Beyond Brutality

[Rose]

.
Isn’t it time the Christian community moves past the biblical solution of dealing with evil by killing people, to a higher consciousness of love? The Bible isn’t the only religious book that teaches violence as a solution to the problem of wickedness in the world, but it is the book that is promoted by millions of people as being a guide to peace. When asked about the nature of Jesus, the first response of many Christians is to say that he was a man who espoused peace, with words such as “pray for your enemies” and “turn the other cheek”, but there is also a very violent side to many of his sayings found throughout the Gospels. The book of Revelation whose full title is The Revelation of Jesus Christ is filled with brutality and violence, which is the preferred method used by Christ to rid the world of evil. The pages of Revelation are saturated with one form of brutality after another, all done in the name of God to cleanse the world of evil and bring in peace on earth. A particularly ironic case in point happens in chapter 19 where it begins by introducing the marriage of Christ, calling all the saints to attend, and ending with the marriage supper where the flesh of all men is the food upon which the birds feast.
Rev. 19:7-9 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.
Rev. 19:17-18 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
Why is it that many secular humanists in this modern day and age are seeking peaceful means to try and bring harmony to the world, whereas the Bible teaches people the only way to peace and harmony is by brutality? How can slaughtering all the “wicked” people on the planet achieve peace? Yet, this is what we find in the pages of the Bible supposedly inspired by an all loving God. The biblical solution to every problem concerning the “wickedness” of man is to kill them, starting with the Flood in Genesis and ending with the battle of Armageddon in Revelation. This is what many Christians are expecting and waiting for when they speak of Christ ushering in the new kingdom on earth where peace and harmony is suppose to reign.

It is time the Christian community opens their eyes to the brutality of the Bible and understands that the mindset of Bronze Age man saw only one way to achieve peace and that was through domination and violence by a warrior god. It’s time to go beyond the mindset of biblical brutality and seek new ways to achieve solutions to the evil we see around us in accordance with our higher level of knowledge. Looking to brutality as an answer to the problem of wickedness will never work…violence only begets more violence, even if it’s done in the name of God.


Rose

[CWH]

Is being brutal good or bad?

In a "kill or be killed" situation, one have to be brutal in order to survive such as in a war. In fact, in this world that we are living in is a "kill or be killed" environment:

1. Humans kill animals, plants, for food
2. Humans destroy trees for constructive uses
3, Humans kill pests, germs, fungus, insects
4. Humans massacre chickens, cows, carnivores in order to protect human from diseases such as SARs, bird flu, Mad Cow's disease, rabies etc.
6. Humans kill humans in suicides, accidents, wars, self-defense and crimes and even in meting justice such capital punishments
7. Humans compete with one another in food, money, business etc. in order to survive....either "I live or I die".
8. Even in the natural world, the animal kingdom, brutality seems to be the norm.... survival of the fittest, "kill and fight or be eaten"
9. Many countries including the USA do not believe in talking sense to the enemy such as terrorists, communists; guns seem to be the best talking sense.


It is time the Christian community opens their eyes to the brutality of the Bible and understands that the mindset of Bronze Age man saw only one way to achieve peace and that was through domination and violence by a warrior god. It’s time to go beyond the mindset of biblical brutality and seek new ways to achieve solutions to the evil we see around us in accordance with our higher level of knowledge.
You seems to be saying Christianity or religion is the path to peace and non-violence, unfortunately, this is not so and RAM will agree with me; it caused more wars and sufferings. Such things also happened with other religions such as Islam and even Buddhism etc. Didn't Jesus said, "This is but the beginnings of birth pangs? (Matthew 24)", "Do not think that I am here to give peace to the world but no I am not here to give peace to the world but a sword (Matthew 10:34)"?


Looking to brutality as an answer to the problem of wickedness will never work…violence only begets more violence, even if it’s done in the name of God.
Even so, peace does not always begets peace nor non-violence always begets non-violence. Throughout human history, people have tried diplomacy, peace treaty, friendship, royal inter-marriages etc. and none, not one, have achieve ever-lasting peace. Even people such as Napoleon, Hitler thought that achieving a one world government would achieve ever lasting peace and they were totally wrong; none, not one, have ever achieve world peace through world conquests. And none, not one have achieve ever lasting world peace by preaching non-violence, a good example was Gandhi.

I don't support brutality but what I am saying here is that brutality will always remain unless evilness, wickedness in the world is removed totally. Is this humanly possible? Unfortunately No. What we requires is God's intervention, i.e. a higher power to help us achieve the utopian world. Such a world requires righteous godly people in the absence of evil. And that is what God of the Bible is trying to do since creation and that unfortunately involve removing evil unrepentent people from the face of the earth. Can a major war be fought without death? Can a major war be fought by saving all the enemies? Or are we doing world ecology a favor by stopping all carnivores from killing their preys in the name of non-violence? Or are we doing the world a favor by saving all pests such as cockroaches, rats, mosquitoes, germs etc. in the name of non-violence?


May the Peace, Wisdom and Love of God be with everyone of you. Amen.:pray:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Is being brutal good or bad?

In a "kill or be killed" situation, one have to be brutal in order to survive such as in a war. In fact, in this world that we are living in is a "kill or be killed" environment:

1. Humans kill animals, plants, for food
2. Humans destroy trees for constructive uses
3, Humans kill pests, germs, fungus, insects
4. Humans massacre chickens, cows, carnivores in order to protect human from diseases such as SARs, bird flu, Mad Cow's disease, rabies etc.
6. Humans kill humans in suicides, accidents, wars, self-defense and crimes and even in meting justice such capital punishments
7. Humans compete with one another in food, money, business etc. in order to survive....either "I live or I die".
8. Even in the natural world, the animal kingdom, brutality seems to be the norm.... survival of the fittest, "kill and fight or be eaten"
9. Many countries including the USA do not believe in talking sense to the enemy such as terrorists, communists; guns seem to be the best talking sense.

A case study in "How to miss the point."

[CWH]

A case study in "How to miss the point."

It's just not helpful to say I missed the point. Try clarifying on what I said about violence. I would rather that Rose responds to my post. There are many indications that Non-violence does not lead to ever lasting peace. Does Non-violence helps if the would be attacker is violent? I am not against use of non-violence or saying that non-violence is useless; in fact I promote its use, but the question is, does it really works in the long term? The answer seems to be no as evidenced by increasing wars and violent crimes. Non-violence sounds good but is it practical in the face of violence? Obviously, Non-violence is not going to work on Saddam or Osama or Ghaddafi. Humanly impossible but nothing is impossible with God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolence

http://www.nonviolenceinternational.net/seasia/whatis/book.php

God Blessings to all. :pray:

[Rose]

Is being brutal good or bad?

In a "kill or be killed" situation, one have to be brutal in order to survive such as in a war. In fact, in this world that we are living in is a "kill or be killed" environment:

1. Humans kill animals, plants, for food
2. Humans destroy trees for constructive uses
3, Humans kill pests, germs, fungus, insects
4. Humans massacre chickens, cows, carnivores in order to protect human from diseases such as SARs, bird flu, Mad Cow's disease, rabies etc.
6. Humans kill humans in suicides, accidents, wars, self-defense and crimes and even in meting justice such capital punishments
7. Humans compete with one another in food, money, business etc. in order to survive....either "I live or I die".
8. Even in the natural world, the animal kingdom, brutality seems to be the norm.... survival of the fittest, "kill and fight or be eaten"
9. Many countries including the USA do not believe in talking sense to the enemy such as terrorists, communists; guns seem to be the best talking sense.

Most of the brutality in the Bible has nothing to do with survival. It is just Yahweh getting mad at people who are sinning.

1. Killing of all the people on the planet in The Flood
2. Slaughtering all the people of Sodom and Gomorrah
3. Slaughter of the Midianites
4. Slaughter of most of the tribe of Benjamin in Judges
4. Slaughter of the 70,000 because of David's wrong census
5. Slaughter of the 3,000 at Sinai
6. Ect. ect. ect.....
7. Ending with the mass slaughter in Revelation...


You seems to be saying Christianity or religion is the path to peace and non-violence, unfortunately, this is not so and RAM will agree with me; it caused more wars and sufferings. Such things also happened with other religions such as Islam and even Buddhism etc. Didn't Jesus said, "This is but the beginnings of birth pangs? (Matthew 24)", "Do not think that I am here to give peace to the world but no I am not here to give peace to the world but a sword (Matthew 10:34)"?

NO! That's not what I'm saying! The biblical solution to "wickedness" is to slaughter people and that is not a path to peace. Take a good look at Yahweh's method of ridding the planet in Genesis, and continue all the way to Revelation, then ask yourself the question: is there any less "wickedness" in the 1st century then there was at the beginning in Genesis? The answer is NO!


Even so, peace does not always begets peace nor non-violence always begets non-violence. Throughout human history, people have tried diplomacy, peace treaty, friendship, royal inter-marriages etc. and none, not one, have achieve ever-lasting peace. Even people such as Napoleon, Hitler thought that achieving a one world government would achieve ever lasting peace and they were totally wrong; none, not one, have ever achieve world peace through world conquests. And none, not one have achieve ever lasting world peace by preaching non-violence, a good example was Gandhi.

I don't support brutality but what I am saying here is that brutality will always remain unless evilness, wickedness in the world is removed totally. Is this humanly possible? Unfortunately No. What we requires is God's intervention, i.e. a higher power to help us achieve the utopian world. Such a world requires righteous godly people in the absence of evil. And that is what God of the Bible is trying to do since creation and that unfortunately involve removing evil unrepentent people from the face of the earth. Can a major war be fought without death? Can a major war be fought by saving all the enemies? Or are we doing world ecology a favor by stopping all carnivores from killing their preys in the name of non-violence? Or are we doing the world a favor by saving all pests such as cockroaches, rats, mosquitoes, germs etc. in the name of non-violence?


May the Peace, Wisdom and Love of God be with everyone of you. Amen.:pray:

You are right, peace does not always bring peace, and non-violence does not always beget non-violence, but the Bible doesn't even "give peace a chance". My main point is to wake people up to the fact that the Bible gives only one solution to peace and that is to kill all the so called "wicked" people and many, many times a good portion of the so called "wicked" people are children!

I have no clue why you connected the idea of saving "insect pests" with the continual stream of brutality to humans we see in the Bible?

All the Best,
Rose

[CWH]

[QUOTE=Rose;36032]Most of the brutality in the Bible has nothing to do with survival. It is just Yahweh getting mad at people who are sinning.

1. Killing of all the people on the planet in The Flood
2. Slaughtering all the people of Sodom and Gomorrah
3. Slaughter of the Midianites
4. Slaughter of most of the tribe of Benjamin in Judges
4. Slaughter of the 70,000 because of David's wrong census
5. Slaughter of the 3,000 at Sinai
6. Ect. ect. ect.....
7. Ending with the mass slaughter in Revelation...
Why do you always think killing, killing, killing is bad? That is why I put the killing of animals, plants, insects, pests, germs ect. as an example that killing may not always be bad. If man in his natural brutality could kill, kill, kill animals, plants, pests and insects, he could easily have done that to his fellow human beings. There were wars, murders, violence throughout the centuries since creation due to man's natural brutal instincts why do you always, always. always, blamed them on God. Yahweh was mad at people who are sinning for a good purpose so that people down the generations will not be even more sinful and wicked. It doesn't make sense at all if Yahweh killed sinful people in the past but did not punish sinful or wicked people post AD 70 to the present.....why? And when Yahweh killed sinful people as a punishment, He could easily forgive them and resurrect them. As such to me, there is no cruelty. Is getting rid of evil wicked people good or bad? It's like putting your children to sleep for a thousand years as a punishment for a very heinous crime and then wake them up and forgive them after they have learnt their lesson and repented. Is this cruel? Of course, the parents will feel sad but it is necessary based on justice. That was also why Yahweh wasn't happy when He decided to bring the Great Flood to destroy all evil people on earth it was said in Genesis 6 that it Grieved Him dearly. God is no killing monster if He could expressed such emotion.

5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And [B]the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”


NO! That's not what I'm saying! The biblical solution to "wickedness" is to slaughter people and that is not a path to peace. Take a good look at Yahweh's method of ridding the planet in Genesis, and continue all the way to Revelation, then ask yourself the question: is there any less "wickedness" in the 1st century then there was at the beginning in Genesis? The answer is NO!
It is not Yahweh's method but man's brutal instinct at work. And there were brutal men throughout history which you can named them... Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Saddam, PolPot. These are evidence of men's brutal instinct.


You are right, peace does not always bring peace, and non-violence does not always beget non-violence, but the Bible doesn't even "give peace a chance". My main point is to wake people up to the fact that the Bible gives only one solution to peace and that is to kill all the so called "wicked" people and many, many times a good portion of the so called "wicked" people are children!
Is killing of evil wicked men and children good or bad?... Kill them and then wake them up at a later time to be forgiven.
Talkng about killing children, brutal men throughout history did that as well without mercy. Another evidence of human's brutal instinct.


I have no clue why you connected the idea of saving "insect pests" with the continual stream of brutality to humans we see in the Bible?
My point is which is better saving pests or kill them? Same with brutal evil men such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Osama, Ghaddafi,
PolPot, Saddam etc., save them or get rid of them, which is better? So is kill, kill, kill, always always always bad?

May the Grace of God be with everyone of you. Amen. :pray:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Why do you always think killing, killing, killing is bad? That is why I put the killing of animals, plants, insects, pests, germs ect. as an example that killing may not always be bad.

There you go again, missing the point!

Did Rose write a single word against the "violence" of killing plants? Nope.
Did Rose write a single word agaisnt the "violence" of killing bugs? Nope.
Did Rose write a single word agaisnt the "violence" of killing animals? Nope.
Did Rose write a single word agaisnt the "violence" of killing pests? Nope.
Did Rose write a single word agaisnt the "violence" of killing germs? Nope.

DID CWH TOTALLY MISS THE POINT ROSE WAS MAKING? YES!

Come on Cheow Wee ... don't you realize that everyone can see the silliness of your comment? Why don't you apply your careful thinking ability and compose posts that respond to the points being made?



If man in his natural brutality could kill, kill, kill animals, plants, pests and insects, he could easily have done that to his fellow human beings. There were wars, murders, violence throughout the centuries since creation due to man's natural brutal instincts why do you always, always. always, blamed them on God.

Rose didn't blame them on God. She simply quoted the Bible. It is the Bible that blames God for all the violence he commanded.

Why do you write things that are so obviously fallacious?



And when Yahweh killed sinful people as a punishment, He could easily forgive them and resurrect them.

Great! Then there is nothing wrong with murder. God can resurrect them! Indeed, by your logic, there is no right or wrong, so there is no sin, so there is no need for a savior or heaven or hell. Good work - you have eliminated the need for Christ and Christianity.

Have you ever tried explaining your ideas to your fellow Christians and you pastor in your Baptist church? Give it a try and let me know how they respond. It should be pretty funny ...




NO! That's not what I'm saying! The biblical solution to "wickedness" is to slaughter people and that is not a path to peace. Take a good look at Yahweh's method of ridding the planet in Genesis, and continue all the way to Revelation, then ask yourself the question: is there any less "wickedness" in the 1st century then there was at the beginning in Genesis? The answer is NO!
It is not Yahweh's method but man's brutal instinct at work. And there were brutal men throughout history which you can named them... Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Saddam, PolPot. These are evidence of men's brutal instinct.

That is blatantly false. It is Yahweh's method. Rose is talking about the violence that God commits and commands. Can't you read?

Richard

[CWH]

[QUOTE=RAM;36037]
Come on Cheow Wee ... don't you realize that everyone can see the silliness of your comment? Why don't you apply your careful thinking ability and compose posts that respond to the points being made?
I don't give a damn!... my purpose is to show that humans are instinctly brutal. Let everyone decide; it's their own opinions.


Rose didn't blame them on God. She simply quoted the Bible. It is the Bible that blames God for all the violence he commanded.
I have said a thousand times, it doesn't matter if humans wrote the Bible as it is endorsed by God; even Jesus quotes from it. Did Jesus blamed the Bible or God? ?No. What is the difference if one blames the Bible or God when God is the one who endorsed the Bible.


Great! Then there is nothing wrong with murder. God can resurrect them! Indeed, by your logic, there is no right or wrong, so there is no sin, so there is no need for a savior or heaven or hell. Good work - you have eliminated the need for Christ and Christianity.
Is Jesus also God? Was Jesus there in the OT? Obviously Yes. Can He also forgive sin at will? Obviously Yes.


Have you ever tried explaining your ideas to your fellow Christians and you pastor in your Baptist church? Give it a try and let me know how they respond. It should be pretty funny ...
I don't give a damn; I have a right to my own opinion.


That is blatantly false. It is Yahweh's method. Rose is talking about the violence that God commits and commands. Can't you read?
What? Yahweh's method?....or is it human's brutal instinct? If God committed violence, so what? It's violence against evil wicked people same as the violence committed against Hitler, Saddam, Gaddhafi, PolPot, Osama, is it good or bad? So is kill, kill, kill always bad?


May God Blessed us. Amen. :pray:

[heb13-13]

I know that the most talked about part of of "Christian" history is marked with violence. It is the most talked about by humanists, agnostics and atheist because it is the largest part of "Christian" history. Christianity is overwhelmed by her own history. It proves not that God is at fault, but rather that men's hearts are wicked. God has given us everything we need that pertains to life and godliness in the person of His Son.

Have we forgotten the brutality of the Pharisees putting Jesus to death? Because of the brutality towards God's Son, our brutality can end once and for all.

Yes, there are the Crusades, and there is also the 50 million killed or tortured during the centuries of the Inquisition. There are so many examples of brutality in the name of religion. And that's just Christianity. We have not even talked about the Sikhs in India, or the Hindu's, Buddhists, Muslims, Shintoists, etc, etc. Lots and lots of violence in the name of God!! All throughout the world there are religions that protect their turf and in some cases invade others.

It is no wonder that humanists want religion outlawed. I say outlaw it, too!

China has tried to outlaw Christianity. Yet an underground church of true Believers flourishes. These Christians don't plot any overthrow of the government or desire to conquer other people, they just want to follow the Lamb. And they are ready to die for Him without hurting anyone in the process except themselves. We have no numbers regarding the number of Christians in prison or labor camps in China, North Korea, Vietnam, etc., etc., but we know through ministries like Voice of the Martyrs that there are many.

There are those people, no matter how small and insignificant their number may be, that follow the Lamb wherever He goes. Those who lives have been touched by His love and forgiveness. Their hearts are never the same again. Those who have heard His voice will never follow another "voice", again.

What is the Love of God capable of? I lived in Israel for awhile and I witnessed first hand former mortal enemies loving and caring for one another because of Jesus Christ. Arab and Jews who follow the Lamb and love one another. The Prince of Peace brought true peace to them.

I have also watched with interest the "Occupy" protests around the nation and how their fellow protesters and demonstrators are stealing from them and preying upon each other.

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP4ef2a04f0cba48ffb6bab5c27a599ea7.html

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/criminal_occupation_oh3CnKANUqYHrGPCaZaLRK

Even peaceful sikhs fight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMJ9xthLjn0

It seems everyone fights if you press the right buttons.

If you have dies with Christ and been raised in newness of life, you have no buttons to push (no religion to protect, no turf to guard).

If you know the Lord then you are grateful that He called you and you are happy to be called by His Name even though there is much shame associated with it. On top of the shame there is derision and mockery from humanists, atheists, and all sorts of people heaped upon you because of what Christendom has done in the name of Jesus Christ. And if you are a true Christian you will separate yourself from all that is not of Jesus Christ.


Kindness to all,
Rick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Come on Cheow Wee ... don't you realize that everyone can see the silliness of your comment? Why don't you apply your careful thinking ability and compose posts that respond to the points being made?

I don't give a damn!... my purpose is to show that humans are instinctly brutal. Let everyone decide; it's their own opinions.

You don't give a damn about looking stupid? I knew it! Thanks for confirming what I thought all along. :thumb:

But seriously, you could show that humans are brutal without making a fool of youself in the process. And besides, everyone already knows people can be brutal, so what's your point? It has nothing to do with what Rose was talking about. The point that Rose was making had nothing to do with human brutality. She was talking about the brutality committed and commanded by the God of the Bible.







If man in his natural brutality could kill, kill, kill animals, plants, pests and insects, he could easily have done that to his fellow human beings. There were wars, murders, violence throughout the centuries since creation due to man's natural brutal instincts why do you always, always. always, blamed them on God.

Rose didn't blame them on God. She simply quoted the Bible. It is the Bible that blames God for all the violence he commanded.
I have said a thousand times, it doesn't matter if humans wrote the Bible as it is endorsed by God; even Jesus quotes from it. Did Jesus blamed the Bible or God? ?No. What is the difference if one blames the Bible or God when God is the one who endorsed the Bible.

You missed the point again. I was not talking about the huiman authorship of the Bible. I was talking about what the Bible says. It is the Bible that says God commanded all that violence. That was the point. It has nothing to do with who wrote the Bible. It has to do with what the Bible says, and the Bible says that God commanded his people to commit a lot of violence.



Have you ever tried explaining your ideas to your fellow Christians and you pastor in your Baptist church? Give it a try and let me know how they respond. It should be pretty funny ...
I don't give a damn; I have a right to my own opinion.

Of course you have the "right" to your own opnion - I've never challenged that. But if your opnions contradict Christianity, why do you call yourself a Christian?

And what's up with your new favorite phrase "I don't give a damn?" Do you use that a lot in church? What would your pastor say? Or don't you "give a damn" about things like that?




That is blatantly false. It is Yahweh's method. Rose is talking about the violence that God commits and commands. Can't you read?
What? Yahweh's method?....or is it human's brutal instinct? If God committed violence, so what? It's violence against evil wicked people same as the violence committed against Hitler, Saddam, Gaddhafi, PolPot, Osama, is it good or bad? So is kill, kill, kill always bad?


Yes, Yahweh's method! It appears you have a big problem with reading comprehension. The examples that Rose gave were examples of things Yahweh either did himself or commanded his people to do. Here, let me refresh your memory:
Yahweh killed of all the people on the planet in The Flood
Yahweh slaughtered all the people of Sodom and Gomorrah
Yahweh commanded the slaughter of the Midianites
Yahweh commanded and enabled the slaughter of most of the tribe of Benjamin in Judges
Yahweh slaughtered the 70,000 because of David's wrong census
Yahweh commanded the slaughter of the 3,000 at Sinai
Ect. ect. ect.....
Yahweh completes this whole sorry mess with the mass slaughter in Revelation...
Why do you deny the obvious? Wouldn't it be a lot better to admit the truth once in a while?

All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I know that the most talked about part of of "Christian" history is marked with violence. It is the most talked about by humanists, agnostics and atheist because it is the largest part of "Christian" history. Christianity is overwhelmed by her own history. It proves not that God is at fault, but rather that men's hearts are wicked. God has given us everything we need that pertains to life and godliness in the person of His Son.

Have we forgotten the brutality of the Pharisees putting Jesus to death? Because of the brutality towards God's Son, our brutality can end once and for all.

Yes, there are the Crusades, and there is also the 50 million killed or tortured during the centuries of the Inquisition. There are so many examples of brutality in the name of religion. And that's just Christianity. We have not even talked about the Sikhs in India, or the Hindu's, Buddhists, Muslims, Shintoists, etc, etc. Lots and lots of violence in the name of God!! All throughout the world there are religions that protect their turf and in some cases invade others.

Hey there Rick,

You missed the point. Neither Rose nor I have been talking about violence instigated by humans. We are talking about the violence that God commits and commands in the Bible.



It is no wonder that humanists want religion outlawed. I say outlaw it, too!

Nah. That's a totally wrong way to deal with problem. All we need to do is educate people. And remove the tax breaks for churches, of course. We could probably sovle our debt problem if we just put a property tax on church owned land.



China has tried to outlaw Christianity. Yet an underground church of true Believers flourishes. These Christians don't plot any overthrow of the government or desire to conquer other people, they just want to follow the Lamb. And they are ready to die for Him without hurting anyone in the process except themselves. We have no numbers regarding the number of Christians in prison or labor camps in China, North Korea, Vietnam, etc., etc., but we know through ministries like Voice of the Martyrs that there are many.

Christiniaty is a powerful meme. It taps into archetypes that motivate people deeply.



It seems everyone fights if you press the right buttons.

If you have dies with Christ and been raised in newness of life, you have no buttons to push (no religion to protect, no turf to guard).

If you know the Lord then you are grateful that He called you and you are happy to be called by His Name even though there is much shame associated with it. On top of the shame there is derision and mockery from humanists, atheists, and all sorts of people heaped upon you because of what Christendom has done in the name of Jesus Christ. And if you are a true Christian you will separate yourself from all that is not of Jesus Christ.

I wonder about that. Though I have no illusions that Buddhists are perfect, I suspect that they exhibit greater self-control and lack of buttons than most "true Christians." But that's just a guess - I could be wrong. It would be an interesting study. But the problem is the "No True Scottsman" fallacy. All the Christians with buttons are excluded from the sample because they are not "true Christians." But then we might suspect something is askew when we see that the population of "true Christians" dwindles to 1,234 in the whole world.

I understand where you are coming from, but I think much of it is wishful thinking not supported by any facts.

All the best,

Richard

[CWH]

[QUOTE=RAM;36048]You don't give a damn about looking stupid? I knew it! Thanks for confirming what I thought all along. :thumb:
I am just giving examples that humans are instinctively brutal to animals, insects, plants, humans and the environment. Ad I standby my conviction; nothing silly about it.


But seriously, you could show that humans are brutal without making a fool of youself in the process. And besides, everyone already knows people can be brutal, so what's your point? It has nothing to do with what Rose was talking about. The point that Rose was making had nothing to do with human brutality. She was talking about the brutality committed and commanded by the God of the Bible.
My point is that God is not that brutal. Human brutal instinct plays a part in those passages that were mentioned and humans can be really really brutal. Since this thread is about brutality, let's talk about brutality. God may be brutal but it was against evil wicked people, is that good or bad? You have not answered my question. Let's put God in a better light. God is no killing monster with no emotions and this is clearly evidenced in Genesis 6:

5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

I have also put in the analogy that if someone kills another human as a punishment and then resurrect him later on after he has repented, is that cruel? God is not that cruel. Please answer the question.


You missed the point again. I was not talking about the huiman authorship of the Bible. I was talking about what the Bible says. It is the Bible that says God commanded all that violence. That was the point. It has nothing to do with who wrote the Bible. It has to do with what the Bible says, and the Bible says that God commanded his people to commit a lot of violence.
Please answer the question, what is the difference between what the Bible says and the human authors who wrote that passage in the Bible? Please answer the question.


Of course you have the "right" to your own opnion - I've never challenged that. But if your opnions contradict Christianity, why do you call yourself a Christian?
A Christian is one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God and whoever believes in Him will never dies but will receive eternal life. A Christian is one who loves God with all his heart and soul and loves his neighbor as himself, the rest and other opinions are not so important.


And what's up with your new favorite phrase "I don't give a damn?" Do you use that a lot in church? What would your pastor say? Or don't you "give a damn" about things like that?
I have said before, I never believe 100% what the pastor said. If I disagree with what the pastor says, I will research the Bible and comes to my own conclusion. After all, they are also fallible humans.


Yes, [B]Yahweh's method! It appears you have a big problem with reading comprehension. The examples that Rose gave were examples of things Yahweh either did himself or commanded his people to do. Here, let me refresh your memory:[LIST=1]
Yahweh killed of all the people on the planet in The Flood
Yahweh slaughtered all the people of Sodom and Gomorrah
Yahweh commanded the slaughter of the Midianites
Yahweh commanded and enabled the slaughter of most of the tribe of Benjamin in Judges
Yahweh slaughtered the 70,000 because of David's wrong census
Yahweh commanded the slaughter of the 3,000 at Sinai
Ect. ect. ect.....
Yahweh completes this whole sorry mess with the mass slaughter in Revelation...

Correction: "The examples that Rose gave were examples of things that the Bible said Yahweh either did himself or commanded his people to do".
Even if true, these were done, it was done with good purpose and intent by removing evil wicked people. Is is good or bad by removing evil wicked people? Please answer this question.

Now who is more brutal by comparing the list given by Rose and the list of brutality done by human dictators. Doesn't this prove that humans are much brutal? Doesn't this says that it is all right to remove evil wicked people? Please answer this question.

Dictators that kill:
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000
Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 23,000,000 (the purges plus Ukraine's famine)
Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians WWII)
Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908) 8,000,000
Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44) 5,000,000 (civilians in WWII)
Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-20) 1,200,000 Armenians (1915) + 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks (1916-22) + 500,000 Assyrians (1915-20)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000
Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)
Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78) 1,500,000
Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970) 1,000,000
Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982) 900,000
Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994) 800,000
Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88) 600,000
Tito (Yugoslavia, 1945-1987) 570,000
Sukarno (Communists 1965-66) 500,000
Fumimaro Konoe (Japan, 1937-39) 500,000? (Chinese civilians)
Jonas Savimbi (Angola, 1975-2002) 400,000
Mullah Omar - Taliban (Afghanistan, 1986-2001) 400,000
Idi Amin (Uganda, 1969-1979) 300,000
Yahya Khan (Pakistan, 1970-71) 300,000 (Bangladesh)
Benito Mussolini (Ethiopia, 1936; Libya, 1934-45; Yugoslavia, WWII) 300,000
Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire, 1965-97) ?
Charles Taylor (Liberia, 1989-1996) 220,000
Foday Sankoh (Sierra Leone, 1991-2000) 200,000
Suharto (Aceh, East Timor, New Guinea, 1975-98) 200,000
Ho Chi Min (Vietnam, 1953-56) 200,000
Michel Micombero (Burundi, 1972) 150,000
Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia, 1992-99) 100,000
Hassan Turabi (Sudan, 1989-1999) 100,000

http://popten.net/2010/05/top-ten-most-evil-dictators-of-all-time-in-order-of-kill-count/


May the Wisdom, Mercy and Grace of God be bestow on us. Amen. :pray:

[heb13-13]

Hey there Rick,

You missed the point. Neither Rose nor I have been talking about violence instigated by humans. We are talking about the violence that God commits and commands in the Bible.


Nah. That's a totally wrong way to deal with problem. All we need to do is educate people. And remove the tax breaks for churches, of course. We could probably sovle our debt problem if we just put a property tax on church owned land.

Ahhh, the convenient marriage. The church gets to keep her mammon and the state makes sure she keeps her mouth shut regarding politics. Yeah, the religious institution sold her soul to the state a long time ago. It's all about mammon. And there is no divorce in the near future. But if the dominionists keep it up, they may lose their tax break and be told to shut up anyway. They will undoubtedley see this as persecution for the "cause of Christ".



Christianity is a powerful meme. It taps into archetypes that motivate people deeply.

The way people are motivated is not God's fault, is it?


I wonder about that. Though I have no illusions that Buddhists are perfect, I suspect that they exhibit greater self-control and lack of buttons than most "true Christians." But that's just a guess - I could be wrong. It would be an interesting study. But the problem is the "No True Scottsman" fallacy. All the Christians with buttons are excluded from the sample because they are not "true Christians." But then we might suspect something is askew when we see that the population of "true Christians" dwindles to 1,234 in the whole world.

Some religions main tenet is self-control and I have no doubt that there are religions that excel in that area. Even Christians with "buttons" are allowed to repent and grow. Peter was allowed to repent and grow and eventually discarded his "buttons" as the Lord educated him. I had many buttons and undoubtedley still do. I depend on the Lord to reveal where I need to make adjustments. I have made adjustments and still do, if I want to keep following the Lord.

The Lord knows them that are His. I have no idea. I also don't give spiritual interviews before I relate to people. I just get to know them in a relational way. But, I have been spiritually interviewed many times by others checking me out to see if I was worthy to be fellowshipped with. The Pharisees were always giving Jesus a spiritual interview. Jesus did not do that. He hung out with whoever He wanted to hang out with always being the positive force in the relationship. He knew what they were.


I understand where you are coming from, but I think much of it is wishful thinking not supported by any facts.

Maybe...:)

What kind of facts do you have in mind?

Bless you bro,
Rick


All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Ahhh, the convenient marriage. The church gets to keep her mammon and the state makes sure she keeps her mouth shut regarding politics. Yeah, the religious institution sold her soul to the state a long time ago. It's all about mammon.

Yeah - too true.




Christianity is a powerful meme. It taps into archetypes that motivate people deeply.
The way people are motivated is not God's fault, is it?

Acutally, yes - of course it's the Creator's fault, since he designed their motivations. But that's not what I was talking about. I was respsonding to your comment about believers in China. Just noting that Christianity contains ideas that really move people for both good and evil.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I am just giving examples that humans are instinctively brutal to animals, insects, plants, humans and the environment. Ad I standby my conviction; nothing silly about it.

And I didn't say there was anything silly about those convictions. The "silly" part is that they are irrelevant to the point Rose made, and you don't seem to understand that.




But seriously, you could show that humans are brutal without making a fool of youself in the process. And besides, everyone already knows people can be brutal, so what's your point? It has nothing to do with what Rose was talking about. The point that Rose was making had nothing to do with human brutality. She was talking about the brutality committed and commanded by the God of the Bible.

My point is that God is not that brutal. Human brutal instinct plays a part in those passages that were mentioned and humans can be really really brutal. Since this thread is about brutality, let's talk about brutality. God may be brutal but it was against evil wicked people, is that good or bad? You have not answered my question. Let's put God in a better light. God is no killing monster with no emotions and this is clearly evidenced in Genesis 6:

I never said that God was a "killing monster with no emotions." On the contrary, the Bible presents God as a killing monster with LOTS of emotions like anger, rage, wrath, and jealousy.

Human brutality has nothing to do with the point that Rose made. She is talking about the brutality of the God of the Bible. Why are you focusing on things that neither she nor I have said and ignoring the things we have said? You posts make no sense.



I have also put in the analogy that if someone kills another human as a punishment and then resurrect him later on after he has repented, is that cruel? God is not that cruel. Please answer the question.
I already answered that question at least two times but you ignored my answer! I told you that if it's OK for God to kill people because he will resurrect them, then murder is OK for the same reason. You're theory destroys morality.




You missed the point again. I was not talking about the huiman authorship of the Bible. I was talking about what the Bible says. It is the Bible that says God commanded all that violence. That was the point. It has nothing to do with who wrote the Bible. It has to do with what the Bible says, and the Bible says that God commanded his people to commit a lot of violence.
Please answer the question, what is the difference between what the Bible says and the human authors who wrote that passage in the Bible? Please answer the question.

Your question makes no sense to me because it is not grammatically correct. And besdies, I don't know why are you talking about the "human authors" of the Bible since neither Rose nor I have mentioned anything about that in this thread. It looks like you are confused.




Of course you have the "right" to your own opnion - I've never challenged that. But if your opnions contradict Christianity, why do you call yourself a Christian?
A Christian is one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God and whoever believes in Him will never dies but will receive eternal life. A Christian is one who loves God with all his heart and soul and loves his neighbor as himself, the rest and other opinions are not so important.

OK. But most Christians would isagree with you. They say the Mormons are not Christians because they believe in a "different Jesus" who is the spirit-brother of Lucifer. Do you believe that? Or do you believe it doesn't matter?




And what's up with your new favorite phrase "I don't give a damn?" Do you use that a lot in church? What would your pastor say? Or don't you "give a damn" about things like that?
I have said before, I never believe 100% what the pastor said. If I disagree with what the pastor says, I will research the Bible and comes to my own conclusion. After all, they are also fallible humans.

You're confused again. I didn't ask if you agreed with your pastor. I asked if you say "I don't give a damn" in church and what your pastor would say if you did. Why do I constantly have to repeat my questions?





Yes, Yahweh's method! It appears you have a big problem with reading comprehension. The examples that Rose gave were examples of things Yahweh either did himself or commanded his people to do. Here, let me refresh your memory:
Yahweh killed of all the people on the planet in The Flood
Yahweh slaughtered all the people of Sodom and Gomorrah
Yahweh commanded the slaughter of the Midianites
Yahweh commanded and enabled the slaughter of most of the tribe of Benjamin in Judges
Yahweh slaughtered the 70,000 because of David's wrong census
Yahweh commanded the slaughter of the 3,000 at Sinai
Ect. ect. ect.....
Yahweh completes this whole sorry mess with the mass slaughter in Revelation...

Correction: "The examples that Rose gave were examples of things that the Bible said Yahweh either did himself or commanded his people to do".
Even if true, these were done, it was done with good purpose and intent by removing evil wicked people. Is is good or bad by removing evil wicked people? Please answer this question.

I agree with your "correction." We are talking about the things the Bible says God did. But everyone already knew that, so the correction was not needed.

Now in answer to your question - that's the whole point of this thread! Rose asked that question in her opening post. Is killing and brutality the best way to rid the world of evil? I say NO! It is not the best way at all. The fact that we humans must use violence to stop violent people does not mean it is the best solution for God to use. I thought he was supposed to be smarter than we are. He should find a better way. He set up this whole scene. So the real question is: Why does Yahweh love violence and brutality so much? Why did he create this world and then command so much murder and violence. Please answer that question!



Now who is more brutal by comparing the list given by Rose and the list of brutality done by human dictators. Doesn't this prove that humans are much brutal? Doesn't this says that it is all right to remove evil wicked people? Please answer this question.

Is this a joke? You think God is on the level of brutal humans? God is no better than Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot? And you think any sane human should worship such a God?

All the best,

Richard

[CWH]

[QUOTE=RAM;36063]
I never said that God was a "killing monster with no emotions." On the contrary, the Bible presents God as a killing monster with LOTS of emotions like anger, rage, wrath, and jealousy.
Good, so we see God as having human emotions. I do not think that God in his anger, rage, wrath, jealousy did rash things without recompense. Genesis 6 proves that He did it with much thought, grieve and sorrow. It's like a judge who meted out capital punishment; do you think the judge is very happy to do so? The judge must maintain justice and the law, if not what is the judge for?


Human brutality has nothing to do with the point that Rose made. She is talking about the brutality of the God of the Bible. Why are you focusing on things that neither she nor I have said and ignoring the things we have said? You posts make no sense.
It is related, which is why I asked the question which goes unanswered, "can non-violence be used if the attacker is violent?". Is it wrong for God to be brutal to evil wicked people when talking sense didn't worked or when He knew will never worked?


I already answered that question at least two times but you ignored my answer! I told you that if it's OK for God to kill people because he will resurrect them, then murder is OK for the same reason. You're theory destroys morality.
God is God of life and death. He can give life and death at will. A good example is Daniel who was told to "rest" and will receive his reward at the end of times. God would have extended Daniel's life but He didn't. Isn't it the same as telling someone to die and be resurrected at a later time? Goes the same with all the prophets, Moses, Abraham, David, Solomon etc. Is this immoral?

“But you, go your way till the end; for you shall rest, and will arise to your inheritance at the end of the days.”


Your question makes no sense to me because it is not grammatically correct. And besdies, I don't know why are you talking about the "human authors" of the Bible since neither Rose nor I have mentioned anything about that in this thread. It looks like you are confused.
OK, let's put it in another way, what is the difference between what was written in BW book and what was quoted as being said in the BW book taking into consideration that the BW book was edited and endorsed by you? So if someone quotes from the BW book, isn't it the same as if spoken by you?


OK. But most Christians would isagree with you. They say the Mormons are not Christians because they believe in a "different Jesus" who is the spirit-brother of Lucifer. Do you believe that? Or do you believe it doesn't matter?
I don't know what you are talking about, I don't see Mormons as Christians for they do not use the authorized Bible. But anyway, who are we to judge them?


You're confused again. I didn't ask if you agreed with your pastor. I asked if you say "I don't give a damn" in church and what your pastor would say if you did. Why do I constantly have to repeat my questions?
When I said, "I don't give a damn" means I wouldn't in bother what other people says about me.


Now in answer to your question - that's the whole point of this thread! Rose asked that question in her opening post. Is killing and brutality the best way to rid the world of evil? I say NO! It is not the best way at all. The fact that we humans must use violence to stop violent people does not mean it is the best solution for God to use. I thought he was supposed to be smarter than we are. He should find a better way. He set up this whole scene. So the real question is: Why does Yahweh love violence and brutality so much? Why did he create this world and then command so much murder and violence. Please answer that question!
If kiliing and brutality is not the best way to rid the world of evil, then what do you think is the best way? If someone is charging at you suddenly with a knife what do you do? ...talk sense to him? or fight with him? kill him in self-defense? It is not entirely true that Yahweh love violence and brutality so much; didn't He tried to talk sense to Job, Jonah, David? Didn't He forgave Hezekiah, Rahab? Isn't it possible that killing was used by God as a form of punishment with the intention to resurrect or forgive their trespasses at a later time? Is this cruel? Please answer the question.


Is this a joke? You think God is on the level of brutal humans? God is no better than Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot? And you think any sane human should worship such a God?
I believe God's brutality was against evil wicked people for the good of God's own people. Brutal humans did it for selfish reasons such as to protect his own regime, greed, for power and riches etc. I would not want to worship a weak soft God, would you? isn't fear of Gd is the beginning of wisdom? Didn't Jesus said we worship what we know, you worship what you do not know":

John 4:22 You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”


God Blessings to all. :pray:

[heb13-13]

Yeah - too true.


Acutally, yes - of course it's the Creator's fault, since he designed their motivations. But that's not what I was talking about. I was respsonding to your comment about believers in China. Just noting that Christianity contains ideas that really move people for both good and evil.

But people have to remember that you don't think there are any supernaturally "bad forces". You only think there might be something supernaturally good. Is that right? I don't want to put words into your mouth. You have said that there is something supernatural going on with Bible, but not sure you believe in some "good" force in this world that is higher and better than us. Do you?

It is true that Christians believe and the Bible teaches about God and Satan and sin.

It teaches about the Mystery of Godliness, which is God taking up residence in men. However, it also teaches about the Mystery of Iniquity.

Men are either conformed to the image of Jesus Christ or they are conformed to the image of Satan.

But you know this is what the Christian belief is so we kind of have an impasse.

You don't believe in Satan or even sin from a biblical perspective. You say they are superstitions and that Jesus and the Apostles were superstitious (I guess you would have to say this since they upheld the OT teachings). And so you postulate that the God of the Bible is evil, and He is very unfair because it's basically Him against us. If Satan and sin don't exist, I would agree with you.

[heb13-13]

.
Isn’t it time the Christian community moves past the biblical solution of dealing with evil by killing people, to a higher consciousness of love?

What Christians are killing people? I don't mean goats and wolves.


The Bible isn’t the only religious book that teaches violence as a solution to the problem of wickedness in the world, but it is the book that is promoted by millions of people as being a guide to peace. When asked about the nature of Jesus, the first response of many Christians is to say that he was a man who espoused peace, with words such as “pray for your enemies” and “turn the other cheek”, but there is also a very violent side to many of his sayings found throughout the Gospels.

Examples of Jesus' violent side, please. Actually, "violence" is not necessarily a bad word depending on how you use it. Let's have His brutal side.You can be violent to your flesh in a spiritual sense, to discipline it and exercise self-control. Not talking about sado-masochism. Every occurrence in the Bible of "violent" has to do with man and not God. Then there is this but Jesus is not talking about being violent to others.

And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. (Matt 11:12)



Why is it that many secular humanists in this modern day and age are seeking peaceful means to try and bring harmony to the world, whereas the Bible teaches people the only way to peace and harmony is by brutality?

Can you name some of these secular humanists and their means?


How can slaughtering all the “wicked” people on the planet achieve peace? Yet, this is what we find in the pages of the Bible supposedly inspired by an all loving God. The biblical solution to every problem concerning the “wickedness” of man is to kill them, starting with the Flood in Genesis and ending with the battle of Armageddon in Revelation.

"And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil" (Gen 6:5)v

Why do you think you are more of an expert than God on how wicked things were back then? God is obviously trying to make a point that men were reprobate. EVERY IMAGINATION OF THE THOUGHTS OF HIS HEART WAS ONLY EVIL. What part of this statement is incoherent?

What would you have done Rose? What would your plan have been to redeem man, and bridge the gulf between him and God. How would you have changed men's hearts?


You have no better idea that God on how to change men's hearts so that enemies end up truly loving each other. You just complain about a God that you don't understand.

Secular humanism is not an improvement on spiritual regeneration. It's not voluntary. It forces change on people from the outside but can never take root permanently, inside. It cannot change the basic fallen nature of man. I would love to hear your ideas say, if you were God for a day.

All the best,
Rick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

But people have to remember that you don't think there are any supernaturally "bad forces". You only think there might be something supernaturally good. Is that right? I don't want to put words into your mouth. You have said that there is something supernatural going on with Bible, but not sure you believe in some "good" force in this world that is higher and better than us. Do you?

I'm glad you asked for clarification since there has been a misunderstanding. I have said that I don't beleive in a "guy in a the sky" style God who is an "agent" who goes about "doing things" like any other bit player in the cosmic drama. But there could be a "God" in the sense of the "Ground of Being" or something along the lines of the "Cosmic Mind" of the Perennial Philosophy.

Also, when I say that there is something "supernatural" about the Bible, primarily because of the Bible Wheel, I am only saying that it cannot be explained as resulting from the conscious choices of the humans who put it together. But what guided those humans is anyone's guess. I used say it was the "hidden hand of God." But now I say it could be produced by unconscious processes in the Universal Mind, for example, much like complex dream images are produced by unconscious processes in the human mind. The point being that such images do not require a conscious agent for explanation.

My thinking about "bad spiritual forces" is the same. I have never said there could not be bad spiritual forces. I have only said I don't believe there are bad supernatual agents like the "demons" and Satan portrayed in the Bible and other folks mythologies. There very well could be bad supernatural vortices that drag people in like whirlpools of the mind.



It is true that Christians believe and the Bible teaches about God and Satan and sin.

It teaches about the Mystery of Godliness, which is God taking up residence in men. However, it also teaches about the Mystery of Iniquity.

Men are either conformed to the image of Jesus Christ or they are conformed to the image of Satan.

But you know this is what the Christian belief is so we kind of have an impasse.

You don't believe in Satan or even sin from a biblical perspective. You say they are superstitions and that Jesus and the Apostles were superstitious (I guess you would have to say this since they upheld the OT teachings). And so you postulate that the God of the Bible is evil, and He is very unfair because it's basically Him against us. If Satan and sin don't exist, I would agree with you.
That is all correct except the highlighted statement: I do not "postulate" that the God of the Bible is evil. I merely state that many of the actions and commandments attributed to God in the Bible are evil. And I am under the impression that you would agree if not for your speculative explanation that states Satan and his demons necessitated what otherwise would be morally abominable actions.

This is why your argument is so very weak: It is speculative. You had to invent an explanation that is not stated anywhere in Scripture. And it is based on demonology, a common pagan superstition of the ancient world that was incorporated in the NT. Therefore, it is an "explanation" only for Christians and/or those who accept the demonolgy of the Bible.

Great chatting!

Richard

[Rose]

What Christians are killing people? I don't mean goats and wolves.



Examples of Jesus' violent side, please. Actually, "violence" is not necessarily a bad word depending on how you use it. Let's have His brutal side.You can be violent to your flesh in a spiritual sense, to discipline it and exercise self-control. Not talking about sado-masochism. Every occurrence in the Bible of "violent" has to do with man and not God. Then there is this but Jesus is not talking about being violent to others.

And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. (Matt 11:12)


Can you name some of these secular humanists and their means?


"And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil" (Gen 6:5)v

Hi Rick,

I'm so glad you took time to share your ideas with me...:signthankspin:
I did not say Christians were killing people, even though Christian history is full of violence and brutality (Crusades, Inquisition, ect.). My big point which it seems you have missed is that the biblical solution to man's wickedness is "brutality", hence the title "Beyond Brutality".

You said: "Every occurrence in the Bible of "violent" has to do with man and not God. Then there is this but Jesus is not talking about being violent to others. " I think you have got it backwards...almost every occurrence of violence in the Bible was DIRECTED BY GOD, and man either carried out Gods commands, or was the victim of it! You say that Jesus is not talking about being violent to others...what about this!


Rev.19:13-15 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Which is just one of the many violent passages.

Why do you think you are more of an expert than God on how wicked things were back then? God is obviously trying to make a point that men were reprobate. EVERY IMAGINATION OF THE THOUGHTS OF HIS HEART WAS ONLY EVIL. What part of this statement is incoherent?

What would you have done Rose? What would your plan have been to redeem man, and bridge the gulf between him and God. How would you have changed men's hearts?


You have no better idea that God on how to change men's hearts so that enemies end up truly loving each other. You just complain about a God that you don't understand.

Secular humanism is not an improvement on spiritual regeneration. It's not voluntary. It forces change on people from the outside but can never take root permanently, inside. It cannot change the basic fallen nature of man. I would love to hear your ideas say, if you were God for a day.

All the best,
Rick

So glad you asked what I would have done...:thumb:

If I were goddess Rose, creator of the heavens and the earth, having all power at my finger tips, I would have created people with INCORRUPTIBLE hearts of kindness...just like God's heart is suppose to be.

Obviously we all know God's plan has not worked yet, so maybe it's time to wonder why the biblical God has not been able to figure out how to alleviate wickedness? :pop2:

With much kindness to you my friend,
goddess Rose :winking0071:

[heb13-13]

Hi Rick,

I'm so glad you took time to share your ideas with me...:signthankspin:
I did not say Christians were killing people, even though Christian history is full of violence and brutality (Crusades, Inquisition, ect.). My big point which it seems you have missed is that the biblical solution to man's wickedness is "brutality", hence the title "Beyond Brutality".

You said: "Every occurrence in the Bible of "violent" has to do with man and not God. Then there is this but Jesus is not talking about being violent to others. " I think you have got it backwards...almost every occurrence of violence in the Bible was DIRECTED BY GOD, and man either carried out Gods commands, or was the victim of it! You say that Jesus is not talking about being violent to others...what about this!



Rev.19:13-15 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Which is just one of the many violent passages.


So glad you asked what I would have done...:thumb:

If I were goddess Rose, creator of the heavens and the earth, having all power at my finger tips, I would have created people with INCORRUPTIBLE hearts of kindness...just like God's heart is suppose to be.

Obviously we all know God's plan has not worked yet, so maybe it's time to wonder why the biblical God has not been able to figure out how to alleviate wickedness? :pop2:

With much kindness to you my friend,
goddess Rose :winking0071:

Hi Rose,

And why do you think that God did not create "incorruptible hearts of kindness"? The movie "Stepford Wives" comes to mind.

Because that is your answer, it reveals to me that you don't understand that God wants to fellowship with people who CHOSE to turn away from all the wonderful temptations of this life, including self and choose Him.

It would have been quite easy for God to make robots, don't you think? What satisfaction or fellowship would He receive from them?

Blessing to you,
Rick

[heb13-13]

Just wanted to add something else, Rose.

Once you have created your spiritual Barbie doll with the incorruptible heart, you would never know if Barbie loves you or not.

You would only know that she serves you because she has no choice. You programmed her that way.

As difficult as it is to raise children, if I had the choice when they were born to give them the "incorruptible serum" or not, I would have easily chosen NO, with absolutely no hesitation. That would have robbed me of true fellowship and companionship and love. It would have robbed them of the same things. In addition I and my children would not of had the benefit of growing through mistakes and trials. Our love for each other would never have been tested, and so it never would have grown.

God is after something, Rose. He will present a Bride to His Son that is not Pre-programmed but one that chose to love Him above all else.

The Bride and the Bridegroom will have the same heart for each other.

This is what God is doing on the earth. He is calling a people to Himself not building robots or dolls in a factory.

I'm sorry but your idea is no improvement on His plan.

And if you believe that, what would you do if you were Queen of the earth?

Blessings to you,
Rick

[Rose]

Just wanted to add something else, Rose.

Once you have created your spiritual Barbie doll with the incorruptible heart, you would never know if Barbie loves you or not.

You would only know that she serves you because she has no choice. You programmed her that way.

As difficult as it is to raise children, if I had the choice when they were born to give them the "incorruptible serum" or not, I would have easily chosen NO, with absolutely no hesitation. That would have robbed me of true fellowship and companionship and love. It would have robbed them of the same things. In addition I and my children would not of had the benefit of growing through mistakes and trials. Our love for each other would never have been tested, and so it never would have grown.

God is after something, Rose. He will present a Bride to His Son that is not Pre-programmed but one that chose to love Him above all else.

The Bride and the Bridegroom will have the same heart for each other.

This is what God is doing on the earth. He is calling a people to Himself not building robots or dolls in a factory.

I'm sorry but your idea is no improvement on His plan.

And if you believe that, what would you do if you were Queen of the earth?

Blessings to you,
Rick

Hi Rick,

I like your sarcasm about the "spiritual Barbie doll"....NOT :p

If you believe in Hell (which the Bible teaches) then rational people don't really have a choice of whether to serve God or not, unless you want to go to eternal punishment in Hell...:eek: And besides that what about people in Heaven...they have incorruptible hearts don't they?

Your example of raising children to make their own choices really doesn't hold up because if your children don't love you you're not going to send them to life in prison where they get tortured every day for the rest of their lives...:eek:

As far as what I would do If I were Queen of the earth, I don't think that has any relevance, because being a Queen is nothing like being a creator goddess.

All the Best,

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Rose,

And why do you think that God did not create "incorruptible hearts of kindness"? The movie "Stepford Wives" comes to mind.

Because that is your answer, it reveals to me that you don't understand that God wants to fellowship with people who CHOSE to turn away from all the wonderful temptations of this life, including self and choose Him.

It would have been quite easy for God to make robots, don't you think? What satisfaction or fellowship would He receive from them?

Blessing to you,
Rick
Hey there Rick,

Your preconceived dogmas are clogging the arteries of your mind. Christ's heart was incorruptable. Was he God's "Stepford wife?" Did he have no freedom? Did he have no ability to love? And the people in heaven will have incoruptible hearts. Does that mean they will lose their free will? Will there be no love in heaven? Obviously, there is nothing in the concept of an "incorruptable heart" that implies anything like a "Stepford wife." And I guess that explains why you didn't even try to give an argument to support your false assertion.

Corruption of the heart is not a necessary prerequisite for love and fellowship. A self-cleaning heart could be analogous to an immune system. Sure, you can get infections (make wrong choices) but your antibodies will usually clean things up for you. And we have doctors to help with really bad infections. And where is your faith in the Great Physician? A human doctor who could cure a disease but does not would not be thought of as good. But you say that God can't heal people of their sin without violating their free will? That's ridiculous. God could use his wisdom and love to heal, and what sick person wouldn't want to be healed? Only the insane - but they are put in institutions and healed for their own good because of the compassion of our society. God would do no less.

Simply stated, the Christian doctrine that everyone is intrinsically evil, and that this is necessary for freedom and love, is both false and indefensible.

And you initial question to Rose could have a thousand answers that would be better than the solution of KILL KILL KILL given in the Bible.

Why is God so enamoured by violence? I think I've asked this a dozen times recently but no one has answered.

All the best,


Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Human brutality has nothing to do with the point that Rose made. She is talking about the brutality of the God of the Bible. Why are you focusing on things that neither she nor I have said and ignoring the things we have said? You posts make no sense.
It is related, which is why I asked the question which goes unanswered, "can non-violence be used if the attacker is violent?". Is it wrong for God to be brutal to evil wicked people when talking sense didn't worked or when He knew will never worked?

Yes, it is wrong for God to be brutal because he has other choices. Why do you think we "sinful people" have invented tasers? It's so we can take down violent people without killing them or even permanently injuring them in most cases. Why are people so much better and kinder than the God of the Bible? We do our best to be kind even to those who would hurt us, but God appears to take great pleasure in killing and tormenting people.




Your question makes no sense to me because it is not grammatically correct. And besdies, I don't know why are you talking about the "human authors" of the Bible since neither Rose nor I have mentioned anything about that in this thread. It looks like you are confused.
OK, let's put it in another way, what is the difference between what was written in BW book and what was quoted as being said in the BW book taking into consideration that the BW book was edited and endorsed by you? So if someone quotes from the BW book, isn't it the same as if spoken by you?

Yes, if someone quotes from the BW book, they are quoting "my words." But I have no idea what you are trying to get at or how it relates to the topic at hand.









Of course you have the "right" to your own opnion - I've never challenged that. But if your opnions contradict Christianity, why do you call yourself a Christian?

A Christian is one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God and whoever believes in Him will never dies but will receive eternal life. A Christian is one who loves God with all his heart and soul and loves his neighbor as himself, the rest and other opinions are not so important.
OK. But most Christians would isagree with you. They say the Mormons are not Christians because they believe in a "different Jesus" who is the spirit-brother of Lucifer. Do you believe that? Or do you believe it doesn't matter?
I don't know what you are talking about, I don't see Mormons as Christians for they do not use the authorized Bible. But anyway, who are we to judge them?

OK - you have narrowed down your definition of "Christian" to include only those who believe in the "Authorized Bible." Of course, Mormon's believe in the Authorized Bible. So you will have to narrow your definition some more. And that's my point - if you actually define "Christian" according to how Christians define themselves, you will find that you might not really be one! That's why I kept asking you what your pastor and your friends at church thought about your ideas. I was trying to help you see that your ideas are very different from what most "Christians" believe. But you said you "don't give a damn" so we can just drop this point I guess.




You're confused again. I didn't ask if you agreed with your pastor. I asked if you say "I don't give a damn" in church and what your pastor would say if you did. Why do I constantly have to repeat my questions?
When I said, "I don't give a damn" means I wouldn't in bother what other people says about me.

That doesn't answer my question. Do you say thinkgs like "I don't give a damn" in church?



If kiliing and brutality is not the best way to rid the world of evil, then what do you think is the best way? If someone is charging at you suddenly with a knife what do you do? ...talk sense to him? or fight with him? kill him in self-defense? It is not entirely true that Yahweh love violence and brutality so much; didn't He tried to talk sense to Job, Jonah, David? Didn't He forgave Hezekiah, Rahab? Isn't it possible that killing was used by God as a form of punishment with the intention to resurrect or forgive their trespasses at a later time? Is this cruel? Please answer the question.

There are times we humans must use violence to protect ourselve and others. But if I were God, I would not need violence because I would have many other ways. I could just cause their legs to grow weak and make them sit there and think about things for a while. I could enlighten their minds to truth so they didn't want to harm others. I could be like a kind loving mother who embraces them and helps them see the errors of thier ways. I could do anything if I were God, so I know I would not act like a brutal Bronze age tribal war god!



I believe God's brutality was against evil wicked people for the good of God's own people. Brutal humans did it for selfish reasons such as to protect his own regime, greed, for power and riches etc. I would not want to worship a weak soft God, would you? isn't fear of Gd is the beginning of wisdom? Didn't Jesus said we worship what we know, you worship what you do not know":

John 4:22 You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.'


God Blessings to all. :pray:
So you get off on a worshipping a macho war god? Great. Go for it. Just don't try to preach that God is good and kind while you're at it. The two don't go together.

[heb13-13]

Hi Rick,

I like your sarcasm about the "spiritual Barbie doll"....NOT :p

If you believe in Hell (which the Bible teaches) then rational people don't really have a choice of whether to serve God or not, unless you want to go to eternal punishment in Hell...:eek: And besides that what about people in Heaven...they have incorruptible hearts don't they?

Your example of raising children to make their own choices really doesn't hold up because if your children don't love you you're not going to send them to life in prison where they get tortured every day for the rest of their lives...:eek:

As far as what I would do If I were Queen of the earth, I don't think that has any relevance, because being a Queen is nothing like being a creator goddess.

All the Best,

Rose

Hi Rose,

I do believe in what the Bible teaches, of course. I don't pick and choose. But, I know people that are proud to say that they are going to hell. They have a pride about being a "hell raiser". It is absolutely not a deterrent to them. And it is not a deterrent to most people, because it is a well known fact that the Bible teaches about it and it is also a well known fact that most people live their lives not caring about Hell. And many of these people believe themselves to be rational.

Yes, the people in heaven have incorruptible hearts, they have put on incorruption. They have been perfected in love. But you have put the cart before the horse. You would give a person an incorruptible heart right when they are created. That is tantamount to making a doll for yourself. Most people don't like sarcasm, and I only used it to make the point that you don't create something to love you if it has no choice to hate you. And a doll is actually a good example, because it is the object of your affection but how can YOU be an object of the doll's affection?

No, of course I don't torture my children or threaten them with hell, but neither do I want to inject them with "incorruptible serum". And, it is always their choice on earth if they want to honor their Mom and Dad or love God or not. And it is still a parent's responsibility to train their children when they are young. That is love. You don't have children and leave them to themselves. God trains His children, too. But both children on earth and children of God have been allowed to retain their choices.

If people choose a life of crime then when they are arrested and put in prison they have no one to blame but themselves, right? In other words their choices put them in prison. You could say they chose prison, because those are the consequences. And some even get the death sentence. In Christ, God has not rewarded us according to the multitude of our transgressions. But the key word is IN CHRIST. Now, I don't know what happens to those who never heard of Christ, but I don't have any insecurity with my lack of knowledge, either. However, I have great security in knowing that God is a just and righteous God and I know this rankles people to no end because they want to know the answers to all these questions about OTHERS, hoping that they might get an answer that will excuse them.

God is not a co-dependent enabler. Grace came through Jesus Christ, but also Truth. The Lord's desire is not for us to go through life blaming everyone and Him for our troubles. I can talk more about co-dependency but maybe later in some other thread.

When someone says, "I don't care about God, I don't want to serve Him and I don't care if He loves me, I just want to party and have a good time on earth", is anyone making him say that? Is anyone coercing him to make that decision? The decision is all his doing. Some day, he may come to his senses, though. Sometimes, a person has to go through a lot to come to their senses.

Regarding the "Queen of the Earth", yes I do think it is relevant. Why? Because you vilify the God of the Old Testament, and I would like to know what you would have done when "the imagination of every man was only evil". You strip Him of His righteousness, justice, and mercy and then take pot shots at Him. How would you have handled the nations around Israel that were hell bent on destroying them?

Or would man have even gotten that far? I suppose if you created them incorruptible then that never would have happened. In fact, nothing of any value would have ever happened in that world.

I'm curious whether you believe in Eugenics or not. That would be a terrific thread, don't you think?

Anyway, that's about all for now Rose, this is getting a bit long.

I hope your evening is enjoyable and that you have a great week.

All the very best to you,
Rick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I do believe in what the Bible teaches, of course. I don't pick and choose. But, I know people that are proud to say that they are going to hell. They have a pride about being a "hell raiser". It is absolutely not a deterrent to them. And it is not a deterrent to most people, because it is a well known fact that the Bible teaches about it and it is also a well known fact that most people live their lives not caring about Hell. And many of these people believe themselves to be rational.

Hey there Rick,

Folks who say they are proud to be going to hell don't really believe in hell at all. They just say that to jerk your chain or sound cool.

Have you ever taken a moment to contemplate the reality of hell? I doubt it, since no person can remain sane and contemplate the reality of an infinite evil eternally inflicted by a supposedly loving God upon a soul he created. It is a logically incoherent concept and therefore cannot be contemplated. Any person with a living human heart who successfully apprehends its limitless horror cannot believe it is true without going insane.

If God made the knowledge of hell undeniably real to each person, there would not be one person who would choose to go there other than those who are truly insane. But then it wouldn't be right to send them to eternal punishment, since even we wicked humans know it's unjust to punish the mentally ill for things caused by their illness.

If the Bible teaches a hell of eternal conscious torment, then the Bible is false. This is why many Christians have rejected this doctrine. And besides, there is little Biblical support for it at all. It originated as a pagan concept and was imported into the NT.



Yes, the people in heaven have incorruptible hearts, they have put on incorruption. They have been perfected in love. But you have put the cart before the horse. You would give a person an incorruptible heart right when they are created. That is tantamount to making a doll for yourself. Most people don't like sarcasm, and I only used it to make the point that you don't create something to love you if it has no choice to hate you. And a doll is actually a good example, because it is the object of your affection but how can YOU be an object of the doll's affection?

So you admit that the idea of an incorruptible heart is not contrary to freedom. That's progress. But now you say that it is logically necessary to have a corruptible heart long enough for a person to make a free choice to love God, and then God can "perfect" their heart in love. What then happens to their freedom? How then can they really love God if they now have an incorruptible heart? If ever there were an argument designed to reach a preconceived conclusion, this is it. No one really knows enough about the nature of "incorruptible hearts" to say that it would require a period of corruptibility to allow for freedom before the perfection of the heart in love. And beside, your argument implies a lack of freedom after the perfection, so it doesn't really work anyway. It looks to me like you are just making up abstruse philosophical arguments to justify the Biblical image of God. The problem is that such abstract and uncertain philosophy will never convince anyone who can see the plain and obvious problems with the Biblical doctrines. The lucidity of the answer needs to match the lucidity of the problem.

Let's get back to reality. The real issue has nothing to do with "incorruptible hearts." That was just Rose's first stab at the question about how she would create the universe if she were God. So let's go back to that question. Here is my take on it:

If I were God, I would interact with my people in whatever way required to let them know that I am real and they are loved. I would not allow them to pray and beg and plead day after day for years and years for simple things like bread and water. I would feed them and love them. I would not neglect them until they become starving and desperate for basic needs like food and water. And I would never teach them to do violence like the God of the Bible. I would teach them in true righteousness. I would not inspire a book so confused that no one has half a clue what it means, and which lets them make up whatever doctrines they like. It would be clear, lucid, and full of divine wisdom. I would never allow them to murder whole villages and then to take 32,000 virgins! I would never starve my people for three years with no explanation until the king finally got around to asking me "What's up with the famine?" -

Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.
I would never punish a whole people because of something done by a previous king! What kind of madness is this? And I would never be appeased by the murder of that kings children who had nothing to do with his crimes:

Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.
Indeed, if I were God, I would not have chosen Saul to be king at all!

And if I were God, I would not have delivered the entire tribe of Benjamin into the hands of the other tribes so that they could murder every man, woman, and child of the very people I supposedly redeemed! And neither would I have allowed them to murder all the men, women, and children - except the virgins - of the Israeli town of Jabesh-Gilead to supply wives to the 600 remaining soldiers of Benjamin.

How long of a list do you want? If I were God, I would be wise and kind and good and I would lead my people in righteousness, not endless bloody murder! There are a thousand things the Bible says God did that I would not have done. You seem to be forgetting that the Bible portrays God like a brutal Bronze age tribal war god. No 21st century man would aspire to be like him.



No, of course I don't torture my children or threaten them with hell, but neither do I want to inject them with "incorruptible serum". And, it is always their choice on earth if they want to honor their Mom and Dad or love God or not. And it is still a parent's responsibility to train their children when they are young. That is love. You don't have children and leave them to themselves. God trains His children, too. But both children on earth and children of God have been allowed to retain their choices.

You have hit the nail on the head. I remember a conversation long ago with a devout Christian brother who confessed he was having bad thoughts about God because he looks like an absentee father. I had no answer then, and I have no answer now. There is no direct evidence of God at all. At best, folks can formulate very unsatisfying philosophical arguments for his "apparent" absence as "a parent."



If people choose a life of crime then when they are arrested and put in prison they have no one to blame but themselves, right? In other words their choices put them in prison. You could say they chose prison, because those are the consequences. And some even get the death sentence.

There is flaw in your logic. If all criminals were criminals by choice, we would not see the gross racial imbalance in our prisons, unless you want to argue that "choice" is genetically or culturally determined - but if that's the case, it's no longer the individual's moral choice, is it?

And besides, justice demands that the punishment fit the crime. No amount of finite sin justifies an infinite punishment of eternal conscious torment in hell.



In Christ, God has not rewarded us according to the multitude of our transgressions. But the key word is IN CHRIST. Now, I don't know what happens to those who never heard of Christ, but I don't have any insecurity with my lack of knowledge, either. However, I have great security in knowing that God is a just and righteous God and I know this rankles people to no end because they want to know the answers to all these questions about OTHERS, hoping that they might get an answer that will excuse them.

Why do you think God is just? Do you have any evidence of that? And why do you think it would be just for you to suffer eternal conscious torment if you failed to make the right "choice" to trust Jesus? Sounds a bit "unloving" if you ask me.



When someone says, "I don't care about God, I don't want to serve Him and I don't care if He loves me, I just want to party and have a good time on earth", is anyone making him say that? Is anyone coercing him to make that decision? The decision is all his doing. Some day, he may come to his senses, though. Sometimes, a person has to go through a lot to come to their senses.

And does his enjoyment of this life mean that he deserves eternal conscious torment?



Regarding the "Queen of the Earth", yes I do think it is relevant. Why? Because you vilify the God of the Old Testament, and I would like to know what you would have done when "the imagination of every man was only evil". You strip Him of His righteousness, justice, and mercy and then take pot shots at Him. How would you have handled the nations around Israel that were hell bent on destroying them?

I wouldn't have set up our first parents with a Tree of Death that I designed to corrupt their hearts and the hearts of their children. All the evil in the world is a direct result of God setting up the Tree of Death in the Garden to corrupt the heart of all his creatures. Have you never noticed this?

I think we would make a lot more progress if we focused on one issue at a time. I know that's hard - conversations always digress into so many different paths. I love that, but I also would like to see if we could focus on one thing long enough to come to some kind of agreement. Otherwise, we might just get frustrated because we feel like we don't agree on anything.

Great chatting!

Richard

[heb13-13]

Hey there Rick,

Folks who say they are proud to be going to hell don't really believe in hell at all. They just say that to jerk your chain or sound cool. [quote]

Really?

[quote]Have you ever taken a moment to contemplate the reality of hell? I doubt it, since no person can remain sane and contemplate the reality of an infinite evil eternally inflicted by a supposedly loving God upon a soul he created. It is a logically incoherent concept and therefore cannot be contemplated. Any person with a living human heart who successfully apprehends its limitless horror cannot believe it is true without going insane.

This paragraph above and the one below contradict each other. In the one above it sounds like you successfully apprehended its horror.

In the paragraph below, it sounds like God has not made it real to each person.


If God made the knowledge of hell undeniably real to each person, there would not be one person who would choose to go there other than those who are truly insane. But then it wouldn't be right to send them to eternal punishment, since even we wicked humans know it's unjust to punish the mentally ill for things caused by their illness.

Are you saying that men that do wicked acts are not rational? What is rational and what is a definition of a wicked act?


If the Bible teaches a hell of eternal conscious torment, then the Bible is false. This is why many Christians have rejected this doctrine. And besides, there is little Biblical support for it at all. It originated as a pagan concept and was imported into the NT.

Richard, will you always think if something is not logical to you that it cannot possibly exist? Your opinion or Jesus' and the Apostles? Hmmm, let me think about that.


So you admit that the idea of an incorruptible heart is not contrary to freedom. That's progress. But now you say that it is logically necessary to have a corruptible heart long enough for a person to make a free choice to love God, and then God can "perfect" their heart in love. What then happens to their freedom? How then can they really love God if they now have an incorruptible heart?

This is really simple Richard. We are perfected in love by suffering. Adam and Eve were unwilling to suffer (deny the flesh). But the start of being perfected in love is having the incorruptible seed sown in us by the Holy Spirit when we are born-again.

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. (1Pe 1:23)

Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: (1Pe 1:22)

Sanctification and purification is a walk, Richard. Starts down here. We are being perfected in love and changed into His likeness as we choose to be perfected in love and suffer for His sake. Eternity is a continuation of who we are on earth, yet no more suffering, sin or temptation. We have already chosen to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength on earth and are presently walking it out (being changed into His likeness, abiding in Him and thus bearing fruit, godly character).


If ever there were an argument designed to reach a preconceived conclusion, this is it. No one really knows enough about the nature of "incorruptible hearts" to say that it would require a period of corruptibility to allow for freedom before the perfection of the heart in love. And beside, your argument implies a lack of freedom after the perfection, so it doesn't really work anyway.

We have our freedom right now. We are being tested and proven right now with the freedom we have.


It looks to me like you are just making up abstruse philosophical arguments to justify the Biblical image of God. The problem is that such abstract and uncertain philosophy will never convince anyone who can see the plain and obvious problems with the Biblical doctrines. The lucidity of the answer needs to match the lucidity of the problem.

Let's get back to reality. The real issue has nothing to do with "incorruptible hearts." That was just Rose's first stab at the question about how she would create the universe if she were God. So let's go back to that question. Here is my take on it:

Yeah, I won't hold her to it (her first stab). It's not easy to improve on what God has done. I have never seen anyone come up with a better plan of redemption or explanation of God, present existence and eternal things. Obviously, no one can. And if people need more proof than the Holy Spirit within, it also proves that man could not have invented the words in the Bible, because if they could and did, then they can also make a better story, which they can't and haven't.


If I were God, I would interact with my people in whatever way required to let them know that I am real and they are loved. I would not allow them to pray and beg and plead day after day for years and years for simple things like bread and water. I would feed them and love them. I would not neglect them until they become starving and desperate for basic needs like food and water.

So, then with you we would be more like pets. What happens when they are not satisifed with "simple things" like bread and water? Would you always give them whatever they wanted regardless of their behavior or constantly straying heart to other enticing things such as better food than you give, or cleaner water. How do you deal with their basic corruptible and idol-making, lust straying heart? If we are going to talk about reality, let's talk about man. He is real. You're a man and I'm a man. We both know what is in man's heart, or we should.

God's plan is more than just feeding and watering His creation and being there for their every beck and call like they are pets.

What you don't see or understand or just don't want to believe in are God's ways for us (men made in His image) and what He must do for fallen man to help us to see His ways and become like Him.

I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings. (Jer 17:10)

I can't search my dog's heart and certainly can't help him to be like me. I am happy with him just the way he is. And he is not fallen, doesn't stray from me, is not contemplating any rebellion and doesn't want to take my place in life. He has never once tried to kick me out of my bed and stick me in his dog house.

He wants to interact with us and have deep fellowship with us. Not just clothe and feed us. And I don't just want to be taken care of! I want to KNOW HIM, too. Does that count for anything? What if I get bored with just being clothed and fed? Ok, then He gives me a big house. Bored again. Ok, then He gives me a fast car (after all He loves me, right). Then, I'm bored again but I have figured out by now that there is no suffering involved in this relationship and He does not want me to FEEL BAD, so when I get bored again and my flesh wants something else, then I come to Him and ask for something else. And on and on it goes.

So, I ask you, am I becoming like Him? Was this the life of Christ? No. Will this conform me to the image of Christ? I doubt it. Will I get to know His heart if He trains me to be a whiner and a spoiled little brat? Chances are when you give someone everything they want and don't withhold anything from them, they will take advantage of your "love".

We shift blame to God all the time because we don't understand His ways.


And I would never teach them to do violence like the God of the Bible. I would teach them in true righteousness. I would not inspire a book so confused that no one has half a clue what it means, and which lets them make up whatever doctrines they like. It would be clear, lucid, and full of divine wisdom. I would never allow them to murder whole villages and then to take 32,000 virgins! I would never starve my people for three years with no explanation until the king finally got around to asking me "What's up with the famine?" -

Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.
I would never punish a whole people because of something done by a previous king! What kind of madness is this? And I would never be appeased by the murder of that kings children who had nothing to do with his crimes:

Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.
Indeed, if I were God, I would not have chosen Saul to be king at all!

And if I were God, I would not have delivered the entire tribe of Benjamin into the hands of the other tribes so that they could murder every man, woman, and child of the very people I supposedly redeemed! And neither would I have allowed them to murder all the men, women, and children - except the virgins - of the Israeli town of Jabesh-Gilead to supply wives to the 600 remaining soldiers of Benjamin.

How long of a list do you want? If I were God, I would be wise and kind and good and I would lead my people in righteousness, not endless bloody murder! There are a thousand things the Bible says God did that I would not have done. You seem to be forgetting that the Bible portrays God like a brutal Bronze age tribal war god. No 21st century man would aspire to be like him.

I see what you would you do and you are assuming that man would follow you without hesitation? That they would control the lust of their eyes, lust of their flesh and their pride of life. What if you had an Absalom in your midst and he tried to take your throne. What would you do?

What would you do if some of your people broke off from you because they were tired of being good and righteous and lovey-dovey and wanted to party all day and all night. Would you let them? And a hundred years later they grow into their own populous nation and decide to come and kill all the people that did decide to follow you. How would you handle that? What would you do about trouble in your kingdom? What if most of your subjects said, "this is boring and those others guys look like they are having much more fun than us", and took off? What if everyone deserted you? What would you do to bring man back to you?

Gee, it doesn't seem easy being a King and getting people to follow you willingly and choose to suffer. In fact, some of your subjects even want to kill you.


You have hit the nail on the head. I remember a conversation long ago with a devout Christian brother who confessed he was having bad thoughts about God because he looks like an absentee father. I had no answer then, and I have no answer now. There is no direct evidence of God at all. At best, folks can formulate very unsatisfying philosophical arguments for his "apparent" absence as "a parent."

Well Richard, there is no evidence to the man that refuses to see it. Logic is not the keenest sense that we have, you know.


There is flaw in your logic. If all criminals were criminals by choice, we would not see the gross racial imbalance in our prisons, unless you want to argue that "choice" is genetically or culturally determined - but if that's the case, it's no longer the individual's moral choice, is it?

And besides, justice demands that the punishment fit the crime. No amount of finite sin justifies an infinite punishment of eternal conscious torment in hell.

Why do you think God is just? Do you have any evidence of that? And why do you think it would be just for you to suffer eternal conscious torment if you failed to make the right "choice" to trust Jesus? Sounds a bit "unloving" if you ask me.

Actually, I don't think He is that just, in this respect. I was a hater and blasphemer of God and Jesus Christ. What use did He have for me? Why did He bother with extending His hand (His Son) to me? Why. Was that JUST. I don't think so. I think it was MERCIFUL and LOVING, though and I want to be that way towards others. I want to be like Jesus. I have never met anyone like Him.

When I came before the JUDGE, He threw the book at me. But to my surprise, the Judge came down from His seat, took off His robes and then took my sentence, letting me go free. How JUST is that? But I could have refused Him taking my place, but I didn't.



And does his enjoyment of this life mean that he deserves eternal conscious torment?

I wouldn't have set up our first parents with a Tree of Death that I designed to corrupt their hearts and the hearts of their children. All the evil in the world is a direct result of God setting up the Tree of Death in the Garden to corrupt the heart of all his creatures. Have you never noticed this?

I think we would make a lot more progress if we focused on one issue at a time. I know that's hard - conversations always digress into so many different paths. I love that, but I also would like to see if we could focus on one thing long enough to come to some kind of agreement. Otherwise, we might just get frustrated because we feel like we don't agree on anything.

I am going to close with this because I am just plain tired (pooped-out).

"Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?" (Eze 18:23)


"Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye
from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?"(Eze 33:11)

I love your forum and chatting with you. It causes me to see how wonderful and good my Lord Jesus is.

Rick


Great chatting!

Richard

[heb13-13]

Hey Richard and Rose,

I meant to ask you whether you think Jesus is a rational person?

I think from most of your statements you would probably say no.

Would that be correct?

Thanks,
Rick

[culi26]

.[/INDENT]Why is it that many secular humanists in this modern day and age are seeking peaceful means to try and bring harmony to the world.

I agree with you completely that we must live in a world where peace reigns. But how can we achieve this??!!
There is no permanent solution!!

Why there is no permanent solution?! Because people have different ideologies as individuals, different cultures as societies and different religions!

Can we be tolerant of each other? YES, WE CAN, but we don't want it!! Whenever a group wants peace will exist another group that wants war!!
The man always thinks that his ideology, culture and religion are better choice for other communities.
And this always brings conflicts between individuals or societies!!

But i totally disagree with you that many secular humanists in this modern day and age are seeking peaceful means to try and bring harmony to the world.

These secular humanist if we can call them so, are trying to put a system in our midst that they are thinking it is better for us. But this is what they want, and there are people who accept their ideology!! But, what about the rest??!

Exactly these secular humanist are the reason of so many conflicts that are happening! Why??! Because this secular humanist are not from nowadays, Yes-the people are changing, but their aim is scheduled much earlier!

The purpose of the First and Second World Wars was precisely to create an anarchy that will rule the world! Their idea failed! They realized that with the violence is not easy to achieve that, so they turned against Hitler and were presented themselves to the world as people who fight for peace!

Everything that is not reached through violence, now they are reaching through the so-called peace!! We are hearing the word "Peace" so often, but we have forgotten what is peace!!

Rose, their peace means bloodshed!!

Hast thou not understand that in the name of "peace" people were killed!! Only U.S.A. in the last 50 years in the name of so called peace killed more than 8 million people!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hast thou not understand that in the name of "peace" people were killed!! Only U.S.A. in the last 50 years in the name of so called peace killed more than 8 million people!
I know that the USA has erred greatly in wars during the last hundred years, but where do you get the figure of 8 million people?

And while you are complaining about the USA, where is your concern for all the woman and children murdered by Muslim extremists?

Islam is supposed to mean "peace" - why does it cause so much war and bloodshed?

[Rose]

The purpose of the First and Second World Wars was precisely to create an anarchy that will rule the world! Their idea failed! They realized that with the violence is not easy to achieve that, so they turned against Hitler and were presented themselves to the world as people who fight for peace!

Everything that is not reached through violence, now they are reaching through the so-called peace!! We are hearing the word "Peace" so often, but we have forgotten what is peace!!

Hi Culi,
That may have been the reason the 1st and 2nd WW were started, but that is not the reason the USA entered into those wars.


Rose, their peace means bloodshed!!

Hast thou not understand that in the name of "peace" people were killed!! Only U.S.A. in the last 50 years in the name of so called peace killed more than 8 million people!

Remember the USA is considered a Christian nation, not a secular humanist nation. All through history so-called Christian nations have always used war as a means to try and rule the world, just like the Muslims.

All the best,
Rose

[culi26]

I know that the USA has erred greatly in wars during the last hundred years, but where do you get the figure of 8 million people?

And while you are complaining about the USA, where is your concern for all the woman and children murdered by Muslim extremists?

Islam is supposed to mean "peace" - why does it cause so much war and bloodshed?

I have answered once! Check Misguided Christians, there you have my reply!

[culi26]

Hi Culi,
That may have been the reason the 1st and 2nd WW were started, but that is not the reason the USA entered into those wars.

Please, be kind and tell about the reason?? Or, you can search deeply and find the real reason!!!


Remember the USA is considered a Christian nation, not a secular humanist nation. All through history so-called Christian nations have always used war as a means to try and rule the world, just like the Muslims.

All the best,
Rose

The USA inhabitants-YES, but the government-NO!

Why I have mentioned the USA? BECAUSE THEY REPRESENT THE PEACE TODAY!
If you've noticed they are trying to impose their system in Middle East!! In one way or another way!!

George Bush Jr. said clearly as crystal: " We need to send them our democracy!

Americans will not accept in any way the culture from Middle east!!

If the people from Middle east want to live like that leave them live like that! Why should Americans interfere in their lives!!

This is not democracy, this as a imposition!

Almost all schools in Europe have banned the hijab! This is not democracy!

If a woman has the right to come to school half-naked, that right should have also the woman with hijab!!

I have mentioned these, because these bring war not peace!!

Every time a nation has tried to impose its culture to someone else wars have broken out!!!

Maybe due to this we will have a Global war in the future!

[Rose]

Americans will not accept in any way the culture from Middle east!!

If the people from Middle east want to live like that leave them live like that! Why should Americans interfere in their lives!!

This is not democracy, this as a imposition!

Almost all schools in Europe have banned the hijab! This is not democracy!

If a woman has the right to come to school half-naked, that right should have also the woman with hijab!!

I have mentioned these, because these bring war not peace!!

Every time a nation has tried to impose its culture to someone else wars have broken out!!!

Maybe due to this we will have a Global war in the future!

I agree. If Muslims want to practice Islam in their own countries - let them - and if in their own countries they want to have clothing restrictions then they are the ones who need to rise up to demand change, just like what is happening in the Middle East right now. On the other hand when Muslims live in other countries then they must abide by the rules and laws of those countries, whatever they may be.

Rose

[culi26]

I agree. If Muslims want to practice Islam in their own countries - let them - and if in their own countries they want to have clothing restrictions then they are the ones who need to rise up to demand change, just like what is happening in the Middle East right now.

Thank you for supporting my opinion! We must accept each-other culture, not to judge it!


On the other hand when Muslims live in other countries then they must abide by the rules and laws of those countries, whatever they may be.

I agree and disagree in the same time! States which accept Islam in their constitution must know that Hijab is part of the Islam!
It is not right to accept Islam as a religion in the Constitution, and then deny them the opportunity to practice it!

[culi26]

I know that the USA has erred greatly in wars during the last hundred years, but where do you get the figure of 8 million people?

And while you are complaining about the USA, where is your concern for all the woman and children murdered by Muslim extremists?

Islam is supposed to mean "peace" - why does it cause so much war and bloodshed?

In the last 50 years, the United States has promoted, financed and participated in over 200 incursions and 20 separate wars, killing over 8,000,000 people.

1952 - 79, 70,000 Iranians killed. ( Ayatollah Khomeini, US public enemy for the 1980s, was on the CIA payroll while in exile in Paris in 1970s, as were Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden at different times and in different places. )

1954 - 120,000 Guatemalans killed

1954 - 1975, 4,000,000 Vietnamese and Cambodians killed.

1965 - 3,000 Dominican Republicans killed

1965 - 800,000 Indonesians killed

1973 - 30,000 Chileans killed

1975 - 250,000 East Timorese killed

1970s - 1,000,000 Angolans killed

1984 - 30,000 Nicaraguans killed

1980s - 80,000 El Salvadoreans killed

1989 - 8,000 Panamanians killed in an attempt to capture George H. Bush's CIA partner now turned enemy, Manuel Noriega,

1980s - over 700,000 Libyans, Grenadians, Somalians, Haitians, Afghanistanis, Sudanese, Brazilians, Argentineans and Yugoslavians killed,

1991 - over 1,000,000 Iraqis killed, including over 500,000 children -- about which Madeline Albright ( then, Secretary of State ) said "their deaths are worth the cost". While George W. Bush owns over 80% of the oil wells in Kuwait, trouble will continue there.

( Source: Philip Bradbury, Insight Magazine, November 2001 )

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Thank you for supporting my opinion! We must accept each-other culture, not to judge it!

If that's true, why have you been judging western civilization as "immoral"? Westerners see a lot of moral problems in Muslim cultures. And the simple fact is that all human cultures have moral problems. We need to use a "fair balance."

Proverbs 11:1 A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.

Is there a similar verse in the Quran?



I agree and disagree in the same time! States which accept Islam in their constitution must know that Hijab is part of the Islam!
It is not right to accept Islam as a religion in the Constitution, and then deny them the opportunity to practice it!
It's very strange that you think the hijab is part of Islam. Muslims scholars do not all agree that it is required, and many understand the verses in the Quran as metaphorically referring to meaning "modesty" or "morality." From the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab):


A "hijab" or "ḥijāb" (/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English)h (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ɪ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ˈ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)dʒ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ɑː (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English), / (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English)h (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ɪ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ˈ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)dʒ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)æ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English), / (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English)ˈ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)h (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ɪ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)dʒ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)æ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English) or / (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English)h (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ɛ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ˈ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)dʒ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ɑː (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English);[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab#cite_note-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab#cite_note-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab#cite_note-3) Arabic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language): حجاب‎, pronounced [ħiˈdʒæːb] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_Arabic) ~ [ħiˈɡæːb] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_Arabic)) is a veil which covers the hair. It is worn by Muslim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim) women particularly in front of non-related adult males.

According to Islamic scholarship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_studies), hijab is given the wider meaning of modesty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modesty), privacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy), and morality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab#cite_note-dict-4) The Qur'an (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an) mentions the use of covering and veiling with the words khimār (خمار) and jilbāb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jilb%C4%81b) (جلباب), not hijab. Still another definition is metaphysical, where al-hijab refers to "the veil which separates man or the world from God."[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab#cite_note-Glasse.2C_Cyril_2001.2C_p.179-180-5)

Hijab is required on women in public in countries like Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran) and Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia), but is banned in schools in France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering), Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headscarf_controversy_in_Turkey) and formerly also in Tunisia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisia). Wearing a hijab is left for individuals to decide in most of the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab_by_country).


Why do you think you are correct and the Muslim scholars wrong? You said you've only been a "real" Muslim for a few years.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

In the last 50 years, the United States has promoted, financed and participated in over 200 incursions and 20 separate wars, killing over 8,000,000 people.

1952 - 79, 70,000 Iranians killed. ( Ayatollah Khomeini, US public enemy for the 1980s, was on the CIA payroll while in exile in Paris in 1970s, as were Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden at different times and in different places. )

1954 - 120,000 Guatemalans killed

1954 - 1975, 4,000,000 Vietnamese and Cambodians killed.

1965 - 3,000 Dominican Republicans killed

1965 - 800,000 Indonesians killed

1973 - 30,000 Chileans killed

1975 - 250,000 East Timorese killed

1970s - 1,000,000 Angolans killed

1984 - 30,000 Nicaraguans killed

1980s - 80,000 El Salvadoreans killed

1989 - 8,000 Panamanians killed in an attempt to capture George H. Bush's CIA partner now turned enemy, Manuel Noriega,

1980s - over 700,000 Libyans, Grenadians, Somalians, Haitians, Afghanistanis, Sudanese, Brazilians, Argentineans and Yugoslavians killed,

1991 - over 1,000,000 Iraqis killed, including over 500,000 children -- about which Madeline Albright ( then, Secretary of State ) said "their deaths are worth the cost". While George W. Bush owns over 80% of the oil wells in Kuwait, trouble will continue there.

( Source: Philip Bradbury, Insight Magazine, November 2001 )

Thanks for the stats. Unfortunately, they are just assertions with no facts to back them up. And they don't look accurate at all. You will need to provide legitimate sources for those numbers, not just some random unverified website. For example, please provide documentation for your assertion that the USA killed "1,000,000 Angolans." That sounds absurd.

Thanks!

[culi26]

Thanks for the stats. Unfortunately, they are just assertions with no facts to back them up. And they don't look accurate at all. You will need to provide legitimate sources for those numbers, not just some random unverified website. For example, please provide documentation for your assertion that the USA killed "1,000,000 Angolans." That sounds absurd.

Thanks!

Read carefully, In the last 50 years, the United States has promoted, financed and participated in over 200 incursions and 20 separate wars!!

Since the WW2 America has participated in every war, IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!
Do not think that I'm against the people of America, but against their government. I don't like their politic at all.

Here you have the source:


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Read carefully, In the last 50 years, the United States has promoted, financed and participated in over 200 incursions and 20 separate wars!!

Since the WW2 America has participated in every war, IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!
Do not think that I'm against the people of America, but against their government. I don't like their politic at all.

Here you have the source:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm

Thanks for the source, but it contradicted your claims by a factor of 100! Here is what it says about the US involvement in the Angolan civil war:
In summary about Angola, without U.S. intervention, 10,000 people would be alive that were killed in the thing. The outcome might have been peaceful, or at least much less bloody. The MPLA was winning when we went in, and they went ahead and won, which was, according to our consul, the best thing for the country.
You claimed that the USA killed 1,000,000 people in Angola. That's a hundred times larger than the number given in your "source." And besides that, the US didn't even kill those people directly, they were merely helping one side of the conflict. I don't know anything about that conflict so I can't say if it was right or wrong.

The more you write the more it seems like you are just spewing out anti-American and anti-Western propaganda from a fundamentalist Muslim perspective. What's up with that? Don't you care about truth? Don't you realize that you will never convince anyone if you post falsehoods?

Now don't get me wrong. I know that the USA has been used by a lot of unscrupulous people for their personal gain, and they have gotten us into wars we never should have been in. And they have caused a lot of problems in the Muslim countries. But I also know that the Muslim dictatorships and the Muslim fundamentalists have done a lot of very bad things too. I think it would be great for us to discuss these things in a fair and balanced way, which means you should quit posting things that are biased and false.

[culi26]

Thanks for the source, but it contradicted your claims by a factor of 100! Here is what it says about the US involvement in the Angolan civil war:
In summary about Angola, without U.S. intervention, 10,000 people would be alive that were killed in the thing. The outcome might have been peaceful, or at least much less bloody. The MPLA was winning when we went in, and they went ahead and won, which was, according to our consul, the best thing for the country.
You claimed that the USA killed 1,000,000 people in Angola. That's a hundred times larger than the number given in your "source." And besides that, the US didn't even kill those people directly, they were merely helping one side of the conflict. I don't know anything about that conflict so I can't say if it was right or wrong.

That was not something I was claiming, but Western people! I gave you the sources, so if you think this is not true blame them!
There are many ways that USA encourages wars between two nations! If you have seen the video you will understand what I'm talking about!


The more you write the more it seems like you are just spewing out anti-American and anti-Western propaganda from a fundamentalist Muslim perspective. What's up with that? Don't you care about truth? Don't you realize that you will never convince anyone if you post falsehoods?

You think I'm posting falsehood?? No problem! But you will understand soon what is falsehood!

I'm not AGAINST the people of America, but AGAINST their LEADERS! This is something different! I hate their politics!
It's time that THEY stop playing the role of God! They can keep their democracy inside their territory, but wishing to impose their democracy is wrong! Or you think I'm wrong!
Maybe you're asking yourself: "What's wrong with OUR Democracy?!
There are nations who dreams about the democracy of America, so send them this democracy!


Now don't get me wrong. I know that the USA has been used by a lot of unscrupulous people for their personal gain, and they have gotten us into wars we never should have been in.

I'm glad to hear that, but that's not justification for what YOUR LEADERS have done!

"What goes around comes around!"


And they have caused a lot of problems in the Muslim countries. But I also know that the Muslim dictatorships and the Muslim fundamentalists have done a lot of very bad things too. I think it would be great for us to discuss these things in a fair and balanced way, which means you should quit posting things that are biased and false.

I agree with you! I look biased because the world was just great until the 11 September! And that is the starting point of this conflicts!

I repeat, if you're considering my posts false than you have to search more, because what I post is based on the researches of Western analysts! Not mine!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

That was not something I was claiming, but Western people! I gave you the sources, so if you think this is not true blame them!
There are many ways that USA encourages wars between two nations! If you have seen the video you will understand what I'm talking about!

You are responsible for posting things without checking if they were true. It is your responsibility to check the facts before you post things.

And speaking of who encourages war - that's what most if not all of the Muslim nations do when they stir up the Muslims to destroy Israel. Just think of all the good the Muslim dictators could do with the trillions of dollars they get for the oil. Do they help their own people? Do they help Muslims live better lives? Nope. They buy gold toilets and stir up war.



You think I'm posting falsehood?? No problem! But you will understand soon what is falsehood!

I don't "think" you posted falsehood, I proved you did. I showed that the sources YOU posted contradicted themselves by a factor of 100. Don't you care about truth? Do you really think anyone will believe anything you write if you post falsehoods?



I'm not AGAINST the people of America, but AGAINST their LEADERS! This is something different! I hate their politics!
It's time that THEY stop playing the role of God! They can keep their democracy inside their territory, but wishing to impose their democracy is wrong! Or you think I'm wrong!
Maybe you're asking yourself: "What's wrong with OUR Democracy?!
There are nations who dreams about the democracy of America, so send them this democracy!

I totally agree with you on this. The USA should not be interfering with other governments. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars cost more than 4 trillion dollars. Do you know what we could have done with that much money? We could have helped them build their infrastructure rather than destroy it. We could have helped them build a better country with schools and water and agriculture so they people could be happy and healthy. We could have been helping friends rather than destructive enemies. So I agree that our leaders are just like your leaders in this regard. They don't care about the welfare of the people. All they care about is money and power. But this is true on both sides of the conflict.

What I don't understand is why you think all the blame belongs to the West. Look at the condition of women in Muslim countries. In Afghanistan they can't even get educated and in Saudi Arabia that can't even drive a car. And the Muslim countries imprison and kill people who want to be free and quit Islam. It is like a huge religious cult. The people in Muslim countries are in deep bondage.



I'm glad to hear that, but that's not justification for what YOUR LEADERS have done!

And what about YOUR LEADERS? Your bias against the west makes no sense. It is unjustified. You should be complaining about all the problems in your country too.



"What goes around comes around!"

Yes it does. So you might want to think about the kind of stuff that you are spreading around.




And they have caused a lot of problems in the Muslim countries. But I also know that the Muslim dictatorships and the Muslim fundamentalists have done a lot of very bad things too. I think it would be great for us to discuss these things in a fair and balanced way, which means you should quit posting things that are biased and false.
I agree with you! I look biased because the world was just great until the 11 September! And that is the starting point of this conflicts!

I'm glad we can agree about some of these things. But you are wrong when you say it all started with 9/11. The conflicts that led to 9/11 have been going on for fifty years or more. And the Muslim leaders are responsible in a big way because they keep preaching hatred against the Jews and the West.



I repeat, if you're considering my posts false than you have to search more, because what I post is based on the researches of Western analysts! Not mine!
[/quote]
I did search. That's how I found out your claim that the USA killed 1,000,000 Angolans is not true.

The fact that you picked a "western analyst" means nothing. How could you say such a ridiculous thing? You chose a LIBERAL western analyst. You would get very different information if you quoted a conservative western analyst. The fact that you don't know this shows that you are just posting cherry picked "facts" to support your extreme anti-Western bias. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to check your facts and make sure they stand up under scrutiny.

All the best,

Richard