Zone1 Losing their religion: why US churches are on the decline

[JoeB131]

Actually, I was under the weather and bored. Feeling better today, so just this one post.

Oh, was that it?

That's your problem. Psalm 14:2 says the fool in his heart says there is no God. You REFUSE God now you will pay for your unbelief. That is God's righteous and Holy justice.

Psalm 137:9 says "Happy is he who smashed they little one's heads against the rocks"....

Yeah... kind of sociopathic.

 

[Meriweather]

Psalm 137:9 says "Happy is he who smashed they little one's heads against the rocks"....

Yeah... kind of sociopathic.

Isn't this yet another verse you and I have gone over at least once? (The others we have gone over repeatedly.) Shrug. Using any of your verse as an excuse for not seeking God displays both sloth and ignorance. One has to be completely clueless not to know excuses are not needed for true non-belief. It is a simple statement of fact.

 

[GMCGeneral]

Oh, was that it?




Psalm 137:9 says "Happy is he who smashed they little one's heads against the rocks"....

Yeah... kind of sociopathic.

So you approve of all sin and crime. Gotcha. I will laugh my head off at you when God says these words to you: "Depart from ME"

 

[JoeB131]

Isn't this yet another verse you and I have gone over at least once? (The others we have gone over repeatedly.) Shrug. Using any of your verse as an excuse for not seeking God displays both sloth and ignorance. One has to be completely clueless not to know excuses are not needed for true non-belief. It is a simple statement of fact.

Oh, no, I don't think you tried to rationalize Psalm 139. I'm sure it would be amusing if you did.

For those playing along at home, the Psalm writer is engaging in his revenge fantasies about Babylon and Edom after Jerusalem fell.

Ending in this verse.

Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.

So you approve of all sin and crime. Gotcha. I will laugh my head off at you when God says these words to you: "Depart from ME"

Naw, I only approve of some sin. I'm rather fond of Wrath.

 

[Meriweather]

For those playing along at home, the Psalm writer is engaging in his revenge fantasies about Babylon and Edom after Jerusalem fell.

Ending in this verse.

Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.

Yes, for those playing at home, Joe is trying to rationalize his view of God with Psalm 137.

The Psalmist writes about a period of time when the Jews (God's chosen people) had been doing evil. The consequences of this evil came by way of the Babylonians who destroyed their communities and killed their people--including babies. They drove the remainder into Babylon, and were happy to make the Jews sing songs praising Babylon and denigrating their own homeland. The Babylonians were happy to be the brutal conquerors, happy their brutality had brought them success.

Fresh in mind of the Jews were the consequences they had brought down upon themselves for doing evil: An evil people had been ruthless. Psalm 137 foretold the Babylonians being conquered in the future--and they were, by the Medes and the Persians. Yes, the Medes and Persians were happy to dash Babylonian infants against the rocks on their own road to victory.

Joe, you say it is a song of revenge. It does warn of what the future will hold for Babylon, using the age old philosophy of What goes around, comes around. Even more, it is a song of mourning of what God's chosen people had brought down upon themselves.

God is not telling people it will make them happy if they dash infants against rocks. That would be a precept, a plan. The future is being described. The Psalmist sees the victors of their own conquerors, and these victors, in their turn, would be happy when killing the Babylonian infants on their own road to victory.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, for those playing at home, Joe is trying to rationalize his view of God with Psalm 137.

The Psalmist writes about a period of time when the Jews (God's chosen people) had been doing evil. The consequences of this evil came by way of the Babylonians who destroyed their communities and killed their people--including babies. They drove the remainder into Babylon, and were happy to make the Jews sing songs praising Babylon and denigrating their own homeland. The Babylonians were happy to be the brutal conquerors, happy their brutality had brought them success.

Fresh in mind of the Jews were the consequences they had brought down upon themselves for doing evil: An evil people had been ruthless. Psalm 137 foretold the Babylonians being conquered in the future--and they were, by the Medes and the Persians. Yes, the Medes and Persians were happy to dash Babylonian infants against the rocks on their own road to victory.

Actually, that's not really true. The Persians were quite benevolent in their rule. Not only did they not destroy Babylon, but they also let the Jews (or the very small community of Jews) return to Jerusalem and rebuild their temple. Really, the Judeans were the ones who were kind of the assholes of the ancient world, which is why everyone were happy to put a boot to their necks.

Joe, you say it is a song of revenge. It does warn of what the future will hold for Babylon, using the age old philosophy of What goes around, comes around. Even more, it is a song of mourning of what God's chosen people had brought down upon themselves.

God is not telling people it will make them happy if they dash infants against rocks. That would be a precept, a plan. The future is being described. The Psalmist sees the victors of their own conquerors, and these victors, in their turn, would be happy when killing the Babylonian infants on their own road to victory.

Honestly, that anyone would want to see babies killed (actual babies, not fetuses) is kind of horrifying, and certainly not the kind of thing you should put into a holy book. But there it is.... with all the other crazy verses they never read on Sunday.

 

[Meriweather]

Honestly, that anyone would want to see babies killed (actual babies, not fetuses) is kind of horrifying, and certainly not the kind of thing you should put into a holy book. But there it is.... with all the other crazy verses they never read on Sunday.

No one wants to see babies killed.

Benevolent Persian rule is not the same as the Persian war machine. The Persians were flaunting global mastery. At war, they were as brutal as anyone else.

You do not see the mourning in the song over the behavior of mankind? The Jews began by mourning their own evil, noting that evil brought greater evil upon them, and that this evil would continue to grow so that other conquerors would be happy as they committed their own evil--that of dashing Babylon babies against rocks.

I noticed you carefully distinguished killing babies outside the womb and the killing of babies inside the womb. Imagine a future dirge of our time, "And they happily killed life inside the womb." It appears that in Biblical times as well as our own, can't have a baby standing in the way of what we want.

Even so, there are some in all ages who recognize evil and how it grows.

 

[Meriweather]

But there it is.... with all the other crazy verses they never read on Sunday.

Rather, all the verses you never listened to on Sunday along with the homilies explaining the events of that day.

 

[ding]

Even so, there are some in all ages who recognize evil and how it grows.

Incrementally. As that is the only way "evil" can grow. It's how deviating from the standard is normalized... Over time, in incremental steps.

 

[Meriweather]

Incrementally. As that is the only way "evil" can grow. It's how deviating from the standard is normalized... Over time, in incremental steps.

Great points. Even when it is incrementally, though, some can still see the handwriting on the wall.

 

[ding]

Great points. Even when it is incrementally, though, some can still see the handwriting on the wall.

Absolutely. Reason AND experience. It's not hard to extrapolate at all. History is littered with examples to draw conclusions from. So we can logically understand why evil is an incremental process and we can see from history where it occurred. So, yes. Some can see the handwriting on the wall. There's always a few in the herd whose head pops up ahead of the rest in the presence of danger.

 

[JoeB131]

No one wants to see babies killed.

Benevolent Persian rule is not the same as the Persian war machine. The Persians were flaunting global mastery. At war, they were as brutal as anyone else.

Actually, the Persians were noted for their benevolence towards conquered people, it's why their empire was so successful.

As far as the Hebrews not wanting to kill babies, maybe you should ask the Amalekites. God demanded they be killed to the last man, woman and child. In fact, when Saul was insufficient in his genocide (He was fine with killing babies, but man, he drew the line at Cattle the Hebrews could actually use!) God sent Samuel to curse him. This is all covered in 1 Samuel 15.

7 Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, near the eastern border of Egypt. 8 He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword. 9 But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves[b] and lambs—everything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed.

10 Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel: 11 “I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” Samuel was angry, and he cried out to the Lord all that night.

You do not see the mourning in the song over the behavior of mankind? The Jews began by mourning their own evil, noting that evil brought greater evil upon them, and that this evil would continue to grow so that other conquerors would be happy as they committed their own evil--that of dashing Babylon babies against rocks.

Nope, what I see are a bunch of religious prudes wanting awful things to happen to other people because of imagined slights.

I noticed you carefully distinguished killing babies outside the womb and the killing of babies inside the womb. Imagine a future dirge of our time, "And they happily killed life inside the womb." It appears that in Biblical times as well as our own, can't have a baby standing in the way of what we want.

Fetuses aren't babies. Now, anti-abortion attitudes were drilled into me, and it was one of the last things I abandoned even after becoming an atheist. All that fetus porn I was exposed to in Catholic School had an effect. (Fetus Porn is when they go dumpster diving into the contents of medical waste containers and try to find something that kind of looks like a baby if you photograph it the right way).

Then I realized two realities.

1) A woman who doesn't want to be pregnant will find a way to not be pregnant.
2) The Right wing in this country has used abortion (among other issues) to get really stupid white people to vote against their own economic interests.

Rather, all the verses you never listened to on Sunday along with the homilies explaining the events of that day.

Oh, I promise you, they never talked about Jephthah, or Elijah's bears, or any of the other fun verses in the bible. Maybe my bible should have come with one of these.

 

[Meriweather]

Actually, the Persians were noted for their benevolence towards conquered people, it's why their empire was so successful.

Again, after the surrender, not during the fighting.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, after the surrender, not during the fighting.

Um, yeah, I don't think the babies were doing any of the fighting.

 

[JoeB131]

Also noticed you dodged the point of the Amalekites...

 

[ding]

As far as the Hebrews not wanting to kill babies, maybe you should ask the Amalekites. God demanded they be killed to the last man, woman and child. In fact, when Saul was insufficient in his genocide (He was fine with killing babies, but man, he drew the line at Cattle the Hebrews could actually use!) God sent Samuel to curse him. This is all covered in 1 Samuel 15.

Do you believe God actually said that or do you believe that it was Jewish embellishment that God told them that? It's seems like it would be kind of hard for you to believe something you don't believe exists could say anything at all, amirite?

 

[Meriweather]

As far as the Hebrews not wanting to kill babies, maybe you should ask the Amalekites.

Learn from the Psalm. The Hebrews were doing the evil they hated when it came from the Amalekites. The Amalekites were as great an enemy to the Hebrews as the Holocaust. They had been tormented by the Amalekites for years, and the Amalekite warfare was to attack from behind; attack the women and children and elderly instead of engaging the warriors who were in the front.

With the Amalekites, the Hebrews were determined to rid the world of the evil coming from the Amalekites. We have been through this before.

 

[Meriweather]

Also noticed you dodged the point of the Amalekites...

Taking a few minutes to think (and to do a few chores) is not dodging. I appreciate your eagerness to see my response, but patience.

 

[Meriweather]

Nope, what I see are a bunch of religious prudes wanting awful things to happen to other people because of imagined slights.

If that is all you see, we may as well move on.

 

[Meriweather]

Fetuses aren't babies.

Yet, they are a life, living in their mother's womb.