Posted on 07/31/2010 6:26:07 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Besides having devastated Israel when she could Amalek, due to its depravity, could have been a garden of STDs. Every man, woman and child could be carrying the ancient equivalent of syphilis, AIDS, or any other fatal debilitating disease. I suspect there were some Zoonotic diseases in the mix, as God commanded that the livestock be destroyed as well.
Destroying the livestock after conquest is the rough equivalent of killing a man for his wealth and then burning all his money. A very odd thing to do.
I love FR!
Worse.
Here's a hint, guys:
REAL Prophets climb mountains to be closer to God, they don't crawl into a hole to listen to the hissings of The Serpent.
Liberal pantie wetting BS.
[I do realize you are merely quoting it]
So what’s so significant about 613 and 233?
Great! This would make for a good tag. If anyone has not yet watched videos of Palestinians raising their children to their doctrines of death and hate.. I would encourage a couple hours investing. For from the time of infancy to adulthood their minds and hearts are warped completely by the teachings of Islam. The focus is on death to others and themselves....woman dedicate infants to suicide cults in mass dedication services...as if laying them on a sacrificial alter equally as appallingly as child sacrifices centuries ago.
I have no problem understanding why God would take these children home to Himself to save them from the lifestyle they most assuredly will have within the confines of this barbaric and hateful political force masked as a religion in the ME. The parents suck the very life out of these children who will never know or realize the heart God gave them to begin with...... Furthermore it would halt the generations to follow from perpetuating this hatefulness and death to all who do not yield to Islam.
It was not until I took a serious look at what these children are taught that I have great peace that God could indeed order the taking of children and woman as recorded. Further it is the woman of Islam who lead the charge as they have no heart themselves to resist for the sake of their children. Until their children's life's are more precious then their own this will most assuredly continue. As it has for centuries.
“The womb of the Arab woman is my strongest weapon.” - Yasser Arafat.
Could you please elaborate on this? I find the conclusion rather odd, considering the fact that such an eventuality doesn't seem to be the case in societies outside of the Middle East, which didn't have such blind, reciprocal "justice".
See post #30, paragraph 4
Two words.
Hatfields. McCoys.
“innocent”? Sin was eradicated. You’re not the judge of all the earth and it’s God.
Exodus 18:25
I think it would be smart if all remembered we are fighting basically on enemy territory. This world is not our homeland....it is the battlefield and therefore there will be casualties on both sides. But to think that somehow all men will desire peace, especially since Islam believes there is ONLY Peace thru Islam...it can never be possible for men to live together without war and those who seek power thru it.
Furthermore those who imagine in their thinking that taking of life to save those who seek true peace are living in a dream which is not real. If there be war then fight to win and pull out all stops to accomplish this. The quicker it is over with the more lives that will be saved. Unlike this dragging out in Afghanistan and other parts of the world where are troops pay with their life to appease leaderships who reap monetarily by dragging war out. When nations go to war they realize there will be deaths unintended...which is why nations with any degree of conscious do not do so lightly...however many ME nations of the Islamic mindset have no such concern...and in fact revel in death as much as of their own as their perceived enemies.
Wars were won in the past because at some point the nations could no longer stand the deaths of the innocents and outcry of those loses. It simply goes with the territory of war...but in time the numbers alone drive the citizens to resist the war and lose of it's citizens. Interesting I visited a monument to the hero's of all the wars, Ist & 2nd, Korean etc., which showed the entire world in granite.. with the exception of the ME countries not being represented at all. There was a time when those nations were dormant...and I believe today that was with purpose in the full scheme of things we now seeing played out. Today the ME is the focus....interestingly so.
They deliberately targeted everyone, not just children, or the animals. And post 69 postulates additional possible causes for this.
Collateral damage is not the same as deliberate targeting. There's a huge moral and ethical difference between the two.
Thus is true, but your problem is that you cannot allow and reasonable justification for the latter. That if God could take all the innocent to heaven, and stop self-perpetuating cruelty, malignant self-destructive iniquity, then He could only do it with the likes of fire and brimstone, and based upon your superior knowledge, you reject that using humans to do so, and to bury them, could have served a beneficial purpose,
If it violates the Golden Rule, then sorry, no sale on child-slaugter. ..I can make any moral decision purely based on the Golden Rule. It's neither unreasonable, nor unwise, to do so.
This addresses a larger topic. Doing unto others as you would have them do to you itself presumes an underlying morality. But in the Bible, the command of love for others as thyself is after the command to love, and thus obey, God, which thus determines how to love beneficially. Using the golden rule by itself, some would forbid punishment of criminals, as they would not want that done to them. Many parents give their children anything they want, as they want their own lusts to be fulfilled, and thus slowly harm their kids. And while souls can argue about what is beneficial, the moral reasoning of some can easily allowed them to justify what is self-serving and reject what is overall most beneficial. But assuming the latter, if a rational man can hurt in order to prevent evil and perform a greater good, how much more God could use men to. Your objection is still to the means, but a momentary pain (they were not to torture) for the innocent is nothing compared to eternal consolation, and hands-on served to warn Israel not to become like the Canaanites, etc., among other things i mentioned.
Exactly. Because humans are faulty and are prone to justifying vile acts in the name of a deity.
Thus, according to your logic, if some people misrepresent and authority, then no claim to be acting in the name of such can be valid, based upon your criteria of what an authority can do. If the authority is truly not acting in conformity with the standards he has set for himself, then you can have a case. But allowing that the actions at issue were just, and ultimately merciful to the innocent, then again, your objection is that the methodology cannot be justified. But which you cannot prove, and is grounded in your rejection of a Deity of superior knowledge, in both scope and wisdom, over which you presume superiority.
Lengthy, convoluted, circular-logic "reasoning" is no explanation.
It is i who has presented very reasonable explanations for justification regarding a Biblical issue, and it is within that context — what it reveals about God and morality — that the morality of it must be examined. But as you are opposed to the premise of God ordaining the actions at issue, then you reject that they, or the methodology, could be justified due in the light of the omniscience of God. Thus according to your understanding of what is allowed, only your understanding is correct.
Like I reasoned earlier, you will go to any extent to defend a vile act that is morally indefensible.
The only extent i have gone to is to posit that the creator can take life, which you agreed to, and that He was just and merciful in ordaining utter annihilation, and that the methodology itself can be justified as having a necessary effect, and with the brief period of anguish resulting in an eternity of the opposite for the innocent. You however, continue to rejecting at least the latter aspect as even a possibility, indicating that your real obstacle is that of allowing God to possess these attributes and motive, while in essence, justifying yourself as possessing superior knowledge. I understand one not being able to accept explanations which presume Theistic omniscience, due to committed adherence to only the naturalistic realm, but in debates about Bible accounts this must be allowed. But this has been a stimulating debate.
A reasonable possibility. Buy see 2Ths. 3:2
If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.
Indeed. Thanks for the participation!
“... it sounds like the rants of anarchists and libertarians who have a basic animus against authority in general.”
I am neither an anarchist or a libertarian but I accept no authority over my life or my mind. No one may morally hold authority over another human being.
I know most men despise liberty because it means responsibility and most people are terrified of being totally responsible for their own life and choices.
Perhaps they need their “authorities” and “rulers.” I do not.
I am glad to let others enslave themselve to anything or anyone they those. If they would only grant me the same and allow me to be free. I do not need them. Why do they need me?
We are not going to agree. I am an independent individualist, through and through. I have nothing in common with anyone who is not totally independent.
Hank
“You’re not the judge of all the earth and it’s God.”
You may think you can evade the necessity of making choices and judgments by passing them off on some supposed God, but you cannot, and you are responsible for all your choices. Every man is the judge of the whole world and one either makes the right judgments and lives by them, or suffers the consequences.
How did you decide which God to believe in? You had to make that choice. No one’s beliefs just happen to them, they must be chosen.
Hank
You confuse upholding the need for government in general with being totally responsible for one’s own life and choices, as the former does not necessarily negate the latter.
As for Independence, on one level we are all interdependent whether we realize it or not, even for our Internet connection, while God can stop us in a heart beat. And in the moral realm, being free does not mean liberty without necessary limits, unless you are what you deny. And while some adults are well governed, unless they want themselves and everyone to live with a gun at their side, they depend upon government, despite delusions that others will govern themselves without it.
In addition, while man is given an innate sense of morality, (Rm. 2) yet the “golden compass’ of man can easily point south, and living according to the objectively baseless moral reasoning of atheism provides no assurance or test of morality. While corrupting immutable moral laws of the Bible man can also do evil, this is made manifest in the light of the standard, and even the golden rule presumes a foundational morality.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Wonder if it mentioned Mohammed and his flying horse. Couldn't be about Jews, Jews were never there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.