You.allsmiles said:okay, i understand... you use Pharaoh below as an example, but do you have a more modern example of your god revealing himself to humans and having them reject him?
Really??? Wow... I sure wouldn't.koban said:Yes. I would have a problem dropping an atomic bomb on Afghanistan the day after 9-11.
There are times that picking and choosing who you kill in warfare isn't a very good idea.But mankind doesn't have the divine power to selectively choose who to avoid killing during a war, does it?
Knight said:You.
A different example to be sure... but an example none the less.allsmiles said:sorry about my impatience.
i understand why you would use me as an example.
i don't understand how myself as an example is anywhere near the significance of the example you presented (Pharaoh).
Knight said:A different example to be sure... but an example none the less.
No.allsmiles said:could you give me an example of how your god has revealed himself to me on the same scale as his revelation to Pharaoh?
Knight said:No.
And if He did you would reject him even further.
It isn't about belief... it's about willingness to follow. Your willingness to follow would only INCREASE with your increased knowledge of the reality of God's existence.
i'm not going to answer these questions, but ask another...
why didn't the god of the Old Testament simply reveal himself to the prophets or priests or lay people of Jericho? or for that matter, the people of every other city and kingdom that the Hebrew's wiped out at his behest? why not reveal his glory to them and in a non-violent way take them over without having to shed a drop of blood?
was this beyond your god's capability? is the "power" of human denial stronger than your god's ability to reveal his splendor? we are talking about an era in "history" where your god had no problem revealing himself and making his power known.
17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
Okay, but why are you posing the question? Better yet - why are you running from God? You better start running towards him while you still have breath in your body, Fool.fool said:It's not contrived foolishness.
It's a question of basic morality.
Athiest are a very small percentage of the population, their not the ones makeing this the abortingest country in the world. If all the Athiest disappeared, I doubt it would make a dent in the abortion numbers. I think that Athiest value life more that Thiest since they think that's all there is.Yorzhik said:I'm as devoted to my God as the Muslims are to theirs, and so I'm sure I'd have no problems killing at God's request just as they do today.
But, Fool, you have to admit, you are in the minority when it comes to a prohibition on killing kids. Most atheists support baby-killers openly. If I recall, you don't support abortion, but will you admit that most atheists do?
That brings up another point, without hearing it right from Yaweh how do you know Josh didn't mess up? Or his note taker dropped a word or two? Ever work someplace with incompetent managment?GuySmiley said:Its interresting (as a side note) to think that at the time of Joshua's army, the Holy Spirit did not live inside people and words from God came through prophets, not to each person individually. The soldier would only recieve his orders from Joshua that this is what God commanded.
I'm not so sure about that, in some of Josh's latter conquests he kept the breeders for his men. Also, in an agrarian culture slaves are like free farming machines.If I were a soldier in that army I have no doubt that I'd carry out those orders. Anyone in an army in those times wouldn't see the moral dilema, it was common practice everywhere in the world. If the women and children were spared it would be the uncommon practice. But this is hypothetical, and you are looking at it as if you, your modern self, was there.
You're right, it dosen't change the subject much, unless you try to switch out butcher for "bring home" or "move to the next phase". Also, butcher is a little more accurate than "pierce" we're not talking about jewelry here.Also, why all the inflamitory language. You act as if God ordered the babies to be cut up into tiny pieces, starting with the toes to maximize the pain. You use the words slaughter and butcher to make your point seem better. Not that it changes the subject much.
It's the same God, so you're signing up with the same gang that does these sorts of things and dosen't see a problem with it.Your OP is in the context of a soldier in Joshua's army. Whenever someone admits they would follow the orders, you drop that context and say they want to hack up babies. Its not quite the same thing. If I thought God was telling me to pick a hospital nursery at random and go chop up all the babies, I'd go see a counsellor, not carry out the order.
Good point on the Muslims. I've said the same thing in the past.....Johnny said:Hi fool. I've followed your debate with Bob with great interest! I think you made a lot of good points. I'll comment on them after I've answered your question.
If I was completely sure that the God of the universe was telling me to slaughter infants then I would slaughter infants. It sounds savage, I know. It is savage. Today I would be labelled a psychopathic killer and probably sentenced to death. I would be spit on by the church itself for thinking that God was telling me to kill babies. What I find particularly hypocritical is that the scorn and disdain with which Christians look at muslims for doing the very same thing. Radical muslims and suicide bombers think they are doing God's will in the same way Joshua was sure he was doing God's will. They are both equally convinced of their rightness and justness. All this to say that I think if you were absolutely convinced the God of this universe was telling you the same thing, your reaction would be no different than Joshua's, Osama's, or mine.
I can understand your sentiment. People equate babies with supreme innocence and so the murder of a baby is the ultimate transgression. Nonetheless, it seems like babies are less likely to suffer emotionally during the ordeal. An adult knows what is coming and fears the result. Who knows, I can't even imagine murdering anyone.I think I'd almost be more likely to kill a baby than an adult.