Why is belief in a higher power required?

[Esquilax]

You have, we've been waiting on some rational thoughts to come out of your head if you can manage it.

It's not surprising that you can't see rationality when it's beating you over the head, thank you for demonstrating that.

Please I'm asking, show where it says murder in the scriptures you quoted, we're all waiting. You are the one making the claim of murder and rape, don't you think it's about time you prove this so we can move on, I mean really this is getting old.

Fine, killing then. I love it; these people are dead, and you'd rather quibble over terminology like a true coward. You know what? The doublespeak is getting boring, but George Orwell might have been interested to see just how accurate his thinking on the subject turned out to be.

Listen, dude: you can't ignore the actions by simply blocking your ears until you get the right words. God told his people to go into a town and kill all the people there, I don't care if it calls that murder, killing, or some other invented magic word; he called for people to die. And true to form, rather than argue the thing I'm actually objecting to, you act like a fucking child and go "murder? I don't see the word murder. Therefore, the act that word describes never took place."

There has to be punishment for sin but, only after judgement, and that is precisely what took place. If God let any sin go He would be unjust, and if He did you would complain even more when He judges you. God can not murder, He can however remove the life He gives to anyone any time it suits His will and accomplish it in any way that brings glory to His name.

So, what does Jesus Christ represent, if not god letting go the sins of the people? This is what makes your position so unassailable; you'll make room for this cognitive dissonance in your brain, where if a human committed an act it'd be immoral, but if your god does the same damn thing, you're okay with it. Why am I even bothering to argue with a delusional guy like you?

Your first mistake here is calling God a person, He is above all. Those women were sinful and I assume God was punishing them through marriage to their conquerors seems a reasonable assumption. he could have removed His mercy and left them to fend for themselves.

So, once again, you can assume things that aren't present in the text, but if I do the same thing in a way you disagree with, it doesn't count? So why should your assumptions count either?

Take this away from it, those men would want virgins for their wives, the culture then made that most desirable. These women were coming into child bearing age also another desirable thing in that culture.

So... they wanted virgins to have sex with? Like I've been saying all along?

Or are you saying that these virgins would willingly have sex with the people they had been sold to after having their entire village razed? Is that the argument you're making?

I am defending what I believe, God's word needs no defending, you have only stated what you want God's word to say so you can complain, so we have not needed to defend God's word, just trying to correct your misrepresentation of God's word. God is very specific in what He wants, if you studied scripture you would see this.

You're doing exactly the same thing in the opposite direction; offering an interpretation of the same words, rather than relying on what's there. The difference is, you can't let what's there stand on its own, because what's there is a call to slaughter.

It doesn't say that and I did not say it did, why would I follow in your misguided footsteps when I have the Holy Spirit to guide me.

Oh, so you didn't say this in your initial post?

Yes, I know people feel pain when they are stabbed, the one thing you can not discount is the mercy God could have and cause these children to feel nothing, omnipotent.

You didn't say that? You didn't speculate on something not in the text in order to justify something that was? The very same thing you later castigated me for doing? That never happened?

We can't all go and see that earlier in the page?

So the only hypocrite here is you buddy boy. Oh, why so bent out of shape, it's unbecoming, please try to do better.

You just got Esqui-slapped, liar.

You're the one who has said the scripture you quoted says murder and rape, so you are doing some double talk here kiddo. If you will go back and read what I said you will see the word could, that means a suggestion. Oh yes, I made a suggestion not a statement of claim as you did, you said it was murder, I said God could, big difference don't you think.

Well, the issue isn't the words, but what they depict. Is it, or is it not true, that the words within the bible depict your god telling his people to go into a town and end the lives of everyone there but the virgin women, and then to give the virgin women to other people to have sex with? Is that not what that passage depicts?

So, when I say "murder and rape" those acts are literally in the book, aren't they? No matter what words are used to describe them, there is killing and nonconsensual sex there, no?

The difference is that you have no basis at all for claiming god used space anasthetic on the children that got killed there. I have... well, what the words say. Funny how that works, isn't it?

You don't read between the lines you actually change what it says and when you get called out on it you stumble all over yourself trying to defend the indefensible. I made nothing up, I gave an assumption you must be careful how you read things, your misinterpretation of scripture and what I said make you look quite silly.

See above. This is kindergarten argumentation, GC.

Now you're making yourself look plain stupid, the Israelites are all over history, this being true makes it true you're bigoted against them, sorry but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

The Isrealites, maybe. But the account in your storybook certainly never happened the way it describes, and therefore I'm pretty safe in calling the people depicted therein as fictional.

I'm pointing a finger at one who is guilty of misrepresenting the verses he quoted, you still have not proven anything you've claimed, you are stumbling around hoping for a solution to your self made problem. Hey you're hoping, isn't that something only Christians do, are you beginning to see the light. I can only hope so, and that is true.

Fun fact: ignoring what I say isn't the same thing as me not saying it. I show you exactly what the words say, that people had their lives ended and their daughters were traded away like chattel, and you're all like "yes, but that's not murder or rape!" despite the fact that those actions are the definition of murder and rape because you are a dishonest coward who, rather than just admitting what your book actually says, is delaying in the hopes that I'll just give up and let you have your way. I won't. You're a liar, or you're a fool, if you actually believe that these acts of killing and the bartering of human beings for sex is not murder and rape.

The only vapid drivel has come from you because, the only thing you care about in this argument is to make the scriptures say what you through your delusional mind want them to say. Real truth means nothing to you, that has been shown again when you accused me of claiming the scriptures said something they do not. If you had only read the word could I would not have had to waste this time trying to explain the real truth to you. Please be more careful in the future so we can avoid this time wasting you bring us to, or maybe yet it would be better if you just ignored our discussions on what scriptures really say.

Whenever a christian apologist says the words "real truth" I just start laughing. Your own words stand as a monument to the fact that you have no idea what truth is, where it concerns the reality of what's in your little snuff book.