Christianity, and Ethics

[Czernobog]

Who cares? There is no acceptable rationale for genocide. And anyone who suggests that there is has lost any right to claim any moral high ground over anyone else. Ever.

There is always rationale. What rationale was given for the action? Was it carried out? Was there debate? When the passage reads, "God said," is it reasonable to ascertain that the priestly party was on one side of a debate, whereas the more secular side had another side?

I've said before, we cannot read the Old Testament (in particular) and understand it properly if we insist on reading it solely through the lens of 21st century modern Western world. The language and thought patterns are entirely different.

I don't care what language, and thought patterns you want to use, genocide is genocide. You either agree that genocide is, or ever was, reasonable, or you do not. Do you believe that genocide is ever reasonable?

 

[Meriweather]

Well, sure...but you're not a literalist. But don't you think that the fact that murder of children was attributed to the Lord is significant in itself?

Strict Muslims believe that the fall of the Twin Towers was ultimately an act of God. All there is...is the will of God. If God did not want the Twin Towers to fall, they would not have fallen. They fell. Will of God. No one did anything wrong.

A theme I see in the Old Testament, Exodus and Kings in particular, is (more or less) a two-party system. The Priests argue one way, but they don't always hold sway. There were others acting in opposition. Usually, the "Priest Party" seems to have been more wise and intelligent--but they weren't always right.

 

[Meriweather]

That's how the whole superstition/delusion started, and it's what Christianity copied them

The whole thing started with experiences of God. Sometimes what occurs with experience is that people project a prior experience onto another event. Try knowing God first, and then go back to reading about Him.

 

[RodISHI]

What is a Pharaoh? Can you tell me the whole meaning of what a Pharaoh is?

Pharaoh originally meant "Great House", then became one of many honorifics for the monarch, and then came to refer to the Monarch himself. But I'm not sure how that is relevant....Pharaoh in this verse is simply a reference that none would be spared...the first born sons of the highest, the lowest, and the animals died.

It actually is speaking about a great king with a little lantern or light. Each has a little light in them and each is a great king over what is in themselves spiritually.

Where did you get that idea from? It's a nonstandard interpretation.

I prayed and asked for many years to understand what the Words actually meant. When the time came I spent over three years writing down what I was shown in the spirit and I confirmed each one I was given by the spirit from what I could find that was written in the books I had.

...and? How do you justify genocide? I can't wait to hear this...

Which genocide are you speaking about? If you are talking about what God planted through the ages seeded, plucked and tilled and replanted until it perfects; again that will be a personal thing you will have to overcome.

 

[Meriweather]

I don't care what language, and thought patterns you want to use, genocide is genocide. You either agree that genocide is, or ever was, reasonable, or you do not. Do you believe that genocide is ever reasonable?

The reason you and I have a difficult time communicating is that you have set yourself as Judge of a God you do not believe exists. In fact, the God you try to judge does not exist. You are judging a straw man.

When I read scripture, I read a history, culture, and language of mankind, and how they and God relate to one another. In order to do that with any kind of accuracy at all requires knowledge of the culture, history, language and people of the time--and some small experience of God.

You don't believe in God; I see little knowledge that you are familiar with the culture, history, language and people of that time. What you do have is no belief in God and the lens of 21st century modern man--who only understands English.

 

[Czernobog]

...and whaddoyakno? When RodISHI 's stupid denials about his genocidal God fall apart under direct, black and white, quiote

Really? How do you "interpret", "Go, and kill every ******* thing that has a beating heart,"? What do you think God meant when he said that? Do you think he was kidding? Because, I can promise you he wasn't. He, in fact, slapped Saul's peepee, when Saul dared to leave some of the cows alive. So, I can promise you God meant exactly what he said.

But, by all means, do tell us how God didn't really say what God said...

By your words which you attempt to twist you want me to explain to you from your version? I think not. If you have those hateful things in you such as a spirit of Amalek it is on you to deal with them. If you break the commandments while doing your personal cleanup that is also on you!

My own words, my ass! I directly quote your Bible! I even gave you chapter and verse where the quote can be found! And you want to pretend that the Bible doesn't say what it says. You are a liar, and a charlatan, and a fraud. You do not even know what your own Bible says.

I have no clue which version you read from. Amalek is a spirit that hates Jews meaning those who live by faith in God. It again is up to you to kill that/those nasty littles ones' you have built-up within yourself.

Oh, bullshit! The Amelakites were an actual race of people! There was nothing allegorical about the Book of Samuel! It was a book of History. It was not a book of Poetry, like Psalms, Job, or Proverbs. It was not Prophesy, Like Ezekiel, or Daniel. It. Was. History. There was nothing interpretive about it. When you read Samuel, you are expected to believe that the events that occurred in Samuel happened just as they were recorded.

Now, you wanna try that bullshit with someone who doesn't understand how the Bible is divided, and is meant to be read?

What does the name Samuel mean? Do you know what it means to plant something?

Who cares what the man's name means? Either the book of Samuel is a book of History, or it is not. To be clear, is it your contention that none of the Old Testament is factual? Is it your contention that the Entire Old Testament is nothing more than a collection of stories that are not meant to be taken literally? You are contending that not a single part of the Old Testament is to be taken literally? Is that your contention?

 

[RodISHI]

...and whaddoyakno? When RodISHI 's stupid denials about his genocidal God fall apart under direct, black and white, quiote

By your words which you attempt to twist you want me to explain to you from your version? I think not. If you have those hateful things in you such as a spirit of Amalek it is on you to deal with them. If you break the commandments while doing your personal cleanup that is also on you!

My own words, my ass! I directly quote your Bible! I even gave you chapter and verse where the quote can be found! And you want to pretend that the Bible doesn't say what it says. You are a liar, and a charlatan, and a fraud. You do not even know what your own Bible says.

I have no clue which version you read from. Amalek is a spirit that hates Jews meaning those who live by faith in God. It again is up to you to kill that/those nasty littles ones' you have built-up within yourself.

Oh, bullshit! The Amelakites were an actual race of people! There was nothing allegorical about the Book of Samuel! It was a book of History. It was not a book of Poetry, like Psalms, Job, or Proverbs. It was not Prophesy, Like Ezekiel, or Daniel. It. Was. History. There was nothing interpretive about it. When you read Samuel, you are expected to believe that the events that occurred in Samuel happened just as they were recorded.

Now, you wanna try that bullshit with someone who doesn't understand how the Bible is divided, and is meant to be read?

What does the name Samuel mean? Do you know what it means to plant something?

Who cares what the man's name means? Either the book of Samuel is a book of History, or it is not. To be clear, is it your contention that none of the Old Testament is factual? Is it your contention that the Entire Old Testament is nothing more than a collection of stories that are not meant to be taken literally? You are contending that not a single part of the Old Testament is to be taken literally? Is that your contention?

The events took place. The plants (hosts for the heavenly portions and the earthly portions) were made and planted by God. Again God planted them in earth on purpose as it is the pattern for what is in humankind. There are terrestrial beings and celestial beings (bodies). Spiritual things (seeds) planted in earth which were grown in God's garden (earth as a whole) for the individual (human-earth) garden where the living soul resides.

Humans have a tough time discerning or understanding that. Many simply live by faith and have hope (for these all things are fulfilled by that which is in them that was planted previously into the earth we live in (here now, this day as we live and speak in the flesh). Another thing which is also explained in the Books is how these things are hidden from those who do not believe and those that rely on their own understanding. There is even hosts (yes already planted into the earth) that were actually planted (as scribes) to keep these things from those who live in, for and to carnally minded exalted religions.

Its all written you will have to search it all out for your self.

 

[Czernobog]

Pharaoh originally meant "Great House", then became one of many honorifics for the monarch, and then came to refer to the Monarch himself. But I'm not sure how that is relevant....Pharaoh in this verse is simply a reference that none would be spared...the first born sons of the highest, the lowest, and the animals died.

It actually is speaking about a great king with a little lantern or light. Each has a little light in them and each is a great king over what is in themselves spiritually.

Where did you get that idea from? It's a nonstandard interpretation.

I prayed and asked for many years to understand what the Words actually meant. When the time came I spent over three years writing down what I was shown in the spirit and I confirmed each one I was given by the spirit from what I could find that was written in the books I had.

...and? How do you justify genocide? I can't wait to hear this...

Which genocide are you speaking about? If you are talking about what God planted through the ages seeded, plucked and tilled and replanted until it perfects; again that will be a personal thing you will have to overcome.

You see, you keep wanting to make this about some esoteric theological generality. I'm not talking about esoteric generalities. I'm talking about an actual, direct command to kill an actual race of people, right down to their children, infants, and even livestock. You either believe that the Old Testament is nothing more than a collection of fairy tales, and parables meant to provide "life lessons", in which case it is no more relevant that Aesop's fables, or Grimm's Fairy Tales, or you believe that it is an accurate, historical record of the Jewish people during their first 4,000years of existence, in which case your God commanded genocide.

Those are your only two options available.

 

[Czernobog]

...and whaddoyakno? When RodISHI 's stupid denials about his genocidal God fall apart under direct, black and white, quiote
My own words, my ass! I directly quote your Bible! I even gave you chapter and verse where the quote can be found! And you want to pretend that the Bible doesn't say what it says. You are a liar, and a charlatan, and a fraud. You do not even know what your own Bible says.

I have no clue which version you read from. Amalek is a spirit that hates Jews meaning those who live by faith in God. It again is up to you to kill that/those nasty littles ones' you have built-up within yourself.

Oh, bullshit! The Amelakites were an actual race of people! There was nothing allegorical about the Book of Samuel! It was a book of History. It was not a book of Poetry, like Psalms, Job, or Proverbs. It was not Prophesy, Like Ezekiel, or Daniel. It. Was. History. There was nothing interpretive about it. When you read Samuel, you are expected to believe that the events that occurred in Samuel happened just as they were recorded.

Now, you wanna try that bullshit with someone who doesn't understand how the Bible is divided, and is meant to be read?

What does the name Samuel mean? Do you know what it means to plant something?

Who cares what the man's name means? Either the book of Samuel is a book of History, or it is not. To be clear, is it your contention that none of the Old Testament is factual? Is it your contention that the Entire Old Testament is nothing more than a collection of stories that are not meant to be taken literally? You are contending that not a single part of the Old Testament is to be taken literally? Is that your contention?

The events took place. The plants (hosts for the heavenly portions and the earthly portions) were made and planted by God. Again God planted them in earth on purpose as it is the pattern for what is in humankind. There are terrestrial beings and celestial beings (bodies). Spiritual things (seeds) planted in earth which were grown in God's garden (earth as a whole) for the individual (human-earth) garden where the living soul resides.

Humans have a tough time discerning or understanding that. Many simply live by faith and have hope (for these all things are fulfilled by that which is in them that was planted previously into the earth we live in (here now, this day as we live and speak in the flesh). Another thing which is also explained in the Books is how these things are hidden from those who do not believe and those that rely on their own understanding. There is even hosts (yes already planted into the earth) that were actually planted (as scribes) to keep these things from those who live in, for and to carnally minded exalted religions.

Its all written you will have to search it all out for your self.

Plants??? Plants?!?!?! They. Were. *******. PEOPLE! You sociopath!!! Trying to reduce them to nothing more than plants that "needed culling", like a field of ******* wheat makes you just as sociopathic as the God you serve!

 

[RodISHI]

It actually is speaking about a great king with a little lantern or light. Each has a little light in them and each is a great king over what is in themselves spiritually.

Where did you get that idea from? It's a nonstandard interpretation.

I prayed and asked for many years to understand what the Words actually meant. When the time came I spent over three years writing down what I was shown in the spirit and I confirmed each one I was given by the spirit from what I could find that was written in the books I had.

...and? How do you justify genocide? I can't wait to hear this...

Which genocide are you speaking about? If you are talking about what God planted through the ages seeded, plucked and tilled and replanted until it perfects; again that will be a personal thing you will have to overcome.

You see, you keep wanting to make this about some esoteric theological generality. I'm not talking about esoteric generalities. I'm talking about an actual, direct command to kill an actual race of people, right down to their children, infants, and even livestock. You either believe that the Old Testament is nothing more than a collection of fairy tales, and parables meant to provide "life lessons", in which case it is no more relevant that Aesop's fables, or Grimm's Fairy Tales, or you believe that it is an accurate, historical record of the Jewish people during their first 4,000years of existence, in which case your God commanded genocide.

Those are your only two options available.

I have no clue which version you read from. Amalek is a spirit that hates Jews meaning those who live by faith in God. It again is up to you to kill that/those nasty littles ones' you have built-up within yourself.

Oh, bullshit! The Amelakites were an actual race of people! There was nothing allegorical about the Book of Samuel! It was a book of History. It was not a book of Poetry, like Psalms, Job, or Proverbs. It was not Prophesy, Like Ezekiel, or Daniel. It. Was. History. There was nothing interpretive about it. When you read Samuel, you are expected to believe that the events that occurred in Samuel happened just as they were recorded.

Now, you wanna try that bullshit with someone who doesn't understand how the Bible is divided, and is meant to be read?

What does the name Samuel mean? Do you know what it means to plant something?

Who cares what the man's name means? Either the book of Samuel is a book of History, or it is not. To be clear, is it your contention that none of the Old Testament is factual? Is it your contention that the Entire Old Testament is nothing more than a collection of stories that are not meant to be taken literally? You are contending that not a single part of the Old Testament is to be taken literally? Is that your contention?

The events took place. The plants (hosts for the heavenly portions and the earthly portions) were made and planted by God. Again God planted them in earth on purpose as it is the pattern for what is in humankind. There are terrestrial beings and celestial beings (bodies). Spiritual things (seeds) planted in earth which were grown in God's garden (earth as a whole) for the individual (human-earth) garden where the living soul resides.

Humans have a tough time discerning or understanding that. Many simply live by faith and have hope (for these all things are fulfilled by that which is in them that was planted previously into the earth we live in (here now, this day as we live and speak in the flesh). Another thing which is also explained in the Books is how these things are hidden from those who do not believe and those that rely on their own understanding. There is even hosts (yes already planted into the earth) that were actually planted (as scribes) to keep these things from those who live in, for and to carnally minded exalted religions.

Its all written you will have to search it all out for your self.

Plants??? Plants?!?!?! They. Were. *******. PEOPLE! You sociopath!!! Trying to reduce them to nothing more than plants that "needed culling", like a field of ******* wheat makes you just as sociopathic as the God you serve!

I answered your questions. Its too bad you don't like the answers and prefer to accuse. Those people just as today were also allowed to make choices. You make your bed you lay in it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Genesis 19:24,25
24 Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven;
25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

Exodus 11:4-5
4 And Moses said, Thus saith the Lord, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt:
5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.

We'll start with those two. How am I misinterpreting those verses to think they mean that babies were murdered by the Lord?

Keep in mind that people wrote about these events well after the fact. They had no science to fall back upon; what they did have some experience with was the will of God, and the intervention of God in the lives of various people.

That's how the whole superstition/delusion started, and it's what Christianity copied them


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Yeesh. Wrote that on the run.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[BreezeWood]

[

Let's just put this to bed, once and for all. You can claim that Christianity is responsible for whatever you like, one glaring fact remains:

If you read the Bible, and believe it is true, then you know that you God kills babies.

Let us reiterate that: You worship a God who Kills. Babies.

Now, you can rationalise this any way you wish, but so long as you insist that the God of the New Testament is the same God, as the God of the Old Testament, then you worship a God who ordered genocide, and killed Babies. Period. Full stop.

So long as you worship a genocidal, baby killing God, and pretend that he isn't just that, and even call him a loving God, then you get to question the ethics, and morals of no one.

It's that simple.

.

So long as you worship a genocidal, baby killing God, and pretend that he isn't just that, and even call him a loving God, then you get to question the ethics, and morals of no one.

the taking of any life without cause is an irredeemable crime.

the instructions given by the 4th century christian bible and the text's that precede that period that imply taking any life without cause is evil are theirselves evil documents that history proves to be the case and the problem that those followers refuse to recognize and correct.

God doesn't kill babies that is merely your misinterpretation. Fact is God said 'thou shall not kill' and Jesus reaffirmed this and told those who would hear that if they did they would possibly be in judgement for doing such. Your 'little ones' of hate that you store up in your mind keep you lost to understanding or comprehending the spirit of confusion in you.

You're right. He didn't kill them, personally - unless you include the flood, which most Christians agree is allegorical these days - he ordered his followers to do it for him. That makes him just as responsible.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Sorry I don't buy your twisted version.

I have already posted again and again that Adam is speaking about the human. Adam means human. The whole Book both the Old Testament and the New Testament is talking about the spiritual hosts and what transpires with those heavenly and earthly host within each human.

What humans come up within their own corrupted minds and precepts goes back on the corrupt humans.

God is a spirit and Jesus is the Word that was with God from the beginning, that 'first born' when God created a body for the first- Man born. It was all created in the heavens and planted into earthen vessels of flesh where we humans now currently reside.

What's to "buy"? It's in black, and white. 1 Sam 15:3 - "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

Kinda hard to misinterpret that. The God of the Old Testament, quite specifically, commanded genocide, and the murder of babies. The God of the New Testament is the same God as the God of the Old Testament. Ergo, you still worship a God that commanded genocide, and killed babies. You can either ignore that, and admit that you do not believe the Bible, or you can insist that you believe the Bible, and acknowledge that you worship a genocidal, baby-killing God. The choice is yours. There is. No. Middle-ground.

No you just wanna think that cause it fits in your own head better that away.

Really? How do you "interpret", "Go, and kill every ******* thing that has a beating heart,"? What do you think God meant when he said that? Do you think he was kidding? Because, I can promise you he wasn't. He, in fact, slapped Saul's peepee, when Saul dared to leave some of the cows alive. So, I can promise you God meant exactly what he said.

But, by all means, do tell us how God didn't really say what God said...

.

Really? How do you "interpret", "Go, and kill every ******* thing that has a beating heart,"? What do you think God meant when he said that?

But, by all means, do tell us how God didn't really say what God said...

But, by all means, do tell us how God didn't really say what God said...


the religion is what matters, The Triumph of Good vs Evil - even the religion is corrupted by their 4th century publication and the earlier documents ...

as long as they continue to print their text without revision history will continue to prove them as they have portrayed themselves, evil and the future generations they corrupt in the same manner will continue the same as has been occurring already for centuries.

no doubt those people during the time of Noah including their babies, already corrupted beyond redemption as they are today were and will be meat without mercy. no evil will be left standing.

 

[ding]

No. It is the mindset that the God of the Old testament specifically commanded his people to commit genocide,. This isn't some esoteric theological argument about the "evil that men do". It is about the direct command of the God of the Bible.

What did the people have to say about why was the command given? Did it have anything to do with their own survival? Which event are you focusing upon?

Who cares? There is no acceptable rationale for genocide. And anyone who suggests that there is has lost any right to claim any moral high ground over anyone else. Ever.

Who said anyone was rationalizing it as moral? Do you rationalize abortion as being moral?

 

[ding]

Who cares? There is no acceptable rationale for genocide. And anyone who suggests that there is has lost any right to claim any moral high ground over anyone else. Ever.

There is always rationale. What rationale was given for the action? Was it carried out? Was there debate? When the passage reads, "God said," is it reasonable to ascertain that the priestly party was on one side of a debate, whereas the more secular side had another side?

I've said before, we cannot read the Old Testament (in particular) and understand it properly if we insist on reading it solely through the lens of 21st century modern Western world. The language and thought patterns are entirely different.

I don't care what language, and thought patterns you want to use, genocide is genocide. You either agree that genocide is, or ever was, reasonable, or you do not. Do you believe that genocide is ever reasonable?

Since you don't believe in God, you don't believe that God ordered a genocide, right?

Which militant atheist website did you get your latest argument from?

Let's assume God gave the order, ok? Did the Jews actually commit genocide? Did they really do it?

 

[BreezeWood]

Who cares? There is no acceptable rationale for genocide. And anyone who suggests that there is has lost any right to claim any moral high ground over anyone else. Ever.

There is always rationale. What rationale was given for the action? Was it carried out? Was there debate? When the passage reads, "God said," is it reasonable to ascertain that the priestly party was on one side of a debate, whereas the more secular side had another side?

I've said before, we cannot read the Old Testament (in particular) and understand it properly if we insist on reading it solely through the lens of 21st century modern Western world. The language and thought patterns are entirely different.

I don't care what language, and thought patterns you want to use, genocide is genocide. You either agree that genocide is, or ever was, reasonable, or you do not. Do you believe that genocide is ever reasonable?

Since you don't believe in God, you don't believe that God ordered a genocide, right?

Which militant atheist website did you get your latest argument from?

Let's assume God gave the order, ok? Did the Jews actually commit genocide? Did they really do it?

.

Since you don't believe in God, you don't believe that God ordered a genocide, right?

wrong -

the point is people are deliberately led to believe fallacies by scriptural contents that are not attributed as edited versions during the 4th century or by earlier works designed for the purpose to enhance particular causes at the expense of disguising the true religion from being represented.

 

[ding]

Who cares? There is no acceptable rationale for genocide. And anyone who suggests that there is has lost any right to claim any moral high ground over anyone else. Ever.

There is always rationale. What rationale was given for the action? Was it carried out? Was there debate? When the passage reads, "God said," is it reasonable to ascertain that the priestly party was on one side of a debate, whereas the more secular side had another side?

I've said before, we cannot read the Old Testament (in particular) and understand it properly if we insist on reading it solely through the lens of 21st century modern Western world. The language and thought patterns are entirely different.

I don't care what language, and thought patterns you want to use, genocide is genocide. You either agree that genocide is, or ever was, reasonable, or you do not. Do you believe that genocide is ever reasonable?

Since you don't believe in God, you don't believe that God ordered a genocide, right?

Which militant atheist website did you get your latest argument from?

Let's assume God gave the order, ok? Did the Jews actually commit genocide? Did they really do it?

.

Since you don't believe in God, you don't believe that God ordered a genocide, right?

wrong -

the point is people are deliberately led to believe fallacies by scriptural contents that are not attributed as edited versions during the 4th century or by earlier works designed for the purpose to enhance particular causes at the expense of disguising the true religion from being represented.

lol, so you think Czernobog is an atheist because of Christianity? Why don't you tell him that?

 

[BreezeWood]

Who cares? There is no acceptable rationale for genocide. And anyone who suggests that there is has lost any right to claim any moral high ground over anyone else. Ever.

There is always rationale. What rationale was given for the action? Was it carried out? Was there debate? When the passage reads, "God said," is it reasonable to ascertain that the priestly party was on one side of a debate, whereas the more secular side had another side?

I've said before, we cannot read the Old Testament (in particular) and understand it properly if we insist on reading it solely through the lens of 21st century modern Western world. The language and thought patterns are entirely different.

I don't care what language, and thought patterns you want to use, genocide is genocide. You either agree that genocide is, or ever was, reasonable, or you do not. Do you believe that genocide is ever reasonable?

Since you don't believe in God, you don't believe that God ordered a genocide, right?

Which militant atheist website did you get your latest argument from?

Let's assume God gave the order, ok? Did the Jews actually commit genocide? Did they really do it?

.

Since you don't believe in God, you don't believe that God ordered a genocide, right?

wrong -

the point is people are deliberately led to believe fallacies by scriptural contents that are not attributed as edited versions during the 4th century or by earlier works designed for the purpose to enhance particular causes at the expense of disguising the true religion from being represented.

lol, so you think Czernobog is an atheist because of Christianity? Why don't you tell him that?

.

lol, so you think Czernobog is an atheist because of Christianity? Why don't you tell him that?

obviously you have a need to contrive an erroneous conclusion to satisfy the corruption of your own 4th century agenda disguised as a religion you use against those that practice the true religion of the 1st.

 

[ding]

There is always rationale. What rationale was given for the action? Was it carried out? Was there debate? When the passage reads, "God said," is it reasonable to ascertain that the priestly party was on one side of a debate, whereas the more secular side had another side?

I've said before, we cannot read the Old Testament (in particular) and understand it properly if we insist on reading it solely through the lens of 21st century modern Western world. The language and thought patterns are entirely different.

I don't care what language, and thought patterns you want to use, genocide is genocide. You either agree that genocide is, or ever was, reasonable, or you do not. Do you believe that genocide is ever reasonable?

Since you don't believe in God, you don't believe that God ordered a genocide, right?

Which militant atheist website did you get your latest argument from?

Let's assume God gave the order, ok? Did the Jews actually commit genocide? Did they really do it?

.

Since you don't believe in God, you don't believe that God ordered a genocide, right?

wrong -

the point is people are deliberately led to believe fallacies by scriptural contents that are not attributed as edited versions during the 4th century or by earlier works designed for the purpose to enhance particular causes at the expense of disguising the true religion from being represented.

lol, so you think Czernobog is an atheist because of Christianity? Why don't you tell him that?

.

lol, so you think Czernobog is an atheist because of Christianity? Why don't you tell him that?

obviously you have a need to contrive an erroneous conclusion to satisfy the corruption of your own 4th century agenda disguised as a religion you use against those that practice the true religion of the 1st.

I don't really see how they are linked. The only thing I contrived was laughing until soda came out of my nose at the thought of Czernobog reading your comment.

 

[Indeependent]

Let's just put this to bed, once and for all. You can claim that Christianity is responsible for whatever you like, one glaring fact remains:

If you read the Bible, and believe it is true, then you know that you God kills babies.

Let us reiterate that: You worship a God who Kills. Babies.

Now, you can rationalise this any way you wish, but so long as you insist that the God of the New Testament is the same God, as the God of the Old Testament, then you worship a God who ordered genocide, and killed Babies. Period. Full stop.

So long as you worship a genocidal, baby killing God, and pretend that he isn't just that, and even call him a loving God, then you get to question the ethics, and morals of no one.

It's that simple.

God doesn't kill babies that is merely your misinterpretation. Fact is God said 'thou shall not kill' and Jesus reaffirmed this and told those who would hear that if they did they would possibly be in judgement for doing such. Your 'little ones' of hate that you store up in your mind keep you lost to understanding or comprehending the spirit of confusion in you.

You're right. He didn't kill them, personally - unless you include the flood, which most Christians agree is allegorical these days - he ordered his followers to do it for him. That makes him just as responsible.

How could you forget Exodus 11:4-5
4 And Moses said, Thus saith the Lord, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt:
5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.

Exodus 11:4-5
4 And Moses said, Thus saith the Lord, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt:
5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.

What is a Pharaoh? Can you tell me the whole meaning of what a Pharaoh is?

The word Pah-row is a contraction of Peh (Mouth)-Rah (Evil).
Upon examination of the Biblical text and context (something el retardo cz, the so-called psycho-chiatrist will never do) we find that the King of Egypt and Pharoah are used interchangeably.
They each have specific connotations..
The King of Egypt is supposed to be concerned with the state of the nation.
Pharoah is the internal ego of the man; the selfish asshole.

 

[Indeependent]

Snoozernobog got his assed kicked in another identical thread and decided to save whatever face he had left by starting a new thread and hoping someone with a brain, which he lacks, wouldn't show up again to kick his ass.