation of people or large groups of people who died in the war?

Listen to what you just said. BOTH the Amalekites and the Japanese died in a war. And the war with the Amalekites and Israel lasted FAR LONGER than that with the USA and Japan.

Yet, you used the other definitions of “genocide” to claim that America did not commit genocide, while leaving the Jewish conflict with Amalek in that category.

That what god did to the amalekites was not genocide.

Based in what way?  They all had reasons.  People don't commit mass murder for the heck of it.  there are reasons they hate a race enough to exterminate it that particular race.   The Jews did just that as hitler did just that. 

The "hatred" of the Amalekites were due to their continued assaults, with no indication of repentance or making amends. Had they done so, the conflict would have ceased, just as it did between Israel and other nations, with whom they'd fought.

See above, you are the one who challenges the definition of genocide and the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" definitions of it.

I'm just repeating what they say.

Except, when you shoot yourself in the foot with their definitions.

All of those definitions emphasize racial/ethnic factors as the driving force for genocide. Such was not the case with the Amalekites. Otherwise, as mentioned earlier, the Kenites and the Amalekites, living in Israel, would have been destroyed as well.

Compare that with Hitler, who did not disseminate in his Holocaust. To him, a Jewish sympathizer was just as bad as a Jew himself and ripe for his picking.

You mean every jews was in prison?  There were no kings?  There were no guilds?  There was not churches?   There were no rabbis? 

You can have all of those things and STILL be in bondage, a vassal or tribute kingdom, as Israel clearly was in 1st century A.D. I guess you missed that simple fact, in your ridiculous rambling.

No skippy, I brought up my Christian upbringing because it taught me that killing children is wrong.  You have only tried to use it as a way to twist it around.  The problems is, no one in my family is that stupid to believe the bible literally. 

Sorry, there’s no twisting needed. Your Christian upbringing, like it or not, is based on the teachings and deeds of one Jesus Christ, sent by THE VERY SAME GOD, who judged the Amalekites. And, it is that simple fact that you can’t duck.

Your feeble attempts to suggest that a different God sent Christ not only rings hollow but

No it doesn't it only proves that i have the wisdom to see it for what it is along with all the other thousands of religious books.  You on the other hand believe it so much that you'd kill a child on God's orders.  Speaks volumes of you.

What speaks volumes of you is the severe yellow streak, when it comes to acknowledging the source of your “Christian upbringing”. You bring it up, until it puts you in a philosophical bind. Then, you claim that “God is whatever you believe Him to be”, a tenet that is decidedly NOT Christian, whatsoever.

If you’re going to claim it, CLAIM IT; if not, then don’t. But, the continued flip-flopping is rather pitiful. You talk about the “other thousands of religious books”. But for some strange reason, I don’t hear you talking about your Buddhist upbringing, or your Islamic upbringing, or your Molechian upbringing, or your upbringing based on the worship of Dagon, or Ashoreth, etc (and the respective books, regarding those religions).

You haven't refuted anything honestly.  You lie for what you believe.  You lie here.  You lie to yourself.  that's what makes you dangerous.  You are a brainwashed nut job.  Sorry, just call it as i see it.

Then, you might want to consider to Lasix (or bi-focals, at the very least). I have spoken the truth here. And, since it grates your little psyche, you have resorted to claiming that Jesus Christ wasn’t really sent by God (since it would mean that’s same God of the OT). But, that is the very essence of Christianity.

So, the fact remains that if your parents are Christians, they serve the SAME GOD that I do. And, if you continue to claim your “Christian upbringing”, then so do YOU.

Otherwise, you have mistakenly identified your upbringing and the faith of your father and mother.

Another good example of your dishonesty. 

Not really. If you’d push the button, knowing that children will die in the process, the statement stands.

Show me in scripture where is says a person must believe in the selected books (selected some 300 years later by men) as the 100% WOG to be saved.

Again, the memory loss is kicking into gear. I did that on the other thread. But, if 2 Tim 3 weren’t enough, there’s also this blurb:

Rom. 10:9

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

And guess who that God, who raised Jesus from the dead, would be……..THAT’S RIGHT!!! The same one that judged the Amalekites.

Besides, the question was put to you on that same thread. If that’s not the case, what percentage is the word of God and who makes the determination of what is or isn’t?

If someone determines that the Ten Commandments are no longer part of the Word of God, that means they can steal, commit adultery, disobey their parents, etc. and still be saved. Or, if they believed that God didn’t really resurrect Jesus Christ from the dead (the confession of which is a requirement to be saved).

When have i sworn it isn't?

That’s a figure of speech. But, you’ve made the claim repeatedly, with virtually nothing to support your statement.

I haven't got there yet.  I will though.  Meanwhile be nice to your wife.  Let her talk once in a while.

My wife gets the last word…..and the first word…..and much of the words in between them. .

[OzmO]

That’s just it. I DON’T call (what happened to Hiroshima or Nagasaki) genocide. The point was, based on the definition you used, if you referred to what happened to the Amalekites as such, you must do so with regards to the Japanese.

Ok so what?  The difference is that, God ordered the entire nation killed and the Americans nuked 2 cities.

It can be argued that the Americans committed genocide on those to cities.  It can not be argue with any validity that god did not commit genocide with the Amalikites.

That can’t quite be determined, not that it’s relevant, regarding the issue at hand.

You are the one who brought it up as not fitting into the definition.  I say it fits just fine.

When did Hitler give the Jews the opportunity to make amends or repent of whatever actions the Jews supposedly did that gave Germany its problems? Again, Hitler rounded up Jews that weren’t even in Germany. And he whacked anyone he remotely suspected of being Jewish or who helped the Jews out.

That wasn’t the case with the Amalekites. We know the deal with them. They attacked the Israelites unprovoked, as they were leaving Egypt. They continued their assault against Israel, nearly driving them to starvation, at one point.

Where in the definition of Genocide does it say that if you give them an opportunity to make amends and they don't take and then you exterminate them it isn't genocide?

Again more dishonesty or plain ignorance.

The critical difference, that you can’t seem to grasp, is that the Japanese did the one thing that the Amalekites did not. THEY SURRENDERED! They stopped the attacks, stopped the assaults, and made peace. That’s why we helped them rebuild their country; that’s why they became an ally.

This may come as a shock to you, but Israel did much the same thing with people with whom they once had conflict (the Gibeonites, Amorites, Kenites, etc.). But, all of that was predicated on PEACE being made between Israel and those other folks. That DID NOT happen with the Amalekites, because they kept up their offensives against Israel, despite numerous opportunities (over a period of at least 300 years) to cease and make peace.

Again, your unwillingness to see it for what it is.  It doesn't matter what the Japanese did or didn't do, the act is about genocide.  We wouldn't have committed it in the fashion God did if they didn't surrender.  We are better than that. 

I’ve done nothing of the sort. You used the definition of genocide as “the deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation”. After I pointed out to you that, by such a standard, what we did to the Japanese would be genocide, guess who went scrambling (foot wedged cleanly in mouth) looking to clean up his mess……..YOU!

No scrambling involved.  I've had to explain it in the easiest terms possible for you.  What God did fits the definition exactly, regardless if you want to "deflect" the issue to the Americans of 1945.

And your evidence that the account was “likely fabricated or embellished” would be…….OH! What’s it’s been since the moment you made the accusation….NOTHING!!!

You have nothing to indicate that they made up the point of being ordered to destroy the gold, silver, and choice livestock, something no ancient society in its right mind would have done, ESPECIALLY with regards to a long-time enemy (much less, the king losing his throne for actually keeping the loot).


I make no excuse for what happen. I understand the issue and the circumstances surrounding the events.

This act of Genocide, all of which is based on a single account written by those who committed it.   

Oh I forgot, primitive people believing a book of stories to be the infallible WOG written by other primitive people 1000's of year ago.

Got it. 

You might want to correct that last statement of yours. “We didn’t murder every Japanese person on earth”. The reason that the USA didn’t target all Japanese is that 1) we had Japanese who fought on our side; 2) they hadn’t been attacking us for centuries on end; and  3), the part you missed yet again…..THE JAPANESE SURRENDERED.

Had the Amalekites done the same, the conflict would have been over. They however did not, even after being warned via the Kenites, who would have been wiped out with the Amalekites, for mere guilt by association (as Hitler did, killing not only Jews but non-Jewish sympathizers), if this were “genocide”.

Doesn't change what God ordered.  Run Forrest run.

The Japanese children that died at Hiroshima are JUST AS DEAD as the Amalekite children were. And, all it would take is the luxury of hiding behind modern weapons for you would do the same (on far less).

Doesn't change what God ordered.  Run Forrest run.  (back to candy ass deflections I see.)

We are talking about them, much like the Japanese children, being casualties of war. And, as mentioned earlier, since assimilating them is off the table (thanks to your silly “slavery” rants), those kids are unfortunately faced with DEATH (sword or starvation).

Back to that again huh?  Maintaining that slavery was the only option when slavery didn't occur with the Germany or Japan?  Or any other civilized nation on earth for that matter?   

Doesn't change what God ordered.  Run Forrest run.  (back to candy ass deflections I see.)

And, by your statements, so do your mother and father. And because of your “Christian upbringing” (unless you’ve officially denounced it) so do YOU.

No, based on your twisted belief that the Bible is the WOG, only.  God is god, regardless of what you or I believe. 

Listen to what you just said. BOTH the Amalekites and the Japanese died in a war. And the war with the Amalekites and Israel lasted FAR LONGER than that with the USA and Japan.

Doesn't change what God ordered.  Run Forrest run.

Yet, you used the other definitions of “genocide” to claim that America did not commit genocide, while leaving the Jewish conflict with Amalek in that category.

Doesn't change what God ordered.  Run Forrest run.

The "hatred" of the Amalekites were due to their continued assaults, with no indication of repentance or making amends. Had they done so, the conflict would have ceased, just as it did between Israel and other nations, with whom they'd fought.

Doesn't change what God ordered.  Run Forrest run.

Except, when you shoot yourself in the foot with their definitions.

I've proved based ont he definition that God oredered Genocide, Run Forrest run.

All of those definitions emphasize racial/ethnic factors as the driving force for genocide. Such was not the case with the Amalekites. Otherwise, as mentioned earlier, the Kenites and the Amalekites, living in Israel, would have been destroyed as well.

Compare that with Hitler, who did not disseminate in his Holocaust. To him, a Jewish sympathizer was just as bad as a Jew himself and ripe for his picking.

The Amalekites, the entire nation, were singled out then wiped out on God's orders.  Run Forrest run.

You can have all of those things and STILL be in bondage, a vassal or tribute kingdom, as Israel clearly was in 1st century A.D. I guess you missed that simple fact, in your ridiculous rambling.

And people still have much to gain or lose with in that bondage.  They were bonded politically as a vaseel to Rome.  It was business as usual to every one else.  The only difference was that taxes were paid to Rome not Judea.  People still got rich, people still gained power.

Run Forrest run.

Sorry, there’s no twisting needed. Your Christian upbringing, like it or not, is based on the teachings and deeds of one Jesus Christ, sent by THE VERY SAME GOD, who judged the Amalekites. And, it is that simple fact that you can’t duck.

Sent by is your belief.  I see no God in someone who order the murder of innocent children.  you do.

Your feeble attempts to suggest that a different God sent Christ not only rings hollow but

Hollow?   Based on what?  It is only a belief/faith that is the basis for you accepting the bible as the WOG nothing more.

What speaks volumes of you is the severe yellow streak, when it comes to acknowledging the source of your “Christian upbringing”. You bring it up, until it puts you in a philosophical bind. Then, you claim that “God is whatever you believe Him to be”, a tenet that is decidedly NOT Christian, whatsoever.

You haven't proved that one must believe the Bible assembled 300 year after christ's death to be the 100% WOG to be saved.

If you’re going to claim it, CLAIM IT; if not, then don’t. But, the continued flip-flopping is rather pitiful. You talk about the “other thousands of religious books”. But for some strange reason, I don’t hear you talking about your Buddhist upbringing, or your Islamic upbringing, or your Molechian upbringing, or your upbringing based on the worship of Dagon, or Ashoreth, etc (and the respective books, regarding those religions).

Claim what? I'm only claiming that the wisdom of God exists in other religious books.

Then, you might want to consider to Lasix (or bi-focals, at the very least). I have spoken the truth here. And, since it grates your little psyche, you have resorted to claiming that Jesus Christ wasn’t really sent by God (since it would mean that’s same God of the OT). But, that is the very essence of Christianity.

So, the fact remains that if your parents are Christians, they serve the SAME GOD that I do. And, if you continue to claim your “Christian upbringing”, then so do YOU.

Otherwise, you have mistakenly identified your upbringing and the faith of your father and mother.

All of which is based on faith not FACTS.   My upbringing, be it Christian, taught me that killing innocent children is wrong.   You can't handle that can you?

Again, the memory loss is kicking into gear. I did that on the other thread. But, if 2 Tim 3 weren’t enough, there’s also this blurb:

Rom. 10:9

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

And guess who that God, who raised Jesus from the dead, would be……..THAT’S RIGHT!!! The same one that judged the Amalekites.

Besides, the question was put to you on that same thread. If that’s not the case, what percentage is the word of God and who makes the determination of what is or isn’t?

If someone determines that the Ten Commandments are no longer part of the Word of God, that means they can steal, commit adultery, disobey their parents, etc. and still be saved. Or, if they believed that God didn’t really resurrect Jesus Christ from the dead (the confession of which is a requirement to be saved).

Again show me where you must believe the bible is the 100% WOG assembled some 300 years after christ's death to be saved.

[MCWAY]

Ok so what?  The difference is that, God ordered the entire nation killed and the Americans nuked 2 cities.

And America would have nuked more cities, had the Japanese not surrendered. Fortunately for them, they did.

The common thread is that these were actions taken against an enemy, based on the initial assaults started by that enemy. The expressed purpose was to get that conflict to cease. The one difference is that one stopped and surrendered, after taking a major beating; and the other did not.

It can be argued that the Americans committed genocide on those to cities.  It can not be argue with any validity that god did not commit genocide with the Amalikites.

Yes, it can. Again, the one common thread, with the most touted examples of genocide (the Holocaust and the Rwanda conflict) is RACE/ETHNICITY. Those folks killed were due primarily, if not solely, due to that. Plus, as stated earlier, anyone who sympathized or associated with them got killed as well.

That’s not the case with the Amalekites. They weren't killed just for being Amalekites (i.e. those who lived among the Israelites, as was allowed by law). Nor, were any, for merely associated with the Amalekites, killed in kind (i.e. the Kenites, who were warned, prior to Saul’s strike, to leave the area).

You are the one who brought it up as not fitting into the definition.  I say it fits just fine.

I say it does not, for the reason given, just as what happened with the Japanese doesn’t fit the description.

Where in the definition of Genocide does it say that if you give them an opportunity to make amends and they don't take and then you exterminate them it isn't genocide?

Again more dishonesty or plain ignorance.

More amnesia, I see. Weren’t you the one that posted, According to R. J. Rummel, genocide has 3 different meanings. The ordinary meaning is murder by government of people due to their national, ethnic, racial, or religious group membership.?

That’s what I thought.

Plus, as mentioned by Lemkin, “Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves."


The point, of course, is that the Amalekites were judged based on WHAT THEY DID (and continued to do), NOT on their race/ethnicity.

And, since killing a whole bunch of people from one race isn’t enough to qualify as genocide (per the definitions cited), the term doesn’t apply.

Again, your unwillingness to see it for what it is.  It doesn't matter what the Japanese did or didn't do, the act is about genocide.  We wouldn't have committed it in the fashion God did if they didn't surrender.  We are better than that. 

We would have blown up as much of Japan as it took to get them to stop with their assaults, period.

No scrambling involved.  I've had to explain it in the easiest terms possible for you.  What God did fits the definition exactly, regardless if you want to "deflect" the issue to the Americans of 1945.

There’s no deflecting involved. Just as what happened in 1945 with the Japanese wasn’t genocide, neither was what happened to the Amalekites.

Doesn't change what God ordered.  Run Forrest run.

Doesn't change what God ordered.  Run Forrest run.  (back to candy ass deflections I see.)

Nope!! That would imply that I actually deflected or ran from your pitiful charges in the first place, which simply isn't the case.

I don’t need to run. I’ve addressed your questions. Your liking the answers make no difference to me.

Back to that again huh?  Maintaining that slavery was the only option when slavery didn't occur with the Germany or Japan?  Or any other civilized nation on earth for that matter?   

Their respective countries (Japan and Germany) were still left in good enough shape for them to inhabit them. And, of course, they surrendered before the damage got worse than it was.

We didn't rebuilt Japan (or Germany) while they were still warring with us, while we were still being "Pearl Harbored". Any restorations, reparations, treaties, etc., with those two nations came only AFTER they threw in the towel (while there was something still left of their land).

The same would have occured with the Amalekites, except for the fact that they did not surrender or stop their assaults.

Doesn't change what God ordered.  Run Forrest run.  (back to candy ass deflections I see.)

Nope!!

No, based on your twisted belief that the Bible is the WOG, only.  God is god, regardless of what you or I believe. 

Then, what are His standards, where can those standards be found? That’s the part you have yet to answer. Does He have commandments? If so, what are they?

If you don’t know what they are, how in the world can you (or anyone else) claim that you are following them?

Doesn't change what God ordered.  Run Forrest run.

Doesn't change what God ordered.  Run Forrest run.  (back to candy ass deflections I see.)

Nope!! Simply cutting through your pitiful arguments.

Back to that again huh?  Maintaining that slavery was the only option when slavery didn't occur with the Germany or Japan?  Or any other civilized nation on earth for that matter?   

Come again? There were plenty of civilized nations where slavery occured

I've proved based ont he definition that God oredered Genocide, Run Forrest run.


The Amalekites, the entire nation, were singled out then wiped out on God's orders.  Run Forrest run.

How cute!!! Now, in your pathetic attempts to save face, you’ve gone into broken-record mode.

And, as if your skipped-record routine weren’t feeble enough, your comprehension skills continue to be on the fritz.

The “entire nation” was not singled out then wiped out. The Amalekites, who lived among the Israelites in peace….SPARED!!! The Kenites, who lived among the Amalekites (and likely intermarried with them, thus making them part of their nation)……….SPARED!!!!!

Neither of that is a hallmark of genocide…..NEXT!!!!

And people still have much to gain or lose with in that bondage.  They were bonded politically as a vaseel to Rome.  It was business as usual to every one else.  The only difference was that taxes were paid to Rome not Judea.  People still got rich, people still gained power.

Run Forrest run.

Yet, none of those people who got rich and gained power were authors of the books of the New Testament. The only one remotely in a position to do such was Paul. But, he GAVE UP his position of influence to become a Christian and spread the Gospel. And, he subsequently died for that.

Sent by is your belief.  I see no God in someone who order the murder of innocent children.  you do.

What you or I believe makes no difference, remember?

Hollow?   Based on what?  It is only a belief/faith that is the basis for you accepting the bible as the WOG nothing more

By that standard, it is only a belief/faith that is the basis of your thinking that God (of the OT) isn’t the one who sent Jesus Christ or that part of Scripture you don’t like isn’t the “WOG”, based on your discomfort with His judgment on the Amalekites.

You haven't proved that one must believe the Bible assembled 300 year after christ's death to be the 100% WOG to be saved.

I’ve addressed that at the end of this post. Plus, you STILL haven't addressed which percentage is or isn't "WOG" and who makes the determination.

Claim what? I'm only claiming that the wisdom of God exists in other religious books.

Yet, I don’t hear you extolling your Muslim/Buddhist/Ashoreth/Baal/Dagon/Molech/Krishna upbringing.

You prefer the wisdom of God……that is, until it involves something that you don’t like.

All of which is based on faith not FACTS.   My upbringing, be it Christian, taught me that killing innocent children is wrong.   You can't handle that can you?

Was your upbringing a Christian one or not? Are your parents Christians or not? Which is it?

The last time I saw someone flip-flopped this much, he lost to George Bush in the 2004 election.

Again show me where you must believe the bible is the 100% WOG assembled some 300 years after christ's death to be saved.

The Bible’s assembly occurred long before some 300 years after Christ’s death and resurrection. But, that’s hardly the crux of the matter, here.

Paul’s reference to Scripture features, at the bare mininum, the Tanakh (or what we call the Old Testament). THAT’S THE PART YOU WISH TO AVOID, the part with which you have issue, the Old Testament (which was assembled long before Christ was even born).

The verse I used initially states that “All Scripture” is inspired by God (not just the Scripture that you like, not just the Scripture that doesn’t hurt your feelings, or bruise your psyche, or doesn’t conflict with your emotions). And the only God to which Paul is referring is that of the Old Testament (despite your repeated, yet pitiful, claims to the contrary).

And as a requirement to be saved, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved”.

Your attempt to suggest that you can be a Christian, as long as you don’t believe that God didn’t raise from the dead, or that God didn’t send Jesus at all, or that someone other than the God of the OT (that you don’t like for whatever reason) send Jesus to redeem mankind continues to fall flat on its face.

And that’s at the heart of all this ranting you’ve been doing for last couple of weeks.

[OzmO]

More amnesia, I see. Weren’t you the one that posted,  According to R. J. Rummel, genocide has 3 different meanings. The ordinary meaning is murder by government of people due to their national, ethnic, racial, or religious group membership.?

That’s what I thought.

Plus, as mentioned by Lemkin, “Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves."


The point, of course, is that the Amalekites were judged based on WHAT THEY DID (and continued to do), NOT on their race/ethnicity.

And, since killing a whole bunch of people from one race isn’t enough to qualify as genocide (per the definitions cited), the term doesn’t apply.

It wasn't a whole bunch.  Everyone of them were order to be killed.

And you still haven't addressed where is says "if you give them the opportunity to make amends" which is one of the reasons you are using to deny it is Genocide.

Committing Genocide WAS DUE to them being Amalekites because of the reasons you have outlined even though those reasons aren't justification for doing what they did.  Regardless the reasons don't matter it's the act of killing/exterminating a specific race completely that defines genocide. 

It can be argued that we committed genocide by dropping nukes on Japan, but it is pale in comparison to what Germany was engaged in and that is even more pale in comparison to what the jews did as they succeeded in kill all the Amalekites. 

Also, It doesn't matter what i think regarding Japan.  The definition clearly defines the Jews as committing genocide.  The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide definition clearly identifies what htye did as genocide.

I'm not having Amnesia, I read carefully those items.   Still, the definition stands and the Jews fit right into it.  Killing a race due tot he fact that they are a certain race doesn't happen with out reasons, valid or invalid.  Maybe the Jew's reasons were valid.  Regardless genoicide was committed per all the definitions.


  I just noticed this on the re-read.....

How cute!!! Now, in your pathetic attempts to save face, you’ve gone into broken-record mode.

And, as if your skipped-record routine weren’t feeble enough, your comprehension skills continue to be on the fritz.

The “entire nation” was not singled out then wiped out. The Amalekites, who lived among the Israelites in peace….SPARED!!! The Kenites, who lived among the Amalekites (and likely intermarried with them, thus making them part of their nation)……….SPARED!!!!!

Neither of that is a hallmark of genocide…..NEXT!!!!

Wow, so Amalekites can live in peace with the Jews, but yet the Jews killed innocent children?   

So it wasn't destined that Amaeliktes would always rise up and fight the Jews?  But yet they kill infants and children any way?

 

Yeah  quite the God you worship.

[OzmO]

Come again? There were plenty of civilized nations where slavery occured

Think of how much less slavery would have existed if it were denounced in the Bible.

If the Bible was really the WOG it would have been soundly denounced.  But yet it was basically encouraged and used as justification in more primitive times.

[OzmO]

The Bible’s assembly occurred long before some 300 years after Christ’s death and resurrection. But, that’s hardly the crux of the matter, here.

Paul’s reference to Scripture features, at the bare mininum, the Tanakh (or what we call the Old Testament). THAT’S THE PART YOU WISH TO AVOID, the part with which you have issue, the Old Testament (which was assembled long before Christ was even born).

The verse I used initially states that “All Scripture” is inspired by God (not just the Scripture that you like, not just the Scripture that doesn’t hurt your feelings, or bruise your psyche, or doesn’t conflict with your emotions). And the only God to which Paul is referring is that of the Old Testament (despite your repeated, yet pitiful, claims to the contrary).

And as a requirement to be saved, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved”.

Your attempt to suggest that you can be a Christian, as long as you don’t believe that God didn’t raise from the dead, or that God didn’t send Jesus at all, or that someone other than the God of the OT (that you don’t like for whatever reason) send Jesus to redeem mankind continues to fall flat on its face.

And that’s at the heart of all this ranting you’ve been doing for last couple of weeks.

I am going to ask you again.  Show me the verse or verses that says you must believe the Bible is the 100% WOG to be saved.

You showed this verse: “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved”.

Nothing about believing the BIBLE is the 100% WOG here.   A person only has to believe and accept that Jesus is his savor and died on the cross for his/her sins.

[OzmO]

Yet, none of those people who got rich and gained power were authors of the books of the New Testament. The only one remotely in a position to do such was Paul. But, he GAVE UP his position of influence to become a Christian and spread the Gospel. And, he subsequently died for that.

Not Paul.  It was those who came afterwards, as the religion grew, that had much to gain.

[OzmO]

Was your upbringing a Christian one or not? Are your parents Christians or not? Which is it?

The last time I saw someone flip-flopped this much, he lost to George Bush in the 2004 election.

It was very Christian.  But not the Christian you subscribe to that would kill a child on God's orders.

[OzmO]

MCWay, we might want to consider splitting this thing off in 2 separate threads. 

We have the Genocide issue, The "if you must believe the bible is the 100% WOG issue which kind of relates to my Christian up bringing that can be attached to an existing thread.

[MCWAY]

Not Paul.  It was those who came afterwards, as the religion grew, that had much to gain.

Christians hardly had anything to gain, as they were persecuted for their beliefs. And that was the case for centuries, until Constantine arrived and made Christianity (or a diluted version of it, loaded with pagan traditions) the official religion of the empire.

Was your upbringing a Christian one or not? Are your parents Christians or not? Which is it?

The last time I saw someone flip-flopped this much, he lost to George Bush in the 2004 election.

It was very Christian.  But not the Christian you subscribe to that would kill a child on God's orders.

My point was that the Christian faith is predicated on the fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, sent to die for the redemption of mankind. That God is the same as the one who passed judgment on the Amalekites.

I am going to ask you again.  Show me the verse or verses that says you must believe the Bible is the 100% WOG to be saved.

You showed this verse: “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved”.

Nothing about believing the BIBLE is the 100% WOG here.   A person only has to believe and accept that Jesus is his savor and died on the cross for his/her sins.

You forgot that I also showed you 2 Tim 3, when you asked the question on that other thread. As I said, when Paul refers to Scripture, he (at the very least) is referencing the Tanakh (aka the Old Testament). That's the part with which you have issue. Paul's words were, "ALL Scripture is inspired by God......" That includes the OT.

That's the part you're attempting to suggest that you don't have to believe to be saved. Tie that in with the other verse I mentioned about believing and confessing that God rose Jesus from the dead and the picture is clear. You don't believe that, because you don't think Scripture is inspired by God, nor do you believe that this same God rose Jesus from the dead. The two are intertwined.

Think of how much less slavery would have existed if it were denounced in the Bible.

How'd you come up with that conclusion? Adultery is denounced in the Bible; yet, it runs rampant. Homosexuality is denounced in the Bible; yet gayness is being touted left and right. Theft, fornication, lying, cheating, greed and a whole slew of other things are denounced in Scripture. But, as in the days of Noah (where the thoughts of man were evil continuously), we see such running wild on a daily basis.

As for this slavery issue, kidnapping someone from his native land and selling them was a capital offense in Scripture. But that certainly didn't stop whites from going to Africa and snatching up black people . Fornicating with servants was off limits, too. But, we all know the white man didn't abide by that. Giving the firsborn son of the "hated wife" the bulk of the estate was required by Biblical law; yet white people kept humping black women and having babies, without giving those kids one red cent. And they certainly didn't marry the black women they knocked up.

If the Bible was really the WOG it would have been soundly denounced.  But yet it was basically encouraged and used as justification in more primitive times.

Denounced by whom?

It wasn't a whole bunch.  Everyone of them were order to be killed.

Not the Kenites, who lived among them, not the Amalekites who lived in Israel (or any who made peace with Israel). And, Saul's orders would have be rescinded, had the Amalekites repented.

Committing Genocide WAS DUE to them being Amalekites because of the reasons you have outlined even though those reasons aren't justification for doing what they did.  Regardless the reasons don't matter it's the act of killing/exterminating a specific race completely that defines genocide. 

They weren't killed for merely being Amalekites but due to their past and present actions, with no attempts to make peace or cease with their attacks. Plus, as mentioned earlier, when genocide occurs, not only are a specific people wiped out, based primarily on race, but any sympathizers or suspected members of that race are destroyed as well.

The fact that Amalekites lived amongst the Israelites AND that Saul warned the Kenites (and indirectly, the Amalekites) means that race (actual, implied, or mere guilt by association) DID NOT drive Saul's offensive.

It can be argued that we committed genocide by dropping nukes on Japan, but it is pale in comparison to what Germany was engaged in and that is even more pale in comparison to what the jews did as they succeeded in kill all the Amalekites. 

That argument is also an incorrect one, because we didn't blow up the Japanese simply for being Japanese. They attacked us without provocation and continued, until the A-bomb got them to surrender. Once that happened, there was no more fighting with them.

Also, It doesn't matter what i think regarding Japan.  The definition clearly defines the Jews as committing genocide.  The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide definition clearly identifies what htye did as genocide.

I'm not having Amnesia, I read carefully those items.   Still, the definition stands and the Jews fit right into it.  Killing a race due tot he fact that they are a certain race doesn't happen with out reasons, valid or invalid.  Maybe the Jew's reasons were valid.  Regardless genoicide was committed per all the definitions.

No, it does not. As pointed out earlier, simply killing a large group of a particular race of people doesn’t equate to genocide. There’s even the admission that defining such is not “clear-cut”.

  I just noticed this on the re-read.....

Quote
How cute!!! Now, in your pathetic attempts to save face, you’ve gone into broken-record mode.

And, as if your skipped-record routine weren’t feeble enough, your comprehension skills continue to be on the fritz.

The “entire nation” was not singled out then wiped out. The Amalekites, who lived among the Israelites in peace….SPARED!!! The Kenites, who lived among the Amalekites (and likely intermarried with them, thus making them part of their nation)……….SPARED!!!!!

Neither of that is a hallmark of genocide…..NEXT!!!!

Wow, so Amalekites can live in peace with the Jews, but yet the Jews killed innocent children?   

So it wasn't destined that Amaeliktes would always rise up and fight the Jews?  But yet they kill infants and children any way?

 

Yeah  quite the God you worship.[/quote]
All of them CAN live in peace, but they didn’t (except for the aforementioned few who lived among Israel, plus the Kenites). Again, had they repented and/or made some sort of amends or treaty, the conflict’s over.

The God I worship gave them multiple opportunities, over a span of at least three centuries to repent, make amends, and leave His people along. But, they didn’t……Proceed with judgment, as planned.

[OzmO]

Christians hardly had anything to gain, as they were persecuted for their beliefs. And that was the case for centuries, until Constantine arrived and made Christianity (or a diluted version of it, loaded with pagan traditions) the official religion of the empire.

Still there was gain with in the religious community they were part of.  How does that saying go?  It better to be the head of a mouse than the tail of a lion?

My point was that the Christian faith is predicated on the fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, sent to die for the redemption of mankind. That God is the same as the one who passed judgment on the Amalekites.

No, the same God "believed" to be the one who passed judgment on the Amalekites.  Based on an assembly and selection of books and letters some 300 years later that determined for you what is and what is not the WOG.  In my case I don't believe that God would kill innocent children deliberately in an act of genocide.  You do.  I can't remember the exact percentage but i remember reading a couple years ago that only 28% of Christians believe the Bible word for word.  That's pretty tragic for those who believe word for word.  Regardless, the truth is what ever the truth will end up being, but for now, It is only your belief that makes it true for you not fact.

You forgot that I also showed you 2 Tim 3, when you asked the question on that other thread. As I said, when Paul refers to Scripture, he (at the very least) is referencing the Tanakh (aka the Old Testament). That's the part with which you have issue. Paul's words were, "ALL Scripture is inspired by God......" That includes the OT.

That's the part you're attempting to suggest that you don't have to believe to be saved. Tie that in with the other verse I mentioned about believing and confessing that God rose Jesus from the dead and the picture is clear. You don't believe that, because you don't think Scripture is inspired by God, nor do you believe that this same God rose Jesus from the dead. The two are intertwined.

I think much scripture is inspired by God.  That's why i say there are many "nuggets" of God in Christian scipture; as well as other religions. 

What you've wrote is not clear to me, it's simply Paul telling someone in a letter that all scripture is "inspired by God".  Even if he said all scripture is the word of God, Still you haven't shown me where He, or Jesus, said you must believe the Letters I'm about to write or have written, plus the OT (Torah?) is the WOG to be saved. 

What is clear, is that you must accept Jesus as your savior.  That's clear. 

How'd you come up with that conclusion? Adultery is denounced in the Bible; yet, it runs rampant. Homosexuality is denounced in the Bible; yet gayness is being touted left and right. Theft, fornication, lying, cheating, greed and a whole slew of other things are denounced in Scripture. But, as in the days of Noah (where the thoughts of man were evil continuously), we see such running wild on a daily basis.

gayness?   lol    you mean homosexuality don't you?  Not that there's anything wrong with that.   

As for this slavery issue, kidnapping someone from his native land and selling them was a capital offense in Scripture. But that certainly didn't stop whites from going to Africa and snatching up black people . Fornicating with servants was off limits, too. But, we all know the white man didn't abide by that. Giving the firsborn son of the "hated wife" the bulk of the estate was required by Biblical law; yet white people kept humping black women and having babies, without giving those kids one red cent. And they certainly didn't marry the black women they knocked up.

Just think of how much more there would have been if those things weren't denounced.   I'm not suggesting slavery would have not existed.  I'm only saying it's hard to argue legitimately that had the Bible denounced slavery that it wouldn't regressed from modern society quicker.   

Denounced by whom?

By  God in the Bible.  Perhaps in the commandments.  Maybe it was the tablets that moses dropped?    

Not the Kenites, who lived among them, not the Amalekites who lived in Israel (or any who made peace with Israel). And, Saul's orders would have be rescinded, had the Amalekites repented.

They weren't killed for merely being Amalekites but due to their past and present actions, with no attempts to make peace or cease with their attacks. Plus, as mentioned earlier, when genocide occurs, not only are a specific people wiped out, based primarily on race, but any sympathizers or suspected members of that race are destroyed as well.

The fact that Amalekites lived amongst the Israelites AND that Saul warned the Kenites (and indirectly, the Amalekites) means that race (actual, implied, or mere guilt by association) DID NOT drive Saul's offensive.

Did they kill the Amalekites that lived among the Israelite too?

That argument is also an incorrect one, because we didn't blow up the Japanese simply for being Japanese. They attacked us without provocation and continued, until the A-bomb got them to surrender. Once that happened, there was no more fighting with them.

From our point of view it was unprovoked.  From theirs it wasn't.  But that's not really the point.  The point is, the Jews wiped out a nation, just as the Germans attempted to do both for there own reasons valid or invalid.  The validity of the act doesn't play into the definition of the act.

No, it does not. As pointed out earlier, simply killing a large group of a particular race of people doesn’t equate to genocide. There’s even the admission that defining such is not “clear-cut”.

Exactly, Horoshima was a large group, the Amalekites were an entire nation.

All of them CAN live in peace, but they didn’t (except for the aforementioned few who lived among Israel, plus the Kenites). Again, had they repented and/or made some sort of amends or treaty, the conflict’s over.

The God I worship gave them multiple opportunities, over a span of at least three centuries to repent, make amends, and leave His people along. But, they didn’t……Proceed with judgment, as planned.

Wasn't it you that said these children would "rise up" when they grew up an attack Israel again but yet there are Amalekites living peacefully amoung them?

[MCWAY]

Still there was gain with in the religious community they were part of.  How does that saying go?  It better to be the head of a mouse than the tail of a lion?

Not when the neck of the mouse kept is broken by the mousetrap of the Roman empire.

No, the same God "believed" to be the one who passed judgment on the Amalekites.  Based on an assembly and selection of books and letters some 300 years later that determined for you what is and what is not the WOG.  In my case I don't believe that God would kill innocent children deliberately in an act of genocide.  You do.  I can't remember the exact percentage but i remember reading a couple years ago that only 28% of Christians believe the Bible word for word.  That's pretty tragic for those who believe word for word.  Regardless, the truth is what ever the truth will end up being, but for now, It is only your belief that makes it true for you not fact.

Again, by that standard, you have nothing but your belief that the God of the OT is not the same as the One who sent Jesus Christ.

As for that 28%, those low numbers is likely due to the lack of actual Bible study done, coupled with outside pressure to dilute the Word to conform to a worldly philosophy.

I think much scripture is inspired by God.  That's why i say there are many "nuggets" of God in Christian scipture; as well as other religions. 

What you've wrote is not clear to me, it's simply Paul telling someone in a letter that all scripture is "inspired by God".  Even if he said all scripture is the word of God, Still you haven't shown me where He, or Jesus, said you must believe the Letters I'm about to write or have written, plus the OT (Torah?) is the WOG to be saved. 


What is clear, is that you must accept Jesus as your savior.  That's clear. 

The Torah is part of the Tanakh (that word is actually an English pronounciation of the three Hebrew consonants, which translate to the English letters, "TNK", the "T" being the Torah".

Accepting Jesus as your Savior indeed true. But, here's the rub: Jesus can't be your Savior, unless He rose from the grave. And who's responsible for His resurrection? As Paul mentioned, one must believe and confess that "God raised Him from the dead". And that's at the heart of the matter, of your objection. The God who raised Jesus from the dead is the same one who judged the Amalekites.

gayness?   lol    you mean homosexuality don't you?  Not that there's anything wrong with that.   

I never really like Seinfeld. But, my wife was crazy aobut that show. 

Just think of how much more there would have been if those things weren't denounced.   I'm not suggesting slavery would have not existed.  I'm only saying it's hard to argue legitimately that had the Bible denounced slavery that it wouldn't regressed from modern society quicker.   

We're not in disagreement here Ozmo. But, as I've stated elsewhere, there a HUGE difference between "slavery" as described in the OT and what we've come to know as slavery, in more modern times (i.e. chattel slavery, endured by black people in this country).

I listed the details earlier, all of which (kidnapping people from a foreign land, raping the women without consequence, not allowing children from slave women to be legitimate heirs, inhumane beatings, dismemberment and killing with no punishment, no social advancement, etc.) are denounced by the Bible.

By  God in the Bible.  Perhaps in the commandments.  Maybe it was the tablets that moses dropped?    
Did they kill the Amalekites that lived among the Israelite too?

NOPE....unless they committed some sort of major offense (i.e. the Amalekite that ended up killing Saul).

From our point of view it was unprovoked.  From theirs it wasn't.  But that's not really the point.  The point is, the Jews wiped out a nation, just as the Germans attempted to do both for there own reasons valid or invalid.  The validity of the act doesn't play into the definition of the act.

The unprovoked part starts with the Amalekite assault on the Israelites, as they were leaving Egypt.

As for the rest of your statement, the reason makes all the difference as to whether or not an act like this is genocide. Killing a mass of people, based primarily (or solely) on race/ethnicity (as well as any suspected members of that race or sympathizers to that race) is genocide.

Killing mass group of people, because they've been attacking yours for several years (or even centuries) is not.

Exactly, Horoshima was a large group, the Amalekites were an entire nation.

So was Japan, the nation with which we were at war. Hiroshima was one good chunk of the nation of Japan. After putting the A-bomb on them, they got smart and surrendered. They didn't attack us anymore; hence the blowing up of the Japanese stopped.

Wasn't it you that said these children would "rise up" when they grew up an attack Israel again but yet there are Amalekites living peacefully amoung them?

There were a handful of Amalekites living peacefully amongst Israel. But, a much larger group of them (namely the ones that Saul didn't destroy) re-surfaced and resumed their attacks on Israel. David ended up having to deal with them, when he became king. Fast forward to the book of Esther. That guy, Haman, who nearly had the Jewish people wiped out. He was an Amalekite. Even to the days of king Hezekiah, the Amalekites were a sworn enemy to Israel that continued to pester them.

[OzmO]

Not when the neck of the mouse kept is broken by the mousetrap of the Roman empire.

Yeah constantly, yet it kept growing and never died.   

Again, by that standard, you have nothing but your belief that the God of the OT is not the same as the One who sent Jesus Christ.

The of the OT?  How many instances in the OT is god talked about?  My contention is not all of it is God.  But my contention is also not all of it isn't God.

As for that 28%, those low numbers is likely due to the lack of actual Bible study done, coupled with outside pressure to dilute the Word to conform to a worldly philosophy.

Also, due tot he fact of the many many interpretations that have resulted into the many many denominations combined with the fact that's its written not straight forward and beyond misinterpretation.  Coupled with modern science and common sense.

"actual Bible study"  is simply a practice of telling people what to believe/how to interpret the Bible.  (been to quite a few  )

Accepting Jesus as your Savior indeed true. But, here's the rub: Jesus can't be your Savior, unless He rose from the grave. And who's responsible for His resurrection? As Paul mentioned, one must believe and confess that "God raised Him from the dead". And that's at the heart of the matter, of your objection. The God who raised Jesus from the dead is the same one who judged the Amalekites.

No it's not, because God is God.  Regardless of whether or not the OT is true.  I believe God raised Jesus from the Dead.  It Doesn't matter if God correctly identified in the OT or not.  I believe Jesus died on the cross for my sins and God raised him from the dead.  I'm saved.  Anything else is "pork barrel spending" 

I never really like Seinfeld. But, my wife was crazy aobut that show. 

We're not in disagreement here Ozmo. But, as I've stated elsewhere, there a HUGE difference between "slavery" as described in the OT and what we've come to know as slavery, in more modern times (i.e. chattel slavery, endured by black people in this country).I listed the details earlier, all of which (kidnapping people from a foreign land, raping the women without consequence, not allowing children from slave women to be legitimate heirs, inhumane beatings, dismemberment and killing with no punishment, no social advancement, etc.) are denounced by the Bible.

We are disagreement in one area because i believe it was still slavery not servitude or being a servant.  But we can cuss and discuss that on another thread.

NOPE....unless they committed some sort of major offense (i.e. the Amalekite that ended up killing Saul).

Yet the other children did not commit any offense and because, as you have reasoned, they were destined to rise up and attack Israel again they must be put to death?  Makes no sense and is illogical.  Just as barbaric as thinking because their parents attacked Israel they must die to.

The unprovoked part starts with the Amalekite assault on the Israelites, as they were leaving Egypt.

Unfortunately, we don't have their side of the story, not that it would be justified.   

As for the rest of your statement, the reason makes all the difference as to whether or not an act like this is genocide. Killing a mass of people, based primarily (or solely) on race/ethnicity (as well as any suspected members of that race or sympathizers to that race) is genocide.

Killing mass group of people, because they've been attacking yours for several years (or even centuries) is not.

Still by definition it is.  Then you are saying the definition is wrong.

So was Japan, the nation with which we were at war. Hiroshima was one good chunk of the nation of Japan. After putting the A-bomb on them, they got smart and surrendered. They didn't attack us anymore; hence the blowing up of the Japanese stopped.

Good chunk?  I donno.  It's all relative.  71 million people in Japan.  100K dieing? 

There were a handful of Amalekites living peacefully amongst Israel. But, a much larger group of them (namely the ones that Saul didn't destroy) re-surfaced and resumed their attacks on Israel. David ended up having to deal with them, when he became king. Fast forward to the book of Esther. That guy, Haman, who nearly had the Jewish people wiped out. He was an Amalekite. Even to the days of king Hezekiah, the Amalekites were a sworn enemy to Israel that continued to pester them.

Please don't think I'm defending those who attacked Israel.  I'm defending the innocent children who were needlessly murdered on God's orders.  If there were Amalikites living peacefully with the Israelites then it proves that those innocent children didn't need to die based on your contention that they would have surely rose up years later and attacked.

[Government_Controlled]

Ozmo,

In the old testament or rather the more accurate description, "Hebrew/Aramaic" portion of the Bible, God tolerated acts that He did not approve of. For instance polygamy. I could go on here, however I don't have the time at the moment. I would like to discuss it in a reasonable and peaceful manor with you if your willing. Let me know. 


GC/DEA_AGENT

[OzmO]

Ozmo,

In the old testament or rather the more accurate description, "Hebrew/Aramaic" portion of the Bible, God tolerated acts that He did not approve of. For instance polygamy. I could go on here, however I don't have the time at the moment. I would like to discuss it in a reasonable and peaceful manor with you if your willing. Let me know. 


GC/DEA_AGENT

You would like to discuss acts he deemed sinful but still tolerated or specifically polygamy?

I personally don't care how people decide to live their lives as long as they don't hurt others.   If three women want to be married to one man, good for them.  It can be both a curse and a blessing to the husband.