Should we handle victory the way the Christian god decrees?

I really don't understand why "you folks" have to criticize, criticize, criticize. You speak of "their handicap...half-ass etc. etc. If you are so against Christianity why do you bother to write about it?

That is one thing that Christians, regardless of whether they can quote effectively from the bible, do not do. Belittle, harass and call names to the people that do not agree with us.

That alone is a reason to be a Christian... to love our fellow man regardless of what failings they have or what they appear to have.

That is not an admission to any failings on the part of any Christian, it is an example of the way things should be.

Funny that the same people who hate god and Christians are the same people who usually advocate abortion and war. Is there a correlation? You decide.

And Neo...you really have to learn what a strawman argument is soon. You are looking like a fool misusing the term as often as you do.

"CI, don't assume that fundamental christians have a firm hold on the truth."

For those of us that would have no axe to grind if this administration performed it's responsibilities without inserting their christian beliefs on the rest of us, "truth" is lost to dogma.

Don't be condescending with me young man. You will be biting off much, much more than you can chew.

If you want to challenge something I've said...do it...and we will discuss your views and mine. But don't patronize me.

Francisco D'Anconia wrote:

For example, let's say that a group of people decided to do exactly as it said in one particular passage in the Bible and kill all the firstborn males of a country that we have defeated in a war.

Well..is that an argument for literal versus figurative...or that the advice the god of the Bible gives is barbaric?

Francisco D'Anconia wrote:

The more one reads the Bible, the more wholly obvious it becomes that its intent is to provide guidelines to live by and teach via parables (also not to be taken literally).

Nonsense.

Any reasonable reading of this crap would lead to the guess that the people who wrote that stuff obviously were justifying the kinds of things they (and of course, their enemies) did...by putting admonitions of this sort in the mouth of a god they invented.

The were a barbaric people living among other barbaric people during barbaric times. To pretend that whoevser wrote this passage was trying to say something other than the words actually say...is dreaming.

Francisco D'Anconia wrote:

This particular passage, regarding war and victory in the name of God, is no different, particularly because it is incongruous with other passages in the Bible.

Oh really. Well name some. And please...don't do it from the New Testament. Stick with the Old Testament. That is the testament that details the advice of the god Jesus worshipped.

Cite some passages from the Old Testament that are incongruent with this passage.

neo, Good for you! You wanna pat on the back?

But Jesus specifically said he was not here to change any of it...not one word, not one letter of one word, not one stroke of one letter!

....When I mention "the god of the Bible"...I am talking about the god Jesus worshipped.

We all know which god that is!

Frank Apisa wrote:

And Neo...you really have to learn what a strawman argument is soon. You are looking like a fool misusing the term as often as you do.

strawman: attempting to refute one's opponent & proposition by attacking misrepresentation of the his/her position.

From a link I posted before: http://www.dianahsieh.com/misc/fallacies.html

Your straw man works like this:

Frank misrepresents the bible.
Frank caterwauls about said misrepresentation.
Frank claims victory.

It's not that you don't accept the bible. It's that you misrepresent what it says. If you don't want to believe the bible, just say so.

And the bible was written that fifth graders could understand it; so why can't you?

Frank Apisa wrote:

Don't be condescending with me young man. You will be biting off much, much more than you can chew.

If you want to challenge something I've said...do it...and we will discuss your views and mine. But don't patronize me.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to condescend or patronize. In fact, I rather look up to you.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Francisco D'Anconia wrote:

For example, let's say that a group of people decided to do exactly as it said in one particular passage in the Bible and kill all the firstborn males of a country that we have defeated in a war.

Well..is that an argument for literal versus figurative...or that the advice the god of the Bible gives is barbaric?

I was trying to use your example to prove my own point; that you can't take the Bible literally in today's society, both because in most cases it wasn't intended to be taken literally, and in most cases it details an archaic and barbaric train of thought.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Francisco D'Anconia wrote:

The more one reads the Bible, the more wholly obvious it becomes that its intent is to provide guidelines to live by and teach via parables (also not to be taken literally).

Nonsense.

Any reasonable reading of this crap would lead to the guess that the people who wrote that stuff obviously were justifying the kinds of things they (and of course, their enemies) did...by putting admonitions of this sort in the mouth of a god they invented.

The were a barbaric people living among other barbaric people during barbaric times. To pretend that whoevser wrote this passage was trying to say something other than the words actually say...is dreaming.

And yet, isn't that simply basic human instinct, to justify one's actions, using the invented sanction of an invented deity if necessary? I'm not saying it's right, just that it is really to be expected. And, I must admit that you're right, in the case of a passage like this, there's no room for interpretation of any kind.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Francisco D'Anconia wrote:

This particular passage, regarding war and victory in the name of God, is no different, particularly because it is incongruous with other passages in the Bible.

Oh really. Well name some. And please...don't do it from the New Testament. Stick with the Old Testament. That is the testament that details the advice of the god Jesus worshipped.

Cite some passages from the Old Testament that are incongruent with this passage.

Actually I was referring to chapter 20, verses 1-9 of Deuteronomy, which as Intrepid pointed out seems to advocate kindness towards one's enemies, just before launching into a mandate to kill all firstborn males in the defeated country. Obviously, this is just stupid; the messages of kindness and mercy and total annihilation might create some confusion.

Agin, didn't mean to offend.

Frank Apisa wrote:

But Jesus specifically said he was not here to change any of it...not one word, not one letter of one word, not one stroke of one letter!

I don't know if this has already been said on one of the many other threads around this sort of topic, but Jesus FULFILLED the Law; that was one of His purposes in coming here, precisely bec. not one of us puny mortals CAN. And recall that when He talks about the Law, He's referring to the Decalogue (and to the way it's developed in DEUTERONOMY & LEVITICUS). It was not given in the Law to dash babies against rocks and such.

Frank Apisa wrote:

....When I mention "the god of the Bible"...I am talking about the god Jesus worshipped.

Yes, so why would a "good man" like Jesus worship a god who (according to you) is HORRRRRIBLE?

Frank Apisa wrote:

We all know which god that is!

Sigh, no, Frank, unfortunately you guys don't even scratch the surface of knowing who that God is.

I must have missed the passage where your god sets an expiration date on this advice! Why don't you offer a citation of the passage for consideration.

Even if he "fulfilled the law"...Heaven and Earth have not passed away....And even if he fulfilled the law...does that mean that the law no longer applies?

Diagknowz: "Yes, so why would a "good man" like Jesus worship a god who (according to you) is HORRRRRIBLE?"

Frank: "So answer your own question, if you can."

"CI, I am sorry if you have met hypocritical Christians during your 70 years on this planet. I cannot help that. You cannot help that. All I can help is to do the best I can. "

I cannot help it either, but it's obvious from the last election that fundamentalist christians helped Bush win the election - and subsequently his fundamentalist christian initiatives to legalize discrimination against gays and lesbians. If it not for the christians in this country, we wouldn't even have these discriminatory laws, because they are based in the christian religion.

This president goes as far as to deny our scientists the freedom to go forward with stem cell research based on Bush's christian religion.

This president used his office to bring the Teri Schiavo case to the Supreme Court based on his christian beliefs - even though it went against Teri Schiavo and her husband's wishes to discontinue keeping her alive artificially.

This president also uses his office and christian belief to attempt the overthrow of Roe vs Wade to deny women the right to choose what they want with their own bodies.

Yeah, the fundamentalist christians are overwhelming our country in a way that makes me sick.

Show me I'm wrong, and I'll apologize.

neo, How would you suggest we address those that are part and parcel of this administration?

neo, How would you suggest we address those that are part and parcel of this administration?