Religion II

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But that's not what you said in your 6403. You just asked (to paraphrase), "Couldn't some other people have taken them?" As though Israel was surrounded by friendly nations who were just itchin' for someone to fill up their vacant orphanages, right?

Pleaser don't tell me what I said. Or "paraphrase" my words into another meaning.

No, this is what I said

Btw, even if your god did not trust the Jews to raise the Amalekite's infants, somewhere else in the world, another people could have taken them in. Even your god did not have to hover endlessly over only one tribal state. Or be ignorant of other continents.

JOKING ABOUT YOUR GOD "even if your god did not trust the Jews hovering over that one tribal state of the Israelites, hinting your blood thirsty all knowing, all doing most powerful being, could have MOVED THE INFANTS to another nation.

Where did I say the Jews s should move them to a neighboring state, INSTEAD of GOD

Then you said god should open an orphanage

[hcap]

In #6429 you babbled

But my rhetorical question was in response to your idiotic suggestion that Israel should have gone to their neighbors and dumped all the kiddies on them -- totally forgetting that all their [wicked] neighbors were their enemies who they were going to dispossess from the Land!

You totally missed the point I was making. Your god was the only one who could have, due to his alleged all knowing-ness and all powerful-ness, re-located the infants and put them anywhere on earth instead of ordering the Jews to murder them. (along with their farm animals)

.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

In #6429 you babbled

You totally missed the point I was making. Your god was the only one who could have, due to his alleged all knowing-ness and all powerful-ness, re-located the infants and put them anywhere on earth instead of ordering the Jews to murder them. (along with their farm animals)

.

If you had made the point in the first place, I wouldn't have missed it.

And you continue to miss the point very clearly made in the bible. One more time: God did not want to spare any Amalekite; He wanted to obliterate them -- he wanted to wipe their name off the face of the earth for what they did to Israel in the wilderness.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

If you had made the point in the first place, I wouldn't have missed it.

I thought I did. Looks to me like your lack of a sense of humor hampered your reading ability.

Guess you don't like me calling your literal god "alleged" or "blood thirsty"

Or, if you prefer.......
"You don't read to well Shirley".

Of maybe, "what part of ..blah, blah, blah,...
didn't you understand?



Oh yeah, I don't buy a loving god would....

Originally Posted by you

not want to spare any Amalekite; He wanted to obliterate them -- he wanted to wipe their name off the face of the earth for what they did to Israel in the wilderness.

Did I say blood thirsty?
Throw in a human projection of human revenge unto a omniscient and omnipotent being

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The real spiritual journey starts out in the bible. This is what Divine Revelation is all about.

Regarding the Egyptian first borns -- was not God extremely patient with Pharaoh with all the warnings He gave him via one plague after another? With all these ample warnings, it seems to me God was more than justified in finally taking human life to get Pharaoh to comply. But even then...even after God's worst plague, Pharaoh's heart was so hardened he took his army to chase the Hebrews. But of course...that didn't end too well for the king or his army.

It's a good story. Updated it would make a fine novel.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

It's a good story. Updated it would make a fine novel.

The movie at least had special effects

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

The movie at least had special effects

And if man can do those technological "miracles", just imagine what God did.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

It's a good story. Updated it would make a fine novel.

It's more than good. It is a great true story.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I thought I did. Looks to me like your lack of a sense of humor hampered your reading ability.

Guess you don't like me calling your literal god "alleged" or "blood thirsty"

Or, if you prefer.......
"You don't read to well Shirley".

Of maybe, "what part of ..blah, blah, blah,...
didn't you understand?



Oh yeah, I don't buy a loving god would....


Did I say blood thirsty?
Throw in a human projection of human revenge unto a omniscient and omnipotent being

A loving, righteous God would most certainly exact justice. And that's what the Amalekites received from God's hand through the Israelites -- justice.

Of course, you "don't buy"...because you have no conception of what it means to be a righteous being. And the character of an infinitely righteous being would demand an infinitely just remedy for lawbreaking and all unjust acts.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Pleaser don't tell me what I said. Or "paraphrase" my words into another meaning.

No, this is what I said
JOKING ABOUT YOUR GOD "even if your god did not trust the Jews hovering over that one tribal state of the Israelites, hinting your blood thirsty all knowing, all doing most powerful being, could have MOVED THE INFANTS to another nation.

Where did I say the Jews s should move them to a neighboring state, INSTEAD of GOD

Then you said god should open an orphanage

Yeah...God did have to "hover" (whatever that means!) over one tribal state because he had already abandoned all the other people of the earth when he brought judgment upon them at the Tower of Babel. After that universal judgment, God then chose to make a great nation from Abraham. God is a faithful "husband", having only one "bride" -- Israel.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

A loving, righteous God would most certainly exact justice. And that's what the Amalekites received from God's hand through the Israelites -- justice.

Of course, you "don't buy"...because you have no conception of what it means to be a righteous being. And the character of an infinitely righteous being would demand an infinitely just remedy for lawbreaking and all unjust acts.

The story is not literally true. Makes no sense historically, or ethically, or empathetically.

Oy gevalt! And you speak of morality?

Psychologically, although distorted, if applied properly it does.

Whenever we attenpt to discipline ourselves aiming to change or overcome a destructive habit, we may observe the resulting friction we often find in this attempt to alter our automatic ingrained behaviors. Frequently the elimination of that habit is not total. It can re-surface just when we assume we have been successful and begin to take credit for our success.(the usual patting oneself on the back)

Remnants of the destructive behavior, although almost discarded sneak back in.

Evil "spirits" or "demons" in the NT. properly understood......

Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation...Matthew 12:45

Physically removing a bacteriological disease:.

Remove the main body of germs and if you don't get all the infection, small remnants grow back and these descendants of the original problem re infect you. These "infants", or first born of the new infection, are the potential problem. Some disguise themselves as minor other species, or "farm animals"

Metaphorically speaking of course.

The O.T. was composed for an earlier time and meant to Shock listeners into action. Of course it assumed those listeners were able to understand and witness themselves inwardly.

However Jews are smart. My Rabbis agree of course.

....Patting myself on the back

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

The story is not literally true. Makes no sense historically, or ethically, or empathetically.

Oy gevalt! And you speak of morality?

Psychologically, although distorted, if applied properly it does.

Whenever we attenpt to discipline ourselves aiming to change or overcome a destructive habit, we may observe the resulting friction we often find in this attempt to alter our automatic ingrained behaviors. Frequently the elimination of that habit is not total. It can re-surface just when we assume we have been successful and begin to take credit for our success.(the usual patting oneself on the back)

Remnants of the destructive behavior, although almost discarded sneak back in.

Evil "spirits" or "demons" in the NT. properly understood......

Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation...Matthew 12:45

Physically removing a bacteriological disease:.

Remove the main body of germs and if you don't get all the infection, small remnants grow back and these descendants of the original problem re infect you. These "infants", or first born of the new infection, are the potential problem. Some disguise themselves as minor other species, or "farm animals"

Metaphorically speaking of course.

The O.T. was composed for an earlier time and meant to Shock listeners into action. Of course it assumed those listeners were able to understand and witness themselves inwardly.

However Jews are smart. My Rabbis agree of course.

....Patting myself on the back

The story makes very good sense. Your moral relativism prohibits you from relating to an absolutely righteous God. Your failure to relate is self-condemning and speaks poignantly to the corruption of your own mind and soul, since you, a very fallible and finite being, have appointed yourself as the final authority as to what is good and what is evil -- what is just and what is unjust.

Don't break your arm congratulating yourself. Self-congratulatory back slapping would best be reserved for after you meet the Righteous Judge of all Heaven and Earth on the last day and he pronounces sentence upon you.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

It's more than good. It is a great true story.

The Ten Commandments? No, it's not. There is zero evidence to support the story. We've been over this before.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

The Ten Commandments? No, it's not. There is zero evidence to support the story. We've been over this before.

Try to keep up. No one mentioned the 10 Commandments.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

..because you have no conception of what it means to be a righteous being. And the character of an infinitely righteous being would demand an infinitely just remedy for lawbreaking and all unjust acts.

OK Darth. Your Biblical idea of the "righteousness of God" is no different than any evil empire leaders righteousness of their ego. Because it has anger, hatred, and revenge in it and a low level of consciousness. Not God consciousness.

You think that "doing right" will clean up past actions of "doing wrong". That is "political action", not God's actions. The power of God changes peoples hearts first then and only then, their actions naturally change in alignment with God's. And when that happens, there is no anger, hate or revenge associated with a truly righteous action because it comes from the heart which has the power and wisdom to change things in a positive direction.

This is why Jesus said "love your enemies".