12 Feb 08
Originally posted by jaywillThat sounds much better than your usual self-righteous drivel, to be sure.
Then again maybe I should ask Jesus to give me the spirit of John the Baptist with you in particular - [b]"Who warned you to flee the coming wrath?"[/b]
That's what this forum is missing. A good ol' "Fire and Brimstone" type Christian. Just think of how great it would be to have someone laying the biblical smack down on forum heathens just like OT God did on all the heathen races.
12 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIf all you meant to say is "God isn't a mean, tortuous tyrant because the Bible says he's righteous" than you certainly haven't shown that an argument to the contrary is "fundamentally flawed".
What you previously said is:
Every argument for God being a mean, torturous tyrant is fundamentally flawed. Certainly such arguments can be and are made, but they are still fundamentally flawed. In order to correct the atheist, Christians have to attempt correcting the basic underlying presuppositions which lead to his false conclusion eous 'cuz the Bible says so". That is, unsurprisingly, unconvincing in the extreme.
The context certainly does justify the destruction of the Amalekites. The problem is, you and others reject the context altogether. You reject the notion that God has the right to execute judgment upon sinners, including their children. You overlook the fact that the Amalekites, not God, were responsible for their own fate along with their children's fate. You overlook the mind-boggling corruption which defined the Amalekites. You disregard the penultimate importance of preserving the Messianic line against the enemy of God and man, Satan, and those who serve him. You miss the fact that the world at that time was dominated by idolatrous, child-sacrificing, demon-worshiping nation-states like the Amalekites, and that the God of the Israelites was the world's only hope. Not to mention the fact, which jaywill pointed out, that God gave the Amalekites sufficient time to repent and divert their own destruction.
If you disregard the context, then there's no reason for us to have any discussion at all. This thread can only serve as a platform for your own self-righteousness, promoting yourselves as more righteous than God. Which is really quite ridiculous, considering no one here has ever been responsible for the salvation of mankind. All these arguments are fundamentally flawed precisely because they disregard the context, escaping into subjectivism.
12 Feb 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesOf course, you don't bother to address any of the points in response and then make claims that are unsupported in the Bible. For example, show a verse that supports the notion that the Amalekites engaged in child sacrifice. And as already pointed out, God gave only one, crazy rationale for slaughtering the Amalekites - in revenge for something the tribe had done 200-450 years earlier!
[b]If all you meant to say is "God isn't a mean, tortuous tyrant because the Bible says he's righteous" than you certainly haven't shown that an argument to the contrary is "fundamentally flawed".
The context certainly does justify the destruction of the Amalekites. The problem is, you and others reject the context altogether. You reject the no tally flawed precisely because they disregard the context, escaping into subjectivism.[/b]
More importantly, your claims are illogical and insane. An All-Powerful God didn't have to worry about the Amalekites or anybody else thwarting his will or destroying mankind's only hope. It is hysterical nonsense to keep repeating such drivel.
Only a lunatic wouldn't reject the notion that a group of people can kill anyone, anywhere if God tells them so. All you are doing is begging the question; we know that your claim is that the Bible says that murdering children is a gooooooooooooooood thing if God says it is, but it is not "fundamentally flawed" to say that is insane.
EDIT: As for "moral subjectivism" I'd be curious to know what moral system others than yours would agree with the statement "It is morally permissible to slaughter thousands of children for something their ancestors did 200-450 years prior."
12 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwSee Jorges Borges' last point where he claimed that the Bible says just that.
First you show me where it says in the Bible that an infant should be killed because of his father's sin.
Or you can check out 1 Samuel 15, although in that case infants were killed because of their remote ancestor's sin.
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesYet another "There is no doubt that...", eh, compañero? Too bad this statement of yours is patently untrue, for at least the fourth time. Why do you persist in misrepresenting the truth? I suppose it's to be expected, since it serves your own purposes so well.
You miss the fact that the world at that time was dominated by idolatrous, child-sacrificing, demon-worshiping nation-states like the Amalekites.
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by no1marauderDoesn't say a thing about killing an infant for the sin of his father.
See Jorges Borges' last point where he claimed that the Bible says just that.
Or you can check out 1 Samuel 15, although in that case infants were killed because of their remote ancestor's sin.
Are you sure you know what you're talking about? I think you're swimming in water way over your head.
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by josephwAre you sure you're not illiterate?
Doesn't say a thing about killing an infant for the sin of his father.
Are you sure you know what you're talking about? I think you're swimming in water way over your head.
1 Samuel 15: 3: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.
That was about 200-450 years before! Got it now?
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're thinking is weird. You said that infants were killed for the sins of their fathers. Back it up, or shut it up.
Are you sure you're not illiterate?
1 Samuel 15: 3: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.
That was about 200-450 years before! Got it now?
12 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwWhat part of the last post is sooooooooooooooooo hard to understand? Are you mentally "challenged"?
You're thinking is weird. You said that infants were killed for the sins of their fathers. Back it up, or shut it up.
EDIT: In general terms, try Exodus 20:5: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them, for I Jehovah thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me,
Have you ever actually read the Bible?
12 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYou are obviously incapable of understanding the Bible.
What part of the last post is sooooooooooooooooo hard to understand? Are you mentally "challenged"?
EDIT: In general terms, try Exodus 20:5: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them, for I Jehovah thy God am a jealous God, [b]visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me,
Have you ever actually read the Bible?[/b]
Look at what it says. If a man hates God and lives a life that goes against the will of God, his children are effected by the way he lives. The father's sin has the consequence of effecting he children through to the 4th generation.
It's simple psychology. You really ought to stop doubting God.
12 Feb 08
2 edits
Originally posted by josephwIt wasn't "simple psychology" when God ordered the massacre of every last Amalekite because the Amalekites waylaid the Israelites 200-450 years earlier.
You are obviously incapable of understanding the Bible.
Look at what it says. If a man hates God and lives a life that goes against the will of God, his children are effected by the way he lives. The father's sin has the consequence of effecting he children through to the 4th generation.
It's simple psychology. You really ought to stop doubting God.
I can only assume you've never even studied the Old Testament at all. You really ought to stop rewriting it to fix your preconceptions. Exodus 20:5: Clearly states God will "visit the inequities of the fathers" onto the children, not that said inequity will cause long term psychological effects. You're mistaking Jehovah for Dr. Phil.
- Joined
- 30 Dec 07
- Moves
- 9905
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by jaywillSo he is now a tyrannical, self-obsessed dictator, AND indecisive? If he knows everything in the past and future, why wait? He already he knows he'll do it in exactly '400 years'.
As I read some of these arguments I am so glad that I read the [b]entire Bible very carefully.
I am glad that I came across a book called Jonah which seems dedicated to communicating to us God's reluctance to judge a nation. Not one chapter or two is used to convey this idea. But one whole book of the Bible is used to convey God's reluctance to ha ...[text shortened]... than just read through some skeptics selective presentation of biased observations.[/b]
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesDo you or do you not think that the judgement rendered to the Amalekites' children was just?
You reject the notion that God has the right to execute judgment upon sinners, including their children. You overlook the fact that the Amalekites, not God, were responsible for their own fate along with their children's fate.
Do you think that the judgement rendered upon the children was the best judgement available
to an omniscient and omnipotent God?
Nemesio
12 Feb 08
==========================
That sounds much better than your usual self-righteous drivel, to be sure.
====================================
That's interesting. The only thing I have found more self righteous than self religious people is disgruntled religious people.
Once they get into that "Use to be a Believer - Been There Done That" mode, forget it.
You'll be selfrighteously licking your wounds for the rest of your life.
Case in point - old SwissGambit.