frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Should child murderers be respected , adored and worshipped ?

Debate Information

Recently I posted up a debate regarding gods sickening immorality , I posted an example from the Bible of god approving of the slaughter of men , women and most sickeningly children , the Christians on D I to a man agreed that god was indeed just and correct in all decisions regarding the slaughter of children and of course launched into the usual rages at an Atheist using the words of their vile book against them 


The pathetic go to excuse by Christians is “ oh well that verse is out of “ context “ not one can point out the “correct context “ for child murder and what do they do in defense ? Why cherry pick out of context verses to defend the book they hold sacred .



When no defense can be offered they resort to calling me a Nazi , a retard , , a facist , etc , etc everyone except @withallhumilty who in fairness lives up to the standard of being a decent person and Christian .


The rest of the Christians I’ve confronted on D I are rabid unintelligent brutes who cannot accept the words written in the book they’ve never read, this brand of Christian is called a Sunday Christian that’s one who goes to church on Sunday and acts holier than thou and lectures others on how to behave and does the complete and utter opposite himself , hypocrisy on highest .


These type of believer will have to face the god they claim to believe in for judgement .......


Name Calling Gods view on it .......


Matthew 5:22 ESV / 127 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.



But hey maybe that’s out of “ context “ and it means call anyone you disagree with a retard ?


God himself on Child killing .....


 Ezekiel 18 :20

The person who sins is the one who will die. The child will not be punished for the parent's sins, and the parent will not be punished for the child's sins. Righteous people will be rewarded for their own righteous behavior, and wicked people will be punished for their own wickedness.






Yet here we go .......


Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.”




Here is a “ beautiful “ verse about the abortion of infants but it’s all good as god approves .....


King James Bible Hosea 13:16

Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.


Remember though .......


Deuteronomy 24:16, “children shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers.”



Oh wait ......God changed his mind .....again ???.


Exodus 12:29 New American Standard Bible (NASB)


29 Now it came about at midnight that the Lord struck all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of cattle.





Never call anyone a name or god will send female bears to rip 42 children apart .......


2 Kings 2:23-24 The prophet Elisha, was being picked on by some young boys from the city because of his bald head.  The prophet turned around and cursed them in the Lords name.  Then, two female bears came out of the woods and killed forty-two of them.  You would think that God could understand that sometimes the youthful make childish jokes.  Calling someone “bald head” is far from being worthy of death.



There’s loads more of course Christians gladly approve and applaud the slaughter of children and approve of abortion once god is doing it making each and every one of them morally bankrupt 






Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    So wait, Are you a Satanist, who hates God? Being that you can't understand what decisions God made in the Bible? Or an atheist?
    with_all_humility
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • JudaismJudaism 180 Pts   -  
    Okay, I'm Jewish - not Christian, don't believe in Jesus - here we go - I'm putting everything back in context IN Hebrew, go learn it if you can't read it. 

    This is just his first "attack" on Torah. . . I only need to show you one verse o prove he's an . Just one. I don't even have to bother quoting them all when you see the games this boy plays. Here we go......

    הַנֶּ֥פֶשׁ הַֽחֹטֵ֖את הִ֣יא תָמ֑וּת בֵּ֞ן לֹֽא־יִשָּׂ֣א
    בַּֽעֲו‍ֹ֣ן הָאָ֗ב וְאָב֙ לֹ֚א יִשָּׂא֙ בַּֽעֲו‍ֹ֣ן הַבֵּ֔ן צִדְקַ֚ת 
    (הַצַּדִּיק֙ עָלָ֣יו תִּֽהְיֶ֔ה וְרִשְׁעַ֥ת הָֽרָשָׁ֖ע (כתיב רָשָׁ֖ע
    עָלָ֥יו תִּֽהְיֶֽה

    . . . But then!.....

    וְהָֽרָשָׁ֗ע כִּ֚י יָשׁוּב֙ מִכָּל־חַטֹּאתָיו֙ (כתיב 
    חַטֹּאתָו֙) אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֔ה וְשָׁמַר֙ אֶת־כָּל־חֻקּוֹתַ֔י 
    וְעָשָׂ֥ה מִשְׁפָּ֖ט וּצְדָקָ֑ה חָיֹ֥ה יִחְיֶ֖ה לֹ֥א יָמֽוּת

    ....Even then!....

    כָּל־פְּשָׁעָיו֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֔ה לֹ֥א יִזָּֽכְר֖וּ ל֑וֹ 
    בְּצִדְקָת֥וֹ אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂ֖ה יִֽחְיֶֽה
    הֶֽחָפֹ֚ץ אֶחְפֹּץ֙ מ֣וֹת רָשָׁ֔ע נְאֻ֖ם אֲדֹנָ֣י יֱהֹוִ֑ה 
    :הֲל֛וֹא בְּשׁוּב֥וֹ מִדְּרָכָ֖יו (כתיב מִדְּרָכָ֖ו) וְחָיָֽה

    Yechezkel (Ezekiel) 18:20-23 IN CONTEXT! That's it folks! We've seen, 100%, that this man, Joeseph, is nothing short of a . He said the prophet said one thing concerning G-d, but then forgot, purposefully, to quote the other half of his message. Every Yeshiva boy knows this famous passage, a boy knows it, this helpless adult, however, desperate as he may be to question and demonize the Bible, the Tanakh, can't even take the moment to read the full passage. What grade would he get at the Yeshiva? You're kidding me, right? He wouldn't even pass, he'd never live up to being a Jew. . . at all. . . now you know why I call him a pathetic little boy who cries to his mommy.

    Oh! And before I forget, he DID ask for a taste of Rashi. Well, as I recall, he just said a little, harmless thing. It was barely anything, yet, it encaspualted everything. See the master at work, see him summarize the prophet in a breif sentence. This is posted in English by the way:

    Rashi: "All his righteous deeds, etc., shall not be remembered: Our Sages qualified this as referring to one who regrets them."

    Now you also see the stunning power of Rashi. 
  • JudaismJudaism 180 Pts   -  
    He's also just a troll. I proved to him G-d didn't really want Avraham to kill Yitzchak, that it was just all a test, but this guy makes people look real smart!
  • JoesephJoeseph 652 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat ;

    You say ......wait, Are you a Satanist, who hates God? Being that you can't understand what decisions God made in the Bible? Or an atheist?

    My reply .....I don’t believe in a god or a Satan as I’m not mentally unstable , so you’re yet another who gleefully celebrates child murder once god does it 
  • JoesephJoeseph 652 Pts   -  
    @Judaism

    Because you support a child killing god makes you usstable mentally to pass judgement on others your stupidity is obvious to all who read your lengthy piles of nonsense based on a book you’ve never read as in the Torah 
  • JoesephJoeseph 652 Pts   -  
    @Judaism

    Rashi loved children as in he was a peado , still  supporting a child murdering god I see ? Plenty more verses where they came from dummy 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    .".I don’t believe in a god or a Satan as I’m not mentally unstable , so you’re yet another who gleefully celebrates child murder once god does it "

    Yet in the OP, you state:
    "These type of believer will have to face the god they claim to believe in for judgement ......"

    I also think you've confused me with someone who takes the Bible as infallible. I am a scientist first, and a theist secondly. You are the one that takes mensmword as infallible, under the guise of "peer review" . Quite frankly, you'd believe anything as long as the words "scientists say" before it.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • JoesephJoeseph 652 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    You say .....

    Yet in the OP, you state:
    "These type of believer will have to face the god they claim to believe in for judgement ......"


    My reply ...... Read that end part as in ...... The god THEY claim to believe in for judgement 

    You say ........

    I also think you've confused me with someone who takes the Bible as infallible. I am a scientist first, and a theist secondly. You are the one that takes mensmword as infallible, under the guise of "peer review" . Quite frankly, you'd believe anything as long as the words "scientists say" before it. 


    My reply ....

    Yet I don’t believe you and you claim to be a “ scientist “ which is absolutely hilarious 

    Erislat is a psuedoscientist and adheres too .....
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited August 2018
    Joeseph said:
    @Erfisflat

    You say .....

    Yet in the OP, you state:
    "These type of believer will have to face the god they claim to believe in for judgement ......"


    My reply ...... Read that end part as in ...... The god THEY claim to believe in for judgement 

    You say ........

    I also think you've confused me with someone who takes the Bible as infallible. I am a scientist first, and a theist secondly. You are the one that takes mensmword as infallible, under the guise of "peer review" . Quite frankly, you'd believe anything as long as the words "scientists say" before it. 


    My reply ....

    Yet I don’t believe you and you claim to be a “ scientist “ which is absolutely hilarious 

    Erislat is a psuedoscientist and adheres too .....
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.
    Yes, i read that, and the first part too.

    " Thes type of believer will have to face the god"

    Maybe in the future, you should choose your words better, so as to not contradict yourself.

    I could care less what you believe, you also believe you live on a spinning ball because you saw a cartoon of it. By definition, yes I am a scientist.

    Your last statement is incoherent.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • JoesephJoeseph 652 Pts   -  
    You say ......


    " Thes type of believer will have to face the god"

    Maybe in the future, you should choose your words better, so as to not contradict yourself.

    My reply ...... Maybe you should start making some sense 

    You say ....... care less what you believe, you also believe you live on a spinning ball because you saw a cartoon of it. By definition, yes I am a scientist.

    My reply ..... A cartoon says the Flatard ooooookay .......By definition you’re a whacko 



    You say .......Your last statement is incoherent.


    My reply ....... Your lack of intelligence to comprehend simple concepts never ceases to amaze me 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Joeseph said:
    You say ......


    " Thes type of believer will have to face the god"

    Maybe in the future, you should choose your words better, so as to not contradict yourself.

    My reply ...... Maybe you should start making some sense 

    You say ....... care less what you believe, you also believe you live on a spinning ball because you saw a cartoon of it. By definition, yes I am a scientist.

    My reply ..... A cartoon says the Flatard ooooookay .......By definition you’re a whacko 



    You say .......Your last statement is incoherent.


    My reply ....... Your lack of intelligence to comprehend simple concepts never ceases to amaze me 
    Is there any argument you put up that ISN'T fallacious?
    Agility_Dude
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • pocopoco 93 Pts   -  
    you: 

    Recently I posted up a debate regarding gods sickening immorality , I posted an example from the Bible of god approving of the slaughter of men , women and most sickeningly children , the Christians on D I to a man agreed that god was indeed just and correct in all decisions regarding the slaughter of children and of course launched into the usual rages at an Atheist using the words of their vile book against them 


    The pathetic go to excuse by Christians is “ oh well that verse is out of “ context “ not one can point out the “correct context “ for child murder and what do they do in defense ? Why cherry pick out of context verses to defend the book they hold sacred .



    When no defense can be offered they resort to calling me a Nazi , a retard , , a facist , etc , etc everyone except @withallhumilty who in fairness lives up to the standard of being a decent person and Christian .


    These type of believer will have to face the god they claim to believe in for judgement .......


    Name Calling Gods view on it .......


    Matthew 5:22 ESV / 127 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful

    But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.



    But hey maybe that’s out of “ context “ and it means call anyone you disagree with a retard ?


    God himself on Child killing .....



    me:  I never called you any names.  I just called you out on your lack of biblical knowledge & obvious bias.  So, please b4 anymore of your lies, get your facts straight b4 posting any more.


    you:  The rest of the Christians I’ve confronted on D I are rabid unintelligent brutes who cannot accept the words written in the book they’ve never read, this brand of Christian is called a Sunday Christian that’s one who goes to church on Sunday and acts holier than thou and lectures others on how to behave and does the complete and utter opposite himself , hypocrisy on highest .


    me: So, anyone that disagrees with your views here, are "rabid unintelligent brutes." 

    Ya see, anyone can call anyone names.  (That be you).  But to prove someone is what you contend they are, is a whole different ballgame.  That takes courage, which apparently you haven't got ...... or haven't shown any as of yet. 

    As I have asked you b4, have you ever taken an Argumentative English course, which would have given you the basics re debating protocols, & argumentative skills .......  I asked you this bc your arguments have all been from left field when challenged.  Maybe you belong on a different type of internet forum bc you do not display any semblance of debating protocol & respect of others & their differing views.

    I have also challenged you re hidden meanings in any type of literature with an example of, "Animal Farm."   The following was our discussion re the hidden meanings last week:

    poco:   .......I bet when an instructor in school in your past asked you to give an analysis of a book that had a hidden message, like "Animal Farm" by Orwell, you wrote your report saying it was only about a bunch of disgruntled animals that were upset with the farmer/owner.  &, as in the case with your interpretation of the bible here, your instructor would have given you a failing grade bc you only read the story as far s the literal words led you. 

    joeseph:   .....I bet when you were handed “Animal Farm “ you thought it was a book about space exploration because you set up a group of so called experts to re - define what Orwell was really saying 

    poco:   .....You have not/do not study the hidden message contained w/in.  One misses out so very much living in a literal only world.  So sad.

    joeseph:   ..... Ah there’s hidden messages now which of course only you and your sect know ......so sad



    current conversation - me:  Your responses show your lack of elementary English literature knowledge by thinking literal word is the only meaning any work of literature can possibly have. 

    you lied, once again, re Orwell's "space exploration" ...... say what?!?  What does "Animal Farm" have to do with space exploration .... or your accusation that I thought it was?  You have no idea what "Animal Farm" entails do you?  My goodness ....... 

    & you have the nerve to call other people names, lie about them, & say you know what the entire message of the bible is all about.  ............ & you do not even know there are hidden meanings in many many literal works.  Wowie ....... to the nth degree.  

    See, this is a prime example of why you will never win any debate or argument.  You claim things to be true that you have no idea if they are or not,    That, is considered a .  & to repeat this continually, points to you being a sociopathic .  (Someone who lies continuously in an attempt to get their own way, without showing care or concern for others).

    You also attempt to insult people from the back of the room ........ or in this case, in front of your computer with them not present, with your false assumptions & lies about others  (That, is a coward).  

    You have no conception of English literature or argumentative protocol, yet you CLAIM to have higher knowledge than all the rest of the folks you have discourse with.  That is delusional.  (Having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions). 


    A troll per the definition.  One that attempts to argue a point with only one possible perspective, not to make that point, but to try to cause consternation to all that does not share his particular view no matter the proof to the contrary, has little or no actual knowledge of both sides of the subject matter, & resorts to lies, intimidation, 5th grade antics in an attempt to garner support from others & to hide his/her lack of real understanding of the subject matter determined by experts re the field of the subject being discussed.


    Go away little boy, you bother me.  heh, heh.  (W. C. Fields 'kid' & Foghorn Leghorn 'boy').  It surely fits with having discussions with the likes of you tho.








    Erfisflat
  • JudaismJudaism 180 Pts   -  
    Joeseph, we're done here. I read the Bible - the Torah - IN Hebrew. What did you read it in? Goodbye, dimwitted troll, Jew-hater.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Judaism said:
    Joeseph, we're done here. I read the Bible - the Torah - IN Hebrew. What did you read it in? Goodbye, dimwitted troll, Jew-hater.
    http://lmgtfy.com/?t=i&q=Hebrew+conception+of+the+world
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • with_all_humilitywith_all_humility 222 Pts   -   edited August 2018
    @Joeseph

    Just to prove to you context is very important I'll use one of your stated claims of unholy actions by God...

    Here is a “ beautiful “ verse about the abortion of infants but it’s all good as god approves .....

    King James Bible Hosea 13:16

    Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

    First, one has to realize what he is reading in the Bible, there are historical accounts, there is poetry, there is law, there are words of wisdom, and there is prophetic language.  

    Hosea was a prophet and much of his writing was perfect language and instead of writing of literal accounts, he is using a writing style to forewarn the people of what is going to happen if they continue to disobey God, or he may be painting imagery of their fate due to their disobedience.  

    So in essence, Hosea is not literally talking about children being chopped up into little pieces (like a chef on a hibachi grill) instead he is warning the Samarian's that they are going to fall into the hand of a merciless enemy.

    In Hosea 13:16 The focus narrows to the besieged capital Samaria, the only major reminder of the once successful, influential Northern Kingdom. Samaria naturally was the prime target of the Assyrian assault, as the headquarters of the rebel Hoshea. The covenant curses predict doom for countryside and city alike. Here the city curses (verse 9b) are described as imminently fulfilled. The initial couplet states the reason for the punishment: rebellion against Yahweh. The concluding triplet describes the punishment itself. The punishment is military (the “sword,” curse type 3); and it will be merciless, extending even the brutal slaughter of infants and pregnant women.

    Note: The curses of Lev 26 are the backdrop for the prediction of Samaria’s desolation (שמם) in verse 1a. The verb שמם occurs no less than seven times in Lev 26 (vv 22, 31, 32 (twice), 34, 35, 43). Leviticus 26:25–31 describes the miseries of the city under siege and then captured, with an aftermath of awful slaughter, as a punishment for covenant infidelity. The background for v 1b may also be Lev 26, at least in part, since the latter refers to destruction by the sword (v 25) and the violent death of children (v 29; cf. v 22; Deut 28:52–57; 32:25). The practice of slitting open pregnant women in war as punishment for rebellion is attested also in 2 Kgs 15:16 and Amos 1:13. (Note this was not done by God)

    (Notice in the next paragraph you will see that Hosea 13 was a foretelling of the siege of Samaria and 2 Kings 17.15 mentions the fulfillment of Hosea's prophesy) 

    The siege of Samaria (2 Kgs 17:15) lasted three years—more than enough time for the desperate sorts of acts of starving people described in Deut 28:52–57 to take place. The city undoubtedly suffered greatly. When it fell, the Assyrians ended its history as a capital, making it temporarily a desolate place. According to his annals, Sargon II, who came to power in Assyria just as the siege was coming to an end, took captive 27,290 Israelites from Samaria. The cultivation of the farming districts around the city probably ceased thereupon, so that lions and other wild animals literally moved into the countryside (2 Kgs 17:25) in fulfillment of vv 7–8. The city was occupied on a limited scale through NT times, though only a minority of its inhabitants were ethnic Israelites since the Assyrians imported a diverse collection of peoples to settle the region (2 Kgs 17:29; cf. Jer 41:5).

    Explanation

    The wrath of God against the people who have broken his covenant is here portrayed with an intensity unmatched elsewhere in Hosea. This passage constitutes the climax of the punishment message which began in chap. 1. Though frequently interrupted by reminders of hope for the eventual future, the dominant message of Hosea is that the Northern Kingdom must come to a miserable end because it has violated its solemn contract with Yahweh.

    Hosea preached these words close to the end of Israel’s existence as an independent nation. The northern counter-cultus (verse 2) established by Jeroboam I had prevailed through the North’s entire history (2 Kgs 17:22–23). This open violation of the covenant’s first and second commandments (Exod 20:3–4; Deut 5:7–8) was by itself sufficient cause for the invocation of divine sanctions. Because Israel had persisted to the last in this sin, no mere token punishment was to be expected. Israel would be swept away into oblivion (v 3), violently decimated (verses 7–8); helpless before the enemy Yahweh had ordained to destroy them (verses 10–13) and slated for certain death (verses 14–14:1[13:16]).

    The Israelites had violated the essence of the covenant by rejecting the exclusive status of its giver, Yahweh. The result meant disaster. V 4 provides a précis. Israel was commanded to acknowledge Yahweh alone. The command’s corollary was that unless Israel did so, they would lose the protection that Yahweh alone could give. By detaching themselves from their only real source of life, the Israelites guaranteed their own death as a nation.

    Yahweh summons death and Sheol to overtake the covenant people, assuring them that pity will not deter him from acting against them (verse 14). The sovereign’s patients cannot wait forever while the vassal revels in disobedience. Israel, the “unwise child” (verse 13) has missed the opportunity to be a great nation, blessed of God. They have forgotten him (verse 6). So he will withhold from them his covenant blessings (v 14b). As a due reward for their iniquity/sin (verse 12) the nation and its capital must die in war. The word that Hosea began to announce in the latter years of the Jehu dynasty (Ch 1:2–9) was coming to pass in the remainder state already crippled by the capture of its king and key government leaders (verses 10–11).

    Israel got what it deserved as the wage of its sin: death (Rom 6:23). But verse 14 of this very passage is excerpted by Paul in 1 Cor 15:15 to remind the believer that God’s free gift (Rom 6:23b) has reversed the usual pattern. A wording that heralded the onset of punishment for the offenders in Hos 13 is reused to remind followers of Christ that although the old covenant (νόμος “law”) guaranteed death to the rebel (1 Cor 15:56) the new covenant in Christ provides victory over death. Christ has met once for all the full force of the covenant curses and by his own satisfaction of the law through payment of its penalty has rendered the power of the plagues of the old covenant ineffective against the Christian. The reward of resurrection of the believers to live eternally with God will replace in the new covenant the punishment of death and destruction which applied to Israel in the old covenant. For this all who are in Christ can say with Paul, “Thanks be to God” (1 Cor 15:57). [1]

    [1] Stuart, D. (2002). Hosea–Jonah (Vol. 31, pp. 208–210). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.


    Why does it seems you cannot have a civil debate with anyone?  You either mock, call people names or treat them as idiots?  Now, I understand that others are doing the same, so I'm not calling you out as the only one; you are not (right Judaism).  It takes a bigger man to take an insult, verse the man who dishes them out.  

    On Biblical interpretations, before you cherry-pick some verses out of the Bible; instead of looking for verses that prove your point, why don't you read it, evaluate it...do a little research and see if it supports your hypothesis?    It would save us all some time.  

    In-kind regards and many blessings.
  • @Joeseph

    You stated concerning Mathew 5.22

    "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire."

    "But hey maybe that’s out of “ context “ and it means call anyone you disagree with a retard?"

    You are right, your out of context.  The context of Mathew 5 was Christ sermon on the mount and he was reiterating to fellow Jews what the Old Testament Law said and meant.  In this particular passage which starts in verse 21 is about anger (that might be something we all should pay attention to ;) ).  What Christ is stressing here is that if you are made with your brother, its better to not worship God (offer sacrifices at the temple) and go and settle your grievance with your brother first.  The was contrary to the customs of Pharisees and Sadducees of the time.  

    This is evident in the next two verse "Mat 5.23-24:  Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First, be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

    Concerning fools...

    Pro 10:10  He who winks with the eye causes trouble, But a prating fool will fall.

    Pro 10:18  Whoever hides hatred has lying lips, And whoever spreads slander is a fool.

    Pro 10:23  To do evil is like sport to a fool, But a man of understanding has wisdom.

    Pro 12:15  The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, But he who heeds counsel is wise.

    Pro 12:16  A fool's anger is known at once, But a prudent man conceals dishonor

    Pro 26:4  Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him.

    Pro 29:20  Do you see a man hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him.

    Erfisflat
  • @Joeseph

    One last thing...Thanks for the compliment!  
  • JoesephJoeseph 652 Pts   -   edited August 2018
    @Erisflat

    Using a word you don't understand as in fallacious only makes you look more unintelligent than you are . which in fairness you didn't need any help with 
  • JoesephJoeseph 652 Pts   -   edited August 2018
    @Judaism

    Saying you've read the bible and Torah is just another of your typically egotistical claims not backed up by your complete lack of knowledge on both , also saying I’m Jew hater is you merely using your ethnicity in an attempt to bully anyone who disagrees with your Bronze Age beliefs and is a typical ruse of the coward , you’re  dismissed 
  • JoesephJoeseph 652 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    Why you I'm think I want to read a link on Hebrew thinking on different matters is  beyond  me , I'm note  big fiction fan 
  • JoesephJoeseph 652 Pts   -   edited August 2018
    @poco

    I never expect much from you and in that I'm never disappointed, you cannot debate so instead you resort to your usual lies , accusations and cowardice .

    Every position you cannot defend you resort to  s typical long winded pompous rant accusing others of the traits you possess in abundance , I  take it from your latest rant that here is another example of you having no defence of your child killing god 

    Change your user name to Coco as you play the clown perfectly 
  • JoesephJoeseph 652 Pts   -  
    @Judaism


    You say .....Okay, I'm Jewish - not Christian, don't believe in Jesus - here we go - I'm putting everything back in context IN Hebrew, go learn it if you can't read it. 


    My reply .....Actually the several biblical translations I quoted are perfectly good but when cornered why not resort to using  a copy and pasted smattering of Hebrew all from a book Jews hilariously claim was written by black fire on white fire , read on its comedy gold ........


    Here we go .....Jewish mystics have had a field day with the concept of the written Torah, describing it as written in black fire on white fire (see in Midrash Rabbah and Midrash Tanchuma). This is said to be the form of the Torah before the creation of the world, as Midrash Rabbah states the Torah existed before the world, and the world was created for the purpose of the Torah....


    You say .....This is just his first "attack" on Torah. . . I only need to show you one verse o prove he's an . Just one. I don't even have to bother quoting them all when you see the games this boy plays. Here we go......


    My reply ..... It’s not an “ attack “ it’s all there in black and white why not read it sometime , calling me what you are as in an shows how desperate you are as you’ve no defense yet again 






    You say .....


    Yechezkel (Ezekiel) 18:20-23 IN CONTEXT! That's it folks! We've seen, 100%, that this man, Joeseph, is nothing short of a . 


    My reply ..... 


    That’s it folks! as I predicted the much used “ out of context defence “ and in Hebrew as well to cover up the B S ,

    We've seen, 100%, that this man, @Judaism is nothing short of a . 


    You say ....


    He said the prophet said one thing concerning G-d, but then forgot, purposefully, to quote the other half of his message. Every Yeshiva boy knows this famous passage, a boy knows it, this helpless adult, however, desperate as he may be to question and demonize the Bible, the Tanakh, can't even take the moment to read the full passage. What grade would he get at the Yeshiva? You're kidding me, right? He wouldn't even pass, he'd never live up to being a Jew. . . at all. . . now you know why I call him a pathetic little boy who cries to his mommy.



    My reply .....I quoted the passage correctly you have no defence for a child killing god so your anger is misplaced also I’ve given you and your “ buddies “ several more verses to chew on .


    I tested you on the Torah you feel at the first fence and went into your usual rage at being caught out , it’s seems you have little knowledge of the Bible either , why do you think anyone would want to live up to being a hate filled Jew like you ? 


    I’ve never actually cried to my mommy as you put it if we want an example of a whiny Individual well that’s you again as every second post you mention and whine about the holocaust , Hitler or how victimized you feel .....Maybe it’s about time you took that chip of your narrow shoulders ? 



    You say ......Oh! And before I forget, he DID ask for a taste of Rashi. Well, as I recall, he just said a little, harmless thing. It was barely anything, yet, it encaspualted everything. See the master at work, see him summarize the prophet in a breif sentence. This is posted in English by the way:


    My reply ..... I never asked anything about Rashi as I was interested in his inane babble   


    You say .....


    Rashi: "All his righteous deeds, etc., shall not be remembered: Our Sages qualified this as referring to one who regrets them."


    Now you also see the stunning power of Rashi. 



    My reply ..... They put that sort of Deepak Chopra B S in fortune cookies and people like you lap it up , your sages ??? 


    You mean there was more than one ? Comedy gold 

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Joeseph said:
    @Erfisflat

    Why you I'm think I want to read a link on Hebrew thinking on different matters is  beyond  me , I'm note  big fiction fan 
    Oh I know you don't know how to read, that is why the link was not directed at you,and coincidentally why you responded, look again. Talk about looking unintelligent.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • JoesephJoeseph 652 Pts   -  
    @with_all_humility

    You say .....What will happen if they continue to disobey God, or he may be painting imagery of their fate due to their disobedience......

    So in essence, Hosea is not literally talking about children being chopped up into little pieces (like a chef on a hibachi grill) instead he is warning the Samarian's that they are going to fall into the hand of a merciless enemy.



    My reply .... Painting imagery ? I don’t buy your commentary at all and actually you’re being slightly disingenuous let’s roll on the commentary ....



    Hosea 10:2

    Their hearts are devious; now they must bear their guilt. The LORD will break down their altars and demolish their sacred pillars.


    Hosea 10:14

    the roar of battle will rise against your people, so that all your fortresses will be demolished as Shalman devastated Beth-arbel in the day of battle, when mothers were dashed to pieces along with their children.


    Hosea 11:6

    A sword will whirl through their cities; it will destroy the bars of their gates and consume them in their own plans.


    Amos 1:13

    This is what the LORD says: "For three transgressions of the Ammonites, even four, I will not revoke My judgment


    My reply .....You see that’s an example of using verses in context notice the Lord says he will not revoke his judgement , it’s remarkable you cheery pick bible verses from throughout the Bible constantly yet claim exact time that I’m the one out of context .


    It’s interesting that various Christian authorities on the Bible disagree with your assessment on these Bible verses yet you somehow seem to think that your interpretation is somehow accurate why is that ? 




    You say ......


    Why does it seems you cannot have a civil debate with anyone?  



    My reply ...... I can and I do frequently , so let me re-phrase what you actually mean as in .....why can I not have a civil debate with American hardline fundies who from day one on here have called me retarded , an etc , etc all for merely questioning their world view , if I’m treated with respect I will give it back as in have I mocked or name called you ? 


    You took offense at me critiquing the Bible which is me giving my opinion on a book I heartily dislike , how in any way is that a criticism of you ?


    If these things cannot be debated what’s the point ?


    Incidentally I was talking to a group of Americans yesterday  who told me they were from Idaho and even for them the American brand of raw aggressive Christian hostility they receive in the U S is truly scary , Muslims terrorists are not a threat to the world , the biggest threat are American gun toting hard line religious nuts .


    Which leads me too a question I asked  you before if Jesus came back to earth would he support gun rights for citizens and would he carry one himself , if not why not ? You never answered 


    You say ......


    On Biblical interpretations, before you cherry-pick some verses out of the Bible; instead of looking for verses that prove your point, why don't you read it, evaluate it...do a little research and see if it supports your hypothesis?    


    My reply ..... You’re very presumptuous I’ve read and was educated on the Bible in Latin as a first language and then English , your cheery picking defence is getting lame now as I’ve demonstrated you deliberately left out the verses the proceed the one I quoted , as a former R C our assessment would differ to yours but of course this thought never crossed your mind did it ? 


    You say.....


    It would save us all some time.  



    My reply ......


    It would save me and everyone else if you actually admitted your god has no problem ordering child murder in his name as the many other verses also clearly show , your denial of such is now bordering on you embracing absurdity 



    You say ....



    In-kind regards and many blessings.



    Have a good night /day 


  • JoesephJoeseph 652 Pts   -  
    @with_all_humility

    You’re welcome 
    with_all_humility
  • JudaismJudaism 180 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat CLASSIC RESPONSE! GOLD! MAZEL TOV - GOOD JOB!
  • @Joeseph ;

    "I don’t buy your commentary at all and actually you’re being slightly disingenuous let’s roll on the commentary"

    • No, I' m not being disingenuous, I'm telling you what the role of the prophets was, they were God's messengers sent to warn the people of Isreal and Juada on what their fate would be unless the repented (meaning stop doing and recognize you're wrong) or you will suffer the wrath of God.  
    • For instance, the book of Revelation or if you want an OT example the book of Daniel or Isaiah are all written with a lot of prophetic or apoptotic language.  Especially the book of Revelation, but the author is describing what he is seeing in his vision from God.  When he talks of multi-headed beast those words are not to take as literal, he is describing the anti-Christ or sometimes different nations. The same with a lot of Daniel's writings.  
    • One has to take this into consideration when they are reading the Bible.  Many men have built false doctrines down through the ages, by taking verses out of context.  Now if you feel I've taken something out of context, please let me know and you put it back into context for me so that I may see my error. 

    (Amos 1:13 "This is what the LORD says: "For three transgressions of the Ammonites, even four, I will not revoke My judgment

    ".....You see that’s an example of using verses in context notice the Lord says he will not revoke his judgment, it’s remarkable you cheery pick bible verses from throughout the Bible constantly yet claim exact time that I’m the one out of context."

    • Okay, now you've taken what I've said out of context.  My point with Amos 1.13 was it was not God doing the so-called "baby" killing as stated in your OP.  Let look at the whole verse of Amos 1.13...
    • Amos 1.13: Thus says the Lord:  “For three transgressions of the people of Ammon, and for four, I will not turn away its punishment,  Because they ripped open the women with child in Gilead, That they might enlarge their territory. [1]

    Notice quite clearly verse 13 says the Ammonites ripped open the women with child.

    The book of Amos talks about to bring judgment upon eight nations due to their transgressions.  God would pass judgment upon these nations by "the encapsulation of three types of curses (wild animals, futility, drought) in a single, two-couplet poem is powerfully suggestive of the full range of divine wrath which the God of Zion will bring against his wayward people, Israel. The mere mention of Zion and Jerusalem as the origin of Yahweh’s word and/or destructive action is a tacit condemnation of the false, degenerate Northern cult that the Southern farmer Amos was called by God to condemn.

    Judgment was of necessity his primary message. The punishments specified by the Pentateuchal curses had to be unleashed. And in addition to the three mentioned above, would not the destructive earthquake that followed two years later also serve to confirm the effects of Yahweh’s “thunder” against the North? Israel’s fate was to be death and destruction, adumbrated in a variety of ways in this little poem of ominous language. The immediate future as God announced it through Amos was a future of punishment for a guilty nation." [2]

    Most of what the prophets wrote fits broadly into three categories: (1) evidence that the divine covenant has been violated; (2) announcement of the imposition of sanctions as a result; and (3) announcement of restoration blessings to follow the sanction punishments, thus preserving the continuity of God’s faithfulness to his covenant in spite of the people’s unfaithfulness. [2]

    • Note what Stuart says about the book of Amos in the last sentence of paragraph two.  "A future punishment for a guilty nation" same role that Hosea played in the book of Hosea, he was warning the people of future judgments to come.  Look at Ezekiel 18, one thing that we can learn from that chapter, the people of the guilty nation's could stop the coming of God's judgment if they would repent of their sins.

    "It’s interesting that various Christian authorities on the Bible disagree with your assessment on these Bible verses yet you somehow seem to think that your interpretation is somehow accurate why is that?"

    Please cite these other authorities?  I would love to review what they have to say.  It's kind of funny because I gave you an excerpt from a commentary published by a university professor who is a scholar on the OT.  With that being said, it is a man's opinion, and opinions can be wrong...as well as mine.  

    I will also add, I've never said my views are absolute or the only ones.  I recognize that I can make mistakes in my understanding/interpreting of things as well.  


    I can and I do frequently, so let me re-phrase what you actually mean as in .....why can I not have a civil debate with American hardline fundies who from day one on here have called me retarded, an etc , etc all for merely questioning their worldview , if I’m treated with respect I will give it back as in have I mocked or name called you? 

    • I apologize if someone has called you names, and have insulted your intelligence.  Not all "Americans" do such things, however, on these debate sites I believe there are a lot of immature people.  Who don't know how to defend an argument and resort to personal attacks in an attempt to win the debate.  That type of behavior should not be tolerated, I would like to see the moderators of the site reprimand such people to resort to those tactics.  
    "You took offense at me critiquing the Bible which is me giving my opinion on a book I heartily dislike, how in any way is that a criticism of you?"
    • Well, it's one thing to question beliefs, to ask for evidence and have a civil debate over such matters.  However, even though you heartily dislike the Bible, you should leave your emotions out of your arguments.  You throw barbs and jabs quite frequently, in doing so you come across as attack people.  I understand some have attacked you, but two wrongs don't make it right.  
    • Example:  Your opening question, "Should child murders be respected, adored and worshiped" to me that is throwing an insulting barb.  Why not simply ask "Did the God of the Bible sanction the murdering of women and children? If so, should such a being be worshiped?"  Does the question not address your concerns/observations of the Bible?


    "Incidentally, I was talking to a group of Americans yesterday who told me they were from Idaho and even for them the American brand of raw aggressive Christian hostility they receive in the US is truly scary, Muslims terrorists are not a threat to the world, the biggest threat is American gun-toting hard-line religious nuts."

    • :unamused: Look, there are raw aggressive people on both sides of the issue.  I don't have any tolerance for any of them, especially those who profess to be Christians.  There is nothing in the teachings of the NT that allows a Christian to be rude, crude and offensive.  Now if the Bible offends you, that's something different.  
    • Now you're going to have to provide some evidence that the biggest threat is American gun-toting hard-line religious nuts are most dangerous people in the world.  Provide any articles, statistical data, and any other evidence you got to make such a claim.  Again, why be nasty "religious nuts"?


    "Which leads me to a question I asked you before if Jesus came back to earth would he support gun rights for citizens and would he carry one himself, if not why not? You never answered" 

    • Sorry, I missed that question and I might add a well put question and one that deserves an answer.  This is my opinion, but I don't believe Jesus would say if he was for or against gun rights.  He would definitely not carry a gun.  That would bring into question his ministry.  Why I think he would be silent on the issue is that one it's controversial, and two it has nothing to do with one's salvation.  Would he speak out against having weapons?  I would say NO, and my basis for this is that His disciple Peter carried and used a sword read...

    Mat 26:51-52:  And suddenly, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear.  But Jesus said to him, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 

    • From this passage, I see a couple of things, one Jesus did not preclude Peter form having a sword.  It would have been obvious that he was carrying one.  When Jesus says "for all who take the sword will perish by the sword"  I believe he is telling Peter, for those people who resolve issues with violence, the will perish by violence.  The Bible never says one cannot defend his/her own life.  

    We also have the account of the Roman Centurian in Mat 8.5-13:

    Now when Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, pleading with Him, saying, “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, dreadfully tormented.”  And Jesus said to him, “I will come and heal him.”  The centurion answered and said, “Lord, I am not worthy that You should come under my roof. But only speak a word, and my servant will be healed.  For I also am a man under authority, having soldiers under me. And I say to this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes; and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”

    When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to those who followed, “Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel!  And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.  But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”  Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go your way; and as you have believed, so let it be done for you.” And his servant was healed that same hour. [3]

    • Notice in this account, a military commander comes to Jesus.  The man is not rebuked for his occupation, for carrying a weapon or for killing others.  Instead, he revered for his faith


    My reply ..... You’re very presumptuous I’ve read and was educated on the Bible in Latin as a first language and then English , your cheery picking defence is getting lame now as I’ve demonstrated you deliberately left out the verses the proceed the one I quoted, as a former R C our assessment would differ to yours but of course this thought never crossed your mind did it ? 

    • I remember you giving me your credentials of being a former Catholic.  Don't take this the wrong way, but I yet to find a Catholic person who really knows the Bible, who can tell you what the Bible is saying (in context) and have an understanding of it.  Those who I have known who come to realize what the Bible says and means, leaves the Catholic faith.  Those who read and stay just regurgitate who the Catholic priest told them on Saturday evening or Sunday morning.  Now that's my experience, it was not my intent to belittle anyone who is Catholic.  

    "It would save me and everyone else if you actually admitted your god has no problem ordering child murder in his name as the many other verses also clearly show, your denial of such is now bordering on you embracing the absurdity" 

    • Perhaps we are at an impasse or you have not provided a convincing argument to such claims 


    [1]  The New King James Version. (1982). (Am 1:13). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

    [2] Stuart, D. (2002). Hosea–Jonah (Vol. 31, pp. 301–302). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

    [3]  The New King James Version. (1982). (Mt 8:5–13). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.


  • JoesephJoeseph 652 Pts   -   edited August 2018
    @Erfisflat

    You say .....Oh I know you don't know how to read,

    My reply .....Which is why I’ve just read your rant ...... interesting 

    You say .....that is why the link was not directed at you,and coincidentally why you responded, look again.


    My reply ..... Oh I know that and I respond to whoever I like as I have a right to do so , it’s a European type of thing , it  may come to your shores yet but yous call that “ socialism “ a truly terrifying concept 

    You say ..... Talk about looking unintelligent.

    My reply ..... But you’re the one who believes we live under a glass dome leaving you in strong contention for @judaisms stupidity crown ..

    Erfisflat
  • @Joeseph

    "I don’t buy your commentary at all and actually you’re being slightly disingenuous let’s roll on the commentary"

    • No, I' m not being disingenuous, I'm telling you what the role of the prophets was, they were God's messengers sent to warn the people of Isreal and Juada on what their fate would be unless the repented (meaning stop doing and recognize you're wrong) or you will suffer the wrath of God.  
    • For instance, the book of Revelation or if you want an OT example the book of Daniel or Isaiah are all written with a lot of prophetic or apoptotic language.  Especially the book of Revelation, but the author is describing what he is seeing in his vision from God.  When he talks of multi-headed beast those words are not to take as literal, he is describing the anti-Christ or sometimes different nations. The same with a lot of Daniel's writings.  
    • One has to take this into consideration when they are reading the Bible.  Many men have built false doctrines down through the ages, by taking verses out of context.  Now if you feel I've taken something out of context, please let me know and you put it back into context for me so that I may see my error. 

    (Amos 1:13 "This is what the LORD says: "For three transgressions of the Ammonites, even four, I will not revoke My judgment"P

    ".....You see that’s an example of using verses in context notice the Lord says he will not revoke his judgement, it’s remarkable you cheery pick bible verses from throughout the Bible constantly yet claim exact time that I’m the one out of context."

    • Okay, now you've taken what I've said out of context.  My point with Amos 1.13 was it was not God doing the so-called "baby" killing as stated in your OP.  Let look at the whole verse of Amos 1.13...
    • Amos 1.13: Thus says the Lord:  “For three transgressions of the people of Ammon, and for four, I will not turn away its punishment,  Because they ripped open the women with child in Gilead, That they might enlarge their territory. [1]

    Notice quite clearly verse 13 says the Ammonites ripped open the women with child.

    The book of Amos talks about to bring judgment upon eight nations due to their transgressions.  God would pass judgment upon these nations by "the encapsulation of three types of curses (wild animals, futility, drought) in a single, two-couplet poem is powerfully suggestive of the full range of divine wrath which the God of Zion will bring against his wayward people, Israel. The mere mention of Zion and Jerusalem as the origin of Yahweh’s word and/or destructive action is a tacit condemnation of the false, degenerate Northern cult that the Southern farmer Amos was called by God to condemn.

    Judgment was of necessity his primary message. The punishments specified by the Pentateuchal curses had to be unleashed. And in addition to the three mentioned above, would not the destructive earthquake that followed two years later also serve to confirm the effects of Yahweh’s “thunder” against the North? Israel’s fate was to be death and destruction, adumbrated in a variety of ways in this little poem of ominous language. The immediate future as God announced it through Amos was a future of punishment for a guilty nation." [2]

    Most of what the prophets wrote fits broadly into three categories: (1) evidence that the divine covenant has been violated; (2) announcement of the imposition of sanctions as a result; and (3) announcement of restoration blessings to follow the sanction punishments, thus preserving the continuity of God’s faithfulness to his covenant in spite of the people’s unfaithfulness. [2]

    • Note what Stuart says about the book of Amos in the last sentence of paragraph two.  "A future punishment for a guilty nation" same role that Hosea played in the book of Hosea, he was warning the people of future judgments to come.  Look at Ezekiel 18, one thing that we can learn from that chapter, the people of the guilty nation's could stop the coming of God's judgment if they would repent of their sins.

    "It’s interesting that various Christian authorities on the Bible disagree with your assessment on these Bible verses yet you somehow seem to think that your interpretation is somehow accurate why is that?"

    Please cite these other authorities?  I would love to review what they have to say.  It's kind of funny because I gave you an excerpt from a commentary published by a university professor who is a scholar on the OT.  With that being said, it is a man's opinion, and opinions can be wrong...as well as mine.  

    I will also add, I've never said my views are absolute or the only ones.  I recognize that I can make mistakes in my understanding/interpreting of things as well.  


    [1]  The New King James Version. (1982). (Am 1:13). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

    [2] Stuart, D. (2002). Hosea–Jonah (Vol. 31, pp. 301–302). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

  • Agility_DudeAgility_Dude 62 Pts   -  
    This is a very interesting discussion to watch. I guess religious debates are getting more common and more heated up. I just want to say that if we are going to have a rational discussion here then we must avoid ad hominem attacks here and take every point of view seriously, no matter how strange it sounds. I have had my mind changed many times about opinions that I thought were absurd but then turned out to be rational points of view, the main ones being transgenderism and homosexuality which I now oppose.
    with_all_humility
  • JoesephJoeseph 652 Pts   -  
    @with_all_humility



    You say .....

    • I apologize if someone has called you names, and have insulted your intelligence.  Not all "Americans" do such things, however, on these debate sites I believe there are a lot of immature people.  Who don't know how to defend an argument and resort to personal attacks in an attempt to win the debate.  That type of behavior should not be tolerated, I would like to see the moderators of the site reprimand such people to resort to those tactics.  

    My reply .... 


    No apologies necessary from you , as I’ve said before I’ve encountered 9 American “ Christians “ on D I all rabidly aggressive and the total opposite to the European type Christian who would put most to shame 



    You say .....

    • Well, it's one thing to question beliefs, to ask for evidence and have a civil debate over such matters.  However, even though you heartily dislike the Bible, you should leave your emotions out of your arguments.  You throw barbs and jabs quite frequently, in doing so you come across as attack people.  I understand some have attacked you, but two wrongs don't make it right.  

    My reply ..... I’m of the school fight fire with Fire , and respect when given like any human if you cut me I bleed 


    You say .....

    • Example:  Your opening question, "Should child murders be respected, adored and worshiped" to me that is throwing an insulting barb. 



    My reply .....That’s strange to say the least as you respect , adore and worship a god who has ordered ,sanctioned  and indeed taken part in child murder you and others do not deny this now do you? 

    You’re attempting to justify and not call it what it is as in child murder it and make  it into something else exactly like christians do with slavery 



    •  You say .....
    • Why not simply ask "Did the God of the Bible sanction the murdering of women and children? If so, should such a being be worshiped?"  Does the question not address your concerns/observations of the Bible?


    My reply ..... I call it what it actually is and it’s there in black and white in the Bible 




    You say ......

    • Look, there are raw aggressive people on both sides of the issue.  I don't have any tolerance for any of them, especially those who profess to be Christians.  There is nothing in the teachings of the NT that allows a Christian to be rude, crude and offensive.  Now if the Bible offends you, that's something different.  

    My reply ..... The Bible I see as a brutal contradictory book of fiction , I actually think it’s an insult to ones intelligence 



    You say .....


    Now you're going to have to provide some evidence that the biggest threat is American gun-toting hard-line religious nuts are most dangerous people in the world.  Provide any articles, statistical data, and any other evidence you got to make such a claim.  Again, why be nasty "religious nuts"?


    My reply ..... It’s my opinion and when you find a sizable amount of a population that believes in a second coming , thinks evolution shouldn’t be taught is school , believe global warming isn’t happening etc , etc , and who’s second in command is a religious fruitcake as in Mike Pence we’ll forgive me please but that’s worrying to say the least 


    You say ....


    • Sorry, I missed that question and I might add a well put question and one that deserves an answer.  This is my opinion, but I don't believe Jesus would say if he was for or against gun rights.  He would definitely not carry a gun.  That would bring into question his ministry.  Why I think he would be silent on the issue is that one it's controversial, and two it has nothing to do with one's salvation.  Would he speak out against having weapons?  I would say NO, and my basis for this is that His disciple Peter carried and used a sword read...

    Mat 26:51-52:  And suddenly, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear.  But Jesus said to him, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 

    • From this passage, I see a couple of things, one Jesus did not preclude Peter form having a sword.  It would have been obvious that he was carrying one.  When Jesus says "for all who take the sword will perish by the sword"  I believe he is telling Peter, for those people who resolve issues with violence, the will perish by violence.  The Bible never says one cannot defend his/her own life.  

    We also have the account of the Roman Centurian in Mat 8.5-13:

    Now when Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, pleading with Him, saying, “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, dreadfully tormented.”  And Jesus said to him, “I will come and heal him.”  The centurion answered and said, “Lord, I am not worthy that You should come under my roof. But only speak a word, and my servant will be healed.  For I also am a man under authority, having soldiers under me. And I say to this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes; and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”

    When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to those who followed, “Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel!  And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.  But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”  Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go your way; and as you have believed, so let it be done for you.” And his servant was healed that same hour. [3]

    • Notice in this account, a military commander comes to Jesus.  The man is not rebuked for his occupation, for carrying a weapon or for killing others.  Instead, he revered for his faith


    My reply .....I disagree with your assessment .....


    Jesus did say .....“if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one” (Lk 22:36). According to some scholars, this instruction indicates that Jesus did not uniformly rule out his disciples resorting to violence in response to aggression. When read in context, I think it becomes clear that this instruction implies nothing of the sort.

    First, this interpretation of Jesus’ instruction contradicts Jesus’ unqualified teachings about loving and serving enemies and about refraining from violence (e.g. Lk 6:27-36). On the assumption that Jesus would not blatantly contradict himself, we should start with the assumption that Jesus did not intend his disciples to use the swords he instructed them to buy.

    Second, when the Temple Guard came to arrest Jesus, we must note how Jesus responded when his disciples asked him, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” (Lk 22:49) – the very swords Jesus had just instructed them to purchase. Before Jesus had a chance to answer, one of his disciples “struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear” (v. 50). Jesus then said, “No more of this!” (v. 51), clearly indicating that he never intended for his disciples to rely on the swords they brought. This becomes even clearer in Matthew’s Gospel when Jesus rebukes this disciple by reminding him of the cyclical nature of violence. “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Mt 26:52). And having rebuked this disciples’ typical worldly response to aggression, Jesus then modeled the way he would have disciples respond to aggression by healing this guard’s ear (Lk 22:51). Disciples are to serve, bless and pray for enemies, not afflict them.

    The reason for Jesus’ instruction to buy swords in Luke becomes clear if we simply attend to the verse that follows it, for Jesus explains his instruction by quoting Isa 53:12: “And he was numbered with the transgressors.” Jesus then adds: “and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment” (v. 37). It is apparent that the purpose for having some of his disciples carry swords was not so they could defend him, but simply to fulfill this prophecy, thereby justifying his opponents arrest of him as a political revolutionary. This also explains why Jesus said “[t]hat’s enough” after his disciples told him they had two swords among them prior to heading to the Mount of Olives (Lk 22:38). Had Jesus expected them to actually fight the Temple guard, a mere two swords would not have sufficed. But two were sufficient to make Jesus appear as, and ultimately to be crucified as, a political transgressor.

    Finally, it is significant that when Jesus later appeared before Pilate and was asked if he was the King of the Jews, Jesus responded that his kingdom was not of this world, and he pointed to the fact that his followers were not fighting as proof of this fact (Jn. 18:36). Were Jesus the king of any earthly kingdom, his followers would have certainly taken up arms to defend him. This is how all earthly kingdoms operate. The fact that Jesus’ followers were not fighting thus constitutes the definitive proof that the kingdom Jesus ushered in was of a very different sort. And this simply confirms the point that Jesus never intended his disciples to use the swords he instructed them to purchase.



    You say .....



    • I remember you giving me your credentials of being a former Catholic.  Don't take this the wrong way, but I yet to find a Catholic person who really knows the Bible, who can tell you what the Bible is saying (in context) and have an understanding of it.  


    My reply ...... You obviously never tackled a Jesuit on the matter they being the most intellectually proficient amongst biblical scholars , regards understanding it you see here’s the problem the oh so many interpretations, incidentally I know for a fact what a Catholic biblical scholar would say on the matter regarding your claims . When I was a Catholic we identified as the one true church and looked on the American brand of Christianity as merely a mish mash of nonsense merely masquerading as Christianity .



    You say ....




    • Those who I have known who come to realize what the Bible says and means, leaves the Catholic faith.  Those who read and stay just regurgitate who the Catholic priest told them on Saturday evening or Sunday morning.  Now that's my experience, it was not my intent to belittle anyone who is Catholic.  

    My reply ....Again you’re claiming your group realizes what the Bible says Catholics used to say that any other version of Christianity was bastardized from their version , also they would also think yous are just regurgitating what your preacher is saying ...... Be better if you were all Atheists 





    You say .....

    • Perhaps we are at an impasse or you have not provided a convincing argument to such claims 


    My reply ..... So are you denying now god ever ordered , sanctioned or took part in the elimination of children , I don’t think you can defend such a claim do you ?


  • JoesephJoeseph 652 Pts   -  
    @Agility_Dude

    You seem like the sort of person I would enjoy exchanging ideas with my rules of engagement are simple if one addresses what I say fairly and respects I will do likewise , I’m different to most and I make no apologies for it , I will and have resorted to attacks when attacked I know I should ignore but at times seeing as my views are so different I feel under siege because every Christian on here jumps in to attack .

    I’ve enjoyed debating with @with_all_humility as he’s a good sport and a very good debater and I have to say the sort of Christians I admire and respect , we may never agree on these matters but I would gladly break bread with a man like this anytime 
    with_all_humility
  • Joeseph said:
    @Agility_Dude

    You seem like the sort of person I would enjoy exchanging ideas with my rules of engagement are simple if one addresses what I say fairly and respects I will do likewise , I’m different to most and I make no apologies for it , I will and have resorted to attacks when attacked I know I should ignore but at times seeing as my views are so different I feel under siege because every Christian on here jumps in to attack .

    I’ve enjoyed debating with @with_all_humility as he’s a good sport and a very good debater and I have to say the sort of Christians I admire and respect , we may never agree on these matters but I would gladly break bread with a man like this anytime 
    For the record...I've enjoyed conversing with you and would break bread with you as well.  I can see by your argument that your an intelligent person and an excellent debater.  Just need to work on those barbs and jabs you like to throw ;)   
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch