God ordered the Jewish people to kill neighboring tribes several times in the Old Testament. Jesus orders peace in the New Testament, however. "Love you enemies," and similar statements, as well as Jesus refusing to allow Peter to defend against the Romans with a sword before his crusifiction. God and Jesus are one in the same, according to the Trinity doctrine. So unless you say that God really didn't order the Jewish people to kill all the neighboring tribes, then wouldn't you say that the Trinity is contradictory? And without Jesus' message of love and peace, what makes the Trinity any more valid than all the other ancient war gods? Also, if you look at the Old Testament and claim that you have the right to take others' lives because God said it was ok for the Jewish people to do so, then how are you any better than Osama Bin Laden? I'm just saying that you can't have the God who "so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son" and a war god in one.
have you heard of the 'convents of God'? basically in the old testament there was the convent (contract) with God that said that if you follow me and do your best to be good and do these things then you can come to Heaven......and Isreal gets special treatment cause they are the choosen people. So God sometimes had to destroy His enemies (remember theres also the devil running rampant in the world) and such, therefore there was a war aspect. In the New Testament, a NEW convent is made. it is that if you believe in Jesus you go to heaven, forgivness for the sins, etc. God wasnt happy with destroying people so He sent Jesus so that the people could come to Heaven and the Devil would have less of a hold on the world. at least thats one way to answer it, I dont even know if its right, but it gives you an idea of an explination
I am a Christian but am not a fool! First let be clear about something here, …It is not true that God ordered the Jewish to kill neighboring tribes. But instead, it is true that the Jews are saying that they are doing God’s will, and with their Old Testament they have a “License to kill and a Land Owner’s certificate”. I am just glad that the Old Testament didn’t guide them to the Central of Europe as their promised land. :m:
What we struggle to understand in these modern times of global communication and international treaties, is that in those days, if you came across a person in the middle of a desert he was either a friend or an enemy. Power was determined by the amount of land and cattle you had. Now, for some reason (a very good one), God chose the Israelites as his people - they had no land and only whatever they could take from Egypt with them. They weren't rich and powerful, but they had God on their side. Also, God remembered all the people who helped them along the way - you can read about them. God promised them a land to live in. It wasn't like now, where even small countries could threaten world peace, but there were still terrorists and enemies. More precisely - these terrorists were enemies of God. Think of it another way. If you're American - you should be sitting rather uncomfortably at the moment. How did you inherit the land you live in? Where are the natives and the original owners now? In a reserve across the hill. So stop pointing fingers at a minority who came to a promised land in spite of all odds.
QUOTE]Originally posted by Jenyar So stop pointing fingers at a minority who came to a promised land in spite of all odds. [/QUOTE] Oh my god, you're brain washed by this new religion called Zionist Christian, literally CREATED by the Jews in Europe to ensure more tolerance for the Christians to Jews. The Jews rewrited the scriptures in the new statements with talks of Jeruslem and promised land to justify their later occupation in the area. The whole thing behind the promised land was based on the Jews claiming that they are anscesters of Isaac who was chosen by his father Abraham, but, guess what, there was a big error in their computation, because they forgot to change one mistake in the bible in Genesis. (They screwed by the logic) Gen.22 [2] And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. **** What do you think is the mistake here Jenyar? Ismael is the oldest son and not Isaac. Issac is not the only son. Ismael was an only son for 20 years. In this verse, the word Ismael was replaced with Isaac and later gave the justification for promised land. Gen.16 [10] And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. ***God spoke to the maid Hager and told that he will multiply her seed. Isa(42) [9] Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them. [10] Sing unto the LORD a new song, and his praise from the end of the earth, ye that go down to the sea, and all that is therein; the isles, and the inhabitants thereof. [11] Let the wilderness and the cities thereof lift up their voice, the villages that Kedar doth inhabit: let the inhabitants of the rock sing, let them shout from the top of the mountains. [12] Let them give glory unto the LORD, and declare his praise in the islands. [13] The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies. [14] I have long time holden my peace; I have been still, and refrained myself: now will I cry like a travailing woman; I will destroy and devour at once. [15] I will make waste mountains and hills, and dry up all their herbs; and I will make the rivers islands, and I will dry up the pools. [16] And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them, and not forsake them. ***Finally, god promised Ismael Son, Kedar the whole region. Force was even justified. God mention that so much force will happen in the region, there will be cries, ect. People who were blind were shown a path that they have not known. Those words are not spoken of the jews (Isaac sons), but of Muslims (Kedar sons)
just last night someone was quoted to me on this very subject! It was along the lines of: In past times, God was seen as violent.........now He is seen as being here just to provide comfort and gather people......neither view is correct. The violent God does not have Love, the weak God is not strong.............the true God is loving, righteous, just and holy..........He provides both love and comfort and is fearsome to His enemies. another idea is remembering C.S. Lewis's book "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe" In it the character Aslan (a lion) represents Jesus..........there is a part where the children are with Mr. and Mrs. Beaver and Susan asks if Aslan is tame, the beavers say 'of course hes not, he's a lion' and the child responds that they are scared to meet such a fearsome creature.........the beavers say that yes, he is scarry, BUT he is Good! and thats the way that God is, He is GOOD, but we must remember that He is also strong and fearsome to His enemies!
Re: Re: Question for Christians: War God or Peaceful Jesus? Deuteronomy 7:2 "and when the Lord your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them."
Re: Re: Re: Question for Christians: War God or Peaceful Jesus? It is not true that God ordered the Jewish to kill neighboring tribes. But instead, it is true that the Jews are saying that they are doing God’s will, and with their Old Testament they have a “License to kill and a Land Owner’s certificate”. We have evolved believing that the Old Testament was writing based on God’s word. Yet, no one can prove that, because like with most religions it is just a matter of FAITH. And since faith is free, any person on earth has equally right to believe or not believe on something. Your references to the “convenient” passage of Deuteronomy 7:2 "and when the Lord your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them." Basically indicates that under a FAITH one can chose whom to conquer and destroy with no mercy. And looking at Israelis, Arab, Al-Qaeda, ETA, or any other terrorist group. If they have a FAITH on what they are doing. Are we supposed to call it OK The BIG problem with all this and that bullshit cover-up by religion, is that unlike prehistoric men, modern men have now men-made LAWS that are not excused to have being written by GODS but by mortals for mortals. And we judge murder, not by old testaments, Korans, etc. but by the common laws. And it is particularly in the values of what we understand as right and wrong, that holly books can go in contradiction. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Heflores: Genesis 17 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year." 22 When he had finished speaking with Abraham, God went up from him. But Ishmael's mother wasn't Abraham's wife. Ishmael was born because of Abraham's disbelief. But God is merciful, and made Ishamael a blessed nation. Sura 5:46 And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah. If God saw Isaac as Abraham's only son, there must have been a reason for it.
Microzoft, Do you know how our 'common laws' will look like in 2000 years' time? Old and faded, but still valid. And do you know where we got our 'common laws' from?
No, I can not even begin to imagine how our common laws will look like in 2000 years, since our laws are in constant evolution as it should be, it is impossible to guess it. And besides, in my life I only manage to judge the past and the present. By no means I’m wasting time with guess work about 2000 years ahead. Where we got our common laws from? Well from many sources, and depending on what are we talking. International Laws, the Chinese laws, etc, etc. One thing is certain, they don’t come from a single and unique source.
The basic human rights are unique because they agree between many sources. Where does the "commonality" come from? Chance? But I'm starting to realize that we're not really talking about the same set of principles here. International laws were probably established after a whole lot of negotiating and bantering. We all come together and decide that war is wrong and "ye shall not make war". We even give some countries veto power to assert that law against odds. Unfortunately, these laws are only "common" while they're commonly adhered to. No, "moral law" would be more appropriate. Common laws are hardly geared towards establishing loving relationships. If "love God, and your neigbour like yourself" were truly followed, who would prevail, good or evil? Do we say: no, we believe war is wrong, take our country... or do we protect it? Why are the laws proclaimed in the Bible so idealistic and unattainable? Because we have to apply them for them to have any effect, and have faith in their power to apply them consistently. Sounds familiar? The only thing we have in common is our humanity, and it is evident that man is unable rule himself by his own laws.
Bravo Jenyar, your logic is beautifull, keep denying, but do me a favor and don't solicit my communication with you by making statements like the one you made earlier about the "Quran being written by people not knowing Jesus". You know nothing of Islam, Quran, Prophet Muhammed, so stick to the bible and follow the Atheists footsteps and ignore my posts on those subjects when I use my Quran.
humanity implies that humanity is based on human laws, not divine laws. In what way would we be unable to rule by our own laws then?
Because we cannot be both rulers and obeyers. That would make a mockery out of any system. How much power does the UN have if America decides to ignore their vetos? How much power does a court have if criminals get away? It's all very fine and well when the laws protect our physical freedom, but what about morality? Justice can never prevail under our various laws, because they seem to be relative. But I guess if you see "justice" as an ideological armature on which we are trying to build a free and peaceful society, we are doing the best we can. There can be no real justice, only a reasonable attempt at it. I believe that justice is real, that such a thing does exist. And like religion, our judicial systems are ultimately only trying to find God.
but we are not all rulers and obeyers...there is a small group of rulers and a big group of sheep. are we now talking about reality or about a humanity you wish to see?
Both. I always think of reality as superimposed on God, and then compare what I see. What would be the ideal? One ruler everyone listens to, or everybody a ruler over themselves? Isn't that the beauty of democracy? That you can't tell who's in charge?
