Did the god of the bible kill people?

[Anonymous]

Yes he did kill people, and as I learned from another thread here, he killed 42 boys because they called a guy "baldy".

Can't make this stuff up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genesis 38 1-10. This on baffles me to no end (new International Version)

Judah and Tamar

1 At that time, Judah left his brothers and went down to stay with a man of Adullam named Hirah.
2 There Judah met the daughter of a Canaanite man named Shua. He married her and made love to her;
3 she became pregnant and gave birth to a son, who was named Er.
4 She conceived again and gave birth to a son and named him Onan.
5 She gave birth to still another son and named him Shelah. It was at Kezib that she gave birth to him.
6 Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar.
7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death.
8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.”
9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother.
10 What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also.

Two kills right there, one completely random and inexplicable, the other highly dubious to say the least

Not quite. The killing of Er was not “random.” God killed Er because Er was evil, although what evil things things Er did is reported only in the Midrash, not in the Bible. There’s nothing “dubious” about God’s killing of Onan. Ancient Jews practiced levirite marriage, according to which if a married son dies without offspring and the dead man has a younger brother, the brother must marry the widow and produce a son. The son would be considered the son of the deceased brother and would displace the biological father in the line of inheritance. This was a very bad deal for the deceased’s younger brother, who would have to expend his own resources to raise a son who would displace him. Levirite marriage is codified in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. By the time Deuteronomy was written, the practice of “halitzah” had been established. With “halitzah,” the younger son is allowed to refuse to marry the widow, but this is considered dishonorable. Under halitzah, the younger son and the widow go before the elders, the younger son says he does not want to marry the widow, the widow then castigates the younger son as dishonorable and spits in the younger son’s face. But in the time of Genesis, halitzah did not yet exist and the younger son was absolutely obligated to have a son with his older brother’s widow. Failure to do so merited death. Ashkenazi Judaism ceased to follow levirite marriage long ago but it is still practiced in some Sephardic communities.

How? You're not even the slightest bit curious what he did? And the passage doesn't say he was evil. It says he was "wicked in the LORD's sight." So God killed people who did stuff he didn't like. And he created them BTW.

As I said, the Midrash recounts many of Er’s evil deeds. Whether the Midrash is accurate, of course, I have no idea.

Just as an aside, according to Rashi, one of Er’s evil deeds was to practice contraception because he didn’t want to ruin Tamar’s beauty with pregnancy. In the days of Genesis contraception was a capital offense.

[Anonymous]

I’m curious to know how Bible literalists and Jews reconcile with the slaughter of the Canaanites, the Amorites, those teenagers, and others who displeased God.

Some Christians just focus on the “new” covenant established by Jesus with the “God of Love.”

For the rest of you, is God a severe taskmaster and that’s OK?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious to know how Bible literalists and Jews reconcile with the slaughter of the Canaanites, the Amorites, those teenagers, and others who displeased God.

Some Christians just focus on the “new” covenant established by Jesus with the “God of Love.”

For the rest of you, is God a severe taskmaster and that’s OK?

So Christians believe that God had a personality change? One of the few things Saint Boethius, Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas agreed upon is that nothing about God ever changes. One of the many joys of atheism is not having to reconcile this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious to know how Bible literalists and Jews reconcile with the slaughter of the Canaanites, the Amorites, those teenagers, and others who displeased God.

Some Christians just focus on the “new” covenant established by Jesus with the “God of Love.”

For the rest of you, is God a severe taskmaster and that’s OK?

So Christians believe that God had a personality change? One of the few things Saint Boethius, Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas agreed upon is that nothing about God ever changes. One of the many joys of atheism is not having to reconcile this.

That’s what Jesus’ new covenant was all about—a new relationship between God and man. The various saints/theologians wouldn’t deny this.

Signed, I read Augustine’s Confessions cover to cover, and other parts of his work, have you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious to know how Bible literalists and Jews reconcile with the slaughter of the Canaanites, the Amorites, those teenagers, and others who displeased God.

Some Christians just focus on the “new” covenant established by Jesus with the “God of Love.”

For the rest of you, is God a severe taskmaster and that’s OK?

So Christians believe that God had a personality change? One of the few things Saint Boethius, Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas agreed upon is that nothing about God ever changes. One of the many joys of atheism is not having to reconcile this.

That’s what Jesus’ new covenant was all about—a new relationship between God and man. The various saints/theologians wouldn’t deny this.

Signed, I read Augustine’s Confessions cover to cover, and other parts of his work, have you?

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Signed, Matthew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious to know how Bible literalists and Jews reconcile with the slaughter of the Canaanites, the Amorites, those teenagers, and others who displeased God.

Some Christians just focus on the “new” covenant established by Jesus with the “God of Love.”

For the rest of you, is God a severe taskmaster and that’s OK?

So Christians believe that God had a personality change? One of the few things Saint Boethius, Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas agreed upon is that nothing about God ever changes. One of the many joys of atheism is not having to reconcile this.

That’s what Jesus’ new covenant was all about—a new relationship between God and man. The various saints/theologians wouldn’t deny this.

Signed, I read Augustine’s Confessions cover to cover, and other parts of his work, have you?

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Signed, Matthew.

It’s unfortunate you don’t know much about the New Testament. Jesus said these things even as he was abolishing dietary laws etc.

You also need to refer to this:

And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. ~ Luke 22:19-20

[Anonymous]

The Jewish prophet Jeremiah also looked forward to a changed relationship with God.

Jeremiah 31:31-34

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more

[Anonymous]

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Signed, Matthew.

It’s unfortunate you don’t know much about the New Testament. Jesus said these things even as he was abolishing dietary laws etc.

Please point to me where he says which things he is abolishing and which things he is not. Because those words above are pretty clear and definitive.

If you can't do that, then you are adapting the scripture for your own purposes and to suit your own needs. And remember these:

“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deut. 4:2.)

Revelation 22:18-19
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

Proverbs 30:6
Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Signed, Matthew.

It’s unfortunate you don’t know much about the New Testament. Jesus said these things even as he was abolishing dietary laws etc.

Please point to me where he says which things he is abolishing and which things he is not. Because those words above are pretty clear and definitive.

If you can't do that, then you are adapting the scripture for your own purposes and to suit your own needs. And remember these:

“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deut. 4:2.)

Revelation 22:18-19
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

Proverbs 30:6
Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

You’re arguing in bad faith. Are you a troll?

If you know anything at all about Christianity, you know Jesus changed marital, dietary and other laws, like replacing “thou shalt not kill” with “turn the other cheek.” I’m not going to waste time “pointing” you to super-obvious things. If you really don’t know, Google is your friend.

It’s also cute that you completely ignore the Luke text about Jesus and the “new covenant” because it doesn’t fit your distorted narrative.

You’re the one taking the statement out of context and willfully misinterpreting it. Maybe you think of “fulfill” as being Amazon completing your order. But it also means “bring to an end” or “develop the full potentialities of.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fulfill

[Anonymous]

If you know anything at all about Christianity, you know Jesus changed marital, dietary and other laws, like replacing “thou shalt not kill” with “turn the other cheek.” I’m not going to waste time “pointing” you to super-obvious things. If you really don’t know, Google is your friend.

No, he did not change the laws, the Matthew quote is very clear. And you can't point out the things he changed because he didn't explicitly change anything.

It’s also cute that you completely ignore the Luke text about Jesus and the “new covenant” because it doesn’t fit your distorted narrative.

"New Covenant" does not mean those things were changed. Unless you are claiming he meant to throw the entire OT out? Or just the parts you would like to be thrown out?

You’re the one taking the statement out of context and willfully misinterpreting it. Maybe you think of “fulfill” as being Amazon completing your order. But it also means “bring to an end” or “develop the full potentialities of.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fulfill

It's also cute how you change the meaning of a word to support your narrative, and ignore the first part of the quote, which says "Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets"

So here's where we stand: My point stands on the words as written, yours changes meanings, claims to know unstated things by inference, and directly contradicts the words as written.

So we disagree. Fine. I'm feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If you know anything at all about Christianity, you know Jesus changed marital, dietary and other laws, like replacing “thou shalt not kill” with “turn the other cheek.” I’m not going to waste time “pointing” you to super-obvious things. If you really don’t know, Google is your friend.

No, he did not change the laws, the Matthew quote is very clear. And you can't point out the things he changed because he didn't explicitly change anything.

It’s also cute that you completely ignore the Luke text about Jesus and the “new covenant” because it doesn’t fit your distorted narrative.

"New Covenant" does not mean those things were changed. Unless you are claiming he meant to throw the entire OT out? Or just the parts you would like to be thrown out?

You’re the one taking the statement out of context and willfully misinterpreting it. Maybe you think of “fulfill” as being Amazon completing your order. But it also means “bring to an end” or “develop the full potentialities of.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fulfill

It's also cute how you change the meaning of a word to support your narrative, and ignore the first part of the quote, which says "Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets"

So here's where we stand: My point stands on the words as written, yours changes meanings, claims to know unstated things by inference, and directly contradicts the words as written.

So we disagree. Fine. I'm feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.

You feel pretty good about ignoring all the changes to dietary laws and about willfully misinterpreting the words “new” and fulfill”? Because “new” definitely doesn’t have to mean “threw it all out” like you’re trying to pretend.

Glad I’m not as skeevy as you. You troll, you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So here's where we stand: My point stands on the words as written, yours changes meanings, claims to know unstated things by inference, and directly contradicts the words as written.

So we disagree. Fine. I'm feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.

So you chose the most negative word meanings and tried to insist that no words could ever have multiple meanings, despite being given a link to an online dictionary that proves you completely wrong. And you feel “good” about this? Tell us you enjoy lying without telling us you enjoy lying. Troll.

[Anonymous]

Liars like 17:15 are why we can never have good conversations on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liars like 17:15 are why we can never have good conversations on DCUM.

I am going by the words written, and I am the liar? While you are making things up out of whole cloth that aren't in the book?

That's rich.

As I said before, I am feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.

You may now resume shameless name calling and other ad hominems, as they clearly make you feel better and don't bother me at all, so why not? Indulge.