the latest pile of dog

[Skeptical Greg]

I would not agree that he is entitled to his opinion .. ( Godwin's law ... must resist - must resist ..

Biblically those children were merely temporarily put to sleep until the ressurection.

If you really think this is somehow justified, then you are a fiend..
Something to keep in mind for all future dicussions..

 

[joobz]

Biblically those children were merely temporarily put to sleep until the ressurection. Not that I expect that to change anyone's viewpoint. But just adding it for informational purposes.

No. They were not just "put to sleep". they were killed. They will not be given a second chance at life on earth. They were prevented from experiencing the wonder of god's creation. This is not the same thing as "being put to sleep".

"Being put to sleep" is to "killing"
as
"drinking water" is to "drowning"

 

[Radrook]

Then I missinterpreted your statement. My apologies.

Happens no problem.

Then you can not claim that Zeus was a rapist.

Based on what I have read about him I am forced to.

understood. So Mary fornicated with god.

Fornication involves coitus between two unmarried human persons. First, there was no coitus between God and Mary. Why? Because God has no need to do such a thing in order to bring about a pregnancy. Even humans don't need to have coitus or commit fornication in order to produce a pregnancy. Since you are aware of this-why are you insisting otherwise?

Second, it was by means of holy spirit or God;s power
that she became pregnant. Again, since you are aware of this-why try to misrepresent?

Third, Mary is described as a virgin. Again, since you are aware of this why the misrepresentation?

this doesn't follow logically with my statement. You have asserted to know the true bible interpretation. you have not demonstrated any proof that there is only one right view and that you happen to know it.

You appear to be putting forth your own particular version which YOU seem to believe is the only true one. So how does your approach differ from mine?

Do you believe stating that it wasn't murder makes the act any better? Would you prefer the term infantide? Or are you saying that the slaughter of those children was acceptable and therefore not murder? of infidels?

Are you sure you are reading my posts before responding? I clearly said that the reason why it can't be classified as murder is because it involves the death of condemned criminals. We are all condemned criminals at conception due to inherited sin. That's a basic Christian doctrine upon which the redemption of mankind via the Redemptive Sacrifice is based. Are sufficiently familiar with that doctrine?

not see how an outside observer could view such rationalizations as equivalent to the excuses given by Muslim terrorist for their execution

Outside observers are very often not familiar with the details by virtue of being outside observers. Neither can judicial decision passed by the highest court in the universe be compared to the illegitimate terrorist decisions. On the one hand you have humans arbitrarily and illegally attempting to permanently terminate lives they are unable to restore. On the other we have the biblical source of all life deciding to TEMPORARILY suspend certain human lives until the restoration via resurrection time arrives. Surely you can see a difference here.

 

[Radrook]

No. They were not just "put to sleep". they were killed.

Denial of the ressurection is not a biblical teaching. In fact, it isd identified with apostate teachings. Are you aware of that?

They will not be given a second chance at life on earth.

Another non biblical idea!

They were prevented from experiencing the wonder of god's creation.

In that hell hole family environment of child sacrifice parental abuse via incest and other such Caananite niceties?

This is not the same thing as "being put to sleep".

"Being put to sleep" is to "killing"
as
"drinking water" is to "drowning"

Then you have a beef with the ASPCA which uses the term to refer to all the animals they kill.

 

[joobz]

Justifying your interpretation of Greek mythology you say

Based on what I have read about him I am forced to.

But then, in claiming my interpretation of Bibilical writings is wrong you say

Outside observers are very often not familiar with the details by virtue of being outside observers.

Can you not see the inconsistency?

Neither can judicial decision passed by the highest court in the universe be compared to the illegitimate terrorist decisions. On the one hand you have humans arbitrarily
and illegally attempting to permanently terminate lives they are unable to restore.
On the other we have the biblical source of all life deciding to TEMPORARILY suspend certain human lives until the restoration via ressurection time arrives. Surely you can see a difference here.

There is no difference from the view of the living, which is all we have to go on. Dead is dead. God has revoked children the opportunity to live in his creation as punishment to those children's parents. This is not justice. This is not honorable. This is not good. Indeed, it isn't even the children's parents who did wrong. Rather the pharoah. It would be like imprisoning the children of Worldcom employee's for Worldcom's criminal accounting practices. Not only is it illogical. It's patently amoral.

The bible also has examples of men enacting the will of god by slaughtering children. How do we know, then, that the hands of the Muslim terrorists are not guided by god? You have faith that you know the difference.

 

[joobz]

Denial of the ressurection is not a biblical teaching. In fact, it isd identified with apostate teachings. Are you aware of that?

Not sure your point.

Another non biblical idea!

Are you claiming that the bible supports reincarnation? I don't mean resurrection, I mean reincarnation.

In that hell hole family environment of child sacrifice parental abuse via incest and other such Caananite niceties?

So you claim, however I see no reason to assume this as a universal truth. If we assume this to be true, than god is horrible for not killing all of thier children and not just the first born. or simply rendering those people infertile.

Then you have a beef with the ASPCA which uses the term to refer to all the animals they kill.

It's a euphemism to make it easy on children. Under no circumstances does the ASPCA believe they are actually sleeping.

 

[Radrook]

I would not agree that he is entitled to his opinion .. ( Godwin's law ... must resist - must resist ..

If you really think this is somehow justified, then you are a fiend..
Something to keep in mind for all future dicussions..

Do you consider Truman to have been a fiend?

 

[Radrook]

Not sure your point.

The Apostle Paul mentions that there were those opposing the teaching of resurrection and that a belief in such a teaching was actually an attack against Christianity because it denied the resurrection of Christ.

Are you claiming that the bible supports reincarnation? I don't mean resurrection, I mean reincarnation.

Well, the Bible doesn't use the word reincarnation, It uses the word resurrection. Actually, the word "reincarnation" brings in the of non-biblical concept of people caught in an endless cycle of rebirths until they can attain Nirvana via earning it with right behavior. So no, I am not claiming that the Bible teaches reincarnation although there are some who would debate that point.

So you claim, however I see no reason to assume this as a universal truth. If we assume this to be true,

First, I would prefer that you perceive my comments as explanations of the biblical viewpoint and not as claims or efforts at persuading you to believe as I do since explaining is all I am attempting to do.

Second: what universal truth do you claim I am proposing?

than god is horrible for not killing all of thier children and not just the first born. or simply rendering those people infertile.

We are granted the right to agree or disagree with the method he might choose. Or to wonder just why he chose that particular method.

It's a euphemism to make it easy on children. Under no circumstances does the ASPCA believe they are actually sleeping.

Does the ASPCA have a patent pending on that euphemism?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Do you consider Truman to have been a fiend?

Do you have evidence that Truman murdered all the first born males of Japan after first making sure the Emperor had no real choice to give in to Truman's demands ?

If you have such evidence, then yes, I would say Truman was a fiend, and I would be a fiend if I condoned his actions..

P.S.

Radrook, I certainly admire your tenacity ..
I'm sure you often feel that you are kicking against the brambles, and it would be
best to dust off your shoes and move on down the road ..

I apologize for calling you a fiend .. I'm confident you are not one ..
It's just that the supposed actions of the god you are defending, are clearly those of a fiend, by any
standards imaginable.

 

[Radrook]

Justifying your interpretation of Greek mythology you say

A clear act of rape doesn't need interpretation. It's simply too plain to understand otherwise. The need of interpretation is reserved for events behaviors or concepts that are vague. I see nothing vague about someone forcing someone else to have sex.

But then, in claiming my interpretation of Biblical writings is wrong you say

That's because biblical context indicates it.

Can you not see the inconsistency?

Sorry-but no. Care to spell it out in more detail?

There is no difference from the view of the living, which is all we have to go on.

The Christian view is held by living Christians. Don't they count as being alive as well?

Dead is dead.

A view held by the living who disagree with the living who hold an opposing view.

God has revoked children the opportunity to live in his creation as punishment to those children's parents. This is not justice. This is not honorable. This is not good.

What's not good is ignoring the biblical concept that humans when conceived are already legally convicted to death.

Indeed, it isn't even the children's parents who did wrong. Rather the pharaoh.

The Bible focuses on the Pharaoh because it's his decisions which are biding in relation to national policy. That doesn't mean that those not mentioned were not supporting their king. Especially when the issue was their gods against the perceived Hebrew God. Actually, the only time in which the attitude of the Egyptian population is mentioned is when their Pharaoh gives in and they follow his lead by urging the Israelites to leave. Prior to that there is absolutely no indication of any protest against the pharaoh's policy except from the priests who prior to that had chosen to challenge the Israelite God by striving to imitate plagues on a limited scale. Something calculated to discredit the plagues and to encourage the population to keep their faith in the Egyptian gods.

It would be like imprisoning the children of Worldcom employee's for Worldcom's criminal accounting practices. Not only is it illogical. It's patently amoral.

Of course it seems immoral if we choose to persistently ignore that from a biblical standpoint, all of us are condemned to death due to having been conceived in sin sand really don't have any justifiable claim to life. So your premise of : "Sinful humans have an inherent right to life" is the problem..

If life is granted temporarily it is due to his mercy-not because we deserve it. That's a fundamental Christian tenet essential for understanding certain things that might be totally incomprehensible otherwise.

The bible also has examples of men enacting the will of god by slaughtering children.

Is it that men were involved or is it the concept that God told them to do it? Which irks you most? Or is it that some people decide to accept what you cannot and will not accept? Or is it all these combined?

How do we know, then, that the hands of the Muslim terrorists are not guided by god? You have faith that you know the difference.

You appear to want Christians to view things from a Muslim terrorist viewpoint and make concessions. Isn't that a bit unrealistic? Especially since you know that from a Christian standpoint non-Christian religions are considered to be wrong and that things done in the name of those religions are viewed as misguided.
__________________

 

[Radrook]

Do you have evidence that Truman murdered all the first born males of Japan after first making sure the Emperor had no real choice to give in to Truman's demands ?If you have such evidence, then yes, I would say Truman was a fiend, and I would be a fiend if I condoned his actions..

He never regreted having incinerated, maimed, and disfigured the children in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Do you have a statement where he says he should not have done that?

There were children living in the Tokyo neighborhoods that were fiire-bombed. As there were in Dresden which was merely bombed to scare the Russians.

P.S.

Radrook, I certainly admire your tenacity ..I'm sure you often feel that you are kicking against the brambles, and it would be best to dust off your shoes and move on down the road ..

If I were trying to convince then I would feel that way. Hoewever, I am just trying to inform so that the reasons for these beliefs are better understood.

I apologize for calling you a fiend ....

Jesus himself was accused of being demonized. So I guess I'm in good company. : )

.. I'm confident you are not one ..

Thanx!

It's just that the supposed actions of the god you are defending, are clearly those of a fiend, by any standards imaginable.

My commentary is merely an attempt at explaining the biblical position on this matter in order to reduce unwarranted assumptions and false premises.

 

[joobz]

The Apostle Paul mentions that there were those opposing the teaching of resurrection and that a belief in such a teaching was actually an attack against Christianity because it denied the resurrection of Christ.

I understand resurrection as the bible describes it. It's the whole reviving of a dead body with it's soul. and depending on interpretations, those children will only be resurrected at Judgement. They will never be given a chance to experience life in god's creation pre-judgement, which is what I'm referring to. Afterall, that is the ONLY life we know to be real.

Well, the Bible doesn't use the word reincarnation, It uses the word resurrection. Actually, the word "reincarnation" brings in the of non-biblical concept of people caught in an endless cycle of rebirths until they can attain Nirvana via earning it with right behavior. So no, I am not claiming that the Bible teaches reincarnation although there are some who would debate that point.

there is no biblical reason to think souls have a second chance at the pre-judgement life on this world. As such, god denied children this right as a punishment to the pharaoh. That's completely insane.

First, I would prefer that you perceive my comments as explanations of the biblical viewpoint and not as claims or efforts at persuading you to believe as I do since explaining is all I am attempting to do.

I do not believe you are attempting to presuade me. I apologize for giving the concept. But I do not also believe you are presenting the biblical viewpoint.
You are, of course, presenting your interpretation of what the Biblical viewpoint is. I think you speak with good authority as to what that is, but it is far from the only proper interpretation. I am in no position and see no reason to take one interpretation (e.g., catholic vs pentecostal vs. protestant) over another.

Second: what universal truth do you claim I am proposing?

You've leveed a series of accusations against cannaanites as to thier horrible practices. I'm not sure what they have to do with pharaoh, but I do believe the bible as being honest in regards to other's morality.

Does the ASPCA have a patent pending on that euphemism?

Of course not, but you did not say put to sleep as a euphemism.

So you are telling me that the first born children in Egypt, those infants in thier cribs, were justifiably killed because the pharoah would not let the jews free?

Biblically those children were merely temporarily put to sleep until the ressurection. Not that I expect that to change anyone's viewpoint. But just adding it for informational purposes.

You used it as an alternative to the kids not being "killed"

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Only if he asks you to, according to the Bible. And he asked a lot of people to, but he also enjoys doing it himself (a lot!), so if you kill people without hearing voices the voice of god, that's bad. Even though you're not really capable of killing anybody, just temporarily stunning them until everybody's resurrected and divvied up for all eternity. Since there's nothing in the ten commandments saying "thou shalt not stun," maybe it's okay.

I'm choosing to believethis was written in sarcasm. I really, really hope I'm right.

Are you sure you are reading my posts before responding? I clearly said that the reason why it can't be classified as murder is because it involves the death of condemned criminals. We are all condemned criminals at conception due to inherited sin. That's a basic Christian doctrine upon which the redemption of mankind via the Redemptive Sacrifice is based. Are sufficiently familiar with that doctrine?

1. The killing of condemned criminals is not murder.
2. We are all condemned criminals, from birth.
3. Ergo, there is no such thing as murder.

You have stated 1 and 2 quite clearly. 3 is simply the logical conclusion.

A clear act of rape doesn't need interpretation. It's simply too plain to understand otherwise. The need of interpretation is reserved for events behaviors or concepts that are vague. I see nothing vague about someone forcing someone else to have sex.

And I see nothing vague about mass killings.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

1. The killing of condemned criminals is not murder.
2. We are all condemned criminals, from birth.
3. Ergo, there is no such thing as murder.

You have stated 1 and 2 quite clearly. 3 is simply the logical conclusion.

Wrong. It's not murder* when you have or been given the authority to deal out the punishment. If you as an individual went and killed a mass murderer after he's been condemned to death by the government before the government could follow through with the punishment you would not be doing capital punishment - you'd be committing murder.

It should read:

1. The killing of condemned criminals is not murder when done by those with the legal rights to carry out the punishment.

What needs to be determined is who and what is the authority. So - in RadRook's scenario - the only authority who can deal out the punishment would be God. Not you. Not anyone. And we see that it is happening - the punishment's already being enforced - it's called Death. So far no humans found a way to escape it.




*Note: I'm talking about legal definitions and distinctions of Murder vs. Capital Punishment. An argument can be made that all killing at anytime is murder - but that's neither here nor there for this thread.

 

[Foster Zygote]

When reading the apologetics of those who seek to justify the slaughter of innocent children by, or in the name of, their god I wonder if such people are really representative of the sort of evil that allows otherwise normal, law-abiding citizens to round up and exterminate members of some scapegoat group, or if they are just so indoctrinated and/or obstinate that they refuse to openly admit that the horrors described in ancient sacred writings are just that.

After all, if murdered children are just "put to sleep" until they are resurrected, then why should we mourn the death of any child? What's the difference if they are "put to sleep" by the god or servants of god murdering their parents or "put to sleep" by a serial child murderer?

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

When reading the apologetics of those who seek to justify the slaughter of innocent children by, or in the name of, their god I wonder if such people are really representative of the sort of evil that allows otherwise normal, law-abiding citizens to round up and exterminate members of some scapegoat group, or if they are just so indoctrinated and/or obstinate that they refuse to openly admit that the horrors described in ancient sacred writings are just that.

Hey FosterZygote - I'm not sure if you're talking in reference to the slaughters as described in the bible or in general when bad things happen to people and children.

After all, if murdered children are just "put to sleep" until they are resurrected, then why should we mourn the death of any child?

Uh ... you love them? Why do you think you wouldn't be sad - even if you believe you'll see them again someday? I get sad when I don't see loved ones for a long period of time or I'm saying good bye to them as they leave for a long journey - and that's while they are still alive.

What's the difference if they are "put to sleep" by the god or servants of god murdering their parents or "put to sleep" by a serial child murderer?

I'm not clear if you are considering sickness and accidents as the means god's "put's them to sleep" or something else.

If so - It seems to me that natural events causing death are alot different then humans murdering each other - their motivations on why they are murdering would be irrelevant to me. I wouldn't care why you murdered my loved one.

 

[joobz]

What needs to be determined is who and what is the authority. So - in RadRook's scenario - the only authority who can deal out the punishment would be God. Not you. Not anyone. And we see that it is happening - the punishment's already being enforced - it's called Death. So far no humans found a way to escape it.

But in the same scenario, god killed the kids as a punishment to the pharaoh. Under no similar system of justice do we allow the taking of one life as punishment to another.

Perhaps one could argue that god took away the kids in the same way as child protection services takes away children from bad parents. But even this wouldn't be an acceptable comparison, as it is clear that CPS does it to protect kids and not to punish parents. If god was to doing his action as a protection of the first born, why not protect all of the children?

The only explanation that can be offered which makes this ok is to say, "It's not wrong when god does it."

But then, the bible also has examples of god giving murdering/genocide rights to some people to enact his judgements by proxy. So, now we have
1.) It's not wrong when god does it.
2.) biblical examples of god doing killing.
3.) God giving this right to people.
Therefore, we are logically left with
4.) It's not wrong when these people kill for god by Proxy.

This is a formula ripe for excusing any genocide done and is functionally indestinguishable from the logic used by jihadists and muslim suicide bombers.

 

[rocketdodger]

Lol @ this thread.

The rape and murder of children is not "tough" to deal with for the majority of humans (those of us who are either too smart or too stupid to be sucked into ridiculous theist apologetics) -- it is simply unacceptable, and anyone who does it is either locked up for life or prompty put to death. We don't even have to think about it, it is so black and white.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

But in the same scenario, god killed the kids as a punishment to the pharaoh.

Well - I was responding to NobbyNobb's Logic Response to RadRook's scenario that I quoted - which seemed to be about RadRook talking about all humans being born with Original Sin or being sinful with their relationship to God.

Under no similar system of justice do we allow the taking of one life as punishment to another.

Perhaps one could argue that god took away the kids in the same way as child protection services takes away children from bad parents. But even this wouldn't be an acceptable comparison, as it is clear that CPS does it to protect kids and not to punish parents. If god was to doing his action as a protection of the first born, why not protect all of the children?

The only explanation that can be offered which makes this ok is to say, "It's not wrong when god does it."

But then, the bible also has examples of god giving murdering/genocide rights to some people to enact his judgements by proxy. So, now we have
1.) It's not wrong when god does it.
2.) biblical examples of god doing killing.
3.) God giving this right to people.
Therefore, we are logically left with
4.) It's not wrong when these people kill for god by Proxy.

This is a formula ripe for excusing any genocide done and is functionally indestinguishable from the logic used by jihadists and muslim suicide bombers.

I'll be honest here Joobz - I wish more Christians would just say "I don't understand how any of that could be ok, but I trust that somehow from some perspective whatever happened didn't beak any of God's moral rules". I've had some conversations and read writings where Christians do try to justify atrocities recorded in the Old Testament and it's not convincing to me. And often appalling.

I lean more towards the "justification of their actions after the matter" theory. The Israelites did atrocities not any different then their peers and then justified it by envoking God.

 

[rocketdodger]

Actually, I quite like the idea -- God follows the prime directive!

A corollary of such a theory is that we should act as if God does not exist, even if we think he does, because he want's us to be independent. So I can see why Christians aren't down with such a story...