? and Moses go plundering!
Options
Comments
-
alissowack wrote: »It's one thing to be commanded to do something by ? and another for someone wanting to do something for ? (however there is a verse that says that no one seeks ? ...but that's another story). Like you said...? commanded them...which means it's not influenced by "His Chosen". ? wasn't like..."Hey, if you are in favor of killing and ? , then raise your hand", and all their hands go up. Either they was going to do what ? said to do or suffer the consequences.
Again, it's not about morals. It's whether ? 's people believe that when ? says something...He means it; that it's not treated like..."Oh, that's just ? talking...don't pay Him any mind". Not only that, when ? says something, it is not made out to be more or less than what it is that is being said.
So that makes it better, that ? was the one who wanted these men to ? young boys and ? young girls? How does placing the blame for this event solely on ? justify it?
You didn't answer the question -- does your ? care about human behavior apart from belief in Jesus, or does he not? -
So that makes it better, that ? was the one who wanted these men to ? young boys and ? young girls? How does placing the blame for this event solely on ? justify it?
You didn't answer the question -- does your ? care about human behavior apart from belief in Jesus, or does he not?
The issue isn't to make it better. If these things happen, it's not because I said so. The problem is...what is it that we want the Bible to say? If we are certain that it supports killing and ? , then we will either accept it or reject it. However, if doesn't support killing and ? , then we must not act against this understanding.
I've answered those "Does ? care" questions before and you were not satisfied with my..."It's not my call" answers. It doesn't matter what I think or tell you. It matters what ? says. -
alissowack wrote: »The issue isn't to make it better. If these things happen, it's not because I said so. The problem is...what is it that we want the Bible to say? If we are certain that it supports killing and ? , then we will either accept it or reject it. However, if doesn't support killing and ? , then we must not act against this understanding.
I've answered those "Does ? care" questions before and you were not satisfied with my..."It's not my call" answers. It doesn't matter what I think or tell you. It matters what ? says.
How is there any question as to whether or not ? supported these rapes and murders? -
Ajackson17 wrote: »Its because the enemy male boys will prob seek revenge in the future and the females will bear male offspring in which would be hebrews so they wouldn't have to worry about revenge. It's quite that simple. You don't let a force repair itself in the future you wipe it out utterly.
So it's ok to ? children for what you think they might do in the future? And it's ok to ? the daughters of your slain enemies, and force them to bear the children of the men who killed their families? These actions are godly? -
How is there any question as to whether or not ? supported these rapes and murders?
Your treatment of the issue is like how we treat a politician who is trying to win our vote...and we find that this person doesn't take to our views. You see the "dirt" and the first response is to say that we don't support it...which is fine. But, it's not about what you or I "support". It's not about what you or I think in respect to ? . -
Sadly some people never get it,.... Death looks permanent. But it is not. It's like sleep. Ya just don't wake up "in the flesh."
Those who condemn ? are making a big mistake.
No human is competent to judge ? . Incompetent cause there is so much you do not and cannot [by your natural mind/reasoning] know.
Jesus Christ who only did good things for people, who killed no one,
who died a ? with no property but the robe on his back is the leader of the saved.
Not Moses. Not David. Not Solomon. Not anyone but Jesus Christ is the leader/guide of the saved. -
alissowack wrote: »No...you are way off, sir. You are saying that man's understanding of innocence is exactly like ? 's understanding. If that is the case, then it doesn't matter if you reject ? or you reject me. You end up rejecting yourself.
So if the Biblical ? believes some people are innocent, why did he drown the whole world in Noah's era? Why ? innocent people? -
John Prewett wrote: »Sadly some people never get it,.... Death looks permanent. But it is not. It's like sleep. Ya just don't wake up "in the flesh."
Those who condemn ? are making a big mistake.
No human is competent to judge ? . Incompetent cause there is so much you do not and cannot [by your natural mind/reasoning] know.
Jesus Christ who only did good things for people, who killed no one,
who died a ? with no property but the robe on his back is the leader of the saved.
Not Moses. Not David. Not Solomon. Not anyone but Jesus Christ is the leader/guide of the saved.
Isn't Jesus ? according to you Christians? So doesn't that mean Jesus HAS killed millions upon millions of people?
If the Holy Trinity is all one ? as Christians say, Jesus is in fact one of the worst mass killers of all time.
Ted Bundy has nothing on Jesus. -
SMH at Christians worshiping a brutal mass murderer.
? it, I might as well join the club, I'm gonna start looking up to Ted Bundy from now on. He murdered with efficiency, I could learn some ? from him. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »So if the Biblical ? believes some people are innocent, why did he drown the whole world in Noah's era? Why ? innocent people?
It doesn't matter what you or I think, sir. You want ? to represent what you understand about innocence. It's not our call to say what ? should or shouldn't be doing. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »SMH at Christians worshiping a brutal mass murderer.
? it, I might as well join the club, I'm gonna start looking up to Ted Bundy from now on. He murdered with efficiency, I could learn some ? from him.
? is not like some politician trying to win your vote but can't because He doesn't support your views. I can believe that ? is innocent...so what? It doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't matter what you think. -
alissowack wrote: »Your treatment of the issue is like how we treat a politician who is trying to win our vote...and we find that this person doesn't take to our views. You see the "dirt" and the first response is to say that we don't support it...which is fine. But, it's not about what you or I "support". It's not about what you or I think in respect to ? .
So basically, all of the horrible things that ? creates, condones, and does are ok simply because he's ? and we can't question him?
And how is it that what you think is irrelevant to what you believe? How can you say "what I think is irrelevant to ? " when your concept of ? only exists according to what you think? -
John Prewett wrote: »Sadly some people never get it,.... Death looks permanent. But it is not. It's like sleep. Ya just don't wake up "in the flesh."
Those who condemn ? are making a big mistake.
No human is competent to judge ? . Incompetent cause there is so much you do not and cannot [by your natural mind/reasoning] know.
Jesus Christ who only did good things for people, who killed no one,
who died a ? with no property but the robe on his back is the leader of the saved.
Not Moses. Not David. Not Solomon. Not anyone but Jesus Christ is the leader/guide of the saved.
So you think that you understand the nature of ? , know what ? wants people to do, and know what happens to people after death... but I am not competent to "judge" ? for condoning ? and infanticide because there is just so much I could never understand? -
kingblaze84 wrote: »Isn't Jesus ? according to you Christians? So doesn't that mean Jesus HAS killed millions upon millions of people?
If the Holy Trinity is all one ? as Christians say, Jesus is in fact one of the worst mass killers of all time.
Ted Bundy has nothing on Jesus.
For starters: TRINITARIANS claim "Jesus IS ? ". The NT Jesus NEVER claims "I am ? " see John 17:3 See John 4:15.
Jesus as a man,... sent by ? to give us a perfect example,... perfect moral guidance. You wanna ignore Jesus
[and be a stupid killer like Bundy or something like that]. Go right ahead and be a fool.
You'll regret it. But that will you your problem. Not mine. -
So you think that you understand the nature of ? , know what ? wants people to do,
and know what happens to people after death..
Yes Thanks to Jesus, I and millions of all races understand the nature of ? .
Through Jesus WE know ? wants us to "love one another".
Through Jesus WE know ? wants us to place faith in Jesus.
Through Jesus WE know that after "death" one enters either eternal life,
... or eternal damnation.. but I am not competent to "judge" ? for condoning ? and infanticide because there is just so much I could never understand?
Correct. Except that you MAY understand later. I hope you do. But apart from heeding Jesus, you cannot understand ? . Nobody is naturally born understanding ? . We must be "born again" -
So basically, all of the horrible things that ? creates, condones, and does are ok simply because he's ? and we can't question him?
And how is it that what you think is irrelevant to what you believe? How can you say "what I think is irrelevant to ? " when your concept of ? only exists according to what you think?
It is not my place to say what ? considers good or bad. If ? is a concept, then my understanding is relevant. However, I believe ? is not a concept. ? is not depended on my understanding (or yours) to have any relevance towards Himself. You can disprove my understanding of ? , but that wouldn't make Him less relevant...or make ? question Himself.
You come with intentions to debunk my understanding...which is fine. But, it's not about my understanding as much as you want it to be. -
ether-i-am wrote: »I wonder if the Virgins ended up feeling like they were blessed by ? ?
Nah cuz they prolly blamed it on being so ugly which in turn came back to being cursed by ? . -
John Prewett wrote: »Yes Thanks to Jesus, I and millions of all races understand the nature of ? .
Through Jesus WE know ? wants us to "love one another".
Through Jesus WE know ? wants us to place faith in Jesus.
Through Jesus WE know that after "death" one enters either eternal life,
... or eternal damnation.
Correct. Except that you MAY understand later. I hope you do. But apart from heeding Jesus, you cannot understand ? . Nobody is naturally born understanding ? . We must be "born again"
First of all, who said anything about race?
Secondly, how do you "know" any of those things? (and if your answer is Jesus or the Bible, how do you "know" that either is legitimate?)
Third, you say "apart from heeding Jesus, you cannot understand ? ." Does that mean that you, as someone who heeds Jesus, understand ? and are capable of explaining why he would condone ? and murder in this story, two things that he is supposedly against? -
alissowack wrote: »It is not my place to say what ? considers good or bad. If ? is a concept, then my understanding is relevant. However, I believe ? is not a concept. ? is not depended on my understanding (or yours) to have any relevance towards Himself. You can disprove my understanding of ? , but that wouldn't make Him less relevant...or make ? question Himself.
You come with intentions to debunk my understanding...which is fine. But, it's not about my understanding as much as you want it to be.
It doesn't really make sense to say "even if my understanding is inaccurate, ? is still what I say he is." -
dont try to explain things you don't understand, just behave the way you want we will have an answer when we'll die
-
It doesn't really make sense to say "even if my understanding is inaccurate, ? is still what I say he is."
If that is what you got from reading my post, then my English must not be that great. I wasn't in anyway saying that I still have the "final say". But it seems as if that is what you want. You want ? to be reduced to what you understand.
As far as I see it, you will continue to see ? as the bad guy. But it's no different from someone using ? as an excuse to do bad things and I can see where maybe you want to question my morality because of it. People do read the "dirt" and for whatever reason want ? to be in favor of their immorality. I would ask you to go a step further. For those who are doing good in the name of ? ...are they really doing it for ? ? -
alissowack wrote: »If that is what you got from reading my post, then my English must not be that great. I wasn't in anyway saying that I still have the "final say". But it seems as if that is what you want. You want ? to be reduced to what you understand.
As far as I see it, you will continue to see ? as the bad guy. But it's no different from someone using ? as an excuse to do bad things and I can see where maybe you want to question my morality because of it. People do read the "dirt" and for whatever reason want ? to be in favor of their immorality. I would ask you to go a step further. For those who are doing good in the name of ? ...are they really doing it for ? ?
Well, you said ? is not dependent on anyone's understanding, and that no matter what I say, it wouldn't make ? any less. To me that implies that you consider your idea of ? to be above any attempt at criticism.
I don't see ? is the "bad guy", because I don't believe in any particular ? ; I'm just demonstrating that according to the bible, the Jewish/Christian ? has done many things that are generally considered bad. -
Well, you said ? is not dependent on anyone's understanding, and that no matter what I say, it wouldn't make ? any less. To me that implies that you consider your idea of ? to be above any attempt at criticism.
I don't see ? is the "bad guy", because I don't believe in any particular ? ; I'm just demonstrating that according to the bible, the Jewish/Christian ? has done many things that are generally considered bad.
If that is what you take it to mean, then I must not be clear about something. I've been saying all along that ? is above man's understanding...including myself which would mean it wouldn't matter what I say either. If you feel as if I am directing it towards you...I'm not. If you feel like I am imposing my will upon you, I'm not. Criticism is fine if I am implying that believing in ? is "better" than disbelieving in ? . But, I'm not saying it's a matter of me proving you wrong. If ? exists, I must consider that I don't who He is; that I don't know His Ways. I can read the Bible (and others can as well) and be wrong in how I view it.
The thing about defining what is good or bad is that we put ourselves in a position where we determine what "good" and "bad" is and what it should produce. We have made it where we are where the lines of knowledge stop. If that is the case, there isn't anything to really stop us from perceiving something good to be bad or perceiving something bad to be good. It's a dangerous game we play especially if no one is "Lord" over our own understandings. I prefer not to make such determinations for it puts me in a situation where I have the final say on what is good or bad. It's not that I don't have things that I consider good or bad. It's just that I don't believe it's my place to say what it is in respect to ? . -
Amen but before disturbing people with religion show me ur postal card from heavenalissowack wrote: »....
