The Son of God:

"

bwam wrote:

"

MonstaMunch wrote:

Yup. The Christian God's solution to conflict is to commit genocide, and the response is always "they deserve it". It's a very human, uninspired, non-divine way of dealing with problems.

Mm... “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." <-- the Christian solution to conflict.

So God told everyone to turn the other cheek to the Amalekites? God simply turned the other cheek for David instead of torturing his innocent baby to death?

I'm not sure if this is a poor attempt at gaslighting or if you really aren't following the point you responded to.

THe whole point here is that while there are some nice passages about turning the other cheek and doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, the fact remains that Biblical examples of God's problem solving involves genocide and slaughter of men, women and children.

"

And so we return to the lament, Psalm 137. The Jewish people knew God and cried out to him for justice. God, in his perfect wisdom, heard their cries.

And that justice was to tell them to go and commit genocide....

"

Did you hear them mourn? Did their blood cry out to you from the rocks? No: yet you insist that God's judgment is "non-divine," and that his hand is not just.

You're the one who thinks he killed everyone in a flood, not me. You have that backwards. Yes, I insist that genocide isn't divine, humans have been committing it since long before the God of Abraham was even conceived by man.

"

You do not believe what has been made clear to you. Why persist in argument? To slander the Most High?

Slader is to make a false statement. What have I said that is false? I persist because I'm genuinly intregued as to how people who are otherwise relatively normal human beings can be drawn into justifying things like child torture and genocide. It's astonishing and fascinating to me, always has been.

"

There is no merit in arguing with you, although everything you say can be answered.

So answer it directly. If the Christian solution is to turn the other cheek, why did the Amakelites have to be slaughtered? Why did God and Moses unleash a plague (aka biological terrorism) to kill an entire nation? Why do the laws of Moses state that women are to be stoned to death if they don't scream loudly enough when they are being raped? Why not just turn the other cheek if that's the Christian way?

"

"

MonstaMunch wrote:

Saying "God is all merciful, but only to those who deserve it" is meaningless. Everyone is merciful to people who they think deserve it, and they aren't to people who they think don't deserve it. That's how humans work. Nothing divine about it.

Mercy is extended, it isn't "deserved." Mercy has been offered to all men. But those who love what is evil, persecute the innocent, and do not repent -- why should they be given mercy?

An all merciful power doesn't have to ask why they should be given Mercy, that's the point of being all merciful..... And if he isn't merciful to his enemies (who he created in the first place, knowing exactly what would have happened) then he isn't any more merciful than you or I.

"

"

MonstaMunch wrote:

Even Jesus used violence to solve his problems. "Money changers in the temple? I could have a word with them and explain why they shouldn't be doing that here, or I could go away, make a special whip, and come back to beat them up. I think I'll pick option 2". We call that premeditated assault nowadays btw...

Good: you know that zeal for the house of the Lord consumes us.

As for it being "premeditated assault," you're wrong. It wasn't premeditated; it was a reaction to seeing such blatant disregard for the Lord in his Temple.

Premeditated, violent reaction involving home made weapons. Again, that's premeditated assault no matter what law school you went to, and it certainly isn't turning the other cheek.

"

MonstaMunch wrote:

So answer it directly. If the Christian solution is to turn the other cheek, why did the Amakelites have to be slaughtered?

There is a difference between being struck on the cheek and having someone kill your children and your neighbors' children. The Amalekites were vicious wolves, preying upon the Jews.

I've answered you.

"

MonstaMunch wrote:

Why did God and Moses unleash a plague (aka biological terrorism) to kill an entire nation?

God, through Moses, did no such thing. I believe you may be confusing elements within the story of Exodus.

"

MonstaMunch wrote:

Why do the laws of Moses state that women are to be stoned to death if they don't scream loudly enough when they are being raped? Why not just turn the other cheek if that's the Christian way?

Jesus said, when he saw an adulterer about to be stoned to death by a mob, "You who is without sin cast the first stone."

After the mob went away, Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you," and he told her to go and sin no more.

Guys, I think I've isolated the problem: Some assholes at the Council of Nicea thought canonizing the Torah was a good idea. Obviously this Old Testament God doesn't play by Jesus' rules.

"

MonstaMunch wrote:

"

Kamchatka wrote:

"

MonstaMunch wrote:

I'd be interested if any of the Christians here have a response to my post on the previous page.

My response to the other guy who took a verse in Psalms out of context applies to your previous post as well, if that helps. I assumed that since he did the exact same thing as you did, I would not need to repeat myself.

I don't see how it applies and would be interested to see an actual response. That is, unless it includes justifying the genocidal slaughter of men, women and children "because they deserved it" in which case we're wasting our time. Humans do that by themselves without being commanded by any God, there's nothing divine or inspired about solving your problems by killing your enemies (and wives, and their children).

The answer to the other guy is my same answer to you. You need the complete context to understand the situation. You take a few lines from random places in the Bible, then claim to have proved something. All you have proven is that you know how to take stuff out of context and create a false narrative.

If you are truly interested in answers, I suggest going to an Apostolic Church, Catholic or Eastern Orthodox,, instead of asking random people on the internet. The Eastern and Western churches had not yet split at the time of the Nicean Council, when the Bible was officially put together, so you will get similar answers from either Church.

That would be a better suggestion if there was absolutely any indication at all that any of those particular denominations actually had the right answers. But, where Eastern and Western Orthodox differ on things like original sin, free will, immaculate conception and the trinity, whose answers should we be interested in at that point?

"

MonstaMunch wrote:

Premeditated, violent reaction involving home made weapons. Again, that's premeditated assault no matter what law school you went to, and it certainly isn't turning the other cheek.

No, Jesus fashioned and improvised a whip from what was on hand. That was neither premeditated nor is it assault; assault is to do something unlawful, and what he did was righteous. Don't forget to remember he also overturned their tables, which they were using to change money. In the Lord's Temple.

As for it not being in keeping with the teaching to "turn the other cheek," would you tolerate someone entering into your home and using it as a place of business? This has nothing to do with being struck: this has to do with an intruder being in your home, doing what is unlawful.

So if you, just a man, would not tolerate such a thing in his home, do you think the Lord should tolerate such a thing in his Temple, which is Holy, and whose merit outweighs the merit of a man's home -- just as the Lord's merit outweighs a man's merit -- man who withers away in the sun like grass -- while the Lord's Word is Eternal?

It is written: "All men are like grass, and their glory like the flowers of the field; the grass withers, and the flowers fall, but the Word of the Lord endures forever."

"

Kamchatka wrote:

You need the complete context to understand the situation

No, you don't, that's the whole point. I get it. Your justification is that the Amakelites were really really bad people who deserved God's righteous anger and vengeance yada yada yada, but it does nothing to change my point; Your God dealt with enemies (who he created in the first place) with violence and genocide.

"

bwam wrote:

assault is to do something unlawful, and what he did was righteous

Beating people up (not in self defense) is assault, no matter how righteous. However, this illustrates my point pretty well. You take an act of violence, just ignore the violence and call it righteous in the name of religion.

Again, just to recap for anyone who thinks they may have slipped into some weird alternate reality; We have people in this thread justifying genocide and infanticide on the basis of "context" and "righteousness". If anyone out there doesn't understand how religion can be extremely dangerous even in the minds of relatively moderate people, read this thread for some perspective.

So, who do you guys think is the better moral authority; Gandalf or Luke Skywalker? Gandalf has the beard thing going on, wich is important, but jedis are popular too. We know both are real people, because there are written passages with quotes from both of them.

"

MonstaMunch wrote:

"

Kamchatka wrote:

You need the complete context to understand the situation

No, you don't, that's the whole point. I get it. Your justification is that the Amakelites were really really bad people who deserved God's righteous anger and vengeance yada yada yada, but it does nothing to change my point; Your God dealt with enemies (who he created in the first place) with violence and genocide.

You have completely missed my point. If you truly want answers to your questions about the old testament, those answers exist, in context, all you have to do is find an Eastern Orthodox church or a Catholic Church. The East and West were still united at the time of the Nicaea Council(when the Catholic Church chose the books of the Bible) in unbroken, infallible Apostolic succession. SO either Church, East or West, can answer your questions properly.

You may disagree with those answers, certainly, but if you want a true understanding of what the Church teaches, go to the actual church and find out. Asking random people on the internet is absurd.

"

MonstaMunch wrote:

"

bwam wrote:

assault is to do something unlawful, and what he did was righteous

Beating people up (not in self defense) is assault, no matter how righteous. However, this illustrates my point pretty well. You take an act of violence, just ignore the violence and call it righteous in the name of religion.

So a cop tackles a bank robber. "You assaulted me!," cries the bank robber. Clearly that bank robber wasn't assaulted, no matter how many times he insists to the judge that he was assaulted.