Genocide and the bible.

And your showing that your a perfect fool.

Scott777ab wrote:

And your showing that your a perfect fool.

C'mon Scott...if you're gonna debate me...at least get the language correct. That word "your" in YOUR sentence should be "you're" like in MY sentence.

Now...are you gonna ask for proof of that????

Enough of Frank I had a question that was posed to CHRISTIANS.


Christians in general in america today would be apalled at the thought of Genocide.

So could you ( Christians ) please explain this:

Genocide
========

You hear a lot from Christians about Yahweh's "infinite compassion
and mercy". Tell it to the Midianites. Numbers 31 is a classic
example of wholesale slaughter and rape under the direction of
Yahweh. A sample of this tale: "They waged the campaign against
Midian, as Yahweh had ordered Moses, and they put every male to
death.... The sons of Israel took the Midianite women captive with
their young children, and plundered all their cattle, all their
flocks and all their goods. They set fire to the towns where
they lived and all their encampments.... Moses was enraged
with the commanders of the army ... who had come back from
this military expedition. He said, 'Why have you spared the
life of all the women? ... So kill all the male children. Kill
also all the women who have slept with a man. Spare the lives
only of the young girls who have not slept with a man, and take
them for yourselves.'" Yes, friends, this is infinite mercy and
compassion for you. I particularly like the way that Moses got
upset with them for sparing women and male children, but allowed
the young girls to be kept for later raping. If only humans could
keep to such lofty standards without the necessity of divine
revelation.


I have no doubt that there is a GOD.

But I am beginning to seriously doubt the bible is from him.

Ahhh...if you could just be honest with yourself...you would realize that in fact...you DO NOT have NO DOUBT that there is a GOD.
If you don't have some doubt...you are being dishonest.
(I knew you were only kidding about "enough of Frank." Nobody ever really gets "enough" of me. And you posted a message to me immediately after this one...so I thought I would respond to this one also.)
You shoulda been doubting that right along.
You are half-way home, Scott.
Please explain this: christains. Thank you.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Scott777ab wrote:

And your showing that your a perfect fool.

C'mon Scott...if you're gonna debate me...at least get the language correct. That word "your" in YOUR sentence should be "you're" like in MY sentence.

Now...are you gonna ask for proof of that????

I will give you that Frank.. Ok but we both know that, that is what is meant. Even tough my grammar sucks you still knew that I meant you're and not your. Sorry about my bad grammar but my points still stand strong while your are faultering all over the place.

And I apolgise for saying your a fool that was wrong of me to do that.
Sorry Frank.

If Jesus worshipped or not any god…is this the argument here? How can this be arguable? How can an argument like this exist? Is this for real, guys?


... Madness is in the air...the most obvious evidence.

If Jesus worshipped or not any god…is this the argument here? How can this be arguable? How can an argument like this exist? Is this for real, guys?


... Madness is in the air...the most obvious evidence.

Scott777ab wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Scott777ab wrote:

And your showing that your a perfect fool.

C'mon Scott...if you're gonna debate me...at least get the language correct. That word "your" in YOUR sentence should be "you're" like in MY sentence.

Now...are you gonna ask for proof of that????

I will give you that Frank.. Ok but we both know that, that is what is meant. Even tough my grammar sucks you still knew that I meant you're and not your. Sorry about my bad grammar but my points still stand strong while your are faultering all over the place.

I am not "faltering all over the place"...I am solid as a rock.

And the problem is not with your "bad grammar"...but with your carelessness. If you really intend to be the top-notch debater you are kidding yourself that you already are...you've gotta show more pride in your work. Check your posts over before posting...so that you don't use words like "tough" where you meant "though"...or "faultering" where you mean "faltering."

Normally I wouldn't even mention these kinds of things....but you are being so pompous about your debating skills...and I love to help people less fortunate than myself.

Little things are important...wouldn't you say???

Quote:

And I apolgise for saying your a fool that was wrong of me to do that.
Sorry Frank.

No need to apologize, Scott....but it would have been nice if you had spelled it correctly.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Scott777ab wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Scott777ab wrote:

And your showing that your a perfect fool.

C'mon Scott...if you're gonna debate me...at least get the language correct. That word "your" in YOUR sentence should be "you're" like in MY sentence.

Now...are you gonna ask for proof of that????

I will give you that Frank.. Ok but we both know that, that is what is meant. Even tough my grammar sucks you still knew that I meant you're and not your. Sorry about my bad grammar but my points still stand strong while your are faultering all over the place.

I am not "faltering all over the place"...I am solid as a rock.

And the problem is not with your "bad grammar"...but with your carelessness. If you really intend to be the top-notch debater you are kidding yourself that you already are...you've gotta show more pride in your work. Check your posts over before posting...so that you don't use words like "tough" where you meant "though"...or "faultering" where you mean "faltering."

Normally I wouldn't even mention these kinds of things....but you are being so pompous about your debating skills...and I love to help people less fortunate than myself.

Little things are important...wouldn't you say???

Quote:

And I apolgise for saying your a fool that was wrong of me to do that.
Sorry Frank.

No need to apologize, Scott....but it would have been nice if you had spelled it correctly.

OMG Frank I almost fell out of my chair reading that.
I did slaughter that word didn't I.

Sorry not only is my grammar crap so is my spelling.
Frank would hyou call yourself a MASTER deBATER?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If Jesus worshipped or not any god…is this the argument here? How can this be arguable? How can an argument like this exist? Is this for real, guys?


... Madness is in the air...the most obvious evidence.

Scott is arguing that Jesus did not worship the god of the Bible. I am commenting on it, Jason. It requires comments.

Yup! I like that.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Yup! I like that.

Your sick.
I love it.
LOL

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If Jesus worshipped or not any god…is this the argument here? How can this be arguable? How can an argument like this exist? Is this for real, guys?


... Madness is in the air...the most obvious evidence.

Scott is arguing that Jesus did not worship the god of the Bible. I am commenting on it, Jason. It requires comments.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If Jesus worshipped or not any god…is this the argument here? How can this be arguable? How can an argument like this exist? Is this for real, guys?


... Madness is in the air...the most obvious evidence.

Scott is arguing that Jesus did not worship the god of the Bible. I am commenting on it, Jason. It requires comments.

I am aware of the procedure. But what I mean is how can Scott argue against the overwhelming evidence that Jesus actually devoted great part of his life worshipping the god of the OT. How crazy is that for someone who supposedly knows about the Bible?

Scott777ab wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Yup! I like that.

Your sick.
I love it.
LOL

It should read, "You're sick."

We gotta have a drink together, Scott.

You anywhere near the Big Apple?

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Jason Proudmoore wrote:

If Jesus worshipped or not any god…is this the argument here? How can this be arguable? How can an argument like this exist? Is this for real, guys?


... Madness is in the air...the most obvious evidence.

Scott is arguing that Jesus did not worship the god of the Bible. I am commenting on it, Jason. It requires comments.

I am aware of the procedure. But what I mean is how can Scott argue against the overwhelming evidence that Jesus actually devoted great part of his life worshipping the god of the OT. How crazy is that for someone who supposedly knows about the Bible?

Like I have told FRANK provide your evidence.
He says He won't.
Will you?