Moses was a terrorist

Originally posted by Great King Rat
There are people who don't believe that the Loch Ness monster exists.

Therefore the Loch Ness monster [b]must exist???[/b]

GKR, would you conclude that the "Loch Ness monster" may be an unusual occurrence in the natural world or supernatural?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i am confused. do you think i made a typo?

i really, really, really am a theist. as a matter of fact, i consider myself a christian, though i refuse to adhere to a certain flavor of christianity.


i am a theist and i find absolutely no problem with labeling horrifying stuff as horrifying. no matter from what book it is.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"i am confused. do you think i made a typo?"

My apology for impaired vision; simply misread your post.
Also, good to hear that you're "a christian".
The following information may be of interest:

Knowing vs. discovering divegeester, 10 Jan '15 15:12
Thread 162427 (Page 7)

Gnosis/Epignosis in the Koine Greek of the New Testament

"40. The perceptive process is different in the believer who is in fellowship with God from the unregenerate and the believer who is out of fellowship with God.

41. So the perceptive process is the same in the believer who is out of fellowship with God and the unregenerate.

42. The human spirit in the believer was designed by God to give the believer the ability to understand the Word of God and the capacity to store it as well.

43. The Holy Spirit reveals or makes understandable the Word of God to the human spirit of the believer who is in fellowship with God.

44. He reveals or makes understandable the will of God for the believer through the communication of the Word of God.

45. The human spirit is not operational unless the believer is in fellowship with God.

46. The believer who is in fellowship with God has no unacknowledged sin circulating in his stream of consciousness and is permitting the Holy Spirit to control or influence his soul by means of the human spirit.

47. The psuche or human soul was designed originally by God to be subordiante to the human spirit.

48. The believer who is in fellowship with God permits this to take place whereas the believer who is out of fellowship does not permit this to take place.

49. The unregenerate and the believer who is out of fellowship are said to be psuchikos, “soulish,” whereas the believer who is in fellowship with God is said to be pneumatikos, “spiritual.”

50. The believer in fellowship is said to be spiritual because he is permitting the Holy Spirit to reveal the will of God through the communication of the Word of God to the believer’s human spirit.

51. When an unregenerate person hears information from the cosmic system it enters his nous where it is gnosis information.

52. If he makes a decision to accept this cosmic information, it is transferred from then nous to the kardia where it becomes epignosis information.

53. Epignosis information is knowledge that is applied to the kardia, the dominant lobe.

54. It then becomes a part of the person’s frame of reference, their memory center, their vocabulary, and classification of their thoughts.

55. It forms their conscience where it becomes a part of their norms and standards.

56. Lastly, epignosis is the mental attitude of the person.

57. Now the believer who is out of fellowship with God goes through the same process since he is not permitting the Holy Spirit to reveal the will of God through the Word of God and he is not enabling his human spirit to function.

58. When a believer in fellowship hears the communication of the Word of God it enters his nous where it is gnosis information.

59. It is transferred to the kardia through the human spirit where it becomes epignosis information.

60. The epignosis information though is spiritual phenomena, i.e. divine viewpoint whereas the unregenerate and the psuchikos believer possess only cosmic information, i.e. Satanic viewpoint.

61. When the epignosis information in the believer is spiritual phenomena, i.e. the Word of God becomes a part of the believer’s frame of reference, their memory center, their vocabulary and the classification of thoughts.

62. The Word of God now forms their norms and standards since it becomes a part of their conscience.

63. It is also cleans out the subconscience of the believer where everything shocking, experiences in adversities, failure and disappointment are stored.

64. The believer’s mental attitude is now based upon the Word of God as result of being in fellowship.

65. So gnosis information is either cosmic or divine viewpoint and likewise epignosis information is either divine viewpoint or cosmic viewpoint.

66. The believer must make a decision to get in fellowship and then to either accept or reject the Word of God as it is revealed to the believer’s human spirit by the Holy Spirit." -Pastor/Teacher Bill Wenstrom

http://www.wenstrom.org/downloads/written/word_studies/greek/gnosis.pdf
"Comment: Hope this explanation of the mechanics of learning the Word of God sheds light on the thread's topic."

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by googlefudge
"Are you just not listening, or are you just to [too] stupid to understand the answer?"

In your eyes probably the latter.

I can't tell.

However I think my point was this.

We have answered this question many many times.

You KNOW we have answered this question many many times.

Thus, unless you genuinely don't understand our answers, and want clarification...
In which case you should say so and outline what it is you don't understand/agree
with instead of just posing the same question over and over and over again as if that
will prompt a different answer.... You should stop asking this question, and move
onto something else.

Because every time you ask us exactly the same question when we know that you
know we have answered it at length many times before it looks to us like you are
either;
not paying any attention to anything we say,
not understanding anything we say,
or deliberately trolling us...

And none of those options is conducive to the civilised conversations you claim to
be interested in.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
GKR, would you conclude that the "Loch Ness monster" may be an unusual occurrence in the natural world or supernatural?

Would you agree that answering a question with a question is rude?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not convinced that we cannot call the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan terrorism.
But you are right, that the actions in the Moses story, are on the order of genocidal type atrocities rather than the typical terrorist suicide bombing. Just think, if every first born of every family in any given sizable nation on earth today were to be killed, what wou ...[text shortened]... at about if someone released a virus that actually caused enough deaths to be labelled a plague?

I suspect an engineered viral attack might get a proper name, like the Holocaust did.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"Going back to the OP, has anyone yet pointed out the HUGE difference that Moses didn't have to do the work of terrorizing himself?"

incorrect. just like the terrorist making the bomb and the one delivering it is not always the same person, so was moses triggering the plagues. he also delivers the demands/ultimatums.


"Any given terrorist action is ...[text shortened]... cessful military actions are the ones who destroy military targets with minimal civilian impact.

Moses was only the messenger. God told him which plague was coming next, so he could tell the Pharaoh. God designed all of the plagues himself. It's not like Moses got to pick them. Or trigger them, for that matter.

Here, see for yourself.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+7&version=KJV

"Minimal civilian impact" is usually propaganda from the war-making nation. The US was fond of that sort of phraseology during our last invasion of Iraq, yet we managed to kill 100K+ [and that's the most conservative count] people there.

low body count is not a defining trait of a terrorist, causing terror is.

I disagree. People don't take the term 'terrorist' as 100% literal. Like many other buzzwords, it became more and more a proper noun over time, acquiring its own unique traits in the process.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Because people believe in it, and as people base decisions that effect others on those beliefs it is perfectly reasonable and valid to question those beliefs. Both to try to understand them and possibly to change them.

If your favorite pie was pecan pie and I hated pecan pie with a passion, even to the point of refusing to believe in it, then is it okay to actively take such a position to abolish the serving of pecan pie nationwide, simply because I do not like pecan pie and do not wish to even be exposed to its aroma at mealtime? What if I were allergic to pecan pie and smelling it actually caused me to have a reaction? Therefore your serving a pecan pie is dangerous to me. Should I then act to revoke your right to serve pecan pie or should I just suck it up and not go to places that serve it? Which would be the more logical response?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Q. What may I ask is "/Picard double facepalm."

A "facepalm" is when you put your face in your hand. Put your elbow on the table, open palm facing up, then place your face in your hand (or, alternatively, your hand over your face), as a sign of exasperation. Using both hands in this fashion would be a "double facepalm". On the TV show "Star Trek:TNG", Captain Picard, played by Patrick Stewart, would do this occasionally, again, as a sign of exasperation, usually a single facepalm, but sometimes a double, when the exasperation was especially high. Sometimes others on the show would do this as well, like Commander Riker, but Picard was particularly known for it.

I thought it was a great reference and it made me actually LOL when I read it. 🙂

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Moses was only the messenger. God told him which plague was coming next, so he could tell the Pharaoh. God designed all of the plagues himself. It's not like Moses got to pick them. Or trigger them, for that matter.

Here, see for yourself.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+7&version=KJV

"Minimal civilian impact" is usually pro ...[text shortened]... it became more and more a proper noun over time, acquiring its own unique traits in the process.

Exodus:
The Lord said to Moses, “Pharaoh’s heart is hard; 27 he refuses to release 28 the people. 7:15 Go to Pharaoh in the morning when 29 he goes out to the water. Position yourself 30 to meet him by the edge of the Nile, 31 and take 32 in your hand the staff 33 that was turned into a snake. 7:16 Tell him, ‘The Lord, the God of the Hebrews, has sent me to you to say, 34 “Release my people, that they may serve me 35 in the desert!” But until now 36 you have not listened. 37
7:17 Thus says the Lord: “By this you will know that I am the Lord: I am going to strike 38 the water of the Nile with the staff that is in my hand, and it will be turned into blood.


he triggered them. that makes moses a terrorist as well.

"

low body count is not a defining trait of a terrorist, causing terror is.

I disagree. "
i am sure you will have a well thought out argument as to why.

" People don't take the term 'terrorist' as 100% literal."
weasel word: people. what people?
"Like many other buzzwords, it became more and more a proper noun over time, acquiring its own unique traits in the process."
so? thief is a noun as well, do you think one would call someone a thief because of his baking? no, he steals. also, what unique traits? is it still defined as causing terror to achieve a political goal? the dictionary seems to think so.

Originally posted by Suzianne
A "facepalm" is when you put your face in your hand. Put your elbow on the table, open palm facing up, then place your face in your hand (or, alternatively, your hand over your face), as a sign of exasperation. Using both hands in this fashion would be a "double facepalm". On the TV show "Star Trek:TNG", Captain Picard, played by Patrick Stewart, would d ...[text shortened]... wn for it.

I thought it was a great reference and it made me actually LOL when I read it. 🙂

It's also a meme 🙂

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MfgS6WLvHCk/maxresdefault.jpg

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/facepalm

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Funny how it always seems to turn out that you were every bit as offended as the other guy, if not more. 😕

One might suppose that was the reason behind the comment in the first place. This was also what my OP in the "Charlie Hebdo" thread was about.

Just because we have an opinion (like everyone else), should we throw that opinion out on a public billboard, just "because we can"? Statements like these are known to be insulting to those of faith. So why put them out there, except to offend and prove disrespect?

Christians already know atheists exist, why do they need their unbelief thrust in their face at every opportunity, especially in this fashion, by being told that our sacred, holy book is fiction?

And then to be surprised that someone takes offense is patently ridiculous. "Dishing it out but not being able to take it" leaps to mind.

Would you argue with your own grandmother, insulting her religion and calling her b**-s*** crazy for believing in a god that is clearly a homicidal maniac? No, you probably wouldn't.

Originally posted by Suzianne
If your favorite pie was pecan pie and I hated pecan pie with a passion, even to the point of refusing to believe in it, then is it okay to actively take such a position to abolish the serving of pecan pie nationwide, simply because I do not like pecan pie and do not wish to even be exposed to its aroma at mealtime? What if I were allergic to pecan pie and ...[text shortened]... I just suck it up and not go to places that serve it? Which would be the more logical response?

Huh?

If your favorite pie was pecan pie and I hated pecan pie with a passion,
even to the point of refusing to believe in it, ...

Sooo.... Your grasp of reality is so weak that you refuse to believe in the existence of things
you don't like?!?!?!?!??

Um... I don't know what to do with that...

Precisely what is it you think I/we do that this is an analogy of??

then is it okay to actively take such a position to abolish the serving of pecan
pie nationwide, simply because I do not like pecan pie and do not wish to even be
exposed to its aroma at mealtime?

But... You don't believe it exists... How can you not believe it exists while simultaneously
not want to be exposed to it?

What if I were allergic to pecan pie and smelling it actually caused me to have a reaction?

Then I would really stop disbelieving in it's existence cos that stuff could get you killed.

Therefore your serving a pecan pie is dangerous to me.
Should I then act to revoke your right to serve pecan pie or should I just suck it up and not go to
places that serve it?
Which would be the more logical response?

Logic???? Logic has left the building.

We are in a logic free zone.


I have no clue what you are getting at...

I just can't....





Huh??????

Originally posted by googlefudge
It's also a meme 🙂

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MfgS6WLvHCk/maxresdefault.jpg

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/facepalm

Yeah, I know. I'm a big fan of KnowYourMeme.

I just thought I'd be clear, without overloading GB with another new word 'meme'.

We see /facepalm a lot, along with /headdesk. Just not around here too much.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Huh?



[quote]If your favorite pie was pecan pie and I hated pecan pie with a passion,
even to the point of refusing to believe in it, ...[quote]


Sooo.... Your grasp of reality is so weak that you refuse to believe in the existence of things
you don't like?!?!?!?!??

Um... I don't know what to do with that...

Precisely what is it you ...[text shortened]... ee zone.


I have no clue what you are getting at...

I just can't....





Huh??????

Now you're just "taking the piss", pretty much as I was.

I know you get what I'm saying, I'm not yet ready to believe you're that slow.

Your quote was: "Because people believe in it, and as people base decisions that effect others on those beliefs it is perfectly reasonable and valid to question those beliefs. Both to try to understand them and possibly to change them.

It's the part in bold that I have a problem with, obviously.