Continuation of Christianity debate.

[Kokunai]

The Slaughter was very much a small matter. Your talking a town, and a small one at that. Not exactly breaking news if the town was not important. Depends on the estimates but some say it may have been less than 100 deaths.

Reading that back I hope you realise how ridiculous it sounds. Saddam Hussain was tried and executed for the killing of 148 people in one small town, Dujail. Was that also a very small matter?

Lol, did you just compare modern media coverage to the equivalent of ancient coverage? Wow, I am through talking to you.

Good.

Edit: I say that with all sincerity. Your rhetoric is so insufferably self-important and smug its laughable anyway.

I have not said I am above anyone I do not imply it. In fact if anything I have consistently shown how I am just as much to blame for the state of the world as any of you. I would be condemned as well if I did not believe in Christ.

[heavycola]

On 2. If you decide that God's actions are evil does that make them so? No, all his actions are righteous. We just do not have the mind of God to know the big picture.

here is a charming passage from Numbers:
"Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

Murder and rape (presumably of young girls) = righteous! All those naughty idolatrous women and children. God wasn't too bothered by this was he?


So.. the OT is full of incest, rape, filicide, mindless slaughter... and these are all, given a god and the right context, righteous. You have just explained and absolved the actions of every muslim extremist and every suicide bomber. This is why we need to be brave and get rid of these crutches. We don't need them anymore - we don't need them to get along with each other or to provide moral guidance. In fact they are hindering us.

And how can you claim to 'know god' like this at one point and then dismiss the paradoxes brouhgt up be Jesse et al by saying we can't know god? You can't have it both ways - although, blinkered as you are, you probably do.

[MR. Nate]

heavycola, stop reading selectivly.

This particular story follows the women of the Moab and Midian seducing Isrealite men so that God would be unhappy with them, and the Isrealites would have to fight without his protection. So God specifically told them kill the people groups that had planned and executed the seduction.

As for the virgins, rape was not permitted under the law, "keep them for yourselves" refers to the practice of marrying women from contries you conquered. There were very specific rules for this, including the fact that they had to be virgins, and had to change religions.

You'll find that these types of passages are often tied to God's holiness. People groups that affronted God's Holiness were destroyed as lessons to the Isrealites and other nations that God was supremly Holy, more than anything else.

[heavycola]

heavycola, stop reading selectivly.

This particular story follows the women of the Moab and Midian seducing Isrealite men so that God would be unhappy with them, and the Isrealites would have to fight without his protection. So God specifically told them kill the people groups that had planned and executed the seduction.

So: God won't be happy if the Israelites assimiliate, so god orders this slaughter. This is not, to me, a moral or just act. It is petty, murderous and juvenile. Yet Kokunai insists that it must have been just because god ordered it - and my point was that this line of reasoning could be used to justify anything. It is why i believe we are growing out of religion (i am an optimist). Yeah yeah, god is love, peace etc. Fine. That belief is there top be had also. But when Fred Phelps holds signs up saying 'god hates fags' at the funerals of US servicemen, he also believes as strongly that that is what god wants him to do based on his reading of scripture.

And are you really going to tell me that the OT god was a reasonable, honourable, just guy? Because that would be a laughable assertion.

[Kokunai]

On 2. If you decide that God's actions are evil does that make them so? No, all his actions are righteous. We just do not have the mind of God to know the big picture.

here is a charming passage from Numbers:
"Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

Murder and rape (presumably of young girls) = righteous! All those naughty idolatrous women and children. God wasn't too bothered by this was he?


So.. the OT is full of incest, rape, filicide, mindless slaughter... and these are all, given a god and the right context, righteous. You have just explained and absolved the actions of every muslim extremist and every suicide bomber. This is why we need to be brave and get rid of these crutches. We don't need them anymore - we don't need them to get along with each other or to provide moral guidance. In fact they are hindering us.

And how can you claim to 'know god' like this at one point and then dismiss the paradoxes brouhgt up be Jesse et al by saying we can't know god? You can't have it both ways - although, blinkered as you are, you probably do.

God demanded they be killed. Why. you may ask. They would lead the Israelites away from him. The entire OT is full of such things but they serve the purpose of preserving the bloodline down to Christ which brought salvation for all. So, if you think that is evil so be it, but you would be wrong to think that.

My meaning behind that is that without understanding the backstory he will never understand God. We can know God, through the Bible. It gives us much understanding of the character of God. Can we know everything? No, but 99% of the questions your bringing up there are answers. I refuse to entertain the idiotic logical paradoxes because they do not constrain God. He is altogether outside the laws of man. He does not have to abide by the laws of logic we have constructed but you seem to think he has to. He exists both inside and outside of the physical realm therefore he does not have to abide by the physical limitations of this world. I'll let you in on a secret, he created it all, I think that puts him outside of our understanding about his limitations, if any, he may have.

[Kokunai]

heavycola, stop reading selectivly.

This particular story follows the women of the Moab and Midian seducing Isrealite men so that God would be unhappy with them, and the Isrealites would have to fight without his protection. So God specifically told them kill the people groups that had planned and executed the seduction.

As for the virgins, rape was not permitted under the law, "keep them for yourselves" refers to the practice of marrying women from contries you conquered. There were very specific rules for this, including the fact that they had to be virgins, and had to change religions.

You'll find that these types of passages are often tied to God's holiness. People groups that affronted God's Holiness were destroyed as lessons to the Isrealites and other nations that God was supremly Holy, more than anything else.

Well put. This as well as my explanation will give you the entire picture.

[Kokunai]

heavycola, stop reading selectivly.

This particular story follows the women of the Moab and Midian seducing Isrealite men so that God would be unhappy with them, and the Isrealites would have to fight without his protection. So God specifically told them kill the people groups that had planned and executed the seduction.

So: God won't be happy if the Israelites assimiliate, so god orders this slaughter. This is not, to me, a moral or just act. It is petty, murderous and juvenile. Yet Kokunai insists that it must have been just because god ordered it - and my point was that this line of reasoning could be used to justify anything. It is why i believe we are growing out of religion (i am an optimist). Yeah yeah, god is love, peace etc. Fine. That belief is there top be had also. But when Fred Phelps holds signs up saying 'god hates fags' at the funerals of US servicemen, he also believes as strongly that that is what god wants him to do based on his reading of scripture.

And are you really going to tell me that the OT god was a reasonable, honourable, just guy? Because that would be a laughable assertion.

It is not just because he ordered it, he ordered because it was just.

That guy has a bad interpretation of the Bible.

Just because people do it in the name of their religion does not mean it is that religion. Your being intellectually dishonest to assume a whole group is being justified because of your picking through what we have said to get only the bits you want to use in order to make an attack on the religion as a whole. If you continue this way I will stop responding to you.

[Kokunai]

The Slaughter was very much a small matter. Your talking a town, and a small one at that. Not exactly breaking news if the town was not important. Depends on the estimates but some say it may have been less than 100 deaths.

Reading that back I hope you realise how ridiculous it sounds. Saddam Hussain was tried and executed for the killing of 148 people in one small town, Dujail. Was that also a very small matter?

Lol, did you just compare modern media coverage to the equivalent of ancient coverage? Wow, I am through talking to you.

Good.

Edit: I say that with all sincerity. Your rhetoric is so insufferably self-important and smug its laughable anyway.

Re-Edit: Oh and in response to your sidestep. No I didn't, I wasn't referring to it in terms of the media coverage, rather the severity of the event. But it's interesting you view the Bible as "media coverage" of the time, so in your eye's it's as reliable source of factual information as say the New York Post.

I was not sidestepping at all. I am pointing out the fact that word travels really fast today, possibly not so much back then. In fact definately not so much back then. It is likely it was only written about by a ferw and possibly not believed. But you disregard the use of the Bible to point out historical locations of places that archaeologists decide to dig and guess they usually find something.

[heavycola]

God demanded they be killed. Why. you may ask. They would lead the Israelites away from him. The entire OT is full of such things but they serve the purpose of preserving the bloodline down to Christ

and yet:

He is altogether outside the laws of man. He does not have to abide by the laws of logic we have constructed but you seem to think he has to. He exists both inside and outside of the physical realm therefore he does not have to abide by the physical limitations of this world

Why is a god who lives outside the "laws of man" (what are these?) bothered with preserving bloodlines at all? These are contradictory arguments.


And like i said: if you feel that ordering the slaughter of women and children can be a just act given a god and the right context, then with that sentiment you emphasise everything that sickens me about organised religion.

[jay_a2j]

"There is no other name on Earth by which men can be saved except the name of Jesus"



Peace out.

[Kokunai]

God demanded they be killed. Why. you may ask. They would lead the Israelites away from him. The entire OT is full of such things but they serve the purpose of preserving the bloodline down to Christ

and yet:

He is altogether outside the laws of man. He does not have to abide by the laws of logic we have constructed but you seem to think he has to. He exists both inside and outside of the physical realm therefore he does not have to abide by the physical limitations of this world

Why is a god who lives outside the "laws of man" (what are these?) bothered with preserving bloodlines at all? These are contradictory arguments.


And like i said: if you feel that ordering the slaughter of women and children can be a just act given a god and the right context, then with that sentiment you emphasise everything that sickens me about organised religion.

They are only contradictory if you decide to look at it that way. He is outside our laws. He decides to take a part in his creation.

Organised religion is not at all responsible for that. God is just and righteous, if you fail to see that it is not because of my lack of knowledge but your own stubborness that for whatever reason you want to be bullheaded towards religion. A day will come when all that has been foretold will come about and you will be decieved like most of the world into believing it wasn't what it was.

[heavycola]

They are only contradictory if you decide to look at it that way. He is outside our laws. He decides to take a part in his creation.

What are "our laws"? And how can an omniscient being decide anything?


Organised religion - and a belief in the righteousness of god's command, whether that is to murder your son or slaughter a load of tribal enemies - IS responsible. Anything, according to you, is sanctionable.


A day will come when all that has been foretold will be shown to have been a load of old bollocks, and you will weep a bit, shrug and get on with being alive.

[jay_a2j]

A day will come when all that has been foretold will come to pass, and you will be sad that many didn't believe, then you will enter eternity with your creator.

Well said, couldn't agree more.

[Kokunai]

They are only contradictory if you decide to look at it that way. He is outside our laws. He decides to take a part in his creation.

What are "our laws"? And how can an omniscient being decide anything?


Organised religion - and a belief in the righteousness of god's command, whether that is to murder your son or slaughter a load of tribal enemies - IS responsible. Anything, according to you, is sanctionable.


A day will come when all that has been foretold will be shown to have been a load of old bollocks, and you will weep a bit, shrug and get on with being alive.

"our laws" are the laws we are confined by the physical laws that dictate what we can and can't do.

How is it you think an omniscient being can't decide? He may know all but He can decide how to act on that knowledge. He can change what will happen (our timeline not his). It begins to get hard to be descriptive when you talk about a place outside of time and the physical realm, only because of the limitations of our understanding.

Edit: You have obviously chosen not to believe, your decision to make, but you have been offered the truth take it or leave it. You will have no excuse when you stand before the Lord.

[areon]

Pretty childish, but what did all the little boys have to do with the insurrection? I find this ammusing because other groups have followed this practise of taking in captives but were called evil. Is there any reason why the Ottoman practise of raising Janissaries was different?

[vtmarik]

Heavycola has a point, there are no 'decisions' to make when you are omniscient because they have already been made. God is all-knowing, all-seeing, and is capable of doing everything at once so He never has to choose which path to take on a certain issue.

He can take them all at the same time. The process of "decision making" is for us Humans who cannot do everything and do not have perfect fore-knowledge of the world.

And regarding that Edit Kokunai, isn't judgment reserved for the Lord and He alone? How dare you suggest that this man is less heaven-worthy than you. It's not your place to even suggest such a thing.

When you go up against the Big Man, you're gonna have that thrown back in your face. And if I'm there, I'm just gonna laugh.

[MR. Nate]

There's a tremendous focus here on what Isreal did in the old testament, and asking how it is different from any other war. Here's the difference. God directly spoke to individuals in the early portions of the Bible. In these last days, God has said everything that needed to be said through His Son. The Old Testament was God working in a tribal and pagan world to develop his peculiar people to the point where he could send Jesus. Once that occured, he was able to switch the focus of his plan from the particular blessing for Isreal to the broader blessing for the world through Christ.

So now, rather than recieve direct, and occasionally martial orders from a leader who God has appeared to, Christians are faced with the task of understanding what God wants, not on a national scale, but on a personal scale. I.E. What does God want me to do with my life.

If there's any questions on interpretations of what Christ promoted (such as the "God hates fags" or killing abortion doctors) we have to see how it compares to Christ's example and words. We can pretty much write them off as not biblical because
1. the second command is "Love you're neighbor as yourself" and the neighbor in the example was ancient equivilant to a rabid terrorists. and
2. We see Christ modeling love for everyone, the woman caught in adultery, the IRS agent who cheated people, and the criminal who died next to him.

As a result, as believers we look at violence done in the name of Christianity, or anywhere else, over the last 2000 years, and we have to say that it appears to be inconsistent with what believers should be doing.

[MR. Nate]

Could you clarify what you mean by "decisions" that God has to make? I'm unclear why that even came up.

[Kokunai]

Heavycola has a point, there are no 'decisions' to make when you are omniscient because they have already been made. God is all-knowing, all-seeing, and is capable of doing everything at once so He never has to choose which path to take on a certain issue.

He can take them all at the same time. The process of "decision making" is for us Humans who cannot do everything and do not have perfect fore-knowledge of the world.

And regarding that Edit Kokunai, isn't judgment reserved for the Lord and He alone? How dare you suggest that this man is less heaven-worthy than you. It's not your place to even suggest such a thing.

When you go up against the Big Man, you're gonna have that thrown back in your face. And if I'm there, I'm just gonna laugh.

I never made a judgment on it. I merely said that he seems to have chosen not to believe. And that he has had the truth shared with him and he will have no excuse when he stands before the Lord, no man will. But nice try at twisting my words.

As to the decision making. He decided at some point, or all points...whatever, what he was going to do how he was going to do it and then put it into action. This takes place at all times and no time to him but for discussion sake we have to put a time to it in our timeline as we understand it. Sure it defies the meaning but there is no other way to easily explain it.

I will not have it "thrown" back in my face. Because the Lord sees the heart and intentions of actions. You can see it how you want but God, and God alone knows I did it out of love for my fellow man to issue the warning of condemnation if he refuses to accept Christ. That, my friend is plainly laid out that those who do not accept Christ will be condemned. I do not see why you think you can twist my words as such. Your seeking to decieve.

Edit: where did I say he wasn't heaven worthy or even less so than me. I never once said that nor would I. He could completely change turn to the Lord and do great works that get him rewarded far more than I ever will be, if it is God's will.

[Kokunai]

There's a tremendous focus here on what Isreal did in the old testament, and asking how it is different from any other war. Here's the difference. God directly spoke to individuals in the early portions of the Bible. In these last days, God has said everything that needed to be said through His Son. The Old Testament was God working in a tribal and pagan world to develop his peculiar people to the point where he could send Jesus. Once that occured, he was able to switch the focus of his plan from the particular blessing for Isreal to the broader blessing for the world through Christ.

So now, rather than recieve direct, and occasionally martial orders from a leader who God has appeared to, Christians are faced with the task of understanding what God wants, not on a national scale, but on a personal scale. I.E. What does God want me to do with my life.

If there's any questions on interpretations of what Christ promoted (such as the "God hates fags" or killing abortion doctors) we have to see how it compares to Christ's example and words. We can pretty much write them off as not biblical because
1. the second command is "Love you're neighbor as yourself" and the neighbor in the example was ancient equivilant to a rabid terrorists. and
2. We see Christ modeling love for everyone, the woman caught in adultery, the IRS agent who cheated people, and the criminal who died next to him.

As a result, as believers we look at violence done in the name of Christianity, or anywhere else, over the last 2000 years, and we have to say that it appears to be inconsistent with what believers should be doing.

Exactly well said. As to the decision making. It has no bearing whatsoever on anything they are trying to use it to defeat the argument for omniscience as they tried to do with omnipotent. They are attempting to use logic (falsely) to destroy the argument for God. They think themselves wise.

[Kokunai]

Where do you stand anyway VT. You do not know the first hting about what to judge means. I am highly willing to be judged in the same way that I judge others. I try to remain open about it. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is obviously a damn duck right. Jesus gave many examples of how the world would know us and how we would know one another. To say that I cannot say that someone must not be a Christian when they deny Christ openly is ridiculous. Now, is there redemption for him absolutely he has only to ask for it. I am not saying he is damned forever nor am I saying he will not change. But at this moment in time he obviously denies Christ and he can do that as I said it is his decision. Your just nitpicking to be a jerk.

Edit: Ah. Vt, you got me frustrated responding the way you did look at me post twice responding to the same thing. Well done, applause all around. If it was your intent to anger me well done. If it was your intent to have me question what I said well done, I had to reread it twice to make sure I knew what I meant when I said it. But, you took what I said wrongly I wasn't saying anything against merely restating the facts.

[Bertros Bertros]

From my understanding of biblical language, neighbour in the "love thy neighbour" context was strictly meant as "love thy fellow hebrew" not the all encompassing love thy enemy style interpretation you have given it, Nate.

I agree there is too much focus on the OT here but its not for the reasons you state. It comes up a lot because of the direct contradiction it presents. As you point out yourself it was God talking directly to a tribal and pagan community, grooming them for Christianity, therefore it has no relevance today. It comes up over and over again as some Christians still choose to pick parts of the OT scripture, perhaps most notably the 'do not lie with another man' bit to defend their own prejudices.

As heavycola says, I live in a country which is rapidly moving towards secular humanism. Just this week, amidst much protestation the catholic church in the UK has been legally prevented from continuing its policy of not allowing gay couples to adopt through its agencies. Indeed it can now be legally prosecuted for discriminating against a gay couple in this regard. For me thats a step in the right direction towards a society that determines right and wrong based on modern ethics and not outdated biblical ones.

[Kokunai]

From my understanding of biblical language, neighbour in the "love thy neighbour" context was strictly meant as "love thy fellow hebrew" not the all encompassing love thy enemy style interpretation you have given it, Nate.

I agree there is too much focus on the OT here but its not for the reasons you state. It comes up a lot because of the direct contradiction it presents. As you point out yourself it was God talking directly to a tribal and pagan community, grooming them for Christianity, therefore it has no relevance today. It comes up over and over again as some Christians still choose to pick parts of the OT scripture, perhaps most notably the 'do not lie with another man' bit to defend their own prejudices.

As heavycola says, I live in a country which is rapidly moving towards secular humanism. Just this week, amidst much protestation the catholic church in the UK has been legally prevented from continuing its policy of not allowing gay couples to adopt through its agencies. Indeed it can now be legally prosecuted for discriminating against a gay couple in this regard. For me thats a step in the right direction towards a society that determines right and wrong based on modern ethics and not outdated biblical ones.

That is taken out of context, You have to look at the entire message preached. He talks many times of remaining friendly with your enemy and loving your enemy and in that way you would offend them more than if you were to be his enemy.

The entire Bible has as much relevance to day as each piece did when it was written. You mistake what Nate said to mean that is all it was. We could discuss the theology of it but that would be entirely above some people's heads just due to lack of knowledge of scripture.

That is horrible to stop a private group from deciding where it will spend it's resources. That is a gross violation of freedom. But, hey you guys haven't been so hot on freedom in the past anyway. Eventually you will probably outlaw religious speech period, cause someone might get offended. Ridiculous.

[MR. Nate]

From my understanding of biblical language, neighbour in the "love thy neighbour" context was strictly meant as "love thy fellow hebrew" not the all encompassing love thy enemy style interpretation you have given it, Nate.

I could not disagree with you more. The question What is the greatest command was asked of Jesus by a lawyer. His response was Love the Lord your God, and added that the second was Love your neighbor. The lawyer then asked "Who is my neighbor" and Jesus responded with the parable of the Good Samaratin.

Any halfway decent commentary or dictionary will tell you that the Jews and Samaritan's HATED one another. The modern day equivelant is Orthodox Jew vs. Al Quida. Which is why the original story was revolutionary, it demanded that true followers of Christ help and love those who were prepared to kill them.

Edit. I also never said that the OT has no relevance for today. I think that a lot of valuable learning can occur when we look at the OT as a whole, rather than picking out the bloodiest stories to subvert the NT.

[areon]

That is horrible to stop a private group from deciding where it will spend it's resources. That is a gross violation of freedom. But, hey you guys haven't been so hot on freedom in the past anyway. Eventually you will probably outlaw religious speech period, cause someone might get offended. Ridiculous.

This isn't an issue of political correctness. I don't know what the situation in the UK is but in the US the adoption and foster care progams are in horrible shape. Why would it be so horrible for gay couples to participate as well?