Sorry you are undergoing persecution right now (particularly persecution in the R/W). I think any of the groups represented here on this board have undergone varying degrees of persecution through history.
I think, if we're honest, every group has been responsible for it's share of persecuting (within it's scope of ability) as well.
In light of that, maybe we all should take a breath and consider that fact and treat each other with a little more respect. After all, it isn't going to change your mind for people to tell you you're going to h3ll...it'll just get your back up. It doesn't please me when I'm accused of supporting the whore of Babylon. And I'm sure there are plenty of cult references when it comes to Maureen's religion.
So maybe we ought to just articulatly state our positions on doctrine without bashing the other...if we disagree with somebody else's doctrinal position, so state using logic to the best of our ability and without calling the other person a heathen or a fool, and if it is apparent that consensus won't be reached after our positions have been articulated, then back off, shake hands, and pick the next topic to discuss...
Maureen, I withdraw my recent statements. You see it your way, and I see it mine.
Peace to you and yours.
((powering down phasers and photon torpedoes, and lowering shields))
P.S., Mark, what is 'R/W'? I must admit I'm not up on my abbreviative alphabet.
r/w= real world (ref your comment: You don't have to get your car keyed or have angry religious people get in your face, and tell you that you are going to hell for not believing. Or worse. You try going around telling people that you don't believe in God, and see how far that gets you. )
Basically, it isn't just me that I refer to when talking about R/W persecution; actually, I been thru rather little, as it were. But I know of others, friends of mine, who have gone thru the aforementioned crap, and, knowing human nature as I do in my past 50+ years of life, I am sometimes apprehensive about becoming a target myself. Cripes-on-a-crutch, and here in America too! :blink:
And some of the current news that is happening right now isn't too encouraging either in that regard.
Basically, it isn't just me that I refer to when talking about R/W persecution; actually, I been thru rather little, as it were. But I know of others, friends of mine, who have gone thru the aforementioned crap, and, knowing human nature as I do in my past 50+ years of life, I am sometimes apprehensive about becoming a target myself. Cripes-on-a-crutch, and here in America too! :blink:
And some of the current news that is happening right now isn't too encouraging either in that regard.
Try living for a few years in a place so far out in the sticks that Macon is the big city and believing what I believe...lol...
Ok, lets not geek out too much with the Star Treck references.
CM,
That may have seemed like I was being slight but I was making a point that you actually made crystal clear by calling my plee stupid. Of course, it would be stupid for you to kill your kid for such a small thing.
Yet, "God had to do what he had to do" (meaning commiting genocide at times) sounds perfectly ok with you? Becuase he brought (past tense?) them back? Chapter and verse, please. Please explain.
That may have seemed like I was being slight but I was making a point that you actually made crystal clear by calling my plee stupid. Of course, it would be stupid for you to kill your kid for such a small thing.
Yet, "God had to do what he had to do" (meaning commiting genocide at times) sounds perfectly ok with you? Becuase he brought (past tense?) them back? Chapter and verse, please. Please explain.
Jesus died for all, including those of the old testamenat and those of the old are with him now. Same for those in the new that have died. And we which are alive and remain are caught up together with them in the air.
13But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. 14For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
funny thing about in the air.
my feet are on the ground and i'm still in the air
Something has been nagging at the vback of my mind
They were slain because THEY choose to commit acts contrary to the will of God. THEY choose to turn from him.
And this is specified ... where? In what way were they doing acts contrary to the Will of God, other than occupying the same land that Israel wanted back then? Is that it? "Move out from this land, or God will have you smitten for defying His Will? Hell, since you worship other gods than we do, we'll smite you anyway
In what way were they doing acts contrary to the Will of God, other than occupying the same land that Israel wanted back then? I DON'T KNOW
But the conclusion that they were has far more substantiation based on the consequences than the conclusion that they were innocent of any wrongdoing. Just because a list of "crimes" is not spelled out does not mean no "crime" was committed. In fact, the logical assumption would be that crime was committed since there was "punishment". We make this same assuption every day Vis-a-vis prisoners in jaiL. granted there are instances where an innocent person is punished in our system, but God wouldn;t make mistakes.
I love my kids. I don't like or approve of all that they do. Even if I haven't been able to forgive them for a period of time (like maybe an hour) I still love them.
I even punish these loved kids - BECAUSE I love them. ( That would be at least one consequence of "sin") Still love them.
When my kids repent ( as for forgiveness) I forgive them. I do not now have to return to loving them - because I never stopped.
If we being "evil" and human can love our children why does it seem so far fetched that God is capable of the same. (Jesus said something like that - remember?)
I'm sure that when we sin we disappoint Him, require forgiveness, but yet all the time are still loved. Even if we were never to repent, the love would remain. However, a relationship can be strained because of guilt and wrongdoing.
I suspect that if I do a heinous thing and still feel no need for forgiveness that I am far from realizing how much I have neglected the relationship in question. (This works with people and with God as well.)
If I do wrong and do feel guilt I will not be open and honest in the relationship because of my own feelings and what I imagine the other is thinking.
You've just said what I've been struggling with trying to define in my life since leaving TWI. Particularly:
For me, I started questioning things that were bothering me a little and that led to other questions which led to the big ones. Perhaps I am an easy going guy and perhaps I was never as "sold out" as I thought I was, but it became clear to me that these seemingly big quesitons didn't have real answers and that didn't really affect me as a person- who I am - how I act.
and
Perhaps the biggest thing to get used to was not thinking I knew a lot of things absolutely. Getting comfortable with the idea that I could be wrong on any number of things is a little different from building a house on a rock and being planted by the waters of truth. Then again perhaps it wasn't all that hard. I had grown used to thinking I could be wrong after many years of having to confirm thoughts with leadership and after arriving at a place after asking questions without absolute answers.
Getting comfortable with the idea that I could be wrong on any number of things
Yup Being wrong isn't the problem--never was--it's refusing to change after figuring out you are wrong that is the problem--that pride thing doncha know
But the conclusion that they were has far more substantiation based on the consequences than the conclusion that they were innocent of any wrongdoing. Just because a list of "crimes" is not spelled out does not mean no "crime" was committed. In fact, the logical assumption would be that crime was committed since there was "punishment". We make this same assuption every day Vis-a-vis prisoners in jaiL. granted there are instances where an innocent person is punished in our system, but God wouldn;t make mistakes.
But you see, Templelady, that they occupied the land WAS the specific reason why they were driven out and slaughtered. It wasn't even a case where God gave them a chance to 'turn to Him' or else be slaughtered. They were slaughtered outright!
And your point about 'just because no crimes was spelled out doesn't mean that they shouldn't be punished' is weak. Sorry, but that's the only way I can see it. Besides, you read everywhere in the Bible, and the 'punishee' is told by the punisher why they are being punished.
All in short, it's like the point that Belle and Lindy brought up, and our experience in TWI is a classic textbook example of this. There are more and more of these little things that are so contradictory, and we usually just argue and explain them away like good little followers that we're expected to be. And finally we just come to the point where we say "Enough!" "No more". And we start to question, examine, and scrutinize all those things that were heretofor previously known as 'spiritual things that we just cannot understand and is not our place to question'. Sorry Charlie, but I for one, *burnt* that t-shirt quite some time ago, and I imagine many others here have as well.
Maybe that contributes largely to what is regarded as 'offensive' in threads like this. You think?
P.S., "In fact, the logical assumption would be that crime was committed since there was 'punishment'."
Can you imagine this logic even attempted to be used in a court of law? :blink: That would be thrown out so fast, your head would spin. ...
... and this would be by the same government that is said to be based on biblical principles. <_<
Can you say "The irony is so thick here, you can cut it with a knife?"
1- since being on the land was the reason we have on the printed page it must be the only reason
2- since it isn't said, again on the printed page, they were given a chance to "turn to him" they must not have been
And your point about 'just because no crimes was spelled out doesn't mean that they shouldn't be punished' is weak.
Actually the point was that just because there were no crimes spelled out does not mean no crimes were committed -a perfectly valid argument
I think it all stems from you original perception of God
Assume for the moment God exists
You can proceed with the assumption that He is fair, just, and loving and therefore what He does will be fair, just and loving, even if all the wherefores and whereas aren't spelled out
Or you can proceed from the position that God is a slippery little character whose methods and motivations are suspect at best and therefore all his actions must be highly scrutinized since He's probably not on your side really
Then there are the degrees between these viewpoints
The problem appears to be not so much what His actual motivations were as opposed to the motivations assigned to him by the observer
But you see, Templelady, that they occupied the land WAS the specific reason why they were driven out and slaughtered.
The following biblical passages are from the American Standard Version (1901) of the Bible.
Genesis 15:
12And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, a horror of great darkness fell upon him. 13And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be sojourners in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; 14and also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. 15But thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. 16And in the fourth generation they shall come hither again; for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full.
Leviticus 18:
24Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out from before you; 25And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land vomiteth out her inhabitants. 26Ye therefore shall keep my statutes and mine ordinances, and shall not do any of these abominations; neither the home-born, nor the stranger that sojourneth among you; 27(for all these abominations have the men of the land done, that were before you, and the land is defiled); 28that the land vomit not you out also, when ye defile it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. 29For whosoever shall do any of these abominations, even the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people. 30 Therefore shall ye keep my charge, that ye practise not any of these abominable customs, which were practised before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am Jehovah your God.
Leviticus 20:
22Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all mine ordinances, and do them; that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, vomit you not out. 23And ye shall not walk in the customs of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they did all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I take it that the 'abominable customs' that they did was worshipping the wrong deities.
The land was still theirs. They occupied it. And according to the (so called Conservative) principle of ownership and all that. And even with the premise of the 'earth is the Lord's, and all the fullness thereof', that somehow justified the slaughter?
... Oh that's right. Killing off the infidel/heretic/blasphemer/other varieties of unbelievers in your God isn't murder, ... is it?
I believe we addressed this point before, ... didn't we? <_<
P.S., oh by the way, regarding verses like:
"24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out from before you; ..."
and the like. I notice that the prohibition of 'touch not that unclean thing' didn't apply to the virgin girls of the supposed unclean races. Those the men were free to take for themselves.
Hhmmmm, nothing like 'dem beautimous wimmen' to make the Exceptions of the Rule in war for, you think? ;)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I take it that the 'abominable customs' that they did was worshipping the wrong deities.
There is no indication that the abominable practices are limited to this one point
... Oh that's right. Killing off the infidel/heretic/blasphemer/other varieties of unbelievers in your God isn't murder, ... is it?
No it's not
The entire purpose of us leaving the spirit world and coming to earth as human beings is to prove that we can remain faithful and true to God and his ordinances. The whole purpose of this earthly existence is as a proving ground to still if we will remain steadfast to God no matter what.
If we choose to disobey his rules we choose the consequences that go with that choice. Adam and Eve took the knowledge of wrong and right with them from the Garden of Eden --and passed it down to their posterity --which is everybody. Therefore everyone knew the rules and could exercise their freedom choice as to whether to follow them or not--- the consequences followed their choice of action.
... Oh that's right. Killing off the infidel/heretic/blasphemer/other varieties of unbelievers in your God isn't murder, ... is it?
No it's not
???????? Wh-a-a-a-??
I expected a response like that fron Cynic (for one thing, he doesn't regard Micheal Servitus' death to be a case of murder), ... but from you??
:blink: :blink: :blink:
Let's think about if this is really true, shall we?
"The entire purpose of us leaving the spirit world and coming to earth as human beings ..."
First off, that is a Mormon belief, shared by no other denomination, if I have my info correct.
Two, the taking of a life, coming straight from the Bible no less, is wrong, UNLESS 1) it is done in self defense, 2) it is done as a capital punishment for a capital crime (ohh, like murder is), or 3) your nation is at war with another country. And even regarding points 2 & 3, there is plenty of debate as to how far they go, or even if they are valid.
But, I *do know* that taking of someone else's life for no better reason than that they have a different belief or religion than you, or worship a different god than you is morally, ethically, and legally wrong. As it always should be. (I believe that's what one of our founding freedoms in this country has strong foundations in: leaving others of different beliefs be to live in peace. Why, I'll even wager that many folks view that premise as a godly one. ... Well, *most* folks do anyway. <_< )
And I sure as hell will not follow any religion/god that says that it isn't. Whether it refers to way back then, or in the here and now. Nothing personal against you, Templelady, but that is a clear line of demarcation for yours truly.
I am not extremely interested in getting in the middle of a spat between an atheist/agnostic/whatever and a Mormon, but I shouldn’t let your ignorant rants and chronic inaccuracies to fester unchallenged in the minds of others.
The biblical passages I posted exposed your previous charge that the “specific reason” the nations “were driven out of the land and slaughtered” “WAS” “that they occupied the land” as a Garthism (i.e. a baseless fabrication).
Rather than demonstrating any compunction for being a polemically amoral, calumny spewing little fabulist, however, you, in typical fashion, went on to ignore the utter falsity of your previous charge, as you frothed a replacement rant and foamed out murky new charges.
... translated into *plain* English means, he's still pi**ed at me for accusing Calvin for committing murder when he has Micheal Servetus executed. And he even makes a big show for 'exposing' me. :o
Ahh Yah, ... whatever. If that makes you a happy camper. The Isrealites still wanted the land, God still sayeth 'smite those who live there.', and so on. The verses that Cynic provided expanded upon my point, even provided details that I didn't include, but it doesn't eliminate the fact that the original inhabitants were on the land that the Isrealites wanted, and they had it taken away from them, and most of their inhabitants were murdered.
For once guy, step outside of your own little ecclesiastical 'reformist' shell, and try to learn from different points of view. I mean, the orthodoxically polemic and acerbic tone of your posts definitely illustrates that you are a guy devoid of any fun, like someone who's day is always cloudy and gray. ... even with your Calvinus beer.
The verses that Cynic provided expanded upon my point, even provided details that I didn't include, but it doesn't eliminate the fact that the original inhabitants were on the land that the Isrealites wanted, and they had it taken away from them, and most of their inhabitants were murdered.
The passages I posted refute Garth’s point. They do not expand on it. They indicate particular reasons the inhabitants of the land were to be dispossessed at the judgment of God. It was not a base land grab. God established with Israel a works-principle of kingdom inheritance, whereby Israel would have possession of and prosperity in the land, and announced the covenantal sanction that Israel would likewise be vomited from the land if she engaged in the same practices for which the to-be-dispossessed were to be dispossessed.
That the dispossession of the inhabitants was not based on the brute fact of the inhabitants’ presence in the land is evident in the Genesis 15 passage, where it is suggested that God deferred the dispossession of the inhabitants until a time when the inhabitants' level of iniquity grew more full.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
32
40
51
31
Popular Days
Dec 31
38
Jan 5
23
Jan 21
18
Jan 4
18
Top Posters In This Topic
GarthP2000 32 posts
CM 40 posts
templelady 51 posts
markomalley 31 posts
Popular Days
Dec 31 2005
38 posts
Jan 5 2006
23 posts
Jan 21 2006
18 posts
Jan 4 2006
18 posts
markomalley
Garth,
Sorry you are undergoing persecution right now (particularly persecution in the R/W). I think any of the groups represented here on this board have undergone varying degrees of persecution through history.
I think, if we're honest, every group has been responsible for it's share of persecuting (within it's scope of ability) as well.
In light of that, maybe we all should take a breath and consider that fact and treat each other with a little more respect. After all, it isn't going to change your mind for people to tell you you're going to h3ll...it'll just get your back up. It doesn't please me when I'm accused of supporting the whore of Babylon. And I'm sure there are plenty of cult references when it comes to Maureen's religion.
So maybe we ought to just articulatly state our positions on doctrine without bashing the other...if we disagree with somebody else's doctrinal position, so state using logic to the best of our ability and without calling the other person a heathen or a fool, and if it is apparent that consensus won't be reached after our positions have been articulated, then back off, shake hands, and pick the next topic to discuss...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Ok Mark. Very good point taken.
Maureen, I withdraw how I stated my recent statements. You see it your way, and I see it mine.
Peace to you and yours.
((powering down phasers and photon torpedoes, and lowering shields))
P.S., Mark, what is 'R/W'? I must admit I'm not up on my abbreviative alphabet.
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
r/w= real world (ref your comment: You don't have to get your car keyed or have angry religious people get in your face, and tell you that you are going to hell for not believing. Or worse. You try going around telling people that you don't believe in God, and see how far that gets you. )
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
ok thanks.
Basically, it isn't just me that I refer to when talking about R/W persecution; actually, I been thru rather little, as it were. But I know of others, friends of mine, who have gone thru the aforementioned crap, and, knowing human nature as I do in my past 50+ years of life, I am sometimes apprehensive about becoming a target myself. Cripes-on-a-crutch, and here in America too! :blink:
And some of the current news that is happening right now isn't too encouraging either in that regard.
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Thank you GArth I have dropped shields and stopped altering the computer program to beat Kobiyashe Maru LOL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Try living for a few years in a place so far out in the sticks that Macon is the big city and believing what I believe...lol...
(Not comparing, just saying I sympathize)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
"Lt. Worf, stand down from Red Alert."
"But Captain, these are dishonorable Romulans! Permission to unleash photon torpedo array?"
"Permission denied, Lt. Worf! Stand down, or be demoted off of the bridge!!"
((grumbling Klingon curses)) "Yes Captain."
Live Long, and Prosper!
Mark,
I can imagine. What with certain Primitive Baptist individuals believing that Catholics are the anti-Christ, ... yup. I can feel for ya.
Peace to you too.
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Ok, lets not geek out too much with the Star Treck references.
CM,
That may have seemed like I was being slight but I was making a point that you actually made crystal clear by calling my plee stupid. Of course, it would be stupid for you to kill your kid for such a small thing.
Yet, "God had to do what he had to do" (meaning commiting genocide at times) sounds perfectly ok with you? Becuase he brought (past tense?) them back? Chapter and verse, please. Please explain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
A dishonorable Romulan ---sigh --at least its better than a Fernegi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Jesus died for all, including those of the old testamenat and those of the old are with him now. Same for those in the new that have died. And we which are alive and remain are caught up together with them in the air.
13But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. 14For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
funny thing about in the air.
my feet are on the ground and i'm still in the air
and the air is in me
Edited by CMLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Something has been nagging at the vback of my mind
In what way were they doing acts contrary to the Will of God, other than occupying the same land that Israel wanted back then? I DON'T KNOW
But the conclusion that they were has far more substantiation based on the consequences than the conclusion that they were innocent of any wrongdoing. Just because a list of "crimes" is not spelled out does not mean no "crime" was committed. In fact, the logical assumption would be that crime was committed since there was "punishment". We make this same assuption every day Vis-a-vis prisoners in jaiL. granted there are instances where an innocent person is punished in our system, but God wouldn;t make mistakes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Ya know.....
I love my kids. I don't like or approve of all that they do. Even if I haven't been able to forgive them for a period of time (like maybe an hour) I still love them.
I even punish these loved kids - BECAUSE I love them. ( That would be at least one consequence of "sin") Still love them.
When my kids repent ( as for forgiveness) I forgive them. I do not now have to return to loving them - because I never stopped.
If we being "evil" and human can love our children why does it seem so far fetched that God is capable of the same. (Jesus said something like that - remember?)
I'm sure that when we sin we disappoint Him, require forgiveness, but yet all the time are still loved. Even if we were never to repent, the love would remain. However, a relationship can be strained because of guilt and wrongdoing.
I suspect that if I do a heinous thing and still feel no need for forgiveness that I am far from realizing how much I have neglected the relationship in question. (This works with people and with God as well.)
If I do wrong and do feel guilt I will not be open and honest in the relationship because of my own feelings and what I imagine the other is thinking.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Lindy, AWESOME! ABSOLUTELY AWESOME POST!!
You've just said what I've been struggling with trying to define in my life since leaving TWI. Particularly:
andLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Yup Being wrong isn't the problem--never was--it's refusing to change after figuring out you are wrong that is the problem--that pride thing doncha know
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
But you see, Templelady, that they occupied the land WAS the specific reason why they were driven out and slaughtered. It wasn't even a case where God gave them a chance to 'turn to Him' or else be slaughtered. They were slaughtered outright!
And your point about 'just because no crimes was spelled out doesn't mean that they shouldn't be punished' is weak. Sorry, but that's the only way I can see it. Besides, you read everywhere in the Bible, and the 'punishee' is told by the punisher why they are being punished.
All in short, it's like the point that Belle and Lindy brought up, and our experience in TWI is a classic textbook example of this. There are more and more of these little things that are so contradictory, and we usually just argue and explain them away like good little followers that we're expected to be. And finally we just come to the point where we say "Enough!" "No more". And we start to question, examine, and scrutinize all those things that were heretofor previously known as 'spiritual things that we just cannot understand and is not our place to question'. Sorry Charlie, but I for one, *burnt* that t-shirt quite some time ago, and I imagine many others here have as well.
Maybe that contributes largely to what is regarded as 'offensive' in threads like this. You think?
P.S., "In fact, the logical assumption would be that crime was committed since there was 'punishment'."
Can you imagine this logic even attempted to be used in a court of law? :blink: That would be thrown out so fast, your head would spin. ...
... and this would be by the same government that is said to be based on biblical principles. <_<
Can you say "The irony is so thick here, you can cut it with a knife?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
There are assumptions being made here
1- since being on the land was the reason we have on the printed page it must be the only reason
2- since it isn't said, again on the printed page, they were given a chance to "turn to him" they must not have been
Actually the point was that just because there were no crimes spelled out does not mean no crimes were committed -a perfectly valid argument
I think it all stems from you original perception of God
Assume for the moment God exists
You can proceed with the assumption that He is fair, just, and loving and therefore what He does will be fair, just and loving, even if all the wherefores and whereas aren't spelled out
Or you can proceed from the position that God is a slippery little character whose methods and motivations are suspect at best and therefore all his actions must be highly scrutinized since He's probably not on your side really
Then there are the degrees between these viewpoints
The problem appears to be not so much what His actual motivations were as opposed to the motivations assigned to him by the observer
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
The following biblical passages are from the American Standard Version (1901) of the Bible.
Genesis 15:
12And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, a horror of great darkness fell upon him. 13And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be sojourners in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; 14and also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. 15But thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. 16And in the fourth generation they shall come hither again; for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full.
Leviticus 18:
24Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out from before you; 25And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land vomiteth out her inhabitants. 26Ye therefore shall keep my statutes and mine ordinances, and shall not do any of these abominations; neither the home-born, nor the stranger that sojourneth among you; 27(for all these abominations have the men of the land done, that were before you, and the land is defiled); 28that the land vomit not you out also, when ye defile it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. 29For whosoever shall do any of these abominations, even the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people. 30 Therefore shall ye keep my charge, that ye practise not any of these abominable customs, which were practised before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am Jehovah your God.
Leviticus 20:
22Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all mine ordinances, and do them; that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, vomit you not out. 23And ye shall not walk in the customs of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they did all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Cynic,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I take it that the 'abominable customs' that they did was worshipping the wrong deities.
The land was still theirs. They occupied it. And according to the (so called Conservative) principle of ownership and all that. And even with the premise of the 'earth is the Lord's, and all the fullness thereof', that somehow justified the slaughter?
... Oh that's right. Killing off the infidel/heretic/blasphemer/other varieties of unbelievers in your God isn't murder, ... is it?
I believe we addressed this point before, ... didn't we? <_<
P.S., oh by the way, regarding verses like:
"24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out from before you; ..."
and the like. I notice that the prohibition of 'touch not that unclean thing' didn't apply to the virgin girls of the supposed unclean races. Those the men were free to take for themselves.
Hhmmmm, nothing like 'dem beautimous wimmen' to make the Exceptions of the Rule in war for, you think? ;)
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
No it's not
The entire purpose of us leaving the spirit world and coming to earth as human beings is to prove that we can remain faithful and true to God and his ordinances. The whole purpose of this earthly existence is as a proving ground to still if we will remain steadfast to God no matter what.
If we choose to disobey his rules we choose the consequences that go with that choice. Adam and Eve took the knowledge of wrong and right with them from the Garden of Eden --and passed it down to their posterity --which is everybody. Therefore everyone knew the rules and could exercise their freedom choice as to whether to follow them or not--- the consequences followed their choice of action.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
???????? Wh-a-a-a-??
I expected a response like that fron Cynic (for one thing, he doesn't regard Micheal Servitus' death to be a case of murder), ... but from you??
:blink: :blink: :blink:
Let's think about if this is really true, shall we?
"The entire purpose of us leaving the spirit world and coming to earth as human beings ..."
First off, that is a Mormon belief, shared by no other denomination, if I have my info correct.
Two, the taking of a life, coming straight from the Bible no less, is wrong, UNLESS 1) it is done in self defense, 2) it is done as a capital punishment for a capital crime (ohh, like murder is), or 3) your nation is at war with another country. And even regarding points 2 & 3, there is plenty of debate as to how far they go, or even if they are valid.
But, I *do know* that taking of someone else's life for no better reason than that they have a different belief or religion than you, or worship a different god than you is morally, ethically, and legally wrong. As it always should be. (I believe that's what one of our founding freedoms in this country has strong foundations in: leaving others of different beliefs be to live in peace. Why, I'll even wager that many folks view that premise as a godly one. ... Well, *most* folks do anyway. <_< )
And I sure as hell will not follow any religion/god that says that it isn't. Whether it refers to way back then, or in the here and now. Nothing personal against you, Templelady, but that is a clear line of demarcation for yours truly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Garth,
I am not extremely interested in getting in the middle of a spat between an atheist/agnostic/whatever and a Mormon, but I shouldn’t let your ignorant rants and chronic inaccuracies to fester unchallenged in the minds of others.
The biblical passages I posted exposed your previous charge that the “specific reason” the nations “were driven out of the land and slaughtered” “WAS” “that they occupied the land” as a Garthism (i.e. a baseless fabrication).
Rather than demonstrating any compunction for being a polemically amoral, calumny spewing little fabulist, however, you, in typical fashion, went on to ignore the utter falsity of your previous charge, as you frothed a replacement rant and foamed out murky new charges.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
... translated into *plain* English means, he's still pi**ed at me for accusing Calvin for committing murder when he has Micheal Servetus executed. And he even makes a big show for 'exposing' me. :o
Ahh Yah, ... whatever. If that makes you a happy camper. The Isrealites still wanted the land, God still sayeth 'smite those who live there.', and so on. The verses that Cynic provided expanded upon my point, even provided details that I didn't include, but it doesn't eliminate the fact that the original inhabitants were on the land that the Isrealites wanted, and they had it taken away from them, and most of their inhabitants were murdered.
For once guy, step outside of your own little ecclesiastical 'reformist' shell, and try to learn from different points of view. I mean, the orthodoxically polemic and acerbic tone of your posts definitely illustrates that you are a guy devoid of any fun, like someone who's day is always cloudy and gray. ... even with your Calvinus beer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
The passages I posted refute Garth’s point. They do not expand on it. They indicate particular reasons the inhabitants of the land were to be dispossessed at the judgment of God. It was not a base land grab. God established with Israel a works-principle of kingdom inheritance, whereby Israel would have possession of and prosperity in the land, and announced the covenantal sanction that Israel would likewise be vomited from the land if she engaged in the same practices for which the to-be-dispossessed were to be dispossessed.
That the dispossession of the inhabitants was not based on the brute fact of the inhabitants’ presence in the land is evident in the Genesis 15 passage, where it is suggested that God deferred the dispossession of the inhabitants until a time when the inhabitants' level of iniquity grew more full.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Cynic ---
:D
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.