Christian Extremists in Lebanon

[Magtheridon96]

These Christian Extremists have been fucking up everything in Lebanon for a while now..
They once shut down an entire mall just because there was a cross drawn on the side of a shoe...
And just when you think it can't get any worse, BOOM.
They threatened LMFAO for showing Jesus in the following videos:

As a result, LMFAO canceled their concert in Lebanon.

Gotta love 'em. Right?
First Britney, now LMFAO? They've gone too far this time...

 

[Mechanical Man]

Oh noes, Britney was cancelled! In the end, religious fanatics can be actually useful for preventing such crap coming in their country. And these LMFAO aren't looking much better. And if they showed Mohamed, I don't think the muslim part would react differently.

 

[Magtheridon96]

If they showed Mohammad, you have no idea how many people would be killed

edit
There are no major muslim extremist groups in Lebanon.
There may be very minor ones, but I'm not sure.

 

[Joe-black-5]

:3 Akon and Shakira and System of a down managed to make concerts with success, and yeah if they showed Prophet Mohammad as in not in a religious song, all hell would break loose.

 

[Magtheridon96]

I recall the last time it was done by Southpark, 2997 people died :3

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

Religion needs to be erased from the Earth and all who believe someone in ethereal form is watching them standing or sitting on a cloud - reprogramed.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

Speaking of religion, I read an interesting article today. It was about the Bible and how it's too far from the original texts. Two "Bible Researches" (whatever that is) said the Bible had been turned into a children's story, and now they are rewriting the Bible so it matches the old texts more. However, now the publishers want to put an age limit on it, because it is too grotesque and it's full of God condoning rape and whatnot. Basically, you would need to be 18 years old or more before you can even buy the Bible legally.

I find this very funny

 

[LordDz]

Speaking of religion, I read an interesting article today. It was about the Bible and how it's too far from the original texts. Two "Bible Researches" (whatever that is) said the Bible had been turned into a children's story, and now they are rewriting the Bible so it matches the old texts more. However, now the publishers want to put an age limit on it, because it is too grotesque and it's full of God condoning rape and whatnot. Basically, you would need to be 18 years old or more before you can even buy the Bible legally.

I find this very funny

A year limit would actually be good, so people could make up their own minds, rather than have it bashed in their heads in their young age.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

I recall the last time it was done by Southpark, 2997 people died :3

You say that like it's a good thing, an accomplishment almost

 

[Magtheridon96]

You say that like it's a good thing

Forgot the sarcasm tags on the ":3"

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

Forgot the sarcasm tags on the ":3"

You are a horrible person dude

 

[Magtheridon96]

Thank you.

 

[DeathRaider(MMT]

Thank god for religion! Its about time someone started taking action on this crappy "bands" or "artists".
9/11 was worse then this lmao

 

[Joe-black-5]

Thank god for religion! Its about time someone started taking action on this crappy "bands" or "artists".
9/11 was worse then this lmao

Crusades, Holocaust, etc... were much worst.

 

[Magtheridon96]

LMFAO is awesome.
Your opinions are nothing but shit to me

 

[Gilles]

Unfortunately God is used as a means for peoples ends, be it violence, profit, or power. Taking away religion wouldn't end wars though, people would use another means to start it.

Since Joe mentioned the holocaust...

Hitler used Christianity as a means to advocate his torture and murder of Jews, twisting it to fit his views. Obviously true Christianity goes against everything he was doing, and he definitely didn't like the Church and it's teachings. Take away religion, and do you really think Hitler would never have come to power and started WWII?

 

[Steel_Stallion]

People don't kill people because of religious fervor and devotion, people kill people because they're fucking stupid. If it wasn't religion, they'd find some other context to justify some sort of crusade against non-believers of butter on toast. Among other things, I find writing off religion as stupid a popular cultural phenomenon of pseudo internet intellectuals, and the fact that they're all similar people with similar hobbies, and thus similar beliefs, isn't a coincidence either.

Just food for thought.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

People ARE stupid, and religion tends to just give them another reason to kill each other.
Anyone who claims it'd end war is equally stupid, but anyone who'd rather ignore the fact that it does cause death is also being quite ignorant.

The problem really isn't normally the inner workings of the religion itself, most modern religions have degrees of tolerance and built into them when interpreted in a certain light, the problem is that it's fairly easy to twist this interpretation and sell it to the point where you can turn normally reasonable people unreasonable.

 

[Gilles]

People ARE stupid, and religion tends to just give them another reason to kill each other.
Anyone who claims it'd end war is equally stupid, but anyone who'd rather ignore the fact that it does cause death is also being quite ignorant.

The problem really isn't normally the inner workings of the religion itself, most modern religions have degrees of tolerance and built into them when interpreted in a certain light, the problem is that it's fairly easy to twist this interpretation and sell it to the point where you can turn normally reasonable people unreasonable.

This is true and sad, but what's your point?

 

[Magtheridon96]

Nah, Hitler was cool. I even have a picture of him on my wall, right next to Osama Bin Laden and Suddam Hussein. Problem?

 

[Joe-black-5]

Hitler used Christianity as a means to advocate his torture and murder of Jews, twisting it to fit his views. Obviously true Christianity goes against everything he was doing,

Exactly same as all other religions shameful events (such as 9/11)

 

[Direfury]

what about that 'manifest destiny' crap? Y'know, with all the genocide and such. "It's our God given duty to kill your people, rape your women and take your land!"

 

[DeathRaider(MMT]

LMFAO is awesome.
Your opinions are nothing but shit to me

Touche

 

[Gilles]

what about that 'manifest destiny' crap? Y'know, with all the genocide and such. "It's our God given duty to kill your people, rape your women and take your land!"

Where in the New Testament (for example) does it say anything about that? We already said people use religion as a means to those ends, and I don't see how this is any different.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

Where in the New Testament (for example) does it say anything about that? We already said people use religion as a means to those ends, and I don't see how this is any different.

Not exactly with those words, but very very close, and many verses in the Bible can be interpreted to mean that.

Here are SOME notable verses.

Exodus
EXODUS 7:2-4
EXODUS 32:27

Leviticus
LEVITICUS 26:7-8

Numbers
NUMBERS 21:3
NUMBERS 21:35
NUMBERS 25:4
NUMBERS 31:9
NUMBERS 31:17-18
NUMBERS 31:31-40

Deuteronomy
DEUTERONOMY 2:33-34
DEUTERONOMY 3:6
DEUTERONOMY 7:2
DEUTERONOMY 20:13-14
DEUTERONOMY 20:16

Joshua
JOSHUA 6:21-27
JOSHUA 8:22-25
JOSHUA 10:10-27
JOSHUA 10:28
JOSHUA 10:30
JOSHUA 10:32-33
JOSHUA 10:34-35
JOSHUA 10:36-37
JOSHUA 10:38-39
JOSHUA 11:8-15
JOSHUA 11:20

Judges
JUDGES 1:4
JUDGES 1:8
JUDGES 1:17
JUDGES 3:29
JUDGES 7:19-25
JUDGES 8:15-21
JUDGES 15:15
JUDGES 18:27
JUDGES 20:43-48
JUDGES 21:10-12

Then there are a bunch in Samuel 1 and 2, Kings 1 and 2 and Isaiah

Matthew
MATTHEW 5:17
MATTHEW 11:21-24

Luke
LUKE 19:26

---

Edit:

Here are some summaries of what some of these verses contain (Note: sentences in quotes are actual quotes from these verses):

Leviticus 26:7-8 - God rewarded obedience with assurances that enemies would all die by the sword.

Numbers 21:3 - The Lord gave the Canaanites over to Israel, who "completely destroyed them and their towns."

Numbers 21:35 - With God’s approval, the Israelites went into the city of Og, killed the king, his sons, the army (leaving no survivors) and took over the land.

Numbers 31:17-18 - God commanded Moses to kill all of the male Midianite children and "kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." The virgins were presumably raped.

Deuteronomy 2:33-34 - Under God’s leadership, the Israelites utterly destroyed the men, women and children of Sihon. "…we left no survivors."

Joshua 10:30 - The Lord gave the city of Libnah to Joshua. Everyone in the city was "put to the sword."

Judges 21:10-12 - The assembly killed every male and non-virgin female in Jabesh Gilead. They found 400 virgins to bring back for themselves.

Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Jesus endorses the mass murder, rape, slavery, torture and incest written about in the Old Testament.

 

[Fussiler1]

@OP: Hezbollah.

@TRD:

The Bible was written in the Bronze Age, so what did you expect? Besides, every religion rewrites its own documents.

 

[Magtheridon96]

Without Hezbollah, Lebanon would be like Palestine.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

@TRD:

The Bible was written in the Bronze Age, so what did you expect? Besides, every religion rewrites its own documents.

Based on all the praise God receives and all the descriptions of him being benevolent and that he loves every single one of us, one would expect something entirely different. A Christian would never expect this. Very few Christians even know about those texts. They only learn about a few bits of the Bible. In Sunday school you definitely don't learn about this. It's all "God is kind, God loves you, blabla" there.

Also, it wasn't written in the Bronze Age lol. It was collected and written down in the period from 400AD to 800AD.

Edit: Btw, forgot to reply to the "Every religion rewrites its own documents" part. Yeah, sure, but this is from the rewritten part. The original Bible is more grotesque and contains all sorts of things that Christians won't accept (most of this was removed, but some has been recovered. For example that Jesus was a dad).

 

[Magtheridon96]

Also, it wasn't written in the Bronze Age lol. It was collected and it was written down in the period from 400AD to 800AD

Not sure about the dates..
I always thought it was written soon after Jesus' death :S

 

[The Reborn Devil]

It was written after Jesus' death yeah, but loooong after. The earliest books were written 400 years after his supposed birth while the oldest books were written 400 after the first books. And all this was based on stories that had been passed from father to child over multiple generations.

 

[Gilles]

Not exactly with those words, but very very close, and many verses in the Bible can be interpreted to mean that.

Many things in the Bible, and many other books, can be interpreted in many ways. That's one reason I love the Catholic Church, as we do not believe in scripture being revealed to each individual by the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Jesus endorses the mass murder, rape, slavery, torture and incest written about in the Old Testament.

People often get confused here, and I admit I don't have an absolute answer, but from what I understand Jesus was saying is that he is fulfilling the laws of the Old Testament; meaning that they are done and we are not bound by them. In that way he is not abolishing them, as if they were wrong, but ending them by being the fulfillment of them. If that makes sense.

Likely it's also connected with the fact that God made a covenant with man, and we were unable to fulfill that covenant, and Christ's birth, passion, and death were the fulfillment of it.

Matthew
MATTHEW 11:21-24

I don't quite see your point here, Jesus is talking about a couple towns that wouldn't repent for their sins, and telling them that on judgment day it won't be pretty for them. Also you left out verse 20, which is important in my opinion, because without it, it can be hard to understand what Christ is talking about.

Luke
LUKE 19:26

I don't see how this advocates anything "evil" or "wrong".

Edit: Btw, forgot to reply to the "Every religion rewrites its own documents" part. Yeah, sure, but this is from the rewritten part. The original Bible is more grotesque and contains all sorts of things that Christians won't accept (most of this was removed, but some has been recovered. For example that Jesus was a dad).

A) Where do you get this?
B) The Catholic Church tries to use Bibles that are translated as close to the original text as possible.

Also Jesus was a Dad? I'll assume you're trolling.

 

[Fussiler1]

Based on all the praise God receives and all the descriptions of him being benevolent and that he loves every single one of us, one would expect something entirely different. A Christian would never expect this. Very few Christians even know about those texts. They only learn about a few bits of the Bible. In Sunday school you definitely don't learn about this. It's all "God is kind, God loves you, blabla" there.

Yeah, it's basically a Christian fairy tale. In the Old Testament he was pretty much a guy who did stuff and anyone who contested it got fucked up.

[/QUOTE]

It was written after Jesus' death yeah, but loooong after. The earliest books were written 400 years after his supposed birth while the oldest books were written 400 after the first books. And all this was based on stories that had been passed from father to child over multiple generations.

..

The Bible =/= New Testament.

I read the Bible and most of the brutal stuff was in the Old Testament.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

People often get confused here, and I admit I don't have an absolute answer, but from what I understand Jesus was saying is that he is fulfilling the laws of the Old Testament; meaning that they are done and we are not bound by them. In that way he is not abolishing them, as if they were wrong, but ending them by being the fulfillment of them. If that makes sense.

Could be. That part could mean many things, but it's clear that he does not think all the rape, mass murder and torture was wrong. That was the main point of actually quoting that. First I show all the horror in the Old Testament and then I show that Jesus didn't think it was wrong, thus Christians can't say "We are better than the Jews".

I don't quite see your point here, Jesus is talking about a couple towns that wouldn't repent for their sins, and telling them that on judgment day it won't be pretty for them. Also you left out verse 20, which is important in my opinion, because without it, it can be hard to understand what Christ is talking about.

full text

Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

22But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.

23And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

24But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

Summary

The cities of Korazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum were not impressed with Jesus’ great works, so Jesus said "Woe to you" and cursed them to a fate more unbearable than that of Sodom.

I don't see how this advocates anything "evil" or "wrong".

full text

I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.

Summary

In the parable of the ten minas, the master (God) said of those who chose not to follow him, "...bring them here and kill them in front of me."

A) Where do you get this?
B) The Catholic Church tries to use Bibles that are translated as close to the original text as possible.

An article. I think I wrote about this somewhere else in this thread.
Ah yes, here we go:

quote

Speaking of religion, I read an interesting article today. It was about the Bible and how it's too far from the original texts. Two "Bible Researches" (whatever that is) said the Bible had been turned into a children's story, and now they are rewriting the Bible so it matches the old texts more. However, now the publishers want to put an age limit on it, because it is too grotesque and it's full of God condoning rape and whatnot. Basically, you would need to be 18 years old or more before you can even buy the Bible legally.

I find this very funny

Also Jesus was a Dad? I'll assume you're trolling.

Don't worry, very few Christians are aware of those documents. That was the Church's intention when they ordered that the books be burned anyway.
There were originally 600 books. All but 80 were burned and then it was further reduced to 66 if I remember correctly.

I can't remember if it was The Dead Sea Scrolls or Thomas' Book which spoke of Maria Magdalena's pregnancy and that Jesus was the father though. It's a long time since I was made aware of this.

Anyway, there is a group of people in Asia which claim to be Jesus' children. A search on google should reveal something.

The Bible =/= New Testament.

The Bible is New Testament + Old Testament.

 

[TheKurt009]

has someone reported this yet?

 

[LordDz]

has someone reported this yet?

Report what? That two people have a conversation about religion?

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

So long as it's not a flame war I'm not going to close it Kurt

 

[Gilles]

Could be. That part could mean many things, but it's clear that he does not think all the rape, mass murder and torture was wrong. That was the main point of actually quoting that. First I show all the horror in the Old Testament and then I show that Jesus didn't think it was wrong, thus Christians can't say "We are better than the Jews".

As Catholics we don't think "we're better than the Jews", we believe that Christ is the Messiah, and therefore the Jews are wrong to be still waiting. Being wrong doesn't make you "worse".

I totally disagree, nothing that Christ said is "clear that he does not think all the rape... was wrong."

Here's a great article on it. Also an excerpt from the Catechism.

Why We Are Not Bound by Everything in the Old Law

"The solemnity of our Lord’s opening pronouncements and his clear intention of inaugurating a new religious movement make it necessary for him to explain his position with regard to the [Old Testament law]. He has not come to abrogate but to bring it to perfection, i.e. to reveal the full intention of the divine legislator. The sense of this "fulfilling" . . . is the total expression of God’s will in the old order . . . Far from dying . . . the old moral order is to rise to a new life, infused with a new spirit. (861)"

Summary

The cities of Korazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum were not impressed with Jesus’ great works, so Jesus said "Woe to you" and cursed them to a fate more unbearable than that of Sodom.

I don't see how this condones violence, you'll have to explain it.

Summary

In the parable of the ten minas, the master (God) said of those who chose not to follow him, "...bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Be careful to take text out of it's context. Jesus is speaking in a parable here, and none of the parables should be taken literally; they contain truth within a story.

An article. I think I wrote about this somewhere else in this thread.

Don't worry, very few Christians are aware of those documents. That was the Church's intention when they ordered that the books be burned anyway.
There were originally 600 books. All but 80 were burned and then it was further reduced to 66 if I remember correctly.

I can't remember if it was The Dead Sea Scrolls or Thomas' Book which spoke of Maria Magdalena's pregnancy and that Jesus was the father though. It's a long time since I was made aware of this.

This reeks of Dan Brown. Do you have any sources?

The Bible is New Testament + Old Testament.

Yes, however remember that the Bible isn't a book, it's a collection of books; a library if you will.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

we believe that Christ is the Messiah, and therefore the Jews are wrong to be still waiting. Being wrong doesn't make you "worse".

I never said that. I've spoken with Christians before about the mass murder, rape, incest, etc in the Bible and they have responded "That's only in the Old Testament. Those things do not apply to us. Only the Jews care about that, the New Testament is better." They dismiss everything as if it wasn't important and act as if they are better than the Jews.

I totally disagree, nothing that Christ said is "clear that he does not think all the rape... was wrong."

"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven;"

Here's a great article on it. Also an excerpt from the Catechism.

Why We Are Not Bound by Everything in the Old Law

"The solemnity of our Lord’s opening pronouncements and his clear intention of inaugurating a new religious movement make it necessary for him to explain his position with regard to the [Old Testament law]. He has not come to abrogate but to bring it to perfection, i.e. to reveal the full intention of the divine legislator. The sense of this "fulfilling" . . . is the total expression of God’s will in the old order . . . Far from dying . . . the old moral order is to rise to a new life, infused with a new spirit. (861)"

See above.

I don't see how this condones violence, you'll have to explain it.

Christian people like to claim that God, Jesus and the Bible in general form the basis for our morality, and that anyone who isn't religious does not have a moral.

A man who curses 3 cities with a fate more unbearable than that of Sodom simply because they weren't impressed by him, is not a good source of morals. Jesus and God, with their characters alone (as the foundation of our morals, be they real or not) condone violence, eye for an eye, murder, rape, torture and the list goes on.

Be careful to take text out of it's context. Jesus is speaking in a parable here, and none of the parables should be taken literally; they contain truth within a story.

I am fully aware of Mark 4:10 where Jesus explains why he speaks in parables. He is not meant to be understood, because then his disciples could simply turn and be forgiven.

Still, I don't see how "...bring them here and kill them in front of me." can be interpreted as sunshine and pink unicorns. Either way he's still inciting fear and creates a mental image of God which isn't good. The entire time God has tried to make people fear him instead of respect him for who he is. An omniscient God should know that is a poor move.

This reeks of Dan Brown. Do you have any sources?

Most of this I've heard on a TV show, but here is one: The Lost Books of the Bible.
Dan Brown might have mentioned something about this in his books, but that doesn't suddenly turn it into a fictional story that can be dismissed in a whim. He did an extensive amount of research, and these books are real.

Yes, however remember that the Bible isn't a book, it's a collection of books; a library if you will.

I'm well aware of that. I said so myself not too long ago. If you just scroll a little bit up you'll see a quote of me saying this.

 

[Elite Slayer]

I wish newcomers to the Scriptures would be more practical in their approach to the Scriptures - upon reading text that they deem is proof of manifestation of evil traits in God, they jump on it, and attempt to use it as ammunition, without considering the purpose for the consequence. A key error they make is failure to take in the context of surrounding scriptures, or, in 99% of cases, haven't read the whole book. (Google seems to provide them with the Biblical "errors" they want)
Oh, and just by the way, if the Bible was written in 400A.D - 800A.D, then explain to me: did educated analysts somehow measure wrong when they dated the Dead Sea Scrolls - ancient scrolls containing scripture - to between 150 B.C.E and 70 C.E? Or, for that matter, Sumerian cuneiform tablets dating back to many decades before 0 C.E?
Not all, but some Bible renderings translate directly from these, as well as the Greek Septuagint (which some analysts believe had its early translation process between 1 B.C.E and 3 C.E).
The theory that the Bible's literary origin was in between 400 - 800 A.D is one ignorant of historic evidence.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

I wish newcomers to the Scriptures would be more practical in their approach to the Scriptures - upon reading text that they deem is proof of manifestation of evil traits in God, they jump on it, and attempt to use it as ammunition, without considering the purpose for the consequence. A key error they make is failure to take in the context of surrounding scriptures, or, in 99% of cases, haven't read the whole book. (Google seems to provide them with the Biblical "errors" they want)

Have you read the Bible? Almost no Christian has ever read the entire Bible and I'm not kidding. It is a well known FACT that Atheists and Agnostics have a greater knowledge about the contents of the Bible than the Christians do.

Also, if God does something heinous like murdering a man simply because he refuses to have sex with his best friends widow, you can't say he's all love because a few other scripts say he's love. There's an abundance of scripts citing the awful crimes God commit, and you CANNOT deny it.

Oh, and just by the way, if the Bible was written in 400A.D - 800A.D, then explain to me: did educated analysts somehow measure wrong when they dated the Dead Sea Scrolls - ancient scrolls containing scripture - to between 150 B.C.E and 70 C.E? Or, for that matter, Sumerian cuneiform tablets dating back to many decades before 0 C.E?
Not all, but some Bible renderings translate directly from these, as well as the Greek Septuagint (which some analysts believe had its early translation process between 1 B.C.E and 3 C.E).
The theory that the Bible's literary origin was in between 400 - 800 A.D is one ignorant of historic evidence.

You have failed to realize that I didn't speak of the Dead Sea Scrolls or any of the other books that were REMOVED from the Bible. The books that make up the bible TODAY were written in the period from 400 - 800 AD, be they based on other books or stories passed down from generation to generation.

Also, I cannot see that you're actually trying to disprove arguments I've listed earlier. It would rather seem you're trying to avoid them and attack me instead, acting like you know everything and that no Atheist knowns anything at all.

 

[Elite Slayer]

I avoided discussing the passages you quoted because that would lead to a rather pointless debate, and I was exercising caution. But, since you asked: Indeed I have read the Bible, and have come across the passages you've quoted. While love is indeed God's foremost quality, He is also described as having justice, power and wisdom as three other chief traits. Once you change your perspective to accommodate those three others - rather than limiting your perception of God to a single trait - things should become clearer.

Take, for example, a scenario you yourself referenced, found in Numbers 23. It tells us the Canaanites were delivered to the Israelites and defeated under the backing of God. Is this pure wanton destruction? Many critics believe it to be so, but they are ignorant of a few facts. The real issue involved here is clearly that of whether God’s sovereignty over the earth and its inhabitants is acknowledged or not. He had deeded over the right of tenure of the land of Canaan to the ‘seed of Abraham,’ doing so by an oath-bound covenant. (Genesis 12:5-7; 15:17-21; compare Deuteronomy 32:8; Acts 17:26.) But more than a mere eviction or dispossessing of the existing tenants of that land was purposed by God. His right to act as “Judge of all the earth” (Genesis 18:25) and to decree the sentence of capital punishment upon those found meriting it, as well as his right to implement and enforce the execution of such decree, was also involved.
God was bound by an oath He had made, and the existing tenants, the Canaanites were well aware of it, one of the reasons being their forefathers came from the same bloodline as the Israelites (Noah), but desired their land more than they respected the sovereignty of God. If God was bound to an oath, and the Canaanites would not move from the land that rightfully belonged to the "seed of Abraham", and God could not magically change their mind because humans have the right of free will, then what choice had He? His traits of justice and power came into play, and correct punishment was administered.

Compare it to a modern scenario: a man takes possession of land property rightfully belonging to another family. Law enforcement agents, such as police, request him to move, but he refuses, and, when they are going to come place him under arrest, he resists violently, and the police have to administer capital punishment. In today's context, is that wrong? Legally, no.

I could sit here and logically and scripturally challenge every misinterpretation of scripture and point you brought up, but that would be a waste of time spent in a pointless debate that would soon become a tempestuous argument. As far as I am aware, my involvement in this is closed. I am not an apologetic, nor will I act as one for you. You have your opinions and belief, which I respect, and I have mine, which I hope you respect, as well.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

While love is indeed God's foremost quality, He is also described as having justice, power and wisdom as three other chief traits. Once you change your perspective to accommodate those three others - rather than limiting your perception of God to a single trait - things should become clearer.

Once you broaden your perspective to also include that God is also a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully, things will become clearer. Many Christians limit it to "God is love" and when they are presented with quotes showing his malevolence they only say "God works in mysterious ways". If we can't understand him, then how do you know he's all love? The same quote could be used against you when you say he's so good. "God is so nice and just!", Answer: "Well, God works in mysterious ways."

Take, for example, a scenario you yourself referenced, found in Numbers 23. It tells us the Canaanites were delivered to the Israelites and defeated under the backing of God. Is this pure wanton destruction? Many critics believe it to be so, but they are ignorant of a few facts. The real issue involved here is clearly that of whether God’s sovereignty over the earth and its inhabitants is acknowledged or not.

He caused the death of so many people simply because they did not acknowledge his superiority? That sounds oddly immature.

His right to act as “Judge of all the earth” (Genesis 18:25) and to decree the sentence of capital punishment upon those found meriting it, as well as his right to implement and enforce the execution of such decree, was also involved.

So he has the right so simply kill whoever he wishes dead. So nice.

God was bound by an oath He had made, and the existing tenants, the Canaanites were well aware of it, one of the reasons being their forefathers came from the same bloodline as the Israelites (Noah), but desired their land more than they respected the sovereignty of God. If God was bound to an oath, and the Canaanites would not move from the land that rightfully belonged to the "seed of Abraham", and God could not magically change their mind because humans have the right of free will, then what choice had He?

If you believe the Bible then the thought of "Free Will" is a joke. He had already written our destiny before he created the Universe. Before he created man he knew Jesus would be hung on the cross. Also, seeing how he knows everything why did he even make the pact when he knew it would end bad?

His traits of justice and power came into play, and correct punishment was administered.

The slaughter of men, women and children is never justifiable. Doesn't matter if he's God. A God who ruthlessly murders the children that he "loves" is not a God worthy of our praise.

Compare it to a modern scenario: a man takes possession of land property rightfully belonging to another family. Law enforcement agents, such as police, request him to move, but he refuses, and, when they are going to come place him under arrest, he resists violently, and the police have to administer capital punishment. In today's context, is that wrong? Legally, no.

You got that part a bit wrong. The man doesn't want to move, so the military comes in and kills him. Sweet justice, right? No.

Also, something that is legal isn't always good, or right. Remember that the law is not based on our morals, but it's rather a set of rules made to keep things relatively in order.

I could sit here and logically and scripturally challenge every misinterpretation of scripture and point you brought up

You cannot logically or scripturally challenge your own scriptures. There are no misinterpretations. I have quoted actual texts from the Bible and made a short resumé which in no way twists anything around. Really, you cannot justify the kidnapping of 400 virgins (Judges 21:10-12)

Also, playing by the same logic as you, I could say that you have misinterpreted the scriptures.

You have your opinions and belief, which I respect, and I have mine, which I hope you respect, as well.

I respect your opinions and beliefs. I don't have a problem with anyone having any kind of belief, really. It's when people try to vehemently push their beliefs on others and claim their belief is right (and kill them if they won't succumb). Also, when people spread propaganda about their beliefs and attempt to indoctrinate children I do get annoyed.

I have a niece who is currently in kindergarten. Already she has learned stories of Jesus (and that was not from her mother or father).

 

[Gilles]

I respect your opinions and beliefs. I don't have a problem with anyone having any kind of belief, really. It's when people try to vehemently push their beliefs on others and claim their belief is right (and kill them if they won't succumb). Also, when people spread propaganda about their beliefs and attempt to indoctrinate children I do get annoyed.

I agree with you entirely. I hope you're using the word indoctrinate correctly though. Most religious I know teach to question their beliefs, not accept them without reason, which I agree is wrong.

I have a niece who is currently in kindergarten. Already she has learned stories of Jesus (and that was not from her mother or father).

So?

 

[Elite Slayer]

If I may intervene. Gilles, my personal suggestion is just that you, please, leave him be. This pointless exchange (barrage, rather) of opinion has turned a news thread into a debate wherein neither party is really going to give, or gain. And, on one last note, I appreciate and respect you and your opinion, Reborn_Devil, but I do not appreciate your stirring up division among a community with a secular purpose in a thread that isn't even dedicated to such debate, or accusing Gilles and me, and I am sure you feel the same way about the two of us. If you are annoyed with people enforcing their opinions on others or Christians in general, please, exercise caution and don't end up doing it yourself with your own, and respect the right to freedom of religion (I understand you were exercising your right to freedom of speech, but even in such a privilege there are boundaries). So let's agree to disagree, and move on with our lives.

 

[Gilles]

First off I've been around the internet long enough to know that debates generally go nowhere. They do however challenge me to look more into my beliefs, which is why I participate sometimes. Also when really false information is given.

Second I don't see how RBD is pushing anything on anyone. He hasn't even stated what he believes in...

Also I don't see division happening. No one really flamed anyone else, and unless you really take offense at others not agreeing with you, there's no reason to be divided.

 

[Elite Slayer]

Okay. Well, by all means, continue then, gentlemen.

But, more on-topic - I looked up several news articles corresponding to the topic. Wow. While this is fairly subtle in the standards of radicalism/extremism, threatening people is quite hypocritical. I just hope people don't judge all Christians by the actions of these few. Much in the same way many Muslims don't want to be judged by what the Jihad extremists did. But, still, I don't see any need for serious concern yet. This was a minor affair compared to other extremist actions.

 

[Jaret]

Religion is a really hard spot to talk about. Even harder when it comes to discussion. The hardest when it comes to persuasion one over another.

We all hold our belief in God dear in our hearts (including atheism, monotheism and polytheism (even atheism is a religion of it's own in a way)). We all have a strong opinion on religion, and that's why, at the end of the day, most of these discussions end up in a flame war, showcasing the other party's negative sides. Though, as far as i can see now, this is a rather interesting discussion. It would be nice to see in schools a system that applies to every person's best intentions - to atheists little to no religious talk, to theists a bit deeper going on. Of course, that'd be up to their parents to pick if they want their child to be religious or not. At an early age, religious talk may seem a bit overwhelming. I, am a Muslim, i am proud to be one and i prefer Islam, my belief, over everything and everyone. That's why i'd love my child (once i have one) to be raised as a Muslim both at home and at school, while someone else, who doesn't have the same kind of belief as i do, would like to keep their child away from this. After all, the streets (and schools too) shape the child more than their parents do.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

We all hold our belief in God dear in our hearts

Incorrect. Only those who actually believe that a god exists would even have the opportunity to hold their belief in God "dear to their hearts". However, even among those who do believe in a god there are those who really don't take it seriously or just don't have any opinion about this god at all. In Norway less than 5% of the population even go to church on Sundays and other important dates.

including atheism

As I said above, only those who actually believe that a god exists can do that. An Atheist doesn't believe in a deity of any form, thus they cannot hold "God" dear to their hearts.

even atheism is a religion of it's own in a way

No. A religion, per definition, is a collection of belief systems. Atheism is a broad term, and the only thing Atheists truly have in common is their disbelief in a deity of any form.

It would be nice to see in schools a system that applies to every person's best intentions - to atheists little to no religious talk, to theists a bit deeper going on.

There has been some talk about making religion optional in school, but no real discussions sadly. Also, seeing how Muslims can already choose to have a different religion class than everyone else (At least here in Norway) the same should be possible for Atheists, Buddhists, Hindus and whatnot.

Of course, that'd be up to their parents to pick if they want their child to be religious or not.

I really don't like the idea of parents choosing such an important thing for you. It's an important decision, and it should be made by you, not your parents, not your siblings, not your friends, but you.

That's why i'd love my child (once i have one) to be raised as a Muslim

That's what most parents would do, but as noted above, it shouldn't be up to you whether or not your child should have the same religion as you (if any).

Edit:

I have a niece who is currently in kindergarten. Already she has learned stories of Jesus (and that was not from her mother or father).

So?

That was an example of people trying to "indoctrinate children". Her parents didn't want her to be taught about Jesus. Her parents aren't even Christians (although her mother believes in her own god. I guess you can call her pagan).

Edit once more:
Btw, it wasn't like "Hey mom, we heard the adults mention jesus today". It went like this: My niece and her mom (i.e my sister) was shopping when my niece spots a cartoon with a character hanging on a cross and then suddenly my sister hears her daughter exclaim "Look! It's just like Jesus!".

 

[Gilles]

I really don't like the idea of parents choosing such an important thing for you.

....

That was an example of people trying to "indoctrinate children". Her parents didn't want her to be taught about Jesus.

I thought it wasn't up to parents to make such important decisions for their kids?! So it's only okay to teach your kids nothing, because that's what you believe?

 

[The Reborn Devil]

I thought it wasn't up to parents to make such important decisions for their kids?!?

It isn't, nor is it up to the Christian adults working at the Kindergarten. The stories of Jesus isn't something that should be taught to these children. Children have no ability to think critically, and thus they will absorb everything they are taught as true. They believe in Santa Clause, the Tooth-ferry and whatnot. It's not hard to make these children actually believe that the world was created by an invisible teddy bear either.