97 replies to this topic

[Beckys_Mom]

Setton, on 14 November 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

Although to be fair, he is supposed to have gone peacefully rather than letting his disciples protect him or just not going to Jerusalem.

I think in those days, if they give you the death sentence, it was hard to aviod

[Setton]

Beckys_Mom, on 14 November 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

I think in those days, if they give you the death sentence, it was hard to aviod

I would have thought it would be easier to avoid if anything. He had lots of supporters and an entire country to disappear into. Back then, a change of name and moving town would be enough for most to disappear.

[Beckys_Mom]

Setton, on 14 November 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

I would have thought it would be easier to avoid if anything.

If it were easier to avoid, then many would have done it, and you wouldn't hear of how barbaric it was back then ..

Quote

Back then, a change of name and moving town would be enough for most to disappear.

I can picture a new chapter - Jesus on the run ..Shows up in India  later as Gandhi lol

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 14 November 2012 - 12:00 PM.

[Setton]

Beckys_Mom, on 14 November 2012 - 11:58 AM, said:

If it were easier to avoid, then many would have done it, and you wouldn't hear of how barbaric it was back then ..

How do you know many didn't? As you say, you wouldn't hear about it

Quote

I can picture a new chapter - Jesus on the run ..Shows up in India  later as Gandhi lol

I had him going back to carpentry. Which gets slightly Blackadder-esque very quickly

[Gravitorbox]

I find it funny how people think you can't kill in Christianity.

It says though shalt not do murder, not though shalt not kill. Murder is illegal killing as defined by the law.

[Etu Malku]

Gravitorbox, on 14 November 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

I find it funny how people think you can't kill in Christianity.

It says though shalt not do murder, not though shalt not kill. Murder is illegal killing as defined by the law.

Indeed "killing" is not out of the Christian jurisdiction

-God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21).

-God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there.
-He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3).

-He orders another attack and the killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses” (Joshua 6).

-In (Judges 21) He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead

-In (2 Kings 10:18-27) God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church!

In total God kills 371,186 people . . . who obviously deserved it

[Gravitorbox]

Oddly enough I wasn't trying to be insulting towards Christians - I have respect for Traditional Catholics and Orthodox. I find the Evangelicals and Born-Again goody-two shoes types cringeworthy.

[Bluefinger]

WoIverine, on 09 November 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

In situations like that, even though I identify as Christian and hold to the majority of principles and beliefs, God has also given me common sense enough to protect myself and my family. Greater good can be achieved by safeguarding yourself, your family, continuing to live on and help others. Sometimes you have to break a few eggs, that's life.

But is that an act of faith?

Christians were told to not hold onto the life in this age because it was quickly fading.  Early Christians took that seriously, perhaps because they were under the impression that the age to come (kingdom of heaven) would come during their lifetime.  The principle is still the same though:

We can't really live for God's kingdom so long as we are trying to prolong our stay here.  I'm not advocating carelessness or suicide.  I'm saying that, as Christians, we are commanded to take up our cross daily and follow Christ.  Paul understood that and he renounced the world and its cares so that he could dedicate himself to the preaching of the Gospel and ministering to the needy.  With his lifestyle, he stopped trying to build a future in this world.  

So, why would we take another's life just to preserve a life in a world that is destroying itself anyway?  

So, while you are completely reasonable in your response, it is not in line with the teachings of Christ.  You are either living for this age or the age to come.  In Jesus' words:

"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money."  (Matthew 6:24 ESV)

So, again, would we kill to protect that which is fading?  Perfectly reasonable if you are dedicated to this age, but not toward the kingdom of heaven.

This was an issue that the early Christians had when the Romans tortured and killed them and their families.  They could either revolt or glorify God with their deaths.  Drastically different from how people today would handle it.  And that may be why the Church so often faces ridicule.

The book of Daniel was likely written just before the Maccabean revolt to encourage the Jews to suffer with dignity rather than take up arms.  They took up arms and their nation was eventually destroyed by the ones they sought protection by.

Edited by Bluefinger, 14 November 2012 - 03:54 PM.

[WoIverine]

Bluefinger, on 14 November 2012 - 03:50 PM, said:

But is that an act of faith?

Christians were told to not hold onto the life in this age because it was quickly fading.  Early Christians took that seriously, perhaps because they were under the impression that the age to come (kingdom of heaven) would come durimg their lifetime.  The principle is still the same though:

We can't really live for God's kingdom so long as we are trying to prolong our stay here.  I'm not advocating carelessness or suicide.  I'm saying that, as Christians, we are commanded to take up our cross daily and follow Christ.  Paul understood that and he renounces the world and its cares so that he could dedicate himself to the preaching of the Gospel and ministering to the needy.  With his lifestyle, he stopped trying to build a future in this world.  

So, why would we take another's life just to preserve a life in a world that is destroying itself anyway?  

So, while you are completely reasonable in your response, it is not in line woth the teachings of Christ.  You are either living for this age or the age to come.  In Jesus' words:

"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money."  (Matthew 6:24 ESV)

So, again, would we kill to protect that which is fading?  Perfectly reasonable if you are dedicated to this age, but not toward the kingdom of heaven.

This was an issue that the early Christians had when the Romans tortured and killed them and their families.  They could either revolt or glorify God with their deaths.  Drastically different from how people today would handle it.  And that may be why the Church so often faces ridicule.

The book of Daniel was likely written just before the Maccabean revolt to encourage the Jews to suffer with dignity rather than take up arms.  They took up arms and their nation was destroyed by the ones they sought protection from.

You don't necessarily have to kill to protect yourself, or your family, I was thinking more a long the lines of incapacitating someone in an actual fight so to speak. I think God would be lenient, especially considering the eye for an eye doctrine. I realize that Christ countered that, but even still, I don't believe Jesus would sit by and let a child, or woman be attacked in His midst without stopping it. I don't think Christ would say to a woman, or child "let your attacker beat you or kill you, this life is fleeting, you're better off not being here". I honestly think if there were NO other options, JC would knock a would be attacker out cold if said attack was directed towards anyone other than Himself. Jacob wrestles with God is a good example of fighting without fighting. Also, I believe how God would judge such a situation would partially depend on the attitude of your heart. If you were attacked and you sought to defend yourself without intending to kill at all, and somehow you accidentally did kill, God would know that. If you took pleasure in fighting, now that's another story and you would probably be penalized for it.

Edited by WoIverine, 14 November 2012 - 04:55 PM.

[Bluefinger]

Etu Malku, on 14 November 2012 - 01:29 PM, said:

Indeed "killing" is not out of the Christian jurisdiction

It may be wise to do an exegetical study before criticizing so quickly.  The exegesis would show glaring differences between Judaism and Christianity as well as highlight topics that could be missed by a high-charged emotional response.

Quote

-God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21).

While it cannot be proved that this occurred, it can be understood that the author was trying to communicate the offensiveness of calling God a liar.


"I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring  as the stars of heaven and  as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess  the gate of his  enemies,  and  in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed,  because you have obeyed my voice." (Genesis 22:17, 18 ESV)

Why on earth would David reject God's promise and blessings?  This is theological conundrum, not just a sociological problem.

Quote

-God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there.

Why?  What reason does the author give?  


"Do not say in your heart, after the  Lord  your God has thrust them out before you, "It is because of my righteousness that the  Lord  has brought me in to possess this land," whereas it is  because of the wickedness of these nations that the  Lord  is driving them out before you. (Deuteronomy 9:4 ESV)

Again, a theological problem.  God destroyed the Nephilim and their offspring because of the rampant wickedness, oppression, and injustice that they caused on earth.  He destroyed the city of Sodom not long after they tried to rape the angels visiting Lot.  And when Jerusalem became filled with injustice, he destroyed that city as well.  It is persistent:  God will not tolerate both rampant injustice and the destruction of His people.  This is a good thing.

"For you are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not dwell with you."  (Psalms 5:4 ESV)

When women are burned with acid in Pakistan for being too beautiful, people in the US get greatly offended and stirred up.  But when God destroys cities that throw their own children into fire as a sacrifice to a god they made with their hands, all a sudden its unjust of God to take action?

Quote

-He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3).

God was building a kingdom in occupied land.  Even today, when a city is occupied by another nation, it creates resentment and violence.  You don't think the Israelites were just going to get to walk in, take over the land, and everyone be okay with it, do you?  

Again, a theological problem.  If you are familiar with Balaam, he convinced the women of the nations being driven out to seduce the Israelite men.  What happened was that the Israelites began tossing their firstborn into fires to gods they made with their hands.  

Remember, God had promised to bless all nations through Abraham's seed.  How could they be a blessing to humanity when they are embracing such wicked and destructive practices?  

That is an important question.  If you can look at rapists with disdain, this should not be an isue for you.

Quote

-He orders another attack and the killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses” (Joshua 6).

Theological question:  Why did God utterly destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah?  Why didn't he just send a plague like He did to the invading Assyrian armies?  And why was Lot commanded to not look back on the destruction?  

Because God did not want the Isralites desiring anything of that former culture.  Again, the Israelites were given that land so that wickedness would stop being practiced and that the land would receive its rest. Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt because she desired Sodom and mournes its destruction.  If God was intent on wiping out all influences of that culture, and Lot's wife wanted to hold onto that culture, it only makes sense that she would join in its destruction.  

Quote

-In (Judges 21) He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead

  Why?

Quote

-In (2 Kings 10:18-27) God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church!

You mean the prophets of Baal?  The ones who persecuted the Israite prophets?  And taught the Israelites to sacrifice their children and have licensed orgies?  Did you know that excavations from those cultures revealed that nearly every adult had a sexually transmitted disease?

Quote

In total God kills 371,186 people . . . who obviously deserved it

You may want to learn more about their cultures.  You have no problem criticizing God likely because of the hypocrisy and wickedness of those who claim to follow Him.  And that is inherently the theological problem:  You condemn the destruction of the wicked but not the destruction of wickedness.  And so long as wickedness continues among God's people, how will you ever come to believe in the one true God?

Thus, while your argument is legitimate, it is contradictory.  Those cultures were unjustified in their wickedness.  The Israelites became seduced my those cultures and became wicked as well.  And God destroyed Israel as well.  Revelation 17 shows that the same fate awaits the Roman Church.

Edited by Bluefinger, 14 November 2012 - 04:42 PM.

[Beckys_Mom]

Setton, on 14 November 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

How do you know many didn't? As you say, you wouldn't hear about it

30 pieces of silver   lol

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 14 November 2012 - 04:48 PM.

[Bluefinger]

WoIverine, on 14 November 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

You don't necessarily have to kill to protect yourself, or your family, I was thinking more a long the lines of incapacitating someone in an actual fight so to speak. I think God would be lenient, especially considering the eye for an eye doctrine. I realize that Christ countered that, but even still, I don't believe Jesus would sit by and let a child, or woman be attacked in His midst without stopping it.

I think the principle of the matter was that Christ would not have to judge because the world would judge itself on how it treated the righteous.  The Jews persecuted God's people and they did not defend themselves.  And Jerusalem was destroyed.  The Romans tortured and killed the Christians and they did not defend themselves.  And Rome fell to the Barbarians.  The Barbarians and the Roman Church executed millions of Jews and they did not defend themselves.  And the Roman Church is reserved for utter destruction (see Revelation 17 and 18.)  Thus, Jesus brought judgment on the world by becoming a victim of their wickedness and not defending himself.  We are called to carry the same witness.

"If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because  you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." (John 15:19 ESV)

Quote

I don't think Christ would say to a woman, or child "let your attacker beat you or kill you, this life is fleeting, you're better off not being here".

Early Christianity seems to disagree:

"But before all this  they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to  the synagogues and  prisons, and you  will be brought before  kings and  governors for my name's sake.  This will be your opportunity to bear witness.  Settle it therefore in your minds  not to meditate beforehand how to answer,  for  I will give you a mouth and  wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or  contradict.  You will be delivered up  even by parents and brothers  and relatives and friends, and some of you they will put to death.  You will be hated by all for my name's sake.  But  not a hair of your head will perish.  By your  endurance you will gain your lives." (Luke 21:12-19 ESV)

If we are faithful in our suffering a clear line will be drawn between the guilty and the innocent.  This especially important today, where men justify criminals and condemn the victims, calling that which is evil good and vice versa.

Quote

I honestly think if there were no other options, JC would knock a would be attacker out cold if said attack was directed towards anyone other than Himself.

What are you protecting?  If you are a Christian and saved by Christ, what do you need to fight for?  Hasn't God already delivered you by sealing His promises in the resurrection of Christ?  And hasn't judgment on the world already begun?  Why would you want to partake in that?  

We build houses here that will eventually be torn down.  But Christ is building us a mansion that lasts forever.  The Jews would sacrifice several animals to only temporarily atone for sins.  But Christ died once for all sins.  Men fight to conquer nations only to promulgate the same destructive practices they originally set out to end.  But Christ will rule righteously.  This world seeks after worthless things.  Even Solomon looked at it with melancholy when he said, "Everything is meaningless.  There is nothing new under the sun."  Men who invest 19.5 years into a company are filled with grief when the company conveniently downsizes to maximize profit.  Likewise, the rich man in Luke 12:13-21's parable builds a bigger storehouse to enjoy a future of a long, happy life only to die that night.  Christ has equipped us through His teachings not to invest in this world and thereby spare us the grief and disappointment of a wasted life.

Quote

Jacob wrestles with God is a good example.

Our flesh wrestles with God's Spirit when it comes to forsaking the desires of the flesh.  How did God bless Jacob?  God wounded Jacob's flesh so that Jacob would not boast in the vanity of his flesh but depend on God's strength.  In Christ, our flesh has been wounded as well and we depend on God's strength rather than our own.  That is not how the world operates and it draws a distinctive line between those who live by the flesh and those who live by God's Spirit.

"For all that is in the world— the desires of the flesh and  the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world." (1 John 2:16 ESV)

Edited by Bluefinger, 14 November 2012 - 05:26 PM.

[Setton]

Beckys_Mom, on 14 November 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

30 pieces of silver   lol

Sorry, not following. If you're suggesting people couldn't run because their friends would always betray them, that's a bit of a cynical view of the world :/

[Etu Malku]

Bluefinger, on 14 November 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

It may be wise to do an exegetical study before criticizing so quickly.  The exegesis would show glaring differences between Judaism and Christianity as well as highlight topics that could be missed by a high-charged emotional response.

While it cannot be proved that this occurred, it can be understood that the author was trying to communicate the offensiveness of calling God a liar.


"I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring  as the stars of heaven and  as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess  the gate of his  enemies,  and  in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed,  because you have obeyed my voice." (Genesis 22:17, 18 ESV)

Why on earth would David reject God's promise and blessings?  This is theological conundrum, not just a sociological problem.


Why?  What reason does the author give?  


"Do not say in your heart, after the  Lord  your God has thrust them out before you, "It is because of my righteousness that the  Lord  has brought me in to possess this land," whereas it is  because of the wickedness of these nations that the  Lord  is driving them out before you. (Deuteronomy 9:4 ESV)

Again, a theological problem.  God destroyed the Nephilim and their offspring because of the rampant wickedness, oppression, and injustice that they caused on earth.  He destroyed the city of Sodom not long after they tried to rape the angels visiting Lot.  And when Jerusalem became filled with injustice, he destroyed that city as well.  It is persistent:  God will not tolerate both rampant injustice and the destruction of His people.  This is a good thing.

"For you are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not dwell with you."  (Psalms 5:4 ESV)

When women are burned with acid in Pakistan for being too beautiful, people in the US get greatly offended and stirred up.  But when God destroys cities that throw their own children into fire as a sacrifice to a god they made with their hands, all a sudden its unjust of God to take action?


God was building a kingdom in occupied land.  Even today, when a city is occupied by another nation, it creates resentment and violence.  You don't think the Israelites were just going to get to walk in, take over the land, and everyone be okay with it, do you?  

Again, a theological problem.  If you are familiar with Balaam, he convinced the women of the nations being driven out to seduce the Israelite men.  What happened was that the Israelites began tossing their firstborn into fires to gods they made with their hands.  

Remember, God had promised to bless all nations through Abraham's seed.  How could they be a blessing to humanity when they are embracing such wicked and destructive practices?  

That is an important question.  If you can look at rapists with disdain, this should not be an isue for you.



Theological question:  Why did God utterly destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah?  Why didn't he just send a plague like He did to the invading Assyrian armies?  And why was Lot commanded to not look back on the destruction?  

Because God did not want the Isralites desiring anything of that former culture.  Again, the Israelites were given that land so that wickedness would stop being practiced and that the land would receive its rest. Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt because she desired Sodom and mournes its destruction.  If God was intent on wiping out all influences of that culture, and Lot's wife wanted to hold onto that culture, it only makes sense that she would join in its destruction.  

  Why?


You mean the prophets of Baal?  The ones who persecuted the Israite prophets?  And taught the Israelites to sacrifice their children and have licensed orgies?  Did you know that excavations from those cultures revealed that nearly every adult had a sexually transmitted disease?


You may want to learn more about their cultures.  You have no problem criticizing God likely because of the hypocrisy and wickedness of those who claim to follow Him.  And that is inherently the theological problem:  You condemn the destruction of the wicked but not the destruction of wickedness.  And so long as wickedness continues among God's people, how will you ever come to believe in the one true God?

Thus, while your argument is legitimate, it is contradictory.  Those cultures were unjustified in their wickedness.  The Israelites became seduced my those cultures and became wicked as well.  And God destroyed Israel as well.  Revelation 17 shows that the same fate awaits the Roman Church.

No, this time I am not going to let you get away with your patented "this is not My Christians" retort. Jesus is found in the NT warning everyone not to dismiss the OT, since it is the Word of God.

Nah, this IS the Abrahamic god and that good book is full of bad stuff.
** And don't even think about turning this into the Roman's Christianity . . . yeeeesh with you and your Christian apologetics!

You have decided that this god and Christianity are the correct and moral standard to be placed on all of Mankind . . . it just isn't so.


  trouble-maker!

Edited by Etu Malku, 14 November 2012 - 07:38 PM.

[Beckys_Mom]

Setton, on 14 November 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

Sorry, not following. If you're suggesting people couldn't run because their friends would always betray them, that's a bit of a cynical view of the world :/

I never said  no one would make a run for it.. I am saying  many will  dob them in for money.. and  I am right.. many will do and have done

I know  so many that would squeal on their grandmother  to get a few bob   lol

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 14 November 2012 - 08:05 PM.