A God like the one in the Bible works within the fixed laws he established and will not go against them, because, as God, that is simply who he is and what he does. In the same way logic did not come into being and will never change, so is God. In a way, we think like God does because we have the ability to see logic or justice in his actions. If something is truly moral (a decision most of us can all agree on), then it comes within God's standards for morality.
The word 'kill' as used in the Ten Commandments refers to premeditated murder. It does not include capital punishment, war, or self-defense.
The killing of most children in the OT is an act of punishment on their parents, and not on them.

God's rule suggests that the tiniest sin makes one deserving of death, even if the sin will be committed in the future. This makes it absolutely impossible to not commit what is, in God's perspective, capital crimes. This is alien to humans, all save for spectacularly insane ones.

(July 3, 2013 at 4:16 am)Consilius Wrote: The killing of most children in the OT is an act of punishment on their parents, and not on them.

Do you actually read the drivel you post??

You can dress up your psycho god as much as you like.

To anyone outside of your death cult he is just a murderous cunt.

(July 3, 2013 at 4:16 am)Consilius Wrote: A God like the one in the Bible works within the fixed laws he established and will not go against them, because, as God, that is simply who he is and what he does. In the same way logic did not come into being and will never change, so is God. In a way, we think like God does because we have the ability to see logic or justice in his actions. If something is truly moral (a decision most of us can all agree on), then it comes within God's standards for morality.
The word 'kill' as used in the Ten Commandments refers to premeditated murder. It does not include capital punishment, war, or self-defense.
The killing of most children in the OT is an act of punishment on their parents, and not on them.

What about god ordering 2 bears to kill 42 children in Kings? Was that to punish their parents as well?

Will you be in favour if our laws say that if an adult with children commit a crime, we should kill his children? If your answer to the first question is no, then would you be in favour of our laws saying we should kill children for making fun of people? This is not something I made up, this is your god's standards and justice. Will you be in favour of these laws?

Because if you say yes there's no point to this conversation anymore. You clearly have a warped sense of justice and we have no common ground from which to discuss these things.

(July 3, 2013 at 5:43 am)Ryantology Wrote: God's rule suggests that the tiniest sin makes one deserving of death, even if the sin will be committed in the future. This makes it absolutely impossible to not commit what is, in God's perspective, capital crimes. This is alien to humans, all save for spectacularly insane ones.

Can you back up that claim?

---

(July 3, 2013 at 5:47 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(July 3, 2013 at 4:16 am)Consilius Wrote: The killing of most children in the OT is an act of punishment on their parents, and not on them.

Do you actually read the drivel you post??

You can dress up your psycho god as much as you like.

To anyone outside of your death cult he is just a murderous cunt.

How long does this rant go on?

---

(July 3, 2013 at 11:11 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote:

(July 3, 2013 at 4:16 am)Consilius Wrote: A God like the one in the Bible works within the fixed laws he established and will not go against them, because, as God, that is simply who he is and what he does. In the same way logic did not come into being and will never change, so is God. In a way, we think like God does because we have the ability to see logic or justice in his actions. If something is truly moral (a decision most of us can all agree on), then it comes within God's standards for morality.
The word 'kill' as used in the Ten Commandments refers to premeditated murder. It does not include capital punishment, war, or self-defense.
The killing of most children in the OT is an act of punishment on their parents, and not on them.

What about god ordering 2 bears to kill 42 children in Kings? Was that to punish their parents as well?

Will you be in favour if our laws say that if an adult with children commit a crime, we should kill his children? If your answer to the first question is no, then would you be in favour of our laws saying we should kill children for making fun of people? This is not something I made up, this is your god's standards and justice. Will you be in favour of these laws?

Because if you say yes there's no point to this conversation anymore. You clearly have a warped sense of justice and we have no common ground from which to discuss these things.

First of all, it is only child-killers who have their children die in the OT. The loss of a child is far worse than losing one's own life. This is well known by both the defendant and the offender.

(July 3, 2013 at 5:27 pm)Consilius Wrote:

(July 3, 2013 at 5:43 am)Ryantology Wrote: God's rule suggests that the tiniest sin makes one deserving of death, even if the sin will be committed in the future. This makes it absolutely impossible to not commit what is, in God's perspective, capital crimes. This is alien to humans, all save for spectacularly insane ones.

Can you back up that claim?

For the wages of sin is death...

Appealing to an inherently paradoxical and terribly flawed concept of predestination was fr0d0's way of explaining how it was a good thing that Amalekite children were put to the sword. Whether or not this is legit, you really have to take up with him, because I think it's all bunk and there's no consensus within the Christian religion on almost anything.

If it is the last sentence you wish to have verified, there lacks any example I am aware of in human history which prescribed the death penalty for every imaginable crime, including thoughtcrimes or crimes which were not committed in the past (after all, how could such a society sustain itself more than a few months at best?). Humans have a distressing tendency towards violence and revenge masquerading as justice, but as God never bothers justifying or explaining most of the rules he invented, and Christians apparently are okay with that, but there aren't many people outside of mental hospitals (or who really belong in one) who view, as just, a system in which virtually everything you do is a crime and every crime deserves death.

On Elisha killing children in 2 Kings 2:23-24
They weren't children. The Hebrew word neurim qetannim means "young man": between the ages of 12 and 30. Isaac was in his early twenties when he is nearly sacrificed in Genesis 22:12, and Joseph is seventeen in Genesis 37:2.
Elisha had finished revoking an earlier curse on the nearby city of Jericho (Joshua 6:26) by making its water clean (2 Kings 2:19-22). Elisha was a prophet, a representative of God, as he had proven not long ago, and the insults were not going to him but to the God he stood for. This isn't very surprising, since he was traveling through an area of Israelite pagan worship (1 Kings 12:32). These men, if not pagan priests themselves, clearly were pagan worshippers.
Elisha responded to this threat to his prophetic mission by cursing them in the name of the God he stood for, and the one they were insulting. There is no evidence he prayed for any type of punishment at all, rather, God executed the curse by sending bears to maul them. That 42 of these men were captured and mauled by two bears suggests that there could have been many more people gathered against this one man.
This wasn't playful teasing from a few kids, but a mass gathering of pagans against God's messenger.

---

(July 3, 2013 at 5:55 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(July 3, 2013 at 5:27 pm)Consilius Wrote: Can you back up that claim?

For the wages of sin is death...

Appealing to an inherently paradoxical and terribly flawed concept of predestination was fr0d0's way of explaining how it was a good thing that Amalekite children were put to the sword. Whether or not this is legit, you really have to take up with him, because I think it's all bunk and there's no consensus within the Christian religion on almost anything.

If it is the last sentence you wish to have verified, there lacks any example I am aware of in human history which prescribed the death penalty for every imaginable crime, including thoughtcrimes or crimes which were not committed in the past (after all, how could such a society sustain itself more than a few months at best?). Humans have a distressing tendency towards violence and revenge masquerading as justice, but as God never bothers justifying or explaining most of the rules he invented, and Christians apparently are okay with that, but there aren't many people outside of mental hospitals (or who really belong in one) who view, as just, a system in which virtually everything you do is a crime and every crime deserves death.

The Bible verse you quoted has to do with spiritual death, as you probably know. Life without God (morals), the source of "life", is death.
"For whoever will save his life shall lose it: and whoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" Matthew 16:25-26
I can't think of someone being killed on the basis of their thoughts. If you are referring to the process of "giving consent", the legal system today still punishes people for allowing crimes to happen under their acknowledgement. You are no different from the person actually doing a crime if you think it is a good thing to do, because you enjoy the fact that it has been done.
I also don't recall an example of someone being punished for something they would have done in the future or God prescribing such.

(July 3, 2013 at 5:27 pm)Consilius Wrote:

(July 3, 2013 at 11:11 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: What about god ordering 2 bears to kill 42 children in Kings? Was that to punish their parents as well?

Will you be in favour if our laws say that if an adult with children commit a crime, we should kill his children? If your answer to the first question is no, then would you be in favour of our laws saying we should kill children for making fun of people? This is not something I made up, this is your god's standards and justice. Will you be in favour of these laws?

Because if you say yes there's no point to this conversation anymore. You clearly have a warped sense of justice and we have no common ground from which to discuss these things.

First of all, it is only child-killers who have their children die in the OT. The loss of a child is far worse than losing one's own life. This is well known by both the defendant and the offender.

Why did you dodge all of my questions?
Of course losing a child is worse than losing one's own life for a lot of people. Did I say it wasn't? Why are you randomly saying this?

Quote:On Elisha killing children in 2 Kings 2:23-24
They weren't children. The Hebrew word neurim qetannim means "young man": between the ages of 12 and 30. Isaac was in his early twenties when he is nearly sacrificed in Genesis 22:12, and Joseph is seventeen in Genesis 37:2.
Elisha had finished revoking an earlier curse on the nearby city of Jericho (Joshua 6:26) by making its water clean (2 Kings 2:19-22). Elisha was a prophet, a representative of God, as he had proven not long ago, and the insults were not going to him but to the God he stood for. This isn't very surprising, since he was traveling through an area of Israelite pagan worship (1 Kings 12:32). These men, if not pagan priests themselves, clearly were pagan worshippers.
Elisha responded to this threat to his prophetic mission by cursing them in the name of the God he stood for, and the one they were insulting. There is no evidence he prayed for any type of punishment at all, rather, God executed the curse by sending bears to maul them. That 42 of these men were captured and mauled by two bears suggests that there could have been many more people gathered against this one man.
This wasn't playful teasing from a few kids, but a mass gathering of pagans against God's messenger.

2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

These are the bible passages i found. How you got from little children to people who are 12-30 years old and how you know so much about whether or not they're pagans (and why does it matter?) I don't know.

They gathered against him? you mean it was a protest? And so god saw fit to kill them? Because his prophet wants him to ...? i'm not sure what point you're making about differentiating a curse from a punishment. Are you saying the curse is unjust while a punishment is just?

You're replying me and focusing on issues that are of little importance, if god killed them god killed them. i don't know what for. the point was: if our laws were to kill people for the same reasons your god killed people for (killing children of parents who killed children, and protesting against god, or if you like, insulting god), will you be in favour of that? Why or why not?

(July 3, 2013 at 6:20 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote:

(July 3, 2013 at 5:27 pm)Consilius Wrote: First of all, it is only child-killers who have their children die in the OT. The loss of a child is far worse than losing one's own life. This is well known by both the defendant and the offender.

Why did you dodge all of my questions?
Of course losing a child is worse than losing one's own life for a lot of people. Did I say it wasn't? Why are you randomly saying this?

Quote:On Elisha killing children in 2 Kings 2:23-24
They weren't children. The Hebrew word neurim qetannim means "young man": between the ages of 12 and 30. Isaac was in his early twenties when he is nearly sacrificed in Genesis 22:12, and Joseph is seventeen in Genesis 37:2.
Elisha had finished revoking an earlier curse on the nearby city of Jericho (Joshua 6:26) by making its water clean (2 Kings 2:19-22). Elisha was a prophet, a representative of God, as he had proven not long ago, and the insults were not going to him but to the God he stood for. This isn't very surprising, since he was traveling through an area of Israelite pagan worship (1 Kings 12:32). These men, if not pagan priests themselves, clearly were pagan worshippers.
Elisha responded to this threat to his prophetic mission by cursing them in the name of the God he stood for, and the one they were insulting. There is no evidence he prayed for any type of punishment at all, rather, God executed the curse by sending bears to maul them. That 42 of these men were captured and mauled by two bears suggests that there could have been many more people gathered against this one man.
This wasn't playful teasing from a few kids, but a mass gathering of pagans against God's messenger.

2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

These are the bible passages i found. How you got from little children to people who are 12-30 years old and how you know so much about whether or not they're pagans (and why does it matter?) I don't know.

They gathered against him? you mean it was a protest? And so god saw fit to kill them? Because his prophet wants him to ...? i'm not sure what point you're making about differentiating a curse from a punishment. Are you saying the curse is unjust while a punishment is just?

You're replying me and focusing on issues that are of little importance, if god killed them god killed them. i don't know what for. the point was: if our laws were to kill people for the same reasons your god killed people for (killing children of parents who killed children, and protesting against god, or if you like, insulting god), will you be in favour of that? Why or why not?

The curse was a calling down of God to punish them. God decided to kill them to prove that he was on the prophet's side.
God's killings took place in a society that: a) had much proof of his existence b) was expected to adhere strictly to the law he had very personally handed down to them in a world that c) was wrought with retribution as the norm because of the sin people lived under because of Adam.
Jesus made God's law complete by preaching and living a life of forgiveness. God does not reveal himself to a single nation that needs to hold his law, but to a world of people where the message of Christ is well-known by everybody. God's actions in the Old Testament would either be wasted on the 21st century or have the wrong effect: fear and not love.

Quote:God's actions in the Old Testament would either be wasted on the 21st century or have the wrong effect: fear and not love.

So the reason you won't be in favour of these laws is because we live in a different time, and it'll backfire if we have these laws? But you think that killing children of parents who killed children is the proper way to punish people who kill children? I don't want to misrepresent your stance here, so please be clear. Are you saying that it is just, but for the bigger purpose, which is to get people to believe in god's love, we shouldn't do this yet. Until they believe, then we can do this. ?

By the way, it's the first time i've seen anyone say that killing children will be wasted on us. As if we should appreciate the gesture. I've actually tolerated a lot of outrageously immoral things you've said, only because I used to be very religious. But even at my most religious i only defended god of the bible and never would have defended the same actions in the society i lived in. I need to know that you have this separation as well otherwise I really don't want to continue this conversation.

I'll phrase the question again: are you saying that you will not be in favour of these laws in today's society because they're not strategically sound?