Part 27 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

So they don't believe God to be omniscient?

 

Well Yahweh does seem to really like killing babies, so it makes sense to curse them with inherited sin. A deity's justification

 

One good thing about Islam is that Muhammed forbid the exposure of infant girls...

 

G-d is Omnipresent

G-d is in all places at all times. He fills the universe and exceeds its scope. He is always near for us to call upon in need, and He sees all that we do. Closely tied in with this idea is the fact that G-d is universal. He is not just the G-d of the Jews; He is the G-d of all nations.

G-d is Omnipotent

G-d can do anything. It is said that the only thing that is beyond His power is the fear of Him; that is, we have free will, and He cannot compel us to do His will. This belief in G-d's omnipotence has been sorely tested during the many persecutions of Jews, but we have always maintained that G-d has a reason for allowing these things, even if we in our limited perception and understanding cannot see the reason.

G-d is Omniscient

G-d knows all things, past, present and future. He knows our thoughts.

 

No I do not admit what God has commanded the Israelite to do against the Amalekite was immoral.
Standard of ancient times is not comparable to today.
Today, men are still committing atrocities against babies not God.

 

And 2,000 years ago, it was God committing atrocities against babies. If God's morality doesn't change, then what God did was immoral. God is timeless, so it doesn't matter if it was a different time: God ordered genocide.

 

I never said that God is not good. You are putting words in my mouth that are not mine.
I have stated what the Bible says about God ordering the slaughter of whole towns including the killing of Babies.

If you think the Bible stories about God ordering the death of infants makes God "not good" that is your conclusion, not necessarily mine.

There is another possibility here that you are not considering.

 

The justification for mass slaughter of everyone including babies was because God told them too. At least this was the Israelite justification.

If you think ancient warfare should include Baby killing that is your opinion. In many cases of ancient warfare the people were spared. When the Babylonians sacked Jerusalem they did not kill everyone.

When the Egyptians and Hittites waged war it was for control of the territory so they could tax it. They did not kill everyone.

So just to be clear, your justification for God committing mass slaughter of towns, including the killing pregnant women, children and babies, is that he was following what others did ?

Is this what you are claiming ?

 

Everyone at that time did not kill babies. This is another one of your made up stories that is refuted by history.

Even if we accept your made up story (better to alter it slightly to make it somewhat plausible by stating that "some" other nations committed similar atrocities),

even so. This does not change the fact that the Israelites committed atrocities and justified these atrocities by saying "God told us to do it".

You say "God hasn't ordered any baby killing lately". So what then ? Did God make a mistake the first time ? Did God figure out that baby killing was perhaps wrong ?

 

I am not discrediting God and history. Why must you twist and contort the truth.

It is you that has been denying what is written in the Bible. You claimed that God did not order baby killing. Now you admit that God in fact did order baby killing and are trying to justify it.

I have not denied what the Bible says. It is you that can not handle what the Bible says which is why you have been making up your own stories and substituting them for what the Bible actually says.

Your "babies as a human shield" comment is abject nonsense. What does this even mean ? The Israelites could have accomplished their task of taking over the city without killing all the women children and babies. Quit talking gibberish.

 

Clearly you agree with infanticide (killing of babies by the Israelites) and you have argued that Children who are not being raised properly should be killed.

 

So they have no choice then, as they believe. The choice is known and can't be changed.

 

Where in the NT does Jesus say he was the prince of peace. Are you making up false stories now too ?

Jesus specifically says the opposite of what you are saying.

Matt 10:34

Where does Jesus ever say he was the Prince of Peace ?

 

I seem to recall you denying the message of Jesus from the sermon on the mount Matt 5-7. The message that only those who do the good works and believe in the message of the good works spoken of by Jesus shall make it into heaven.

Now you are quoting from the same sermon like you have any clue what it means.

 

I never said that Jesus Himself uttered those words that He was the Prince of Peace in the New Testament and so obviously you have misinterpred what I said in my post. But in the OT is was propheseid that the Prince of Peace, the Messiah will come into the world. Jesus was that Messiah. He is also referred to as the Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father besides the Prince of Peace.

We read in Scripture, "For a child is born to us, a son is given to us. The government will rest on his shoulders. And he will be called: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."---Isaiah 9:6 NLT

 

The lengths of convoluted mind twisting hypocrisy and denial that some of these Fundamentalists will go through to try and maintain their made up "happy story of the Bible and God".

On the one had we have Mitt declaring "God is love, the Prince of Peace" and on the other hand we have WR arguing that that babies should be killed because their parents might raise them improperly.

So Mitt - for once in the 27 editions of this thread please come up with a coherent response.

One Christian (WR) is claiming that killing babies and children is justified because of some unidentified evil committed by their parents.

You are claiming that Christianity is about Love, that God is the Prince of Peace, love your neighbor and even your enemies.

Put yourself in the position of a person who has no idea about what Christianity is. What version of Christianity is this person supposed to believe ?

 

You were talking about the NT.

What Jesus says (Matt 10) is :

So clearly the passage in Isaiah is not referring to Jesus as Jesus clearly does not call himself the Prince of Peace.

You negate the OT when it doesn't suit you and quote it when it does. This is hypocrisy.

If Jesus is GOD, as you proclaim, then this God is the same God that was killing pregnant women, children an babies only a short time ago.

It was this same "Jesus" who hardened the mind of King Sihon against letting the Israelites pass through his land so that the Israelites would war with Sihon's army and then after the battle slaughter all the people in the towns of that Kingdom. Deuteronomy 2

Rather than use his power to convince Sihon to let the Israelites pass (or just leave things alone) Jesus instigates a war that results in mass slaughter of innocent women, children and babies.

Some Prince of Peace.

Sometimes the Israelites would show humanity and spare the women and children. Jesus would not have any of that nonsense.

Numbers 31

Kill all women except virgins, including pregnant women, and kill all the male children. Nice of Jesus the price of peace to allow some of the virgins to be kept as sex slaves.

 

Exactly! Good post WR!

 

Another good post WR! Again thanks for your contributions!

 

That does not agree with the Hebrew, and if you cared to be truthful you would study it. There are many reasons why but look at v 6. It is in the present tense. 'For unto us a child IS born', then we go to what he will do.
The original Hebrew says 'For a child HAS been born to us, and the authority WAS placed upon his shoulder, and (He,the) Wondrous Adviser, Mighty God, Eternal Father/Patron, called his name the 'Prince of Peace'.

I can give you a dozen ways in which mistranslation has occured if you're interested.

But of course you aren't.

 

Wow! Another good post by you WR! You are making a lot of sense here, again thanks for your contributions!

 

Exactly WR! It's a typical common tool for the non-believers to throw out insults when they have no way explaining their position or presenting a legitimate discussion...they'll just say things like...oh you're ignorant or you're delusional.

One thing I know is that we believers, we Christians are saved by the sacrifice of our Lord Savior Jesus Christ made for us by shedding His innocent, sinless blood on the cross! And the unsaved will be separated from God for all eternity and they will, no doubt about it, regret it for all eternity.

 

Excellent point Inc! You're talking about oranges and he brings up apples...lol

 

Good point Inc! Yeah! How is your discussion relating to science and the logic used in science related to this thread...GraspingforPeace?

This thread deals with theology...and so keep your discussions within it. If you want to discuss something else not related to theology go start another thread dealing with that subject matter.

 

Most non-believers say they don't even believe Jesus existed, but you're telling us He existed and had followers and that's all? So why do you reject everything else about our Lord Savior Jesus Christ?