Christianity, and Ethics

[Indeependent]

Let's just put this to bed, once and for all. You can claim that Christianity is responsible for whatever you like, one glaring fact remains:

If you read the Bible, and believe it is true, then you know that you God kills babies.

Let us reiterate that: You worship a God who Kills. Babies.

Now, you can rationalise this any way you wish, but so long as you insist that the God of the New Testament is the same God, as the God of the Old Testament, then you worship a God who ordered genocide, and killed Babies. Period. Full stop.

So long as you worship a genocidal, baby killing God, and pretend that he isn't just that, and even call him a loving God, then you get to question the ethics, and morals of no one.

It's that simple.

God doesn't kill babies that is merely your misinterpretation. Fact is God said 'thou shall not kill' and Jesus reaffirmed this and told those who would hear that if they did they would possibly be in judgement for doing such. Your 'little ones' of hate that you store up in your mind keep you lost to understanding or comprehending the spirit of confusion in you.

You're right. He didn't kill them, personally - unless you include the flood, which most Christians agree is allegorical these days - he ordered his followers to do it for him. That makes him just as responsible.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Sorry I don't buy your twisted version.

I have already posted again and again that Adam is speaking about the human. Adam means human. The whole Book both the Old Testament and the New Testament is talking about the spiritual hosts and what transpires with those heavenly and earthly host within each human.

What humans come up within their own corrupted minds and precepts goes back on the corrupt humans.

God is a spirit and Jesus is the Word that was with God from the beginning, that 'first born' when God created a body for the first- Man born. It was all created in the heavens and planted into earthen vessels of flesh where we humans now currently reside.

What's to "buy"? It's in black, and white. 1 Sam 15:3 - "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

Kinda hard to misinterpret that. The God of the Old Testament, quite specifically, commanded genocide, and the murder of babies. The God of the New Testament is the same God as the God of the Old Testament. Ergo, you still worship a God that commanded genocide, and killed babies. You can either ignore that, and admit that you do not believe the Bible, or you can insist that you believe the Bible, and acknowledge that you worship a genocidal, baby-killing God. The choice is yours. There is. No. Middle-ground.

Once again, the phony MD comes up without context.
You must have been some the-rapist.

 

[ding]

Let's just put this to bed, once and for all. You can claim that Christianity is responsible for whatever you like, one glaring fact remains:

If you read the Bible, and believe it is true, then you know that you God kills babies.

Let us reiterate that: You worship a God who Kills. Babies.

Now, you can rationalise this any way you wish, but so long as you insist that the God of the New Testament is the same God, as the God of the Old Testament, then you worship a God who ordered genocide, and killed Babies. Period. Full stop.

So long as you worship a genocidal, baby killing God, and pretend that he isn't just that, and even call him a loving God, then you get to question the ethics, and morals of no one.

It's that simple.

God doesn't kill babies that is merely your misinterpretation. Fact is God said 'thou shall not kill' and Jesus reaffirmed this and told those who would hear that if they did they would possibly be in judgement for doing such. Your 'little ones' of hate that you store up in your mind keep you lost to understanding or comprehending the spirit of confusion in you.

You're right. He didn't kill them, personally - unless you include the flood, which most Christians agree is allegorical these days - he ordered his followers to do it for him. That makes him just as responsible.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Sorry I don't buy your twisted version.

I have already posted again and again that Adam is speaking about the human. Adam means human. The whole Book both the Old Testament and the New Testament is talking about the spiritual hosts and what transpires with those heavenly and earthly host within each human.

What humans come up within their own corrupted minds and precepts goes back on the corrupt humans.

God is a spirit and Jesus is the Word that was with God from the beginning, that 'first born' when God created a body for the first- Man born. It was all created in the heavens and planted into earthen vessels of flesh where we humans now currently reside.

What's to "buy"? It's in black, and white. 1 Sam 15:3 - "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

Kinda hard to misinterpret that. The God of the Old Testament, quite specifically, commanded genocide, and the murder of babies. The God of the New Testament is the same God as the God of the Old Testament. Ergo, you still worship a God that commanded genocide, and killed babies. You can either ignore that, and admit that you do not believe the Bible, or you can insist that you believe the Bible, and acknowledge that you worship a genocidal, baby-killing God. The choice is yours. There is. No. Middle-ground.

Once again, the phony MD comes up without context.
You must have been some the-rapist.

You know he has been tirelessly searching atheist websites for arguments against God. He thinks he found one. He is like a small boy who has discovered he has a pecker.

 

[Indeependent]

God doesn't kill babies that is merely your misinterpretation. Fact is God said 'thou shall not kill' and Jesus reaffirmed this and told those who would hear that if they did they would possibly be in judgement for doing such. Your 'little ones' of hate that you store up in your mind keep you lost to understanding or comprehending the spirit of confusion in you.

You're right. He didn't kill them, personally - unless you include the flood, which most Christians agree is allegorical these days - he ordered his followers to do it for him. That makes him just as responsible.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Sorry I don't buy your twisted version.

I have already posted again and again that Adam is speaking about the human. Adam means human. The whole Book both the Old Testament and the New Testament is talking about the spiritual hosts and what transpires with those heavenly and earthly host within each human.

What humans come up within their own corrupted minds and precepts goes back on the corrupt humans.

God is a spirit and Jesus is the Word that was with God from the beginning, that 'first born' when God created a body for the first- Man born. It was all created in the heavens and planted into earthen vessels of flesh where we humans now currently reside.

What's to "buy"? It's in black, and white. 1 Sam 15:3 - "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

Kinda hard to misinterpret that. The God of the Old Testament, quite specifically, commanded genocide, and the murder of babies. The God of the New Testament is the same God as the God of the Old Testament. Ergo, you still worship a God that commanded genocide, and killed babies. You can either ignore that, and admit that you do not believe the Bible, or you can insist that you believe the Bible, and acknowledge that you worship a genocidal, baby-killing God. The choice is yours. There is. No. Middle-ground.

Once again, the phony MD comes up without context.
You must have been some the-rapist.

You know he has been tirelessly searching atheist websites for arguments against God. He thinks he found one. He is like a small boy who has discovered he has a pecker.

I'm shocked he needs a site.
After all, he claims I'll never know what he never knew in the first place.

 

[ding]

Let's just put this to bed, once and for all. You can claim that Christianity is responsible for whatever you like, one glaring fact remains:

If you read the Bible, and believe it is true, then you know that you God kills babies.

Let us reiterate that: You worship a God who Kills. Babies.

Now, you can rationalise this any way you wish, but so long as you insist that the God of the New Testament is the same God, as the God of the Old Testament, then you worship a God who ordered genocide, and killed Babies. Period. Full stop.

So long as you worship a genocidal, baby killing God, and pretend that he isn't just that, and even call him a loving God, then you get to question the ethics, and morals of no one.

It's that simple.

I don't see you losing much sleep over the one million babies that were aborted last year. Where is your righteous indignation over that?

About ten percent of them were D&E's. Do you know what a D&E is, doctor? They literally dismember the baby while it is still alive. Where is your righteous indignation over that? Just yesterday, 200 babies had their arms pulled off while they were still alive. Where is your righteous indignation over that?

 

[Indeependent]

Let's just put this to bed, once and for all. You can claim that Christianity is responsible for whatever you like, one glaring fact remains:

If you read the Bible, and believe it is true, then you know that you God kills babies.

Let us reiterate that: You worship a God who Kills. Babies.

Now, you can rationalise this any way you wish, but so long as you insist that the God of the New Testament is the same God, as the God of the Old Testament, then you worship a God who ordered genocide, and killed Babies. Period. Full stop.

So long as you worship a genocidal, baby killing God, and pretend that he isn't just that, and even call him a loving God, then you get to question the ethics, and morals of no one.

It's that simple.

I don't see you losing much sleep over the one million babies that were aborted last year. Where is your righteous indignation over that?

About ten percent of them were D&E's. Do you know what a D&E is, doctor? They literally dismember the baby while it is still alive. Where is your righteous indignation over that? Just yesterday, 200 babies had their arms pulled off while they were still alive. Where is your righteous indignation over that?

Snoozezernobog has got to be a patient in a mental ward.

 

[ding]

Let's just put this to bed, once and for all. You can claim that Christianity is responsible for whatever you like, one glaring fact remains:

If you read the Bible, and believe it is true, then you know that you God kills babies.

Let us reiterate that: You worship a God who Kills. Babies.

Now, you can rationalise this any way you wish, but so long as you insist that the God of the New Testament is the same God, as the God of the Old Testament, then you worship a God who ordered genocide, and killed Babies. Period. Full stop.

So long as you worship a genocidal, baby killing God, and pretend that he isn't just that, and even call him a loving God, then you get to question the ethics, and morals of no one.

It's that simple.

.

So long as you worship a genocidal, baby killing God, and pretend that he isn't just that, and even call him a loving God, then you get to question the ethics, and morals of no one.

the taking of any life without cause is an irredeemable crime.

the instructions given by the 4th century christian bible and the text's that precede that period that imply taking any life without cause is evil are theirselves evil documents that history proves to be the case and the problem that those followers refuse to recognize and correct.

God doesn't kill babies that is merely your misinterpretation. Fact is God said 'thou shall not kill' and Jesus reaffirmed this and told those who would hear that if they did they would possibly be in judgement for doing such. Your 'little ones' of hate that you store up in your mind keep you lost to understanding or comprehending the spirit of confusion in you.

You're right. He didn't kill them, personally - unless you include the flood, which most Christians agree is allegorical these days - he ordered his followers to do it for him. That makes him just as responsible.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Sorry I don't buy your twisted version.

I have already posted again and again that Adam is speaking about the human. Adam means human. The whole Book both the Old Testament and the New Testament is talking about the spiritual hosts and what transpires with those heavenly and earthly host within each human.

What humans come up within their own corrupted minds and precepts goes back on the corrupt humans.

God is a spirit and Jesus is the Word that was with God from the beginning, that 'first born' when God created a body for the first- Man born. It was all created in the heavens and planted into earthen vessels of flesh where we humans now currently reside.

What's to "buy"? It's in black, and white. 1 Sam 15:3 - "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

Kinda hard to misinterpret that. The God of the Old Testament, quite specifically, commanded genocide, and the murder of babies. The God of the New Testament is the same God as the God of the Old Testament. Ergo, you still worship a God that commanded genocide, and killed babies. You can either ignore that, and admit that you do not believe the Bible, or you can insist that you believe the Bible, and acknowledge that you worship a genocidal, baby-killing God. The choice is yours. There is. No. Middle-ground.

No you just wanna think that cause it fits in your own head better that away.

Really? How do you "interpret", "Go, and kill every fucking thing that has a beating heart,"? What do you think God meant when he said that? Do you think he was kidding? Because, I can promise you he wasn't. He, in fact, slapped Saul's peepee, when Saul dared to leave some of the cows alive. So, I can promise you God meant exactly what he said.

But, by all means, do tell us how God didn't really say what God said...

Really? You can promise me that He wasn't kidding? You can promise me that God meant exactly what he said? How can you make that promise when you don't believe that God exists? How can you make that promise when you believe the Bible is a book of fairy tales?

 

[ding]

Let's just put this to bed, once and for all. You can claim that Christianity is responsible for whatever you like, one glaring fact remains:

If you read the Bible, and believe it is true, then you know that you God kills babies.

Let us reiterate that: You worship a God who Kills. Babies.

Now, you can rationalise this any way you wish, but so long as you insist that the God of the New Testament is the same God, as the God of the Old Testament, then you worship a God who ordered genocide, and killed Babies. Period. Full stop.

So long as you worship a genocidal, baby killing God, and pretend that he isn't just that, and even call him a loving God, then you get to question the ethics, and morals of no one.

It's that simple.

Babies? You want to talk about babies? 1 million babies a year end up this way in our country alone. Where is your outrage over this, doctor? I bet if you could blame Christians for it you would be outraged. Your false piety makes me sick.

Warning Graphic Image.... Warning Morbid Image

 

[RodISHI]

God doesn't kill babies that is merely your misinterpretation. Fact is God said 'thou shall not kill' and Jesus reaffirmed this and told those who would hear that if they did they would possibly be in judgement for doing such. Your 'little ones' of hate that you store up in your mind keep you lost to understanding or comprehending the spirit of confusion in you.

You're right. He didn't kill them, personally - unless you include the flood, which most Christians agree is allegorical these days - he ordered his followers to do it for him. That makes him just as responsible.

How could you forget Exodus 11:4-5
4 And Moses said, Thus saith the Lord, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt:
5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.

Exodus 11:4-5
4 And Moses said, Thus saith the Lord, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt:
5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.

What is a Pharaoh? Can you tell me the whole meaning of what a Pharaoh is?

The word Pah-row is a contraction of Peh (Mouth)-Rah (Evil).
Upon examination of the Biblical text and context (something el retardo cz, the so-called psycho-chiatrist will never do) we find that the King of Egypt and Pharoah are used interchangeably.
They each have specific connotations..
The King of Egypt is supposed to be concerned with the state of the nation.
Pharoah is the internal ego of the man; the selfish asshole.

The various versions the Theologians are still discussing trying to figure that all etymology out still. Basically it is still that portion in each human which is a king with a lil' light that oppresses the portions in the human that is Hebrew 'from the region beyond'. Egypt being that place in the spirit of dual distress where people must decide whether to be a king of the carnal world or seek that portion in them made in the image of the son of God. So "ego" yes definitely fits in there. The pride in humans is also oppressive and more derogatory to themselves they they know until something happens in them to point that out to them. The same portions in the word for pharaoh in the ancient Coptic is for 'king'. In Hebrew generally it has been reference as a great house in most lexicons. Coptic word rro or erro meaning ‘king’ or ’emperor’ or perro 'the king'. Greek is φαραώ pharaō is speaking about the oppressor portion also it was the super power of Southern Egypt. My old 1800's dictionary has more but I'd have to go dig back out to give you more on all that. I see no true reason to do all of that though because then we would have to get into the Syriac, Aramaic and all of the other languages where God's people were scattered over the ages in order to get an absolute affirmation on it when really all that is needed is the Spirit to understand that I personally want to overcome that Pharaoh side within myself.

To go through each scripture where it varies from merely a king to the governor of the people one would need to see what all else is referenced in each of those scriptures.

 

[Indeependent]

You're right. He didn't kill them, personally - unless you include the flood, which most Christians agree is allegorical these days - he ordered his followers to do it for him. That makes him just as responsible.

How could you forget Exodus 11:4-5
4 And Moses said, Thus saith the Lord, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt:
5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.

Exodus 11:4-5
4 And Moses said, Thus saith the Lord, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt:
5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.

What is a Pharaoh? Can you tell me the whole meaning of what a Pharaoh is?

The word Pah-row is a contraction of Peh (Mouth)-Rah (Evil).
Upon examination of the Biblical text and context (something el retardo cz, the so-called psycho-chiatrist will never do) we find that the King of Egypt and Pharoah are used interchangeably.
They each have specific connotations..
The King of Egypt is supposed to be concerned with the state of the nation.
Pharoah is the internal ego of the man; the selfish asshole.

The various versions the Theologians are still discussing trying to figure that all etymology out still. Basically it is still that portion in each human which is a king with a lil' light that oppresses the portions in the human that is Hebrew 'from the region beyond'. Egypt being that place in the spirit of dual distress where people must decide whether to be a king of the carnal world or seek that portion in them made in the image of the son of God. So "ego" yes definitely fits in there. The pride in humans is also oppressive and more derogatory to themselves they they know until something happens in them to point that out to them. The same portions in the word for pharaoh in the ancient Coptic is for 'king'. In Hebrew generally it has been reference as a great house in most lexicons. Coptic word rro or erro meaning ‘king’ or ’emperor’ or perro 'the king'. Greek is φαραώ pharaō is speaking about the oppressor portion also it was the super power of Southern Egypt. My old 1800's dictionary has more but I'd have to go dig back out to give you more on all that. I see no true reason to do all of that though because then we would have to get into the Syriac, Aramaic and all of the other languages where God's people were scattered over the ages in order to get an absolute affirmation on it when really all that is needed is the Spirit to understand that I personally want to overcome that Pharaoh side within myself.

To go through each scripture where it varies from merely a king to the governor of the people one would need to see what all else is referenced in each of those scriptures.

Yet another in the almost infinite ways in which a portion of Scripture can be studied and analyzed.
I actually heard that interpretation a few months ago in a lecture on TorahAnytime.com.

 

[Czernobog]

Well, sure...but you're not a literalist. But don't you think that the fact that murder of children was attributed to the Lord is significant in itself?

Strict Muslims believe that the fall of the Twin Towers was ultimately an act of God. All there is...is the will of God. If God did not want the Twin Towers to fall, they would not have fallen. They fell. Will of God. No one did anything wrong.

A theme I see in the Old Testament, Exodus and Kings in particular, is (more or less) a two-party system. The Priests argue one way, but they don't always hold sway. There were others acting in opposition. Usually, the "Priest Party" seems to have been more wise and intelligent--but they weren't always right.

So...to be clear, you are, at best, an atheist, or an agnostic pretending to be a theist. I mean the basis for Christianity's theism is that the Old Testament is the evidence of God's presence. The Old Testament is a record of a time when God directly interacted with man. You seem to be suggesting that this is not the case. You seem to be suggesting that everytime the Old Testament says "God Said", that God didn't actually say shit; that priests claimed God said. That is an entirely different interpretation of the Bible than any mainstream Christian understanding of the Bible in existence, and it confirms the atheist/agnostic position that the Bible, contrary to the claims of Christians, was wholly written by man, and that there is no evidence of divinity within it whatsoever.

So, given your interpretation of the Bible, why should anyone take the Bible any more seriously than Aesop's Fables, The Bhagavad Gita, or Grimm's Fairy Tales?

 

[Czernobog]

I don't care what language, and thought patterns you want to use, genocide is genocide. You either agree that genocide is, or ever was, reasonable, or you do not. Do you believe that genocide is ever reasonable?

The reason you and I have a difficult time communicating is that you have set yourself as Judge of a God you do not believe exists. In fact, the God you try to judge does not exist. You are judging a straw man.

When I read scripture, I read a history, culture, and language of mankind, and how they and God relate to one another. In order to do that with any kind of accuracy at all requires knowledge of the culture, history, language and people of the time--and some small experience of God.

You don't believe in God; I see little knowledge that you are familiar with the culture, history, language and people of that time. What you do have is no belief in God and the lens of 21st century modern man--who only understands English.

You keep wanting to talk about the culture, history, and language of the "people of that time", as if there is some point in history when genocide would have been considered ethical, and moral. Except that no such time, exists. You cannot point to a single point in history when Genocide was ever considered to be a morally correct thing to do.

 

[Czernobog]

Where did you get that idea from? It's a nonstandard interpretation.

I prayed and asked for many years to understand what the Words actually meant. When the time came I spent over three years writing down what I was shown in the spirit and I confirmed each one I was given by the spirit from what I could find that was written in the books I had.

...and? How do you justify genocide? I can't wait to hear this...

Which genocide are you speaking about? If you are talking about what God planted through the ages seeded, plucked and tilled and replanted until it perfects; again that will be a personal thing you will have to overcome.

You see, you keep wanting to make this about some esoteric theological generality. I'm not talking about esoteric generalities. I'm talking about an actual, direct command to kill an actual race of people, right down to their children, infants, and even livestock. You either believe that the Old Testament is nothing more than a collection of fairy tales, and parables meant to provide "life lessons", in which case it is no more relevant that Aesop's fables, or Grimm's Fairy Tales, or you believe that it is an accurate, historical record of the Jewish people during their first 4,000years of existence, in which case your God commanded genocide.

Those are your only two options available.

Oh, bullshit! The Amelakites were an actual race of people! There was nothing allegorical about the Book of Samuel! It was a book of History. It was not a book of Poetry, like Psalms, Job, or Proverbs. It was not Prophesy, Like Ezekiel, or Daniel. It. Was. History. There was nothing interpretive about it. When you read Samuel, you are expected to believe that the events that occurred in Samuel happened just as they were recorded.

Now, you wanna try that bullshit with someone who doesn't understand how the Bible is divided, and is meant to be read?

What does the name Samuel mean? Do you know what it means to plant something?

Who cares what the man's name means? Either the book of Samuel is a book of History, or it is not. To be clear, is it your contention that none of the Old Testament is factual? Is it your contention that the Entire Old Testament is nothing more than a collection of stories that are not meant to be taken literally? You are contending that not a single part of the Old Testament is to be taken literally? Is that your contention?

The events took place. The plants (hosts for the heavenly portions and the earthly portions) were made and planted by God. Again God planted them in earth on purpose as it is the pattern for what is in humankind. There are terrestrial beings and celestial beings (bodies). Spiritual things (seeds) planted in earth which were grown in God's garden (earth as a whole) for the individual (human-earth) garden where the living soul resides.

Humans have a tough time discerning or understanding that. Many simply live by faith and have hope (for these all things are fulfilled by that which is in them that was planted previously into the earth we live in (here now, this day as we live and speak in the flesh). Another thing which is also explained in the Books is how these things are hidden from those who do not believe and those that rely on their own understanding. There is even hosts (yes already planted into the earth) that were actually planted (as scribes) to keep these things from those who live in, for and to carnally minded exalted religions.

Its all written you will have to search it all out for your self.

Plants??? Plants?!?!?! They. Were. Fucking. PEOPLE! You sociopath!!! Trying to reduce them to nothing more than plants that "needed culling", like a field of fucking wheat makes you just as sociopathic as the God you serve!

I answered your questions. Its too bad you don't like the answers and prefer to accuse. Those people just as today were also allowed to make choices. You make your bed you lay in it.

That's because your answer is as evil as the God you serve. You're answer is nothing more than an attempt to dehumanize an entire race of people, so that you do not have to deal with the reality that you serve a God that commanded the murder of infants, and children. And that's fine. Go ahead. However, do not ever pretend that you have any moral superiority over anyone ever again.

 

[Czernobog]

Who cares? There is no acceptable rationale for genocide. And anyone who suggests that there is has lost any right to claim any moral high ground over anyone else. Ever.

There is always rationale. What rationale was given for the action? Was it carried out? Was there debate? When the passage reads, "God said," is it reasonable to ascertain that the priestly party was on one side of a debate, whereas the more secular side had another side?

I've said before, we cannot read the Old Testament (in particular) and understand it properly if we insist on reading it solely through the lens of 21st century modern Western world. The language and thought patterns are entirely different.

I don't care what language, and thought patterns you want to use, genocide is genocide. You either agree that genocide is, or ever was, reasonable, or you do not. Do you believe that genocide is ever reasonable?

Since you don't believe in God, you don't believe that God ordered a genocide, right?

Which militant atheist website did you get your latest argument from?

Let's assume God gave the order, ok? Did the Jews actually commit genocide? Did they really do it?

Because. You. Do. And you act like this believe in the "Christian God", somehow, makes you morally superior to those who do not. Except it doesn't. Because in order to accept that the Bible is true, and accurate, you must accept that you worship a God that is the author, directly, of genocide, and the slaughter of children, and infants.

And, as soon as you acknowledge, and accept that, then you lose any moral high ground you think you have.

 

[Czernobog]

Let's just put this to bed, once and for all. You can claim that Christianity is responsible for whatever you like, one glaring fact remains:

If you read the Bible, and believe it is true, then you know that you God kills babies.

Let us reiterate that: You worship a God who Kills. Babies.

Now, you can rationalise this any way you wish, but so long as you insist that the God of the New Testament is the same God, as the God of the Old Testament, then you worship a God who ordered genocide, and killed Babies. Period. Full stop.

So long as you worship a genocidal, baby killing God, and pretend that he isn't just that, and even call him a loving God, then you get to question the ethics, and morals of no one.

It's that simple.

Babies? You want to talk about babies? 1 million babies a year end up this way in our country alone. Where is your outrage over this, doctor? I bet if you could blame Christians for it you would be outraged. Your false piety makes me sick.

Warning Graphic Image.... Warning Morbid Image

You should revel in that photograph. After all, you worship a God who delights in genocide, and the slaughter OF INFANTS, AND CHILDREN. See, Ding? So, long as you worship a God that commands genocide, you have no moral high ground.

 

[Meriweather]

So...to be clear, you are, at best, an atheist, or an agnostic pretending to be a theist. I mean the basis for Christianity's theism is that the Old Testament is the evidence of God's presence. The Old Testament is a record of a time when God directly interacted with man. You seem to be suggesting that this is not the case. You seem to be suggesting that everytime the Old Testament says "God Said", that God didn't actually say shit; that priests claimed God said.

You don't seem to understand me any better than you understand the Old Testament. Scripture is inspired by God, written by man. History at that time was written in a very different manner than it is today. The first difference is that they didn't have a plethora of writing materials. The second, is that people didn't have books, and most learned history orally.

Next, take a look at what God commanded the Israelites. They were to be a people set apart so as not to be infected with other ways and ideas. In the case of the Amalekites, they were a people who harassed and killed the Israelites when the Israelites were already sick and hungry. Finally, obviously, (as they appeared again in later chapters) the Amalekites weren't wiped out.

If the Amalekites were determined to kill off the Israelites, to the point they were already preying on the sick and dying--and God had a plan for the Israelites--what would you saying today about God who led His people into the desert and let them be annihilated by the Amalekites without lifting a finger?

When the Old Testament writes, "God said" do you imagine the voice of God coming from out of the sky?

That is an entirely different interpretation of the Bible than any mainstream Christian understanding of the Bible in existence, and it confirms the atheist/agnostic position that the Bible, contrary to the claims of Christians, was wholly written by man, and that there is no evidence of divinity within it whatsoever.

So, given your interpretation of the Bible, why should anyone take the Bible any more seriously than Aesop's Fables, The Bhagavad Gita, or Grimm's Fairy Tales?

Of course the Bible was written by man! What Christians believe is that it is inspired by God. Second, Christians believe the Bible (especially the Old Testament) is a collection of history, poetry, songs, adages, and literature which within contains the Word of God.

It is my opinion it is your interpretation that changes the Bible into nothing more than fables or fairy tales. But then, isn't that your intent?

 

[Meriweather]

You keep wanting to talk about the culture, history, and language of the "people of that time", as if there is some point in history when genocide would have been considered ethical, and moral. Except that no such time, exists. You cannot point to a single point in history when Genocide was ever considered to be a morally correct thing to do.

You will like this: Prove that it happened.

Isn't it just as likely (given further mention of the tribe and the problems that were cropping up when the two tribes became neighbors) that there was a little hyperbole in use--reminding the Israelites that God's intent was for the Israelites to be a people set apart.

 

[hobelim]

It is my opinion it is your interpretation that changes the Bible into nothing more than fables or fairy tales. But then, isn't that your intent?

Why do people on both sides seem to think that a story being a fairy tale somehow disqualifies it from having value, even great value?

How else could the Jewish people hide the wealth of the nation and safeguard the treasures of the Temple from being defiled or plundered by illiterate and superstitious people even after being defeated?

 

[Meriweather]

Why do people on both sides seem to think that a story being a fairy tale somehow disqualifies it from having value, even great value?

How else could the Jewish people hide their wealth and the treasures of the Temple from illiterate and superstitious people?

Ah, but no one said a fairy tale or a fable is disqualified from having great value--particularly moral value. It's just not considered scripture.

 

[Czernobog]

So...to be clear, you are, at best, an atheist, or an agnostic pretending to be a theist. I mean the basis for Christianity's theism is that the Old Testament is the evidence of God's presence. The Old Testament is a record of a time when God directly interacted with man. You seem to be suggesting that this is not the case. You seem to be suggesting that everytime the Old Testament says "God Said", that God didn't actually say shit; that priests claimed God said.

You don't seem to understand me any better than you understand the Old Testament. Scripture is inspired by God, written by man. History at that time was written in a very different manner than it is today. The first difference is that they didn't have a plethora of writing materials. The second, is that people didn't have books, and most learned history orally.

Next, take a look at what God commanded the Israelites. They were to be a people set apart so as not to be infected with other ways and ideas. In the case of the Amalekites, they were a people who harassed and killed the Israelites when the Israelites were already sick and hungry. Finally, obviously, (as they appeared again in later chapters) the Amalekites weren't wiped out.

If the Amalekites were determined to kill off the Israelites, to the point they were already preying on the sick and dying--and God had a plan for the Israelites--what would you saying today about God who led His people into the desert and let them be annihilated by the Amalekites without lifting a finger?

When the Old Testament writes, "God said" do you imagine the voice of God coming from out of the sky?

You are making a case for war. I have not suggested that the Israelites should not have defended themselves against invading armies. I have not suggested that warring against the Amelakites would have been morally wrong. But, that isn't what happened, now was it. You se, a war is fought by soldiers, against soldier. Men. trained in the art of battle. But the command that was given to the Israelites was to kill the men. And the women. And the children. And the infants. And the livestock. That's not war. And just because the Israelites failed to follow the commands of their God does not make those commands any less reprehensible. As to the source of those commands, either the Bible is true, and accurate, and the source of those commands was God, whether directly, as a voice out of the sky, or through human agents, or, the Bible is not true, and accurate when it credits God as the source of those commands, and those commands came from despicable human beings, who were liars, as well as genocidal. See, you want to give God credit for all of the nice things that the Old Testament says he personally directed, and commanded, but to simultaneously absolve him of any responsibility for any of the cruelty that he personally directed, and commanded. I'm sorry, when you go around cherry picking which parts of the Bible we're supposed to give God credit for, then you render the entire thing meaningless. Either it all came from him, or none of it did.

That is an entirely different interpretation of the Bible than any mainstream Christian understanding of the Bible in existence, and it confirms the atheist/agnostic position that the Bible, contrary to the claims of Christians, was wholly written by man, and that there is no evidence of divinity within it whatsoever.

So, given your interpretation of the Bible, why should anyone take the Bible any more seriously than Aesop's Fables, The Bhagavad Gita, or Grimm's Fairy Tales?

Of course the Bible was written by man! What Christians believe is that it is inspired by God. Second, Christians believe the Bible (especially the Old Testament) is a collection of history, poetry, songs, adages, and literature which within contains the Word of God.

It is my opinion it is your interpretation that changes the Bible into nothing more than fables or fairy tales. But then, isn't that your intent?

And the Book of Samuel is a part of that history/. I ti s not a book of Poetry, like Psalms, or Job. It is not Prophesy, like Ezekiel, or Daniel. It is history. It is not interpretive. It is expected to be taken literally, as written, as an accurate account of Israelite history. So, when it says, "God said," that is what it means, and it is not meant to be questioned.

 

[hobelim]

Why do people on both sides seem to think that a story being a fairy tale somehow disqualifies it from having value, even great value?

How else could the Jewish people hide their wealth and the treasures of the Temple from illiterate and superstitious people?

Ah, but no one said a fairy tale or a fable is disqualified from having great value--particularly moral value. It's just not considered scripture.

The kingdom of Heaven is like hidden treasure, lying buried in a field. The man who found it, buried it again.....

can you dig it?

Guess who found it, who buried it, and who will reveal it again?