Reply
Fri 9 Dec, 2005 04:17 pm
1 Samuel 15:2-3
Voltaire: "Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities"
Surely one can't believe they are more righteous than God? So how is it that many who claim to believe1 Samuel 15:2-3 is truthfully said of God, find that what God commands men to do in 1 Samuel 15:2-3 is contrary to their own sense of what is righteous? For 1 Samuel 15:2-3 perfectly illustrates a perverse belief of God, that any sane person should find repugnant to their own sense of what is righteous. There is no difference, whatsoever, in the vileness done by Islamist terrorists on 9/11 and the vileness of 1 Samuel 15:2-3. The evil deeds of both are manifestations of insane beliefs of God. For the Hitlerian like commands in 1 Samuel 15:2-3 reflect not the mind of God, but a depraved mind. No child of God can stand before God or men and truthfully say that what is said of God in 1 Samuel 15:2-3 has not troubled them. The best they can say is they have believed it because they were fearful not to believe it, which is the evidence of being in bondage to an unrighteous fear of God.
1 Samuel 15:2-3 Thus says the Lord of hosts,.. (3) Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camels and donkey!
How can any sound-minded person not see the utter depravity of saying God commanded men to be the butchers of men and women, which by itself is vile enough, but that God even commanded that they be the butchers of children and infants? To believe that God is that bloody butcher in 1 Samuel 15:2-3 leaves little need of a devil to fear. Common sense alone should tell one that had God wanted the Amalekites destroyed, He would have done it Himself!
Unlike the primitive mumbo jumbo in the claims of the Great flood and the slaying of the firstborn of Egypt, where God is said to do the dirty work, 1 Samuel 15:2-3 has God commanding that men do the dirty work. Thus, it can be personalized by simply imagining one's self in that scenario. By making it personal, one has to visualize the horror of that bloody scene. They must see the sword in their own hand and the terror in the eyes of those whom they are to butcher and hear the screams of women and children literally being hacked to death in front of one another. It is in making this bloody atrocity personal that it becomes real, rather than just some ancient abstract account. It should force one to truthfully consider whether or not they could have been obedient to the claims of priests: It's the command of God! And to honestly question whether or not they could love one that would command them to do such horrible things.
Only morons and lunatics could think that butchering people is not an atrocity. And only a liar would claim that God has personally told them that 1 Samuel 15:2-3 speaks truthfully of Him. Thus, the only excuse a sane sound minded person can offer for not questioning what 1 Samuel 15:2-3 says of God, is that they are fearful of questioning what the Bible claims, which is the evidence of their bondage to an unrighteous fear of God.
Yet not everyone that claims to believe what 1 Samuel 15:2-3 says of God does so out of an unrighteous fear of God, but believe it because it agrees with their spiritual nature. Their spiritual nature is different than those who if Moses commanded them to stone another would seek a small pebble and hoped it caused no harm; for they would seek a large rock and be happy for the harm it would cause. Much is revealed about the spirituality and mentality of those who try to rationalize the butchery of people in 1 Samuel 15:2-3. For they argue that those who were ripping terrified children from their mother's arms and bashing their brains out were righteous before God because God commanded this slaughter. Regardless of how one tries to justify 1 Samuel 15:2-3, there is no nice way to butcher people. Trying to put a happy face on the vile deeds of 1 Samuel 15:2-3 requires the same kind of twisted thinking that Islamic terrorists are using today in Iraq to justify the evil that they do.
The Romanized Christ
Edit: Moderator: Link removed
Harrington Sites - Revealing the Spiritual duality of the Bible. For it serves neither God nor truth to try and rationalize irrational things the Bible says of God.
Edit: Moderator: Link removed
Whereas i'm sure your rant is just overflowing with love and sweet reason, and that your only concern is the salvation of our immortal souls . . . posting those links constitutes a violation of the terms of services, and i'm gonna snitch on ya . . .
Aren't you full of kindness as well?
Setanta,
I'm surprised at you. wlh isn't painting God or Christians in a very good light here. And you have a problem with that?
I tend to think Set's focus and commentary had less to do with the thrust of that post, but rather went more to the inappropriate links embedded therein. Beyond that, I figure the MEGO (
My
Eyes
Glazed
Over) effect kicked in, obscuring any message that may have been contained in the remainder of the offering.
Oh, and to be fair, I'll admit I didn't read it either. Might ... if I get around to it. Gotta say, though, at first glance, seeing Bible cites and the character string 9/11 in the same sentence is the sorta thing that drops my interest way down - that to me is a flag on a par with seeing the words "crop circles" and "coverup" in the same sentence.
Oh, and yes, Set, you certainly are "trying"
MEGO! That's it.
Or as I have been often forced to admit:
So many words and my brain so small.
Timber,
I see what you mean by the links and perhaps that is what Setanta was referring to. I was just a bit surprised that at his response. Thankx for pointing that part out to me.
I'm begining to believe that 9/11 was the imaginary rabbit in the sky's way of telling fruitcake fundamentalists to get a clue. Unfortunatly the message was lost.
dyslexia wrote:I'm begining to believe that 9/11 was the imaginary rabbit in the sky's way of telling fruitcake fundamentalists to get a clue. Unfortunatly the message was lost.
No really. What are you actually saying? really?
Here we are ruminating over the rantings of a 2 post wonder who didn't even give us his own stuff.
timberlandko wrote:Oh, and yes, Set, you certainly are "trying"
Then my work here is done.
There was an hilarious documentary from one of the English television networks, in which they interviewed the two jokers who started the crop circle hoax in 1972. They had documentary evidence for every crop circle they produced until it became a craze for college students to do it in the late 80s. They had a good deal of evidence for those circles having been done by students. They showed in detail exactly how they accomplished the crop circles. It was brilliant how they got into and out of a field without leaving tracks. They used a collapsible painter's scaffold which they heaved out from the outside of the fence to the field, and using such scaffolds, arrived at the center without leaving anything but some small circular indentations which went unnoticed (the tv camera crew had trouble finding them, even thouth they filmed the technique).
A tape of their explanation and their documentation was taken to Stonehenge at the summer solstice, and shown to the new age crowd. Most drifted, or even hurried off without comment. Others asserted that that may well have been the case for
some of the crop circles, but not all of them--and asserted that there were "burn marks" from the departing alien spacecraft in some cases. Asked to produce evidence of that, they got nasty, and then drifted--or hurried--off, muttering imprecations and asserting their faith.
The credulous do not appreciate being disabused of their illusions.
Momma Angel wrote:Setanta,
I'm surprised at you. wlh isn't painting God or Christians in a very good light here. And you have a problem with that?
Your surprise is the product of your prejudicial and inaccurate assumption that i have as a goal to bring "god" and christians into disrepute. Neither of them need any help from me.
Setanta,
I hope that you have a good day today.
It's evening in Tranna, we're going to the Royal York, the toniest, most expensive hotel in town, and my Sweetiepie may well get tanked--in which case i get to drive her home while she right-seat drives. I'm sure that a good time will be had by both of us, whether or not the general public will be amused--a subject of indifference to me.
Have a good time and please drive safely.
I always do . . . i don't take strong drink . . .
Yes, I rememberyou telling me you no longer drink. Glad that you will be the designated driver.
neologist wrote:Here we are ruminating over the rantings of a 2 post wonder who didn't even give us his own stuff.
Any number of threads dozens of pages deep have been built on less
I wonder what the statistics are. How many threads outlast the initial posters' participation in a2k?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace