killing and murdering

[sabercroft]

He doesn't, this is something He did. why? the protection of His people.

So if I understand you correctly, God sanctions the indiscriminate slaughter of (almost) an entire city, including babies and children, in order to protect his people?

I'm not exactly sure how this logic works, because to me it's making as much sense as advocating the killing of the victim in order to protect the murderer. What protection did God's people need from the inhabitants of a city who were at their mercy? What protection did God's people need from babies and children?

Which is my point EXACTLY! You are so in a lather about judging and questioning a God that would order the death of maybe a 1000 actual babies in Jericho, so they would not be left for the wolves to devour alive, that you over looked the obvious. Do we as a culture not kill 1000 babies aday for various 'personal' reasons? If your legitimate concern was for babies why not address the greater evil and attack or at minimum, levy a judgment against a greater destruction of infantile life? Why pursue something you can not change when you could effect a great change in a child's life now?

Why would the babies need to be left for wolves to devour alive? Is it not enough to simply exile the conquered inhabitants from the city? Or, having indiscriminately slaughtered the adults, at least spare the babies and children and raise them into God-fearing people?

Yes, we as a culture not kill every day for various 'personal' reasons. But again, that has nothing to do with the issue of God's morals, which is what we're discussing here. If we condemn the killing that happens every day for 'personal' reasons, we should equally condemn the unjustified killing sanctioned by God instead of trying to excuse them in order to not become hypocrites, should we not?

This is a desperate statement that stretches the truth. Because My "poor attempt" is justified in your avoidance of a personal declaration of where you stand on the matter. Again if you are pro abortion then you are a blatant hypocrite. If you are anti abortion your hypocrisy is defined by your silence. What is far worse, is that you are the type of person that would use the death of these children/babies to justify to your own sense of righteousness that causes you to judge God in a hypocritical way. My points stand, as presented.

My silence is because this is hardly a thread about abortion, and it's already hard enough to get straight answers out of you as it is without falling for your constant attempts to derail the discussion. Again you are simply making incredulous leaps of logic and jumping to conclusions, seemingly out of a desperate personal desire to accuse me as a hypocrite so that you may shift the focus from God to me.

Now, as I've previously said, you're entirely welcome to cling to your delusions if they keep you warm at night. If you find your pride shored up and your sense of self-righteousness emboldened by publicly decrying me as a hypocrite based on your fallacious leaps of logic, then so be it. Little men have always needed petty excuses to assuage their inferiority complexes. Perhaps now that you're feeling a bit better, can we return to the topic of why does God sanction the slaughter of babies and children?

What definition of "loving and kind" is their, besides the ones God gives? Are we to judge God solely based on our emotions?

Again to what standard or absolute can you judge God if not by the one He has given us?

This is simply a logical inconsistency, and has little - if any - to do with emotions. One does not need emotions to see that God is not adhering to his own standards of love and kindness. It's exactly God's standards that I'm judging God by right now with my question; the question of "how do you know God is good?" is a completely separate one. Or does your God define love and kindness as the indiscriminate slaughter of helpless people?

If your "standards" are ever changing ("open to debate") then how can one truly say that this is a "standard?" A "Standard" by definition is an absolute that one uses to judge by. If a standard is ever changing, then that quantity is known as a "variable." (kinda like you foolish bit on murder)

So no, I would not like to know what your "standards" are. simply because who is to say in a weeks time they would not have changed to fit some new argument you want battle out?

You misunderstand me when I said "open to debate". By that, I mean I am willing to engage in discussion to explore my standards to see if they are truly good, not that I change them on a whim. I accept that I have a lot to learn from those wiser than me, and not entrench myself in a position where I believe my standards are completely and unquestionably good no matter what despite glaring evidence to the contrary, and believe that based on blind emotion.

Asked and answered. Who is able to sanction Death?

Anyone who has the authority to do so. And if they have a good reason for it, then their doing so does not fall off the tracks of morality. According to the Christian belief, God is certainly a figure with the authority to sanction death, but if we're to discuss whether He is loving and kind, what were His reasons for doing so?

In this case they are not two different things. Why? because your argument states that "Time," God's Time should be set to our understanding of it.

Your question directly askes why does God not perceive Time in the same way we do ("Why do we not die soon, relative to us?") So you see your question is indeed directly related to the Universe revolving around your perception of it. the only thing confused here is you

Do you know, when I know when you are frightened of the direction of the conversation we are having is taking? You either mock/repeat what i say back to me, or you claim that I am "derailing the topic or confusing the topic."

I am forced to repeat it back to you because you either ignore the question and go off on a completely unrelated tangent, or, as in this case, reply with utter nonsense.

I did not say God perceives time differently from us (I have no idea if He does). What I said was that if He intends to be merciful to us, then "soon" needs to be defined as relative to us. Do you think it is merciful of us if we feed a dog chocolate? Do you think it is merciful of us if we treat insects to a sauna bath? Do you think it is merciful of us if we give young children a massage with the pressure usually reserved for adults? If you intend to show respect, kindness, or mercy to someone, it needs to be able to be interpreted by the target audience as such, otherwise your gesture is meaningless at best and counter-productive at worst. This is simple common sense. Please believe me when I say I sincerely hope you're just deliberately spewing this nonsense as part of your stalling tactic, and not because you're really this ignorant.

If He intends to hold us to His standards despite deliberately creating us as lesser mortals, the best that can be said is that He is inconsiderate instead of merciful.

Have you not Heard of Jesus Christ?

I have, but perhaps you can fill me in on his relevance to the topic at hand?

I want to thank you for making things better i guess now we can move on as friends.

On my part I've yet to see you as the enemy. I'm not sure why you decided to hold animosity towards me, but I'm glad it's cleared up.

 

[drich0150]

So if I understand you correctly, God sanctions the indiscriminate slaughter of (almost) an entire city, including babies and children, in order to protect his people?

Yes!

I'm not exactly sure how this logic works, because to me it's making as much sense as advocating the killing of the victim in order to protect the murderer.

You must be ignorant of the living situations of the Jews during this time.

What protection did God's people need from the inhabitants of a city who were at their mercy?

The Jews were a nomadic people spread over a great distance during this time period. The only protection a people had over night raids (where women and children were taken/murdered in their sleep) were great walled cities. Something a nomadic people like the Jews did not have. (Because when they were not at war their numbers were spread over a great distance, they would not have been able to defend themselves durning a raid)

What protection did God's people need from babies and children?

This ensured peace from those people for at least that generation if it do not silence them forever. Not to mention the psychological effect it had over all of the other city states in the region. Jericho was the biggest city state with the greatest wall. If the Jews could conquer these people with some trumpets, and killed everything then "we'd better not mess with their camps/ people when we come across them in the wilderness."

Why would the babies need to be left for wolves to devour alive?

The Jews were NOMADS they did not live in a well fare state. They lived in the desert and up until the previous chapter, they lived solely off of Bread that fell from the sky every morning. (Because their was nothing else for them to eat!)

Is it not enough to simply exile the conquered inhabitants from the city?

so what if ten 10 years little ishmar who remember the evil Jews who came and blew down their city walls, that cause them (ishmar's remaining people) to be raped and pillaged over and over by everyone else in the region could Grow up hating the Jews and maybe someday join an army and fight against them? How would this be "good" for the jews? (this has been recorded and has happened several different times)

Or, having indiscriminately slaughtered the adults, at least spare the babies and children and raise them into God-fearing people?

Who would raise them you? Different culture, different time. They would have at best be taken as slaves. As per the customs of that day over a defeated people. They would have starved because they were only given exactly what they (they jews) needed to eat.

Yes, we as a culture not kill every day for various 'personal' reasons. But again, that has nothing to do with the issue of God's morals, which is what we're discussing here.

It has everything to do with what we are discussing here because you, who are morally bankrupt are not fit to judge and condemn the actions of another when you are guilty of this level of hypocrisy.

If we condemn the killing that happens every day for 'personal' reasons, we should equally condemn the unjustified killing sanctioned by God instead of trying to excuse them in order to not become hypocrites, should we not?

Now it is you who is intentionally blurring the lines of Killing and Murder. As per our previous accord, Murder (abortion) is the unsanctioned taking of a babies life. God sanctioned the deaths of these babies not making this action murder.

My silence is because this is hardly a thread about abortion, and it's already hard enough to get straight answers out of you as it is without falling for your constant attempts to derail the discussion. Again you are simply making incredulous leaps of logic and jumping to conclusions, seemingly out of a desperate personal desire to accuse me as a hypocrite so that you may shift the focus from God to me.

The focus here has always been you. It is Your exploration of Christianity, It is Your biased understanding of God and the bible we must over come, I must carefully phrase my answers so that they are Easy for You to identify, and to understand. Like wise Here Your credibility is on trial in the same way you have chosen to Judge God. Because You canot measure up to the same standard in which You are judging God. Which makes Your arguments the moot efforts of an hypocrite.

Now, as I've previously said, you're entirely welcome to cling to your delusions if they keep you warm at night. If you find your pride shored up and your sense of self-righteousness emboldened by publicly decrying me as a hypocrite based on your fallacious leaps of logic, then so be it.

Glad to have you on board!

Little men have always required petty reasons to assuage their inferiority complexes. Perhaps now that you're feeling a bit better, can we return to the topic of why does God sanction the slaughter of babies and children?

..And this rant is attributed to what if not a little man complex from it's originator himself? I am not simply name calling here. I have accurately identified a specific line of behavior backed by your own works and words. These accusations are seriously documented facts. What you are doing here is trying to negate my well founded allegations by trying to align or project your own efforts and energies on to my work and dismiss them as I am currently doing to you!

This is simply a logical inconsistency, and has little - if any - to do with emotions. One does not need emotions to see that God is not adhering to his own standards of love and kindness.

Please outline the "standards of God" that include the "loving and kindness" you are describing. (Book Chapter and verse please.) If you can not locate the proper scripture please admit to the logical inconsistencies that you have derived from a non doctrinal take on your own personal understanding of "God's loving, and kindness."

It's exactly God's standards that I'm judging God by right now with my question; the question of "how do you know God is good?"

Apparently not if you can not find a scriptural basis for God's "standards." You are judging what you "FEEL" to be God's standards. (Don't look now but how you "Feel" about something is tied straight to your emotions.)

is a completely separate one. Or does your God define love and kindness as the indiscriminate slaughter of helpless innocents?

You tell me. No where in the story we are examining did God's loving and kindness come up.. (You can't put this one off on me because we spent 4 posts going back and forth, because I wanted to talk about a specific event where you were questioning why God issued the order to kill everything. remember you picked the story.)

You misunderstand me when I said "open to debate". By that, I mean I am willing to engage in discussion to explore my standards to see if they are truly good, not that I change them on a whim.

And if they are not "good" will you change them?

I accept that I have a lot to learn from those wiser than me, and not entrench myself in a position where I believe my standards are completely and unquestionably good no matter what despite glaring evidence to the contrary, and believe that based on blind emotion.

Have you not read you own posts? everything you write is based on emotion and feeling. look at how you defended your "open debate" statement. you want to see if your peers "feel" as you do. How sad is it when your morality is based on peer pressure? How much more so that you do not or can not admit that everything is based on a "feeling?"

Anyone who has the authority to do so.

Not if we are having a biblically based conversation. If you want to know why God does something then we must turn and yield to what the bible says. otherwise when you "go off track" you should know you are not speaking about God.
God can only sanction death. if it is not sanctioned by God or a decree of God, then that death is murder.

And if they have a good reason for it, then their doing so does not fall off the tracks of morality. According to the Christian belief, God is certainly a figure with the authority to sanction death, but if we're to discuss whether He is loving and kind, what were His reasons for doing so?

Where does the bible say God is only "loving and Kind?" (Book, Chapter, and Verse please )

I did not say God perceives time differently from us (I have no idea if He does).

I made that assertion and gave a verse to support it. Which makes the rest of your argument moot. Why? Because the universe does not revolve around you nor your understanding of it or How your perceive "time."

If He intends to hold us to His standards despite deliberately creating us as lesser mortals, the best that can be said is that He is inconsiderate instead of merciful.

If you do not know or understand the sacrifice of Jesus all you have to do is ask.

I have, but perhaps you can fill me in on his relevance to the topic at hand?

We are talking about mercy are we not? The sacrifice of Christ satisfied the need for the sinful to pay for their sins in blood. Meaning those who were outside of the expressed will of God (like those in Jericho) need not fear immediate judgment. Those who repent of their sins need not fear judgment at all. Which also means that God (through Christ) does not hold you to the perfect standard one must maintain to earn righteousness.

On my part I've yet to see you as the enemy. I'm not sure why you decided to hold animosity towards me, but I'm glad it's cleared up.

Just because I did not see you as a "friend" does not make you my enemy. The animosity is inherent in the nature the topic you have taken up. Not to mention the way in which you have decided to defend you stake.

 

[sabercroft]

You must be ignorant of the living situations of the Jews during this time.

The Jews were a nomadic people spread over a great distance during this time period. The only protection a people had over night raids (where women and children were taken/murdered in their sleep) were great walled cities. Something a nomadic people like the Jews did not have. (Because when they were not at war their numbers were spread over a great distance, they would not have been able to defend themselves durning a raid)

Not been able to defend themselves? That's curious. Apparently they were an army capable of defeating "the biggest city state with the greatest wall". If you're not familiar with basic military strategy, it takes a disproportionately more powerful army to break into and conquer a walled city than to defend it. Whatever God's people were lacking, it certainly wasn't military power, and whatever they were, they certainly weren't helpless against a populace they indiscriminately slaughtered. Far from it. They had also conquered "the biggest city state with the greatest wall", why not simply gather their people in one place and defend themselves from future incursions? If they continue to spread out like they did, what's to stop their enemies from wreaking vengeance upon them anyway?

This ensured peace from those people for at least that generation if it do not silence them forever. Not to mention the psychological effect it had over all of the other city states in the region. Jericho was the biggest city state with the greatest wall. If the Jews could conquer these people with some trumpets, and killed everything then "we'd better not mess with their camps/ people when we come across them in the wilderness."

So you're saying that God and his people resorted to targeting the general populace to strike terror into the enemy's hearts, otherwise known as terrorism. Is that moral by your standards, too? The complete lack of love and kindness in that aside, how stupid do you need to be to believe that terrorism can succeed in silencing the enemy? Just ask both the Muslim extremists and the US-led coalition.

The Jews were NOMADS they did not live in a well fare state. They lived in the desert and up until the previous chapter, they lived solely off of Bread that fell from the sky every morning. (Because their was nothing else for them to eat!)

So why doesn't God simply throw down more bread from the sky? He's an all-powerful, loving God who provides, is He not? To be honest, free food falling from the sky sounds like the ultimate welfare state if you ask me.

so what if ten 10 years little ishmar who remember the evil Jews who came and blew down their city walls, that cause them (ishmar's remaining people) to be raped and pillaged over and over by everyone else in the region could Grow up hating the Jews and maybe someday join an army and fight against them? How would this be "good" for the jews? (this has been recorded and has happened several different times)

Unfortunately that's certainly a possible outcome of your so-called book of morals when you indiscriminately slaughter the inhabitants of (almost) an entire city. You perpetrate a cycle of bloodshed, hatred, violence, and suffering, and pass it all to the next generation that may someday come back to haunt you - again, as demonstrated by the US-led "War on Terror". In more civilized times, God's people (or at least the leader, Joshua) would've been arrested and put on trial for war crimes.

The ideal resolution would've simply been to let the city's populace go free, like how the prophet Muhammad did after his conquest of Mecca. Now that would have been an exemplary model of God's grace and kindness. But no, God said to kill them, and kill them all. In reply to your question: what happens if the children grow up and fight the Jews? Well, it's a choice that God should've them like everyone else. Weren't you the one preaching how the point of us being born into this world is to be given a choice?

Going by God's logic, should the US-led coalition have indiscriminately slaughtered the Iraqi populace as well in case the children grow up to join anti-US resistance forces?

Who would raise them you? Different culture, different time. They would have at best be taken as slaves. As per the customs of that day over a defeated people. They would have starved because they were only given exactly what they (they jews) needed to eat.

No, I wouldn't be raising them, of course. I couldn't. Which is exactly the reason why this discussion is about God, not me. Was an all-powerful God powerless to provide for them?

Now it is you who is intentionally blurring the lines of Killing and Murder. As per our previous accord, Murder (abortion) is the unsanctioned taking of a babies life. God sanctioned the deaths of these babies not making this action murder.

As per our previous accord, your interpretations of killing and murder hardly fit the legal definitions either. I'm sure that indiscriminately slaughtering the entire populace of a conquered city is illegal one way or another, and hence falls into the category of murder.

It has everything to do with what we are discussing here because you, who are morally bankrupt are not fit to judge and condemn the actions of another when you are guilty of this level of hypocrisy.

The focus here has always been you. It is Your exploration of Christianity, It is Your biased understanding of God and the bible we must over come, I must carefully phrase my answers so that they are Easy for You to identify, and to understand. Like wise Here Your credibility is on trial in the same way you have chosen to Judge God. Because You canot measure up to the same standard in which You are judging God. Which makes Your arguments the moot efforts of an hypocrite.

Okay, okay. I get it. Despite the fact that you have absolutely no idea what I think about abortion, I see that you won't be assuaged until you accuse me over and over of being a hypocrite.

It's strange that, even though you claim that we need to overcome my biased understanding of God and the Bible, you appear more interested in going on the offensive with baseless personal attacks and stonewalling me by claiming I don't deserve to explore God's decisions instead of actually answering my questions about God and the Bible. As I've said, feel free to cling on to your delusions if they assuage whatever inferiority complex you're suffering from. But when you've calmed down after your fix and have wiped the spittle from your mouth, can you please please PLEASE explain to us how your God is better than cold-hearted atheist baby murderer me? Because if you can't, then I'm afraid your argument works the other way round too; you and your morally bankrupt God have no right to judge me or anyone else either when you're guilty of this level of hypocrisy.

..And this rant is attributed to what if not a little man complex from it's originator himself? I am not simply name calling here. I have accurately identified a specific line of behavior backed by your own works and words. These accusations are seriously documented facts. What you are doing here is trying to negate my well founded allegations by trying to align or project your own efforts and energies on to my work and dismiss them as I am currently doing to you!

If jumping to pre-determined conclusions about what I think of abortion and desperately asserting that your baseless speculations are rock-solid fact is what you call the accurate identification of my behavior, yes, you've done just exactly that, and very well to boot. No wonder you flat-out refused to discuss what my standards of good and evil really are; that would completely undermine these assumptions you're clinging so desperately to now, wouldn't it?

I honestly meant it when I said I'm open to discussion, by the way. Any time you decide to stop living under the delusion that you know what I'm thinking better than I do and basing your personal attacks on complete fabrications (and if your ego can handle the strain of facing reality), you're more than welcome to discuss my standards with me in a separate thread.

Please outline the "standards of God" that include the "loving and kindness" you are describing. (Book Chapter and verse please.) If you can not locate the proper scripture please admit to the logical inconsistencies that you have derived from a non doctrinal take on your own personal understanding of "God's loving, and kindness."

I admit I do not know the Bible well enough to do that.

Apparently not if you can not find a scriptural basis for God's "standards." You are judging what you "FEEL" to be God's standards. (Don't look now but how you "Feel" about something is tied straight to your emotions.)

So please enlighten me as to what God's standards are. Is God not kind and loving? If He is, how does indiscriminately slaughtering an entire city fall under the definition of love and kindness?

You tell me. No where in the story we are examining did God's loving and kindness come up.. (You can't put this one off on me because we spent 4 posts going back and forth, because I wanted to talk about a specific event where you were questioning why God issued the order to kill everything. remember you picked the story.)

No, God's love and kindness did not come up. Which, again, brings us to the question of an inconsistent God. Where was God's love and kindness in the story? Or is God only loving and kind when He feels like it, and is not accountable to His own standards?

And if they are not "good" will you change them?

But of course. It's one of the benefits of not living life pretending that you have the absolute answer. One learns where one is lacking, and seeks to improve.

Have you not read you own posts? everything you write is based on emotion and feeling. look at how you defended your "open debate" statement. you want to see if your peers "feel" as you do. How sad is it when your morality is based on peer pressure? How much more so that you do not or can not admit that everything is based on a "feeling?"

Sometimes I wonder if you're pretending to be ignorant, or are truly that stupid. Why do you confuse discussion with peer pressure? Having emotionally chosen what you think is an "absolute" standard, and now blindly sticking to it, do you find it disturbing that not everyone is as intellectually belligerent as you? Are you really so intimidated by the fact that some of us are willing to admit we might not have all the answers and to learn what we can from other knowledgeable people? Or are you just worried that your holy book isn't the only one with answers?

Not if we are having a biblically based conversation. If you want to know why God does something then we must turn and yield to what the bible says. otherwise when you "go off track" you should know you are not speaking about God. God can only sanction death. if it is not sanctioned by God or a decree of God, then that death is murder.

So killing is good if God commands it. Why is that? Or is this simply one of those Answers That Must Not Be Questioned(tm)?

I made that assertion and gave a verse to support it. Which makes the rest of your argument moot. Why? Because the universe does not revolve around you nor your understanding of it or How your perceive "time."

We are talking about mercy are we not? The sacrifice of Christ satisfied the need for the sinful to pay for their sins in blood. Meaning those who were outside of the expressed will of God (like those in Jericho) need not fear immediate judgment. Those who repent of their sins need not fear judgment at all. Which also means that God (through Christ) does not hold you to the perfect standard one must maintain to earn righteousness.

In other words, God does not hold us to His standard of perfection when judging us, even though the universe does not revolve around us! Even though you ignored my examples of mercy towards dogs, insects, and children (although I concede those may have been nothing more than vain attempts to break through your wall of deliberate ignorance), thank you for arguing my point for me. Hopefully this means that you're finally ready to abandon the utter nonsense you've been spewing in order to stall for time and dodge the question.

The painfully obvious conclusion to draw is that God has enough common sense to realize that He needs to perceive matters relative to us when dealing with us because we'll never measure up to an omnipotent, omniscient deity that has existed and will exist for all eternity! As I've been saying all along while you prattled your nonsense, God does indeed look at things from our perspective - as He rightly should - when He shows us mercy. The reason you've been incessantly spewing nonsense and dodging my question is because you have no answer - I'd love to be proven wrong on that, but at this point I'm not terribly optimistic.

 

[drich0150]

Not been able to defend themselves?

It's like you stop reading after you come to a place where you can make what you think is a semi cohesive argument. When the soldiers were camped outside of Jericho they were all in one place creating an "Army." Now what happened when they all went back home? What did I say that limited their ability to defend themselves?

That's curious. Apparently they were an army capable of defeating "the biggest city state with the greatest wall". If you're not familiar with basic military strategy, it takes a disproportionately more powerful army to break into and conquer a walled city than to defend it.

At least we now know that you are not only, not reading my work, you haven't read the story you are arguing against either. (If I were you and did not want to look any more foolish than I needed to I would actually look up and Read the account of How Jericho Fell.)

Whatever God's people were lacking, it certainly wasn't military power, and whatever they were, they certainly weren't helpless against a populace they indiscriminately slaughtered. Far from it. They had also conquered "the biggest city state with the greatest wall", why not simply gather their people in one place and defend themselves from future incursions? If they continue to spread out like they did, what's to stop their enemies from wreaking vengeance upon them anyway?

Fear is what stopped them. The Fear created by what they did to places like Jericho. Why should the Jews huddle together in fear, and be made to defend themselves from constant attack.. when others feared them?

So you're saying that God and his people resorted to targeting the general populace to strike terror into the enemy's hearts, otherwise known as terrorism.

When a standing army engages another standing army it is not terrorism. (It's called war.)

So why doesn't God simply throw down more bread from the sky?

Because "They" hated the manna. Why would He force them to eat something they hated any longer than necessary?

He's an all-powerful, loving God who provides, is He not?

That is why He moved them to an area that could sustain then on foods that they like. Which subsequently is another reason they went to war with Jericho.

To be honest, free food falling from the sky sounds like the ultimate welfare state if you ask me.

If your idea of "welfare" is just free food, then you have lived a sheltered and privileged life.

The ideal resolution would've simply been to let the city's populace go free, like how the prophet Muhammad did after his conquest of Mecca. Now that would have been an exemplary model of God's grace and kindness.

Again where in the bible does it say God is only limited to the attributes that you wish to focus on? (Book Chapter and Verse Please)

But no, God said to kill them, and kill them all. In reply to your question: what happens if the children grow up and fight the Jews? Well, it's a choice that God should've them like everyone else. Weren't you the one preaching how the point of us being born into this world is to be given a choice?

The Choice I spoke of is where one chooses to spend eternity. Not whether or not to wipe out all of God's chosen people.

No, I wouldn't be raising them, of course. I couldn't. Which is exactly the reason why this discussion is about God, not me. Was an all-powerful God powerless to provide for them?

Again why would he provide for those who hated Him, and would grow to resent Him? If God was responsible for killing everyone in your family over the age of 12, could you have been bought off with "bread from the sky" (that you also hated?)

As per our previous accord, your interpretations of killing and murder hardly fit the legal definitions either.

It doesn't really matter how you assess our previous accord. It is scripturally relevant and can and will be used to define the actions of God in other scripture.

I'm sure that indiscriminately slaughtering the entire populace of a conquered city is illegal one way or another, and hence falls into the category of murder.

According to whom?

Okay, okay. I get it. Despite the fact that you have absolutely no idea what I think about abortion, I see that you won't be assuaged until you accuse me over and over of being a hypocrite.

Then as such it really ends our conversation/Your judgment of God. If you want this conversation to continue I would limit my responses to questions (like the ones above)

Will be back to finish the rest after work.

 

[sabercroft]

It's like you stop reading after you come to a place where you can make what you think is a semi cohesive argument. When the soldiers were camped outside of Jericho they were all in one place creating an "Army." Now what happened when they all went back home? What did I say that limited their ability to defend themselves?

That's really curious; did you stop reading when you felt like you had a knockout comeback ready? Because my question of what they should do after the war clearly follows below.

At least we now know that you are not only, not reading my work, you haven't read the story you are arguing against either. (If I were you and did not want to look any more foolish than I needed to I would actually look up and Read the account of How Jericho Fell.)

Actually, I did read the story. I just decided to use my brain as well. Because after the city walls fell, there's obviously no need to have an army of your own to overpower the city defenders anymore because they're just going to hand the city over to you, right?

The foolish would do well to think before they rush to label others as fools.

Fear is what stopped them. The Fear created by what they did to places like Jericho. Why should the Jews huddle together in fear, and be made to defend themselves from constant attack.. when others feared them?

And why on earth should others fear them when they separate themselves into small pockets and making themselves easy pickings? If I were leading the enemy army I'd hunt down and wipe out the small pockets of Jews stupid enough to isolate themselves before they could band together and take out another city. In fact, that's exactly what I'd do if I were afraid of the Jews.

When a standing army engages another standing army it is not terrorism. (It's called war.)

When a standing army wins a war and proceeds to indiscriminately butcher the populace of the conquered city, including women and children, I doubt that's called war anymore.

Because "They" hated the manna. Why would He force them to eat something they hated any longer than necessary?

Because that extra amount of time is nothing but a mere flash in the pan compared to eternity. I thought you were the one spewing the (completely nonsensical) argument of the universe not revolving around us?

Sarcasm aside, if the Jews hated the bread so much, why did God not drop, say, I dunno, cake or steak from the sky?

If your idea of "welfare" is just free food, then you have lived a sheltered and privileged life.

You were the one who said that the Jews wouldn't have enough food to feed the babies, when in fact food was dropping out of the sky. Not to mention that you said God wanted to move the Jews to somewhere with a sustainable food source. Jericho apparently had no problems sustaining its population before, but now all of a sudden it's too difficult to feed the babies even with God's help?

Again where in the bible does it say God is only limited to the attributes that you wish to focus on? (Book Chapter and Verse Please)

Why, does the Bible list cold-blooded genocide as one of God's attributes as well?

The Choice I spoke of is where one chooses to spend eternity. Not whether or not to wipe out all of God's chosen people.

Exactly! Why were the children and babies not given the choice of spending eternity with God?

Again why would he provide for those who hated Him, and would grow to resent Him? If God was responsible for killing everyone in your family over the age of 12, could you have been bought off with "bread from the sky" (that you also hated?)

Because the Bible alleges that He's a kind and loving God. Perspectives can and often do change as children grow. More than that, God is obliged to give them a choice of whether they wish to turn to Him.

It doesn't really matter how you assess our previous accord. It is scripturally relevant and can and will be used to define the actions of God in other scripture.

According to whom?

Does scripture also define indiscriminate slaughter as kind and loving then?

Then as such it really ends our conversation/Your judgment of God. If you want this conversation to continue I would limit my responses to questions (like the ones above)

Hardly. You've yet to provide anything that barely resembles a satisfactory explanation of why a kind and loving God would commit genocide. However, as I said previously, you've made it clear that this is a serious matter of pride for you, so if you wish to "bow out honorably" at this point, thank you for your participation so far.

 

[drich0150]

It's strange that, even though you claim that we need to overcome my biased understanding of God and the Bible, you appear more interested in going on the offensive with baseless personal attacks and stonewalling me by claiming I don't deserve to explore God's decisions instead of actually answering my questions about God and the Bible.

Your campaign has been one of issuing biblically based challenges in the form of a question. You have not been just asking questions. The difference is motive. a challenge is designed to ensnare, a question is a tool for learning.

As such I have addressed the challenges and the character of one who would issue such a challenge, especially when his own morality has "limited" him to emotionally based set of standards.

But when you've calmed down after your fix and have wiped the spittle from your mouth, can you please please PLEASE explain to us how your God is better than cold-hearted atheist baby murderer me? Because if you can't, then I'm afraid your argument works the other way round too; you and your morally bankrupt God have no right to judge me or anyone else either when you're guilty of this level of hypocrisy.

I can indeed explain the actions of God, and have according to what is written in scripture. If you are still confused then I challenge you to go back and reread my last post.

I honestly meant it when I said I'm open to discussion, by the way. Any time you decide to stop living under the delusion that you know what I'm thinking better than I do and basing your personal attacks on complete fabrications (and if your ego can handle the strain of facing reality), you're more than welcome to discuss my standards with me in a separate thread.

What can we discuss that is not subject to change?
Then what is the point?

I admit I do not know the Bible well enough to do that.

Then ask for a resource or someone to help you if you are interested in pursuing this line of thought.

So please enlighten me as to what God's standards are.

I have spoken of God's absolute standards from the beginning. In short however, All of the Law can be summed up by two commands. Love your Lord God with all of your Heart, Mind, Spirit And strength, and the second is like unto it. Love your neighbor as yourself.

Is God not kind and loving?

God can be described as Kind and loving from a certain POV, but He is not limited to your specific understanding of Kindness or Love.

If He is, how does indiscriminately slaughtering an entire city fall under the definition of love and kindness?

Again the kindness and love can only be observed from a certain POV. Do you think those in Hell see God as all kinds of loving kindness?

You should know/understand the dominate trait of God is righteous. Righteousness dictates His actions above the pop cultures understanding of a loving kind nurtured God.

Why do you think Christ had to die in the way that he did? Was loving Kindness at the end of a whip? was it nailed to a cross? was it at the tip of a Roman Spear? No, but righteousness was. Righteousness is also what brought down the walls of Jericho and saw everyone and everything (save one) dead.

No, God's love and kindness did not come up. Which, again, brings us to the question of an inconsistent God. Where was God's love and kindness in the story?

No, no you can not go there until you prove that the bible states that these two principles "love and kindness" trump all other aspects of God's character.

But of course. It's one of the benefits of not living life pretending that you have the absolute answer. One learns where one is lacking, and seeks to improve.

I Don't have to pretend, because i do indeed know

Sometimes I wonder if you're pretending to be ignorant, or are truly that stupid. Why do you confuse discussion with peer pressure?

No confusion here my confused brother! You specifically said you are willing to discuss your standards and change them if necessary. This discussion with your "peers" that has you changing your standards is a form of peer pressure.

So killing is good if God commands it. Why is that? Or is this simply one of those Answers That Must Not Be Questioned(tm)?

Because God is good. If God is Good that what ever He commands is good. even if it is counter to pop cultures collective understanding of "morality."

The painfully obvious conclusion to draw is that God has enough common sense to realize that He needs to perceive matters relative to us when dealing with us because we'll never measure up to an omnipotent, omniscient deity that has existed and will exist for all eternity!

Where in the bible are the omni aspects of God taught? (book chapter and verse please) Then why did you just use them? I can give you a link to a key word search if you like.

As I've been saying all along while you prattled your nonsense, God does indeed look at things from our perspective - as He rightly should - when He shows us mercy.

The mercy of God is for our benefit yes. But as you know, You were speaking to God's understanding of Time. Why have you deliberately confused this topic?

The reason you've been incessantly spewing nonsense and dodging my question is because you have no answer - I'd love to be proven wrong on that, but at this point I'm not terribly optimistic.

[/quote]Never mind i see now, you just wanted an opportunity to self righteously vent.. You may take this opportunity and others as your pride demands, so long as you do not break the forum rules.

 

[sabercroft]

Your campaign has been one of issuing biblically based challenges in the form of a question. You have not been just asking questions. The difference is motive. a challenge is designed to ensnare, a question is a tool for learning.

As such I have addressed the challenges and the character of one who would issue such a challenge, especially when his own morality has "limited" him to emotionally based set of standards.

As they need petty excuses to assuage their inferiority complexes, little men also feel the need to trap themselves in a siege mentality and constantly convince themselves they are under attack so as to have imaginary targets to retaliate against. I am sorry to say that your behavior has been frighteningly consistent in this regard. If you are morally bankrupt to the extent that you feel so conscience-stricken and need to go on the defensive simply from being asked straightforward and unassuming questions, it's your own perspectives that you need to investigate, and not those of phantom bogeymen.

I can indeed explain the actions of God, and have according to what is written in scripture. If you are still confused then I challenge you to go back and reread my last post.

When they are not full of logical fallacies that lead to even more questions, your explanation is nothing better than circular reasoning: God is good because He says He is good, and we should trust what God says and does because He is good.

What can we discuss that is not subject to change?
Then what is the point?

That's what the discussion is for: to find out! Given how you apparently equate discussion with peer pressure, believe that the entire point of discussing issues with someone is to convert or change their point of view, and how you constantly need to treat discussion as some sort of siege on you, please believe me when I say I am disappointed that it is utterly clear by now you have grown so used to intellectual belligerence that you are left with no clue whatsoever what frank and honest intellectual discussion means.

Then ask for a resource or someone to help you if you are interested in pursuing this line of thought.

I was under the impression that I was asking you, my dear fellow. Did I fail to convey that clearly enough?

I have spoken of God's absolute standards from the beginning. In short however, All of the Law can be summed up by two commands. Love your Lord God with all of your Heart, Mind, Spirit And strength, and the second is like unto it. Love your neighbor as yourself.

Do you believe that indiscriminately butchering civilians is a good way of “loving your neighbor as yourself”? If so, why?

God can be described as Kind and loving from a certain POV, but He is not limited to your specific understanding of Kindness or Love.

From which POV would it be, then? I'm not aware of any (sane and morally good) POV that accepts indiscriminately butchering civilians as kind and loving, but please do enlighten me.

You should know/understand the dominate trait of God is righteous. Righteousness dictates His actions above the pop cultures understanding of a loving kind nurtured God.

Righteousness means that one's actions need to be justified. What is the justification for indiscriminately butchering civilians, other than because God said to?

As to why Jesus had to be tortured, that's another thing I'm not very clear on either. Should we pursue that in a separate thread?

No, no you can not go there until you prove that the bible states that these two principles "love and kindness" trump all other aspects of God's character.

So what other aspects of God's character are there? Vengeance and blood-thirstiness under the guise of a righteousness which happens to be completely unjustified?

No confusion here my confused brother! You specifically said you are willing to discuss your standards and change them if necessary. This discussion with your "peers" that has you changing your standards is a form of peer pressure.

If it were anyone else or were this at the beginning of our discussion, I'd have been utterly astounded by your ignorance and suspect you of feigning it, but since you've made it more than clear that your customary intellectual belligerence has left you with a complete lack of understanding what discussion is about, I suppose I'll just have to take the time to slowly explain the obvious to you if we're to get anywhere.

There's a difference between accepting something due to peer pressure and accepting something because it's good and right. The only pressure I'm under is not from my peers or anyone else, but from my own desire to be truly good and right. I know this might be difficult for someone who treats “winning” discussions as a matter of honor to understand, but there is no “shame” in accepting that you are wrong if and when you truly are, and discussion with knowledgeable people is a good way of achieving that; among other things, it allows you to test the validity of your opinions against others and see if you can actually defend them well.

With that said, if you insist on equating learning and accepting the truth as peer pressure, all I have to say is that you're equally guilty of it as well according to your perverse logic when you accepted your religion as absolute.

Because God is good. If God is Good that what ever He commands is good. even if it is counter to pop cultures collective understanding of "morality."

That's nothing more an assertion. Your so-called “good” God has ordered cold-blooded genocide of helpless people, including women and children. How is that good? Or is that how your so-called absolute book of morals defines good?

Where in the bible are the omni aspects of God taught? (book chapter and verse please) Then why did you just use them? I can give you a link to a key word search if you like.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Are you attempting to contest the concept that your God is omnipotent and omniscient (or do you just need a dictionary to find out what the words mean)?

The mercy of God is for our benefit yes. But as you know, You were speaking to God's understanding of Time. Why have you deliberately confused this topic?

Because in order for God's mercy to have any meaning for us whatsoever, God needs to also understand what “soon” means relative to us! They're one and the same topic right from the very beginning. As you've pointed out yourself, God has shown that He needs to conform to our relative standards when showing us mercy. The only one resorting to confusion as a stalling tactic is you.

Never mind i see now, you just wanted an opportunity to self righteously vent.. You may take this opportunity and others as your pride demands, so long as you do not break the forum rules.

Should I take this as your “honorable” way of bowing out?

 

[drich0150]

That's really curious; did you stop reading when you felt like you had a knockout comeback ready? Because my question of what they should do after the war clearly follows below.

I address each point as the come. This one came first.

Actually, I did read the story. I just decided to use my brain as well. Because after the city walls fell, there's obviously no need to have an army of your own to overpower the city defenders anymore because they're just going to hand the city over to you, right?

Ah, no. If you knock down a bee hive and bust it open will be bees vacate the hive and leave you with the honey? Would the Jews (When being attacked in the desert) without the protection of walls simply let the attackers raid their camps? Apparently you did not let you "brain" loose long enough to do your argument any good.

"That Dog won't hunt boy!"

The foolish would do well to think before they rush to label others as fools.

yeah, you got me there!

And why on earth should others fear them when they separate themselves into small pockets and making themselves easy pickings?

Because when they come together they will Kill everything in their path. Men, women, women, Children, The Old, The young the live stock, everything. I have been told that the surrounding city states use to tell their children Bogey man stories about the Jews. (If you are not good, the Jews will get you like they got your cousin who lived in Jericho!!)

If I were leading the enemy army I'd hunt down and wipe out the small pockets of Jews stupid enough to isolate themselves before they could band together and take out another city. In fact, that's exactly what I'd do if I were afraid of the Jews.

It was never the Jews the people feared. Like in the story of Jericho, the Jews were always out numbered sometimes 10 to one. It was their God, those who lived in the neighboring city states feared. The "Jews" were just the foot solders of this invincible God that protected the Jew and gave them "special powers."

In truth you would cower like everyone else of that time or you would have joined in an army that stood against the God of Israel and everything you had, everyone you knew, would have been taken, and put to the sword.

If you are thinking you would preemptively strike at the Jews then the God of the Jews would have you and all your people destroyed before you even knew that they were a threat.

When a standing army wins a war and proceeds to indiscriminately butcher the populace of the conquered city, including women and children, I doubt that's called war anymore.

Granted this is not a type of war we continue to practice,(In the last 100 years or so) but it was a common way of taking lands from those who originally owned it, and insuring that there would not be any future conflicts over that land. Indians of North America, Aborigines of Australia are all fairly recent examples of this type of warfare. (bet you turned a blind eye here as well)

Because that extra amount of time is nothing but a mere flash in the pan compared to eternity. I thought you were the one spewing the (completely nonsensical) argument of the universe not revolving around us?

Maybe you should look into how many years/decades the Jews were made to eat manna before you look any more foolish than necessary.

Sarcasm aside, if the Jews hated the bread so much, why did God not drop, say, I dunno, cake or steak from the sky?

He did. Manna was sweet and tasted like Honey, but after a while they complained and wanted meat, so He sent the millions and millions of birds, which they ate for days, but because they had angered God and probably because they had no refrigeration or any way of properly preserving the meat (being nomads and not able to establish trade) They got sick and many died.. from feted sparrow meat.

In short Manna was the perfect food because it did not taint the ground (their was no carcass or garbage) and it could be rationed out everyday, and be used in a number of different ways. Where as "meat" was very volatile and need care they could not readily provide.

You were the one who said that the Jews wouldn't have enough food to feed the babies, when in fact food was dropping out of the sky.

Manna did drop from the sky, and it could be eaten as is. (Like whole wheat) But the bible tells us it was pounded into a flour and baked into a bread. Who was going to do this for these children? It's not like it is now where you go to the store and get everything pre made or even get the right ingredients. It took someone all day to make one meal. And because manna could not be stored, and had to be gathered every morning Everyday you or your family wanted to eat, someone had to get started at 5 or 6am, and work all day for that meal.

Again these people were nomads that means no orphanage. If they were to be assimilated into the community it would be as slaves. Which again is a problem if you are a nomadic tribe of people.

Not to mention that you said God wanted to move the Jews to somewhere with a sustainable food source. Jericho apparently had no problems sustaining its population before, but now all of a sudden it's too difficult to feed the babies even with God's help?

Jericho's food source was enough to sustain the Jews or the people of Jericho, not both. Remember we are taking about a desert state and sustainable farm land is limited at best. (that is why there were/are so many wars over there.) These people were fighting over the necessities water and food.

Why, does the Bible list cold-blooded genocide as one of God's attributes as well?

God is the giver of life that means the life you possess is not your own, it belongs to God. If God gives or takes away blessed is the name of God.

Exactly! Why were the children and babies not given the choice of spending eternity with God?

Who says they were given another opportunity at a different time in a different set of circumstances? Why do you assume that death is an absolute?

Because the Bible alleges that He's a kind and loving God.

If the bible indeed does "allege" this as your work indicates. then please provide me with Book chapter and verse that says these attributes of God trumps all other attributes of God.

Perspectives can and often do change as children grow.

If you have studied children or even worked with them you know these changes are greatly influenced by their environments. What type of "change" would be nurtured when one grows up as a slave to those who killed your parents?

More than that, God is obliged to give them a choice of whether they wish to turn to Him.

This "choice" was not offered to them. It was not offered to anyone not a Jew until Christ died for our sins.

Does scripture also define indiscriminate slaughter as kind and loving then?

Again before you can ask this question, you must first establish the "kindness and Love" are the leading attributes of God.

Hardly. You've yet to provide anything that barely resembles a satisfactory explanation of why a kind and loving God would commit genocide.

And you have yet to prove that God is what you understand to be: kind and loving.

However, as I said previously, you've made it clear that this is a serious matter of pride for you, so if you wish to "bow out honorably" at this point, thank you for your participation so far.

So long as you provide me with honorable questions to answer I will answer them. Remember the difference between a question and a challenge. If you work only consists of challenges then I can indeed honorably bow out.

 

[drich0150]

As they need petty excuses to assuage their inferiority complexes, little men also feel the need to trap themselves in a siege mentality and constantly convince themselves they are under attack so as to have imaginary targets to retaliate against. I am sorry to say that your behavior has been frighteningly consistent in this regard. If you are morally bankrupt to the extent that you feel so conscience-stricken and need to go on the defensive simply from being asked straightforward and unassuming questions, it's your own perspectives that you need to investigate, and not those of phantom bogeymen.

I must be getting close to the pin, for you to lite off a full broadside like this one!! oooh wee fancy fancy!!

When they are not full of logical fallacies that lead to even more questions, your explanation is nothing better than circular reasoning: God is good because He says He is good, and we should trust what God says and does because He is good.

That's what the discussion is for: to find out! Given how you apparently equate discussion with peer pressure, believe that the entire point of discussing issues with someone is to convert or change their point of view, and how you constantly need to treat discussion as some sort of siege on you, please believe me when I say I am disappointed that it is utterly clear by now you have grown so used to intellectual belligerence that you are left with no clue whatsoever what frank and honest intellectual discussion means.

..And from what source are you using to "find out?" Could it be your peers???
I mean it's not like you have an absolute standard or some written code, you are hiding somewhere are you? Then it must mean that your only source of guidance is what your peers "feel" to be right and good!

I was under the impression that I was asking you, my dear fellow. Did I fail to convey that clearly enough?

You did not ask a question you made a statement that pointed to a personal deficiency. If you want a resource then here is a link:
BibleGateway.com: Search for a Bible word or phrase in over 35 languages and 50 versions.

Do you believe that indiscriminately butchering civilians is a good way of “loving your neighbor as yourself”? If so, why?

Absolutely not!!!
However if God commands it, I am going after the guy who wakes up at 4:30 every morning and loads his truck first!!!

From which POV would it be, then?

A biblical one.

I'm not aware of any (sane and morally good) POV that accepts indiscriminately butchering civilians as kind and loving, but please do enlighten me.

Where did I ever say we are ever commanded to indiscriminately kill anyone? this is like the 3rd or 4th time you have misquoted me.

Righteousness means that one's actions need to be justified.

Please point to the Book, Chapter and verse that commands this understanding of righteousness.

What is the justification for indiscriminately butchering civilians, other than because God said to?

So sorry, can really answer this until you prove this is a biblically based concept first.

As to why Jesus had to be tortured, that's another thing I'm not very clear on either. Should we pursue that in a separate thread?

If wish, but I will have to wait till we conclude our business here first.

So what other aspects of God's character are there?

(Job 42:7). (Exodus 20:3-5)(Isaiah 60:19; James 1:17). (Hebrews 4:1).(Genesis 1:1; Psalm 24:1) (Genesis 1:26-28). (Genesis 3:17-18; Romans 1:19-20). (Genesis 1:1)(Exodus 4:10, 13) (Genesis 14:20) (Genesis 16:13)
(Genesis 17:1) (Isaiah 40:28)(Exodus 3:13, 14)(Deuteronomy 33:27; Psalm 90:2; 1 Timothy 1:17(Malachi 3:6; Numbers 23:19; Psalm 102:26, 27). (2 Samuel 7:22; Psalm 86:8; Isaiah 40:25; Matthew 5:48). (Isaiah 40:28; Psalm 145:3; Romans 11:33, 34)(Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalm 18:30).(Revelation 19:6; Jeremiah 32:17, 27). (Psalm 139:7-13; Jeremiah 23:23).(Psalm 139:1-5; Proverbs 5:21)(Deuteronomy 6:4).(Exodus 9:27; Matthew 27:45-46; Romans 3:21-26)(Psalm 93:1; 95:3; Jeremiah 23:20). (John 1:18; 4:24).(Psalm 117:2; 1 Samuel 15:29)(Isaiah 6:3; Habakkuk 1:13; Exodus 3:2, 4-5; Hebrews 12:29). (Exodus 34:6; Psalm 31:19; 1 Peter 1:3; John 3:16, 17:3)(Jeremiah 29:13).

There's a difference between accepting something due to peer pressure and accepting something because it's good and right. The only pressure I'm under is not from my peers or anyone else, but from my own desire to be truly good and right.

and where does this knowledge come from? I'll give you a hint it starts with a "P"

I know this might be difficult for someone who treats “winning” discussions as a matter of honor to understand, but there is no “shame” in accepting that you are wrong if and when you truly are, and discussion with knowledgeable people is a good way of achieving that; among other things, it allows you to test the validity of your opinions against others and see if you can actually defend them well.

Boy for someone who does not concern with "winning a topic" you sure talk about it alot!

With that said, if you insist on equating learning and accepting the truth as peer pressure, all I have to say is that you're equally guilty of it as well according to your perverse logic when you accepted your religion as absolute.

God is not my "peer." I did not make it an absolute, nor did any of my peers, He did.

That's nothing more an assertion. Your so-called “good” God has ordered cold-blooded genocide of helpless people, including women and children. How is that good? Or is that how your so-called absolute book of morals defines good?

Indeed it does. These people were not "good." Righteousness demanded they must die, so they did die, under the army of a "Good and Holy God."

I know this is something hard for one to understand when His peers tells Him that a woman or child are never to be purposely killed. Is it?

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Are you attempting to contest the concept that your God is omnipotent and omniscient (or do you just need a dictionary to find out what the words mean)?

I am simply pointing out the bible does not use this "religious" term. Because it does not we are not bound by your understanding of those concepts. So sorry, Mr. French! but you argument does not work here.

Because in order for God's mercy to have any meaning for us whatsoever, God needs to also understand what “soon” means relative to us!

Again and Again not a biblical concept!!! 2Peter3:8 Does this describe a God bound by our concept of time?

They're one and the same topic right from the very beginning. As you've pointed out yourself,

Where did i point this out?

Should I take this as your “honorable” way of bowing out?

As I have already stated. My involvement here is over when you flush the last scrap of your honor.

 

[sabercroft]

Ah, no. If you knock down a bee hive and bust it open will be bees vacate the hive and leave you with the honey? Would the Jews (When being attacked in the desert) without the protection of walls simply let the attackers raid their camps?

I'm afraid you lost me there. So were the Jews capable of defending their encampments or not?

Because when they come together they will Kill everything in their path. Men, women, women, Children, The Old, The young the live stock, everything. I have been told that the surrounding city states use to tell their children Bogey man stories about the Jews. (If you are not good, the Jews will get you like they got your cousin who lived in Jericho!!)

Which is exactly why, if the Jews are dumb enough to isolate themselves into separate pockets, you wipe them out before they can regroup!

The Jews are hardly cowing their enemies through their acts of terrorism. They are simply inciting their enemies to wipe them out completely.

It was never the Jews the people feared. Like in the story of Jericho, the Jews were always out numbered sometimes 10 to one. It was their God, those who lived in the neighboring city states feared. The "Jews" were just the foot solders of this invincible God that protected the Jew and gave them "special powers."

So if the Jews were protected by God and had "special powers", why would they need to indiscriminately slaughter an entire city to make the enemy fear and not attack them, when they were already untouchable under the power of God!

Do you stomp on anthills so as to make the ants "fear" you? Do you bully and kill helpless women and children who can't lift a finger against you anyway even if you didn't have an almighty God behind your back (which you actually do), just so they know who they're dealing with? If this is your idea of righteousness, I hope you're joking, because you're doing nothing more than piling disgrace on your religion and deity.

Granted this is not a type of war we continue to practice,(In the last 100 years or so) but it was a common way of taking lands from those who originally owned it, and insuring that there would not be any future conflicts over that land. Indians of North America, Aborigines of Australia are all fairly recent examples of this type of warfare. (bet you turned a blind eye here as well)

Thanks for agreeing that God's people were little more than barbaric war criminals.

Maybe you should look into how many years/decades the Jews were made to eat manna before you look any more foolish than necessary.

This is priceless. Maybe you should stop thinking that years and decades mean anything at all when compared to eternity before you make yourself look any more foolish than necessary.

He did. Manna was sweet and tasted like Honey, but after a while they complained and wanted meat, so He sent the millions and millions of birds, which they ate for days, but because they had angered God and probably because they had no refrigeration or any way of properly preserving the meat (being nomads and not able to establish trade) They got sick and many died.. from feted sparrow meat.

And throwing clean food from the sky was too much to ask of God? So He poisons and kills even His own people just because He got annoyed at them complaining about the food?

Manna did drop from the sky, and it could be eaten as is. (Like whole wheat) But the bible tells us it was pounded into a flour and baked into a bread. Who was going to do this for these children? It's not like it is now where you go to the store and get everything pre made or even get the right ingredients. It took someone all day to make one meal. And because manna could not be stored, and had to be gathered every morning Everyday you or your family wanted to eat, someone had to get started at 5 or 6am, and work all day for that meal.

First, why not just give the manna as it was to the children?

Second, that's what kindness and love usually entails. And after you killed the rest of their family, I don't think pounding bread for the children using manna you don't have to pay for is asking too much of you. So God and His people were not only murderers, they were lazy, irresponsible, and uncaring as well?

Jericho's food source was enough to sustain the Jews or the people of Jericho, not both. Remember we are taking about a desert state and sustainable farm land is limited at best. (that is why there were/are so many wars over there.) These people were fighting over the necessities water and food.

Except the Jews just - whoops! - slaughtered the city's populace, meaning there's a lot less mouths to feed now. And again, they had God on their side. So God would rather kill babies and children than feed them?

Who says they were given another opportunity at a different time in a different set of circumstances? Why do you assume that death is an absolute?

If they were not to be given the opportunity of choice at that time and under those set of circumstances, then why bring them into the world at that time and set of circumstances? To be slaughtered for sport?

If the bible indeed does "allege" this as your work indicates. then please provide me with Book chapter and verse that says these attributes of God trumps all other attributes of God.

So you're saying that God's vengeance and blood-thirstiness can trump His kindness and love whenever He feels like it?

If you have studied children or even worked with them you know these changes are greatly influenced by their environments. What type of "change" would be nurtured when one grows up as a slave to those who killed your parents?

I agree completely. So you're saying that there is no good outcome to be had if children grow up among God-fearing people?

This "choice" was not offered to them. It was not offered to anyone not a Jew until Christ died for our sins.

If there was no choice offered to anyone, then how is it that some people chose God while some others did not?

Again before you can ask this question, you must first establish the "kindness and Love" are the leading attributes of God.

So again, you're saying that God's love and kindness take a back seat to vengeance and blood-thirstiness?

I must be getting close to the pin, for you to lite off a full broadside like this one!! oooh wee fancy fancy!!

… I'm sorry, but how old are you? Serious question.

I guess I have to admit that, even though it's none of my personal concern and hardly the topic of discussion here, I do find your intellectual dishonesty and belligerence unsavory at best. Now if you think that's something worth being proud about, allow me to simply say I'm glad it works for you, and wish you all the best with it.

..And from what source are you using to "find out?" Could it be your peers???
I mean it's not like you have an absolute standard or some written code, you are hiding somewhere are you? Then it must mean that your only source of guidance is what your peers "feel" to be right and good!

That source could be you, but I suppose the fact that you're so frightened of straightforward intellectual discussion strikes out that possibility.

The fact is that you have no absolute standard either, you simply believe you have one that you emotionally chose over all others, and having based your morals on blind belief and irrational emotion, hysterically refuse to put it to the test.

Absolutely not!!!
However if God commands it, I am going after the guy who wakes up at 4:30 every morning and loads his truck first!!!

So you're nothing but a puppet to your deity, dancing on your strings and doing whatever He tells you to?

A biblical one.

Where did I ever say we are ever commanded to indiscriminately kill anyone? this is like the 3rd or 4th time you have misquoted me.

Your God certainly has no compunctions ordering indiscriminate killings. And since you've made it clear that you're a mindless drone slaving to your deity's every command, and those commands must be good because God is good and God is good because the Bible says so, I think most of my questions have been cleared.

God is not my "peer." I did not make it an absolute, nor did any of my peers, He did.

In other words, you're still blindly accepting your morals from an outside source, and do so without thinking or questioning why. One can only wonder why you rush to condemn judgments based on emotion when, in the ultimate display of hypocrisy, you carry out that idea in its ultimate form.

Indeed it does. These people were not "good." Righteousness demanded they must die, so they did die, under the army of a "Good and Holy God."

How did righteousness demand they must die?

I know this is something hard for one to understand when His peers tells Him that a woman or child are never to be purposely killed. Is it?

My "peers" (as you so insist on calling them) "tell" (as you so insist on calling it) me that nobody is to be purposely killed without good reason. And since you invoke righteousness to excuse God's actions, the same apparently applies to God's morals. It's no wonder why you rush to desperately indict others of hypocrisy, but unfortunately your attempts to cover up your own hypocrisy are sorely lacking.

I am simply pointing out the bible does not use this "religious" term. Because it does not we are not bound by your understanding of those concepts. So sorry, Mr. French! but you argument does not work here.

So what terms would you prefer me to use? Omnipotence and omniscience simply mean all-powerfulness and all-knowingness. What are you trying to do, exactly? Are you trying to contest the idea that your God is all-powerful and all-knowing (or whatever religious description you care to use here)?

Again and Again not a biblical concept!!! 2Peter3:8 Does this describe a God bound by our concept of time?

It seems like you have yet to decide to give up your nonsense after all. I never said that God is necessarily bound to our time, that's just another one of your smokescreens. What I said was that God has demonstrated that He has enough common sense to choose to acknowledge our relative perceptions and act accordingly when showing us mercy.

Where did i point this out?

When you talked about Jesus and how God forgives us even though we fall short. Does that mean that God is hence bound by our concepts of sin, justice, and perfection? Of course not. Stop being utterly ridiculous.

As I have already stated. My involvement here is over when you flush the last scrap of your honor.

I'll take that as a yes then. Rest assured, your "honor" is intact as far as I'm concerned, and allow me to thank you for your participation once more.

 

[drich0150]

I'm afraid you lost me there. So were the Jews capable of defending their encampments or not?


Which is exactly why, if the Jews are dumb enough to isolate themselves into separate pockets, you wipe them out before they can regroup!

The Jews are hardly cowing their enemies through their acts of terrorism. They are simply inciting their enemies to wipe them out completely.


So if the Jews were protected by God and had "special powers", why would they need to indiscriminately slaughter an entire city to make the enemy fear and not attack them, when they were already untouchable under the power of God!

Do you stomp on anthills so as to make the ants "fear" you? Do you bully and kill helpless women and children who can't lift a finger against you anyway even if you didn't have an almighty God behind your back (which you actually do), just so they know who they're dealing with? If this is your idea of righteousness, I hope you're joking, because you're doing nothing more than piling disgrace on your religion and deity.


Thanks for agreeing that God's people were little more than barbaric war criminals.


This is priceless. Maybe you should stop thinking that years and decades mean anything at all when compared to eternity before you make yourself look any more foolish than necessary.


And throwing clean food from the sky was too much to ask of God? So He poisons and kills even His own people just because He got annoyed at them complaining about the food?


First, why not just give the manna as it was to the children?

Second, that's what kindness and love usually entails. And after you killed the rest of their family, I don't think pounding bread for the children using manna you don't have to pay for is asking too much of you. So God and His people were not only murderers, they were lazy, irresponsible, and uncaring as well?


Except the Jews just - whoops! - slaughtered the city's populace, meaning there's a lot less mouths to feed now. And again, they had God on their side. So God would rather kill babies and children than feed them?


If they were not to be given the opportunity of choice at that time and under those set of circumstances, then why bring them into the world at that time and set of circumstances? To be slaughtered for sport?


So you're saying that God's vengeance and blood-thirstiness can trump His kindness and love whenever He feels like it?


I agree completely. So you're saying that there is no good outcome to be had if children grow up among God-fearing people?


If there was no choice offered to anyone, then how is it that some people chose God while some others did not?


So again, you're saying that God's love and kindness take a back seat to vengeance and blood-thirstiness?


… I'm sorry, but how old are you? Serious question.

I guess I have to admit that, even though it's none of my personal concern and hardly the topic of discussion here, I do find your intellectual dishonesty and belligerence unsavory at best. Now if you think that's something worth being proud about, allow me to simply say I'm glad it works for you, and wish you all the best with it.


That source could be you, but I suppose the fact that you're so frightened of straightforward intellectual discussion strikes out that possibility.

The fact is that you have no absolute standard either, you simply believe you have one that you emotionally chose over all others, and having based your morals on blind belief and irrational emotion, hysterically refuse to put it to the test.


So you're nothing but a puppet to your deity, dancing on your strings and doing whatever He tells you to?


Your God certainly has no compunctions ordering indiscriminate killings. And since you've made it clear that you're a mindless drone slaving to your deity's every command, and those commands must be good because God is good and God is good because the Bible says so, I think most of my questions have been cleared.


In other words, you're still blindly accepting your morals from an outside source, and do so without thinking or questioning why. One can only wonder why you rush to condemn judgments based on emotion when, in the ultimate display of hypocrisy, you carry out that idea in its ultimate form.


How did righteousness demand they must die?


My "peers" (as you so insist on calling them) "tell" (as you so insist on calling it) me that nobody is to be purposely killed without good reason. And since you invoke righteousness to excuse God's actions, the same apparently applies to God's morals. It's no wonder why you rush to desperately indict others of hypocrisy, but unfortunately your attempts to cover up your own hypocrisy are sorely lacking.


So what terms would you prefer me to use? Omnipotence and omniscience simply mean all-powerfulness and all-knowingness. What are you trying to do, exactly? Are you trying to contest the idea that your God is all-powerful and all-knowing (or whatever religious description you care to use here)?


It seems like you have yet to decide to give up your nonsense after all. I never said that God is necessarily bound to our time, that's just another one of your smokescreens. What I said was that God has demonstrated that He has enough common sense to choose to acknowledge our relative perceptions and act accordingly when showing us mercy.


When you talked about Jesus and how God forgives us even though we fall short. Does that mean that God is hence bound by our concepts of sin, justice, and perfection? Of course not. Stop being utterly ridiculous.


I'll take that as a yes then. Rest assured, your "honor" is intact as far as I'm concerned, and allow me to thank you for your participation once more.

It saddens me to make this observation, but you have not asked any more biblically based questions... I hear a great flushing sound on your part that will allow you save face by not allowing the Christian to have the last word, and yet it is you who retreats from real questions with a biblically backed foundations...

So if you want to start in with some actual questions on the next topic you threatened us with then now would be a good time.

 

[sabercroft]

It saddens me to make this observation, but you have not asked any more biblically based questions... I hear a great flushing sound on your part that will allow you save face by not allowing the Christian to have the last word, and yet it is you who retreats from real questions with a biblically backed foundations...

So if you want to start in with some actual questions on the next topic you threatened us with then now would be a good time.

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here by pretending I'm not allowing you to have the "last word", garner sympathy votes? I don't moderate the forum, and you're free to post your replies if you so wish. What I said was that since this is such an important matter of honor for you (as you've just re-emphasized with your "save face" remark), you're welcome to "bow out honorably" whenever you wish, and that was all.

In all honesty, it was probably for the best that you chose to retreat. Despotic dictators and fanatical tyrants have done immeasurable evil by claiming to be in possession of the absolute standard of morality and were not to be questioned, and all you were accomplishing was to paint your religion in that light with a generous splashing of hypocrisy for added flavor, when I (and numerous others in this forum) know for a fact that it is not.

 

[drich0150]

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here by pretending I'm not allowing you to have the "last word", garner sympathy votes? I don't moderate the forum, and you're free to post your replies if you so wish. What I said was that since this is such an important matter of honor for you (as you've just re-emphasized with your "save face" remark), you're welcome to "bow out honorably" whenever you wish, and that was all.

In all honesty, it was probably for the best that you chose to retreat. Despotic dictators and fanatical tyrants have done immeasurable evil by claiming to be in possession of the absolute standard of morality and were not to be questioned, and all you were accomplishing was to paint your religion in that light with a generous splashing of hypocrisy for added flavor, when I (and numerous others in this forum) know for a fact that it is not.