Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[adi2d]

Cut out all the color commentary and confirm the above verses are the ones you want me to explain instead of the whole OT and I will respond to them. Please, just post the verses you want an explanation for. If I have one I will post it in response.

Sorry for butting in Robin but it seems to me that she has cut it down to four verses. That isn't the whole OT. Looks to me like you are not answering

 

[1robin]

Sorry for butting in Robin but it seems to me that she has cut it down to four verses. That isn't the whole OT. Looks to me like you are not answering

Yes she has, however the color commentary is still present. However she only recently did so. It started out as a battery of verses (usually paraphrased or alluded to). I can't cover that much stuff. I wanted to make sure these 4 are the verses she wants most to discuss and I will respond. Me and her have went round and round quite a few times and I have learned to make sure we have everything in hand before I waste a lot of time. Your not butting in btw.

 

[Ingledsva]

Yes she has, however the color commentary is still present. However she only recently did so. It started out as a battery of verses (usually paraphrased or alluded to). I can't cover that much stuff. I wanted to make sure these 4 are the verses she wants most to discuss and I will respond. Me and her have went round and round quite a few times and I have learned to make sure we have everything in hand before I waste a lot of time. Your not butting in btw.

LOL!

started out as a battery of verses (usually paraphrased or alluded to).

What a bunch of crap!


I have posted the full verses for you, on multiple occasions!



And why would I cut out the highlighting, that I am using to point out particular words, or phrases?



*

 

[CG Didymus]

Ok but I want you first to acknowledge so I don't have to repeat it over and over that this is not a crystal clear issue and can't be resolved to the criteria of one. My claim is that the innocents of children before God is the best deduction or explanation from Biblical verses not that it is a jump of the page brute fact. If you can agree as to my burden here then we will begin.

Yeah, yes, already...show me those Scriptures you're using to deduce this concept. But, since it ain't Scripture, what is it? A tradition? Is it "relative" truth, because it ain't a universal Christian concept? When you use Jewish Scriptures to "prove" it, do you take into account they have different ideas about life after death than most Christians? Anyway, I can't wait to hear what you've got to say.

 

[CG Didymus]

My response was:

liking an awful lot[/i], but it would eventually move into Wow, she's hot! I'm not sure, but I think that's when it crossed into lust. But anyway, I can't live by Christian rules. And I don't mean "church" rules. I mean those things that supposedly Jesus said... the things on how we should live and act. You know really, I don't know a single Christian who can. Can you do it? The best I could do was about three months of pure living in body and mind, then I started slipping into what the Bible says is sin. What was I to do? Continue, like so many others, as a hypocrite? Pray to keep my thoughts "pure"? Sorry, couldn't do it...

You never responded. What? Are you wimping out? Some Christians here, claim that there is an "objective" morality, if so, then Jesus' definition of what is adultery should be the universal standard for all people, but it isn't. And, as far as I can tell, it is an impossible commandment to actually put into practice. So is God's commands given through Jesus meant to followed? And, again, can you follow this one in particular? Or, do you fall short, wimp out, and do things in private that go against the teachings of Jesus? Actually, I'd be very, very surprised if you don't. In fact, I wouldn't even believe you if you told me, that through the power of the Holy Spirit, you never "lust". But, I'd never try and prove you a wimpy liar. That's God's job... or doesn't he have a prosecuting attorney on staff to do that for him?

 

[1robin]

LOL!





What a bunch of crap!


I have posted the full verses for you, on multiple occasions!



And why would I cut out the highlighting, that I am using to point out particular words, or phrases?



*

Ok forget it. There is no fact or piece of evidence in history that can contend with a position based on so much emotion. I am not going to try and give explanations to contend with resentment. Say whatever you want but I an not discussing anything with anyone so tore up and irate. Too bad to because without the underlying resentment you can be a formidable debater.

 

[1robin]

Yeah, yes, already...show me those Scriptures you're using to deduce this concept. But, since it ain't Scripture, what is it? A tradition? Is it "relative" truth, because it ain't a universal Christian concept? When you use Jewish Scriptures to "prove" it, do you take into account they have different ideas about life after death than most Christians? Anyway, I can't wait to hear what you've got to say.

Good grief. I have been trying to make sure you were going to launch into a word fit and give me a thousand questions in a row again and in your two line agreement to that you asked 4 questions.

To reduce this kind of thing we will go one verse at a time but I will first answer these questions.

1. God could not give instructions for every single detail anyone would ever encounter. That would produce a book not even a library could contain. It was intended to give us essential answers and a very exhaustive frame work to make conclusions from and a mind with the capacity to do so correctly if our heart is right with him. BTW no one has to know this. This is God's business alone. I can make a very rational deduction but I have no need for one. What would I do with it.
2. What it is, is a deduction from a sufficiency of evidence.
3. Even if no one believed it it's rightness or wrongness is an absolute objective fact, given God. What anyone thinks is irrelevant to what is true.
4. I never said I can prove it. I can demonstrate the it is the best conclusion from scripture on the issue. They are as much my scriptures as theirs they hold no advantage over me as to a conclusion and I do not even know if they in general disagree, but that is irrelevant.




New International Version
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

1. So Jesus has some random kids here and makes a distinct claim about what is theirs.
2. What is that claim? That the kingdom belongs to them. Not exclusive as countless verses contradict that absurdity but absolutely. They all have the kingdom.
3. However not all adults have the kingdom. Many verses emphatically state this. So between being children and being an adult we lose our automatic initial provision of being in the kingdom by default and must seek to get it back through Christ. I do not need an age here as this is God's business. I only need to show that a difference between adults and children occurs at some point and that it concerns the kingdom.
4. What is the kingdom? Many things, but one of the primary meanings is a spiritual connection and harmony with God.
5. A spiritual harmony and connection for every adult is called salvation. Salvation is the guaranty of heaven.
6. Children have the kingdom, the kingdom among many things is a unique spiritual connection with God, that unique spiritual connection is salvation as many verses dictate, salvation gets us into heaven. There for from just one verse alone all children go to heaven.

This is why Christians are charged to be as innocent as children. Not that anyone would suggest they do not make mistakes but that their mistakes are not capable of separating them from God because they are not held eternally accountable for them. Children by the virtue of lacking sufficient knowledge to be held accountable and Christians because through Christ taking our sins from us we are no longer accountable.

Round one bell. Ding!!!!

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

"You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
To the thirsty I will give water without cost*from the spring of the water of life.*Those who are victorious*will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children.*But the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur.
Blessed*and holy are only those who share in the first resurrection.

 

[CG Didymus]

Good grief. I have been trying to make sure you were going to launch into a word fit and give me a thousand questions in a row again and in your two line agreement to that you asked 4 questions.

To reduce this kind of thing we will go one verse at a time but I will first answer these questions.

1. God could not give instructions for every single detail anyone would ever encounter. That would produce a book not even a library could contain. It was intended to give us essential answers and a very exhaustive frame work to make conclusions from and a mind with the capacity to do so correctly if our heart is right with him. BTW no one has to know this. This is God's business alone. I can make a very rational deduction but I have no need for one. What would I do with it.
2. What it is, is a deduction from a sufficiency of evidence.
3. Even if no one believed it it's rightness or wrongness is an absolute objective fact, given God. What anyone thinks is irrelevant to what is true.
4. I never said I can prove it. I can demonstrate the it is the best conclusion from scripture on the issue. They are as much my scriptures as theirs they hold no advantage over me as to a conclusion and I do not even know if they in general disagree, but that is irrelevant.




New International Version
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

1. So Jesus has some random kids here and makes a distinct claim about what is theirs.
2. What is that claim? That the kingdom belongs to them. Not exclusive as countless verses contradict that absurdity but absolutely. They all have the kingdom.
3. However not all adults have the kingdom. Many verses emphatically state this. So between being children and being an adult we lose our automatic initial provision of being in the kingdom by default and must seek to get it back through Christ. I do not need an age here as this is God's business. I only need to show that a difference between adults and children occurs at some point and that it concerns the kingdom.
4. What is the kingdom? Many things, but one of the primary meanings is a spiritual connection and harmony with God.
5. A spiritual harmony and connection for every adult is called salvation. Salvation is the guaranty of heaven.
6. Children have the kingdom, the kingdom among many things is a unique spiritual connection with God, that unique spiritual connection is salvation as many verses dictate, salvation gets us into heaven. There for from just one verse alone all children go to heaven.

This is why Christians are charged to be as innocent as children. Not that anyone would suggest they do not make mistakes but that their mistakes are not capable of separating them from God because they are not held eternally accountable for them. Children by the virtue of lacking sufficient knowledge to be held accountable and Christians because through Christ taking our sins from us we are no longer accountable.

Round one bell. Ding!!!!

"Good grief"? Who are you Charlie Brown? No, I'm sorry. I don't want to make this like a political debate where I make personal attacks on your character. Charlie Brown is a good person to emulate. And, I don't want to point out all your flip flops on key issues. Like how one minute you say babies are disgusting burping, pooping little selfish, morally depraved sinners, but then, through a miracle of God, become pure, innocent examples of what the kingdom of God is made up of. Then, one day, at some uncertain age, they become examples of dirty filthy sinners that need to accept Jesus into their hearts to become pure. And nothing else will do. Jesus is the only way to heaven. And all those that never heard of Jesus? Not an excuse.. All of creation points to the truth of God, so nobody is exempt. All have failed and come short of the glory of God and are doomed to hell unless they do one thing... believe on Jesus... and get baptized... and repent. So all three are part of it, but only the Jesus part is really necessary, but it is recommended, if you can, and have time, find some water and get baptized. Then, as you go through your walk with Jesus, with the Holy Spirit living inside you, it would be nice to throw God a bone now and again and try to repent from your evil ways, but, in truth, you're already, once and for all saved. But, it really looks bad when you continually sin. So, if it's not too difficult, at least try not to sin in public.

Accept, there is one problem. If we look at the facts, adulterers don't go to heaven. That's not good news for Christians, or anybody for that matter. Because, as I've pointed out several times, Jesus has defined adultery as looking upon a woman with lust in your heart. I'm not sure but that is probably every man alive and probably even some woman. Thank God that the Bible is so patriarchal and didn't say that woman reading romance novels or lusting after Brad Pitt or Adam Levine was the same as committing adultery! Or else, who would qualify for heaven? So praise God, woman that convert to Christianity are in. Jews before the coming of Jesus are in. After? No. No matter how well they try and keep the Law, they can't keep it perfect, so sorry, you don't pass go... and get into heaven. You're going straight to a hell that you don't necessarily believe in, but it is real, because by deducing all of Scripture, your part and the amendment to it, the NT, there is a devil and a hell and you can't earn your way to heaven, anymore, actually it was always by faith, but you didn't realize it, you thought God actually wanted you to obey all those silly rules, but no, he just wanted you to believe that someday he would send a Messiah that didn't appear like he told you, but that is your fault for not deducing the Scriptures correctly... so no, Jews after the coming of Jesus are hereby to be treated as any other people that is following a false religion. No heaven for you... you all go to hell.

So in heaven we have those few Jews prior to the coming of Jesus. Women who have never lusted after other women, those women are definitely out because they have the double whammy of adultery and homosexuality. Maybe the apostles are in heaven. I guess they never lusted, but I don't know? In all the Bible movies, Mary Magdalene was pretty hot... but let's give the apostles the benefit of the doubt and include them in heaven. I think maybe Origen should be in. Anybody that would smash his nuts off probably could be considered to have repented of lusting after woman. But who else? I think God needs more inhabitants. So yeah, let the children in, all of them. You are right. God needed to make a special provision or else nobody would qualify for heaven.

So you win the debate. All kids everywhere are beyond a shadow of a doubt declared innocent. Why? Because some Christians say that the Bible, indirectly, with a little bit of fudging, say so, therefore, it is the absolute truth of God. And I concede. That one verse of yours proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt. I can't believe I missed it, but I never read that one verse like that before. You explained it and made it so perfectly clear. How could anybody ever think differently. Maybe a few crazy, on the fringe Christians still do, like I guess, R.C. Sproul, but he's way out there in his theology. So why would anybody care what he has to say.

Now, I'd like to add to the truth. I'd like to include myself into the fold. I have done as the Lord commanded and have become, or I'm in the process of becoming, more and more like a child everyday. Someday, I hope to loose all my reasoning powers and have to wear a diaper, thus completing my transformation back into a time of innocence. Actually, I've been in a second childhood since... well really, I don't think I've ever grown up. So, technically, I've never reached the age of accountability. So even though, I sin constantly, praise God, it's not held against me. God has made a special provision for all children. All of us kids, that refuse to grow up, are automatic, we go to heaven. Tough break for all you grown up people.

So again, congratulations for winning the debate. Your comments were a piece... what's the word I'm looking for? Oh, your comments are a great shepherd of hermeneutical work and a tremendous exeJesusical interpretation. But, you know me, I've got one question, maybe two... When did this age of accountability first become a doctrine? And, who was the first Christian that "deduced" it. Okay, one more question, what are all the verses used to show that it is a "Biblical" fact?

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
Hi Ingledsva, The topic is now "generalized". But you are not presenting the verse as written in the KJV or any version of about sixteen that were presented.[/quote]

ING--Because I am putting the - FUDGED -text, back to it's real meaning.

No, ING, what you are doing is trying to "FUDGE" your own machinations into the truth of the Scriptures---Moses instructions.

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
Let's look at Vss. 11-14; "And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."

Moses was preparing the Israelites (after the 40 years of wandering in the wilderness because of unbelief) for the taking(war in gaining the territory) of the "promised land".(Chapters 19-21) Notice in 20:11, 14-17; the difference in the instructions concerning "cities"--and the explanation for such.

The "wife" would not have come from the six nations whose iniquity had been made "full"---but from a far nation whose males were defiant and bent on destroying Israel. GOD is Merciful and Loving---to care for those widows and orphans.(Before the Israelites crossed over the Jordan.)

1.The word "woman" at the beginning of the first sentence is the same word fudged into "wife" in the rest, to hide that this is RAPE.

The Hebrew for "woman"= Ishshay. It is seen/translated in the KJV 780 times---Wife= 425X; woman= 324X; married=5X . None to another woman.
Those that were men of war were from 20 years and up---of single and married males.
Just as Samson desired a woman(female) not of the daughters of "Israel". So the Context of Deut.21:11.
Not rape, but to be a husband to the chosen person. If "rape" was the intention, there would no need to wait for 30 days.
Your presumed opinion is the "fudging".

2. The word for "husband" is ba'al - master/owner.

Yes, the Hebrew for "baal"(total X16) is to marry=X8; Husband=X3 Only in the sense of Gen.3:16 is dominion seen. NOT Master/owner/slave/sexual object.

3. The Hebrew could not marry these foreign prisoner/slaves. I put that information from a Jewish site - two or so pages back.

ING, what the Israelites were supposed to do(and agreed to do) and that which they did was the reason for the Prophets being sent to warn the backsliders of doing---and the judgments which were soon coming upon them.

4. That "humbled her" is known to mean RAPE.

That "Humbled her"="bow down"
(11x) in the Hebrew="ANAR"(84x)="afflicted"=50X=brought low, weakened.;
It is used in the case of Tamar and Ammon as "force"---but that is not the context in these verses because the event had not taken place. It is "when thou" a future possibility.

5. There is NO law, in Tanakh saying to take care of foreign widows and orphans of the people you kill. In fact we are told several times that they should KILL EVERYONE - except RAPABLE little virgins.

ING, did you even read Deut.20:10-18? They say your conclusions are wrong."When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.
And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.
Deu 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God."

6. Anyone - that thinks a female that has just watched her people and family killed, - then is kidnapped and marched back to the enemy home, allowed to morn for only 30 days, - and then is happy to be the "wife" of the murderous enemy - is an idiot! That is NOT what it says. Look at it in the Hebrew.

The "thinking" has to take in consideration the fact that the Israelites have not set foot in the Jordon to part it for the crossing toward the "Promised Land". It is still "When" and "shall be".
Those lands through which they had to travel were populated with "nearer relatives"---rather than the ones who were scattered from the tower of Babel.

 

[CG Didymus]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post

Deu 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God."

When has "smiting" ones enemies ever worked to eradicate the problem? Shouldn't God have known better?

 

[Ingledsva]

...

ING--Because I am putting the - FUDGED -text, back to it's real meaning.

No, ING, what you are doing is trying to "FUDGE" your own machinations into the truth of the Scriptures---Moses instructions.


ING - LOL! I have fudged nothing - anyone that thinks a captive of war, imprisoned, and screaming for only 30 days, is suddenly a "wife" is having a brain fart.



Let's look at Vss. 11-14; "And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."


ING - I have already told you to look at it in the Hebrew! However - you don't even have to look at the Hebrew to know what this one is saying - anyone with common sense knows a prisoner forced into sex with her captor 30 days later - is being RAPED!

...


The "wife" would not have come from the six nations whose iniquity had been made "full"---but from a far nation whose males were defiant and bent on destroying Israel. GOD is Merciful and Loving---to care for those widows and orphans.(Before the Israelites crossed over the Jordan.)


ING - NO WIFE - RAPED CAPTIVE SLAVE!

1.The word "woman" at the beginning of the first sentence is the same word fudged into "wife" in the rest, to hide that this is RAPE.

The Hebrew for "woman"= Ishshay. It is seen/translated in the KJV 780 times---Wife= 425X; woman= 324X; married=5X . None to another woman.
Those that were men of war were from 20 years and up---of single and married males.
Just as Samson desired a woman(female) not of the daughters of "Israel". So the Context of Deut.21:11.

ING - You folks are hilarious - same wording - STILL RAPE!

*

Deu 21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
Deu 21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; (WOMAN)Deu 21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
Deu 21:13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her (RAPE), and be her husband (Master/Owner,) and she shall be thy wife. (WOMAN)

*

Not rape, but to be a husband to the chosen person. If "rape" was the intention, there would no need to wait for 30 days.
Your presumed opinion is the "fudging".


ING -What a bunch of bull! It wouldn't matter if it was 5 years! - If you have sex with your captive - you are raping your captive!

Sorry but this is sheer lunacy. How you folks can quantify a slave raped thirty days later as a - WIFE - is not only beyond me - it is impossible!

And I am fudging nothing. The Christian translators are fudging this rape verse to make it appear as marriage. It obviously is RAPE!

As to the 30 days - a Jewish site that I went to said this was to insure she was not pregnant. Thirty days for a period to appear - and you can rape your new sex slave.

*

2. The word for "husband" is ba'al - master/owner.

Yes, the Hebrew for "baal"(total X16) is to marry=X8; Husband=X3 Only in the sense of Gen.3:16 is dominion seen. NOT Master/owner/slave/sexual object.

ING - LOL! So Exo 22:8, and Judges 19:22, for instance - translating it MASTER, - or 9 instances of it translated OWNER in Exodus alone - are all wrong? This is a captive - 30 days screaming - The CORRECT translation is MASTER/OWNER, and it is RAPE.

*

3. The Hebrew could not marry these foreign prisoner/slaves. I put that information from a Jewish site - two or so pages back.

ING, what the Israelites were supposed to do(and agreed to do) and that which they did was the reason for the Prophets being sent to warn the backsliders of doing---and the judgments which were soon coming upon them.

ING - Which has NOTHING to do with these verses! They were told they could do this, - RAPE prisoners. They could NOT marry them.

*

4. That "humbled her" is known to mean RAPE.

That "Humbled her"="bow down"
(11x) in the Hebrew="ANAR"(84x)="afflicted"=50X=brought low, weakened.;
It is used in the case of Tamar and Ammon as "force"---but that is not the context in these verses because the event had not taken place. It is "when thou" a future possibility.

ING - LOL! AGAIN!

How convenient for you that you left out RAVISH/RAPE, from the translations!

"force" isn't taking place here? LOL! It is the RAPE of a prisoner!

*

5. There is NO law, in Tanakh saying to take care of foreign widows and orphans of the people you kill. In fact we are told several times that they should KILL EVERYONE - except RAPABLE little virgins.

ING, did you even read Deut.20:10-18? They say your conclusions are wrong."When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.

ING - LOL! Dude! It is so funny how you try to throw in RED-HERRINGS. They WARRED with the people in the verse we are discussing, - and took female prisoners to RAPE!

But I will answer this anyway.

I suggest you look up the meaning of the last words of sentence 18!

Tribute, tributary, forced labor, enslave, = slaves. They were taken as tribute/slaves.

*

warred with
And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.


ING - Again - you need to look up the words - "shalal" booty, prey, spoils! "Bazaz" plunder, prey! The women and children are spoils and plunder of war = slaves! as it says in the other verses. Also "akal" here is USE.

;and thou shall USE the spoils/plunder of thine enemies.


*

Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.
Deu 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God."


ING - See above!

*

The "thinking" has to take in consideration the fact that the Israelites have not set foot in the Jordon to part it for the crossing toward the "Promised Land". It is still "When" and "shall be".
Those lands through which they had to travel were populated with "nearer relatives"---rather than the ones who were scattered from the tower of Babel.

This last has nothing to do with our discussion on the rape of female prisoners by the Hebrew!


Let me put this to you - that way I did to someone else awhile back.


The prisoner is now - YOU - or YOUR daughter!!!

There has been a war.


YOUR family and friends have been defeated and murdered!


One of the enemy decides he wants your, or your daughters a*s (after he murders you!)


He takes you/her captive, - dragging you back to his home!


He allows you/her to scream for only 30 days!


-- YOU -- are going to tell me the sex he has with you after only 30 days from the murder of your family - is marriage? He is raping YOU!


If you say yes to that question - YOU ARE LYING!


Sex with a captive prisoner is RAPE!


NO ifs, ands, or buts, about it!


*

 

[1robin]

When has "smiting" ones enemies ever worked to eradicate the problem? Shouldn't God have known better?

Smiting is not meant to solve all of our problems. Smiting Hitler did get rid of our Hitler problem however. Heck CG maybe your right, empty the prisons, bring back Stalin, and send the army home. I am sure that will work out just fine, for psychopaths anyway.

 

[1robin]

"Good grief"? Who are you Charlie Brown? No, I'm sorry. I don't want to make this like a political debate where I make personal attacks on your character. Charlie Brown is a good person to emulate. And, I don't want to point out all your flip flops on key issues. Like how one minute you say babies are disgusting burping, pooping little selfish, morally depraved sinners, but then, through a miracle of God, become pure, innocent examples of what the kingdom of God is made up of. Then, one day, at some uncertain age, they become examples of dirty filthy sinners that need to accept Jesus into their hearts to become pure. And nothing else will do. Jesus is the only way to heaven. And all those that never heard of Jesus? Not an excuse.. All of creation points to the truth of God, so nobody is exempt. All have failed and come short of the glory of God and are doomed to hell unless they do one thing... believe on Jesus... and get baptized... and repent. So all three are part of it, but only the Jesus part is really necessary, but it is recommended, if you can, and have time, find some water and get baptized. Then, as you go through your walk with Jesus, with the Holy Spirit living inside you, it would be nice to throw God a bone now and again and try to repent from your evil ways, but, in truth, you're already, once and for all saved. But, it really looks bad when you continually sin. So, if it's not too difficult, at least try not to sin in public.

How in the wild world of atheism does saying good grief require a post to deal with it?

I never said a single thing about a baby you say I did except depraved. Depraved meaning : depraved - deviating from what is considered moral or right or proper or good. A baby has no idea what is good. How could they ever not depart from the things they do know to do.

I also am not going back to the emotional and appeal to "babies" again. That ship has sailed, sunk, and rusted.

Jesus is the only way to heaven for those that have heard of him. Since virtually everyone here has heard of him I speak in that context. I have said again and again that if someone wants to know about what happens to the unevangelised I am not a good source for that but book after book is written on them alone.

We are only judged on the revelation we have received.

Accept, there is one problem. If we look at the facts, adulterers don't go to heaven. That's not good news for Christians, or anybody for that matter.

That is a legal term like sinner. Just as Christians sin but will go to heaven if we sin by adultery we still will after probably suffering quite an ordeal in this life. You have at best a casual understand of the bible. I can't straighten out all these Sunday school issues you cough up in avalanche volumes. Try reading what you condemn and even a commentary or two.

Because, as I've pointed out several times, Jesus has defined adultery as looking upon a woman with lust in your heart. I'm not sure but that is probably every man alive and probably even some woman.

Yes we al sin in deed and thought but even though al do those that are saved are no longer sinners because their sins have been cleansed, those that are not born again remain in their sins and are adulterers, or fornicators or whatever. You really need to take that bible that propping up your computer table and read it.

Thank God that the Bible is so patriarchal and didn't say that woman reading romance novels or lusting after Brad Pitt or Adam Levine was the same as committing adultery! Or else, who would qualify for heaven? So praise God, woman that convert to Christianity are in. Jews before the coming of Jesus are in. After? No. No matter how well they try and keep the Law, they can't keep it perfect, so sorry, you don't pass go... and get into heaven. You're going straight to a hell that you don't necessarily believe in, but it is real, because by deducing all of Scripture, your part and the amendment to it, the NT, there is a devil and a hell and you can't earn your way to heaven, anymore, actually it was always by faith, but you didn't realize it, you thought God actually wanted you to obey all those silly rules, but no, he just wanted you to believe that someday he would send a Messiah that didn't appear like he told you, but that is your fault for not deducing the Scriptures correctly... so no, Jews after the coming of Jesus are hereby to be treated as any other people that is following a false religion. No heaven for you... you all go to hell.

Women are dominant parts of every

So in heaven we have those few Jews prior to the coming of Jesus. Women who have never lusted after other women, those women are definitely out because they have the double whammy of adultery and homosexuality. Maybe the apostles are in heaven. I guess they never lusted, but I don't know? In all the Bible movies, Mary Magdalene was pretty hot... but let's give the apostles the benefit of the doubt and include them in heaven. I think maybe Origen should be in. Anybody that would smash his nuts off probably could be considered to have repented of lusting after woman. But who else? I think God needs more inhabitants. So yeah, let the children in, all of them. You are right. God needed to make a special provision or else nobody would qualify for heaven.

Man, your not paying attention to anything I say and even worse your conveying that lack of knowledge into some bizarre paraphrasing or deduction of a book you don't understand either. MY post was about kids getting to Heaven and the justification for our doctrinal believe in that occurring. You thinking babies are horrible (which I don't), God hating women (despite the fact women are among the greatest biblical figures there are, and God's considering Christians adulterers.

What the heck are you talking about and why?

Your comments are just to emotionally based for a piece of evidence or fact to have any effect upon whatsoever and dealing with them makes almost as miserable as you sound. I'm out.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
Originally Posted by sincerly View Post

Deu 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God."

When has "smiting" ones enemies ever worked to eradicate the problem? Shouldn't God have known better?

Hi CGD, I see you still do not trust the Creator GOD. Nor are you seeing the "Big picture".
GOD is "long-suffering". It was 430 years from the promising of the "land" to Abraham until the Mercy of GOD had ended for the people of that land to fully fill up their "cup of iniquity". They were to vacate or be destroyed. Thus we see Moses instructing the people of Israel prior to entering into that area.
Did you not see Deut.20:10-15, "When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations."

Those "smiting's" were because the males of those cities chose to war rather than live in peace.
However, those nations which occupied the Land the Israelites were to possess were already judged by GOD to be totally destroyed. vs18, "That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God."

However, GOD and Moses knew the rebellious nature of the Israelites. See Deut.8:10-20 and 31:29, "For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.

Remember, after the Judgment of all evil doers, the "smiting" will end all "problems" that have been associated with evil beings.

 

[Ingledsva]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
Originally Posted by sincerly View Post

Deu 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God."



Hi CGD, I see you still do not trust the Creator GOD. Nor are you seeing the "Big picture".
GOD is "long-suffering". It was 430 years from the promising of the "land" to Abraham until the Mercy of GOD had ended for the people of that land to fully fill up their "cup of iniquity". They were to vacate or be destroyed. Thus we see Moses instructing the people of Israel prior to entering into that area.
Did you not see

Deut.20:10-15, "When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations."

Those "smiting's" were because the males of those cities chose to war rather than live in peace.
However, those nations which occupied the Land the Israelites were to possess were already judged by GOD to be totally destroyed. vs18, "That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God."

However, GOD and Moses knew the rebellious nature of the Israelites. See Deut.8:10-20 and 31:29, "For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.

Remember, after the Judgment of all evil doers, the "smiting" will end all "problems" that have been associated with evil beings.

You don't seem to understand those verses!


They are both war and domination!


They march and declare WAR on - ALL - of these city states!


If they surrender - the people become SLAVES, and they ransack all the goods!


If they fight back - they kill all the males (at the very least) - keeping RAPABLE women and little virgins!


Surrender - or war - either way they are slaves, and RAPE takes place!



*

 

[CG Didymus]

Smiting is not meant to solve all of our problems. Smiting Hitler did get rid of our Hitler problem however. Heck CG maybe your right, empty the prisons, bring back Stalin, and send the army home. I am sure that will work out just fine, for psychopaths anyway.

It's God's plan to do the smiting. Sodom and Gomorrah? Drowning all the people and the animals that he killed in the flood? Hebrews that he's kill or ordered killed because they broke a Law? What was he doing it for if it wasn't in an attempt to solve the problem? What will he do it for at the end of the world? That is to solve the problem isn't it? Why didn't he do it right when all he had left was Noah's family? He couldn't have given them enough grace, enough understanding, enough repulsion to disobey him that they wouldn't? So why, at the end, do you think it will be different? Not one Christian is perfect. Yet, in heaven they will obey God and do nothing but worship and praise him? How will that be possible unless God does some things to change those people? And, if he's going to do it then, why didn't he do it from the beginning. Or, with Noah? Or, with the apostles and the first Christians? Why did he let his church fall away? Oh, sorry, too many questions. Just answer one: Does capitol punishment prevent people from doing evil? No. Then, why does God use it?

 

[CG Didymus]

Your comments are just to emotionally based for a piece of evidence or fact to have any effect upon whatsoever and dealing with them makes almost as miserable as you sound. I'm out.

You answer didn't deserve a better answer. There is no age of accountability. It is a Christian tradition. You deduced one verse into a universal God-given truth? Give me a break. Out.

 

[Ingledsva]

It's God's plan to do the smiting. Sodom and Gomorrah? Drowning all the people and the animals that he killed in the flood? Hebrews that he's kill or ordered killed because they broke a Law? What was he doing it for if it wasn't in an attempt to solve the problem? What will he do it for at the end of the world? That is to solve the problem isn't it? Why didn't he do it right when all he had left was Noah's family? He couldn't have given them enough grace, enough understanding, enough repulsion to disobey him that they wouldn't? So why, at the end, do you think it will be different? Not one Christian is perfect. Yet, in heaven they will obey God and do nothing but worship and praise him? How will that be possible unless God does some things to change those people? And, if he's going to do it then, why didn't he do it from the beginning. Or, with Noah? Or, with the apostles and the first Christians? Why did he let his church fall away? Oh, sorry, too many questions. Just answer one: Does capitol punishment prevent people from doing evil? No. Then, why does God use it?

Inquiring minds want to know... :yes:



*

 

[Ingledsva]

You answer didn't deserve a better answer. There is no age of accountability. It is a Christian tradition. You deduced one verse into a universal God-given truth? Give me a break. Out.

When he doesn't like an answer, or the tenacity behind it, he belittles the person by accusing them of being "emotional!"



*