A bloodthirsty god?

[Kcnorwood]

Where is the sword have you seen it. He is not talking about a physical war.

So why bring a sword to a war thats not physical?

 

[Heneni]

So why bring a sword to a war thats not physical?

Because the sword (spiritual) is used for the seperation of two spiritual kingdoms on earth. The kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of light. The kingdom of satan, and the kingdom of god. This seperation results in the kingdom of god suffering violence and the violent (the kingdom of satan) take it by force. Which is why, this here earth, is a spiritual war zone. There are no neutral parties to this war, you are either for the kingdom of god or against it. If you are against it, it means

1. You are a murderer. (destroying the kingdom of god, bring death, anger, hate, destruction, vindictiveness and such to children of light)
2. An idolater(thinking that the kingdom of satan has a higher ranking)
3. An adulterer.(messing around between the two)

which is also why...none of the above, god has said will ever enter into his kingdom.

The sword here is an instrument used to cut away, or seperate by means of cutting, one thing away from another.

When the temple curtain ripped in two, the seperation of the kingdoms started.

 

[Harmonious]

Because the sword (spiritual) is used for the seperation of two spiritual kingdoms on earth. The kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of light. The kingdom of satan, and the kingdom of god. This seperation results in the kingdom of god suffering violence and the violent (the kingdom of satan) take it by force. Which is why, this here earth, is a spiritual war zone. There are no neutral parties to this war, you are either for the kingdom of god or against it. If you are against it, it means

1. You are a murderer. (destroying the kingdom of god, bring death, anger, hate, destruction, vindictiveness and such to children of light)
2. An idolater(thinking that the kingdom of satan has a higher ranking)
3. An adulterer.(messing around between the two)

which is also why...none of the above, god has said will ever enter into his kingdom.

The sword here is an instrument used to cut away, or seperate by means of cutting, one thing away from another.

From the beginning until this point, I'm sure this post meant something to you. It didn't do anything for me, but you were describing a concept of your own religion. And that is fine.

But I DO have a problem with THIS.

When the temple curtain ripped in two, the seperation of the kingdoms started.

While this might be continued thought from your religion, I say it never happened. The Cohanim who continued the daily service in the Holy chamber and the fewer Cohanim who continued Yom Kippur service in the Holy of Holies chamber would have noticed that the Parochet was torn.

There is NO mention of this partition torn except in Christian writings, and then it is only to say how dire the Jewish situation was because of refusing to believe in Jesus.

I'm glad for you, as your beliefs do something for you. But don't impose your beliefs onto MY beliefs.

Believe about Jesus or Satan, or whatnot, what you will. But the Temple Curtain was just fine until the Romans burned the Temple in 70 CE.

 

[Heneni]

From the beginning until this point, I'm sure this post meant something to you. It didn't do anything for me, but you were describing a concept of your own religion. And that is fine.

But I DO have a problem with THIS.


While this might be continued thought from your religion, I say it never happened. The Cohanim who continued the daily service in the Holy chamber and the fewer Cohanim who continued Yom Kippur service in the Holy of Holies chamber would have noticed that the Parochet was torn.

There is NO mention of this partition torn except in Christian writings, and then it is only to say how dire the Jewish situation was because of refusing to believe in Jesus.

I'm glad for you, as your beliefs do something for you. But don't impose your beliefs onto MY beliefs.

Believe about Jesus or Satan, or whatnot, what you will. But the Temple Curtain was just fine until the Romans burned the Temple in 70 CE.

Hi Harmonious. uhhh...did i try to force anything on you??? This is a forum buddy get use to the fact that people have WAY different points of view.

As far as YOUR account of what happened to the temple curtain, I have to be honest with you. Call the bible what you will, but it still has more clout for me than you at the moment.

 

[gnostic]

I believed that the sword Jesus mentioned is more of metaphor, than a real sword. Could also be a prophecy depending on how you look at it. Different people will have different interpretations on the sword and no peace passage.

To me, I think it means that his teachings would bring division and conflict between them (between Christians and between Christians and non-Christians). Jesus didn't and never wielded the sword.

If that is so, then it has happened on numerous occasions.

There have been wars fought in Jesus' name and God's name, since his death, centuries later. There have been torture and bloodshed against heretics, witches, pagans, Muslims, Jews and among themselves. The Crusades and Inquisition are examples. The Schism between East and West, the Protestant movements, etc, caused religious wars.

 

[Riverwolf]

I believed that the sword Jesus mentioned is more of metaphor, than a real sword. Could also be a prophecy depending on how you look at it.

To me, I think it means that his teachings would bring division and conflict between them (between Christians and between Christians and non-Christians). Jesus didn't and never wielded the sword.

If that is so, then it has happened on numerous occasions.

There have been wars fought in Jesus' name and God's name, since his death, centuries later. There have been torture and bloodshed against heretics, witches, pagans, Muslims, Jews and among themselves. The Crusades and Inquisition are examples. The Schism between East and West, the Protestant movements, etc, caused religious wars.

Pretty much most of the European wars, etc. since Jesus have been religious in nature, or at least religion has been used as the justification.

It certainly is no mystery as to where the idea that religion itself causes wars. Because on the surface, that's exactly what it looks like.

 

[gnostic]

Some Muslims I have encountered in the forums actually believe that Jesus was some sort of bloodthirsty warlord or something. It looked like Jesus never held a sword before, which is more I can say about Muhammad's idea of peace and having an army of armed followers.

Jesus spoke of many things in parables, but that doesn't mean that he was a swordsman, or encouraging his disciples to start real conflicts with non-believers.

Jesus told a parable of prodigal son. Does that mean Jesus was really the prodigal son, or the jealous brother, or the forgiving father? It is just story meant to teach his disciples and followers.

The sword and no peace have given some past ignorant Christians excuse for causing such conflicts, is merely self-justification.

 

[Harmonious]

Hi Harmonious. uhhh...did i try to force anything on you???

Hmm... Your view on Jewish history, I suppose. But then again, you are free to view life as you wish.

This is a forum buddy get use to the fact that people have WAY different points of view.

True, but dude, the curtain was torn or it wasn't. It can't be both.

If it was indeed torn, the Jews would have known, and made mention of it long before the authors of the Christian scriptures thought to start writing.

As far as YOUR account of what happened to the temple curtain, I have to be honest with you. Call the bible what you will, but it still has more clout for me than you at the moment.

Ah. I don't normally try to be this antagonistic, but your hand seems to call for it. I don't consider the Christian scriptures (you might call them New Testament) to be part of the Bible, or holy at all.

So, if it holds more clout for you than what I said, good for you, I guess. Just be aware that your main source of inspiration and probably information for that time period means NOTHING to me. So, it holds NO clout with me, whatsoever.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I don't see the God of the bible to be a nice god. There is something horribly unfair and bloodthirsty with this god.

One example is this.

When Saul was king, Samuel, the prophet and the last Judge, gave God's order to the king.



Why does a god want to or need to punish generations of people that were not directly involved with what happened to the Exodus?

The war against the Amlekites in Moses' day (Exodus 17:8-16) was fought and won.Why punish the Amalekites centuries later?

It would seem that God can hold a very long grudge against people.

I don't remember where exactly in the bible, but it say something like children shouldn't have to pay for the sins of the father, and the father shouldn't have to pay for the sins of his son.

Certainly God don't practice what he preach, reach: and can be as pettily mean and vindicative as any human. :fight:

Is there really any justification for the genocide of the Amalekites?

Right. Blame God. :sarcastic Maybe those who wrote those kind of stories, stories attributing the acts of men to God, weren't so God-knowing.

 

[gnostic]

Right. Blame God.

Maybe those who wrote those kind of stories, stories attributing the acts of men to God, weren't so God-knowing.

So God didn't give his order through Samuel to Saul? Did Samuel not receive such divine order from God?

If so, then what is the whole point of the story?

From what I can gathered about 1 Samuel, the story is about the downfall of one king, and the rise of a young would-be king. If you take out the genocide of the Amalekites, then you would have a different story. Without the Saul disobeying the order of God, by sparing the king, but slaughtering the others, Saul would not have lost favour with god, and David might have remained a shepherd.

So you don't believe that the biblical story of Saul and David to be true, literally?

Then perhaps, Saul, David, Samuel and the Amakelites don't exist, hence a myth.

I don't understand how you want me to take this story.

Do you take the life of Jesus (I am not talking about all the parables he had told), literally? His birth? His ministry in Israel? His death? His resurrection?

Or is all this a myth too?

 

[Harmonious]

So God didn't give his order through Samuel to Saul? Did Samuel not receive such divine order from God?

If so, then what is the whole point of the story?

From what I can gathered about 1 Samuel, the story is about the downfall of one king, and the rise of a young would-be king. If you take out the genocide of the Amalekites, then you would have a different story. Without the Saul disobeying the order of God, by sparing the king, but slaughtering the others, Saul would not have lost favour with god, and David might have remained a shepherd.

So you don't believe that the biblical story of Saul and David to be true, literally?

I believe they're true. Literally.

Then perhaps, Saul, David, Samuel and the Amakelites don't exist, hence a myth.

I don't understand how you want me to take this story.

Do you take the life of Jesus (I am not talking about all the parables he had told), literally? His birth? His ministry in Israel? His death? His resurrection?

Or is all this a myth too?

I take no responsibility in trying to explain the Christian scriptures...

 

[gnostic]

I believe they're true. Literally.

The question (actually my whole post that followed) was directed at Rolling Stone, but I will take anyone's answer any time.

You will find here that some Christians don't take all the narratives in the bible literally.

 

[Autodidact]

Right. Blame God. :sarcastic Maybe those who wrote those kind of stories, stories attributing the acts of men to God, weren't so God-knowing.

Well yes, a much stronger possibility is that none of this actually happened.

However, even if they didn't, we still have to share the world with people who think they did, worship the God they think did it, and believe this behavior exemplifies morality, so it is still worth talking about.

 

[Harmonious]

The question (actually my whole post that followed) was directed at Rolling Stone, but I will take anyone's answer any time.

Cool!

You will find here that some Christians don't take all the narratives in the bible literally.

Understood.

 

[Heneni]

Hmm... Your view on Jewish history, I suppose. But then again, you are free to view life as you wish.
True, but dude, the curtain was torn or it wasn't. It can't be both.

If it was indeed torn, the Jews would have known, and made mention of it long before the authors of the Christian scriptures thought to start writing.


Ah. I don't normally try to be this antagonistic, but your hand seems to call for it. I don't consider the Christian scriptures (you might call them New Testament) to be part of the Bible, or holy at all.

So, if it holds more clout for you than what I said, good for you, I guess. Just be aware that your main source of inspiration and probably information for that time period means NOTHING to me. So, it holds NO clout with me, whatsoever.

Do you believe that the temple of god is both physical and spiritual?

 

[Harmonious]

Do you believe that the temple of god is both physical and spiritual?

It is a physical place that is indeed spiritual. Yes.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I don't see the God of the bible to be a nice god. There is something horribly unfair and bloodthirsty with this god.

This is because God was created in our image.

 

[Heneni]

let me try again.

 

[Riverwolf]

This is because God was created in our image.

After all, all the gods before Yeh'vah rose to power had human-like qualities, and this is most prominent with the Greek pantheon, who are only separated from humans in that they're immortal.

 

[gnostic]

This is because God was created in our image.

Well, I would not be surprise.