Human Sacrifice

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Tr2@Jan 23 2004, 07:50 AM

No Trident. I do have a reason and the reason is that I believe in a God that is ALL-GOOD and ALL-KIND, and ALL-JUST. I do do not believe that such a God orders that children be innocently butchered; that would make him un-kind and un-just, and unmerciful.

Your bit about believing in a God that conforms to my image of Him is correct though, I believe that God is this or God is that... according to how I beliefs. That is exactly what you do. You believe that God is according to your beliefs. Thats the definition of belief isn't it?

You don't believe in a God that is different than the way you believe him to be, do you? That makes no sense.

(btw - thank heaven for law enforcement, but that's a different deal than sheding innocent blood on purpose.

So there is no reason other than you just refuse to believe it.

but that's a different deal than sheding innocent blood on purpose

Do you think it is an accident whenever a police officer shoots somebody? "Oops, my hand mistakenly took my weapon out and woops I seemed to have pointed it at another person and by golly I just happened to depress the trigger."

If there are effective means available, short of deadly force, by which a SWAT officer can save an innocent person's life, the officer is supposed to use those means first.

You are 100% correct. That reasoning and logic came from trial and error over time. If man cane come up with that logic, what do you think God is capable of? If a human being is smart enough to realize that is the best method of operation do you think God just might be clever enough to think of that too? Based on what I know of God, my only thought in this is, there must have been no other choice. I am not as smart as God and just because I might think it's wrong that doesn't make it so. Anyone out there who is as smart as God, feel free to give your opinion.

I do wonder if anyone is willing to say "I do not know".

I don't get your whole way of thinking...this post doesn't make sense to me.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by Tr2@Jan 23 2004, 07:50 AM

I do wonder if anyone is willing to say "I do not know".

As usual...I am willing.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint+Jan 23 2004, 10:28 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Taoist_Saint @ Jan 23 2004, 10:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Tr2@Jan 23 2004, 07:50 AM

I do wonder if anyone is willing to say "I do not know".

As usual...I am willing.

LOL....we love you Tao!

[Guest curvette]

Wow. Thanks for all the replies. I was away last night to do my play (which, by the way, opened to rave reviews--thank you! thank you!)

I can't really put babies in the same category as incidental "collateral damage" because these people literally took swords and killed them on purpose. I do find Trav's response about sexual abuse somewhat intriguing though. I don't see a lot of historical evidence (outside of certain pagan temple worship) that babies were ritually abused, but it's an interesting possibility. I do have to wonder though, why adoption wasn't considered in lieu of death for the very small ones.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Peace@Jan 22 2004, 09:58 PM

If we only focus on one small child killed when Moses was born, and the torture that was for that one family, you might miss the great work being done to free all of the people...including the children who lived, from horrific slavery.

Speaking of slavery...I find it interesting that after leaving Egypt, the Israelites themselves took slaves. I guess they practiced a "superior" form of slave labor by having limitations imposed on them for the treatment of said slaves. Sort of ironic though.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Snow+Jan 22 2004, 11:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jan 22 2004, 11:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Jan 22 2004, 09:35 PM

Snow -- Good to have you back, bro.  Or have I just missed your posts?

I haven't posted, except for a popover recipe, since a half dozen posts of mine got deleted; not because there were in poor taste or contra las reglas but because there were geographically proximate to some that were. It bugs me that someone other than the ultimate reader decides which of my post deserve to be read and which don't, (I have precious little readership without the middleman as it is). Not that I am mad, just unmotivated to post.

I missed the popover recipe. My late great-aunt used to make really good ones, but I've never been able to make her recipe work in a gas oven. (Hers was electric.) Maybe a re-posting is in order?

BTW, I know the feeling of low readership. My weblog has attracted a grand total of something like 70 page views in its eight-month history, most of them by me. (It doesn't help that I only post on it once every blue moon.) A Google search for "The Proud Duck" (using quotes) turns up a grand total of eight hits, of which I'm next to last, right below some lesbian porn site. What ducks, proud or humble, have to do with that sort of thing, I'm not really sure I want to know.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jan 23 2004, 03:20 PM

BTW, I know the feeling of low readership. My weblog has attracted a grand total of something like 70 page views in its eight-month history, most of them by me. (It doesn't help that I only post on it once every blue moon.) A Google search for "The Proud Duck" (using quotes) turns up a grand total of eight hits, of which I'm next to last, right below some lesbian porn site. What ducks, proud or humble, have to do with that sort of thing, I'm not really sure I want to know.

Well Duck, if it's any consolation...I think you have one of the greatest minds in the Western Hemisphere and your posts are always intelligent, thoughtful and insightful. (Okay, Snow is funnier, but you still mark pretty high in that category too.) There's your ego stroke for the day. (Do you have your own webpage? Do tell!)

[Maureen]

Originally posted by curvette+Jan 23 2004, 03:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Jan 23 2004, 03:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Jan 23 2004, 03:20 PM

BTW, I know the feeling of low readership.  My weblog has attracted a grand total of something like 70 page views in its eight-month history, most of them by me.  (It doesn't help that I only post on it once every blue moon.)  A Google search for "The Proud Duck" (using quotes) turns up a grand total of eight hits, of which I'm next to last, right below some lesbian porn site.  What ducks, proud or humble, have to do with that sort of thing, I'm not really sure I want to know.

Well Duck, if it's any consolation...I think you have one of the greatest minds in the Western Hemisphere and your posts are always intelligent, thoughtful and insightful. (Okay, Snow is funnier, but you still mark pretty high in that category too.) There's your ego stroke for the day. (Do you have your own webpage? Do tell!)

I absolutely agree with curvette regarding TheProudDuck's posts. I always enjoy reading your posts PD.

I found your website. I think you need to advertise. Don't know how you'd go about doing that though. Word of mouth, I suppose. I will bookmark your site and peek at it every so often.

M.

PS - I also enjoys curvette's posts too. I'm sure everyone has their favorite posters that they like to read the best.

[Snow]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Jan 23 2004, 03:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Jan 23 2004, 03:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Jan 22 2004, 11:20 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Jan 22 2004, 09:35 PM

Snow -- Good to have you back, bro.  Or have I just missed your posts?

I haven't posted, except for a popover recipe, since a half dozen posts of mine got deleted; not because there were in poor taste or contra las reglas but because there were geographically proximate to some that were. It bugs me that someone other than the ultimate reader decides which of my post deserve to be read and which don't, (I have precious little readership without the middleman as it is). Not that I am mad, just unmotivated to post.

I missed the popover recipe. My late great-aunt used to make really good ones, but I've never been able to make her recipe work in a gas oven. (Hers was electric.) Maybe a re-posting is in order?

BTW, I know the feeling of low readership. My weblog has attracted a grand total of something like 70 page views in its eight-month history, most of them by me. (It doesn't help that I only post on it once every blue moon.) A Google search for "The Proud Duck" (using quotes) turns up a grand total of eight hits, of which I'm next to last, right below some lesbian porn site. What ducks, proud or humble, have to do with that sort of thing, I'm not really sure I want to know.

You have switched forums. You used to post exclusively in the general forum. Now you only post in the gospel forum. Did you notice? Or, are geographics more important than topic in as much as the gospel forum is now on top. I will google your weblog. You always have something enlightening to say, but please, tell us more about this lesbian porn site of yours...

Here is the link to the recipe:

http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php?ac...f=7&t=2387&st=0

simple and a great FHE.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Tr2@Jan 23 2004, 07:50 AM

No Trident. I do have a reason and the reason is that I believe in a God that is ALL-GOOD and ALL-KIND, and ALL-JUST. I do do not believe that such a God orders that children be innocently butchered; that would make him un-kind and un-just, and unmerciful.

Your bit about believing in a God that conforms to my image of Him is correct though, I believe that God is this or God is that... according to how I beliefs. That is exactly what you do. You believe that God is according to your beliefs. Thats the definition of belief isn't it?

You don't believe in a God that is different than the way you believe him to be, do you? That makes no sense.

(btw - thank heaven for law enforcement, but that's a different deal than sheding innocent blood on purpose.

So there is no reason other than you just refuse to believe it.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? My position is easily understood. If you are deliberately missing the point, it just makes you look silly. If you really don't get it, then I explain further.

No, it is not that I refuse to beleive. I don't refuse. I don't believe it because it is illogical. A god who is all-good and all-just, could/would not act unkindly or unjustly, else he would not be all-just/kind. Human understanding of kindness and goodness and justice does not include deliberately harming innocent life. Therefore, someone who sheds innocent blood is not all-kind/just/good. They are mutually exclusive.

Thus a dilemma exists. Here are some solutions:

1. Define kindness, justice and goodness to include killing innocent children.

2. Declare that that all children are sinners deserving death.

3. Believe that God is NOT all-kind/just/good.

4. Believe that the Bible is mistaken.

Given that the Bible is demonstrably wrong in many, many aspects, 4 is the most logical answer. I don't refuse to believe differently. I just pick the most likely answer.

BTW. you missed the point about law enforcement killing. The point is not that it is an accident, but rather that killing in that case not the same as killing innocent children.

[Tr2]

snow,

So again, there is no basis whatsoever for you to want to not believe this. You just refuse to. At least be honest and say "I don't believe this because I don't want to".

God's willingness to use deadly force is one of the most significant things of the Old Testament and you just want to cut it out because it doesn't you don't think God would do that. As I said before,why believe the parts about God being loving if you choose not to believe the other parts about him being harsh?

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Maureen@Jan 23 2004, 05:12 PM

PS - I also enjoys curvette's posts too. I'm sure everyone has their favorite posters that they like to read the best.

Awww..thanks Maureen. (I enjoy your posts too--very thought provoking!)

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by curvette+Jan 24 2004, 09:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Jan 24 2004, 09:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Maureen@Jan 23 2004, 05:12 PM

PS - I also enjoys curvette's posts too. I'm sure everyone has their favorite posters that they like to read the best.

Awww..thanks Maureen. (I enjoy your posts too--very thought provoking!)

Yes...indeed. I love to read Snow! LOL

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by curvette@Jan 23 2004, 11:46 AM

Wow. Thanks for all the replies. I was away last night to do my play (which, by the way, opened to rave reviews--thank you! thank you!)

I can't really put babies in the same category as incidental "collateral damage" because these people literally took swords and killed them on purpose. I do find Trav's response about sexual abuse somewhat intriguing though. I don't see a lot of historical evidence (outside of certain pagan temple worship) that babies were ritually abused, but it's an interesting possibility. I do have to wonder though, why adoption wasn't considered in lieu of death for the very small ones.

The Israelites would not have adopted children from another race or culture. Mixing the blood was considered a abomination. Israelites were not allowed to marry the daughters of the Philistines, because to do so would introduce "blood" from a group of people NOT considered to be of the "seed of Abraham" into the family of Israel. And THEY were the CHOSEN people, ya know.

The children would have been considered to be "unclean" and the only thing to do with them after killing all of the adults would be to kill them, too. Maybe that was a "blessing" to the children, who might otherwise have simply died eventually since there was no one left to care for them.

BTW, maybe the best way to think of all things historical in the bible and out of it, is that the "hand of god" had nothing to do with anything that humans ever do, except as an idea that motivates them to do it. If there is no god, (as you all know I believe) then trying to decipher gods motives is silly. God had nothing to do with the killing of the innocents, MAN did! For whatever reasons seemed best at the time, including those that stem from the particular religious beliefs of those doing the killing.

Seen in this light, the "guilt" for the slaughter of "innocents" in any "war" no matter secular or religious, can only be laid at the feet of the men (and women) who did the killing or who ordered it done. Simple as that. God, since he only exists in the mind of man, has nothing to do with it, he only provides the rationale.

As for Abrahams little "test" by god, I remember when I learned that in Sunday School, (I remember very clearly the room and the teacher and everything, I was about 7 years old at the time) I was shocked that god would do such a thing. Asking someone to kill their beloved child as a test of faith seemed incredible to me. I wondered if god might ask this of MY parents! I couldn't see why Abraham would actually consider going ahead with it! I KNEW that if god ever asked this of me, I would NEVER do it! I wondered why god would not have thought it better if Abraham had refused! I thought it was evil and could not get the point of it. I still don't. A god that could ask this of a parent, even if that god did not intend to make that parent go through with it, a god that would muck with a persons head like that, is sick and twisted and evil. I thought that then, and I think it now.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Snow+Jan 23 2004, 07:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jan 23 2004, 07:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Tr2@Jan 23 2004, 07:50 AM

No Trident. I do have a reason and the reason is that I believe in a God that is ALL-GOOD and ALL-KIND, and ALL-JUST. I do do not believe that such a God orders that children be innocently butchered; that would make him un-kind and un-just, and unmerciful.

Your bit about believing in a God that conforms to my image of Him is correct though, I believe that God is this or God is that... according to how I beliefs. That is exactly what you do. You believe that God is according to your beliefs. Thats the definition of belief isn't it?

You don't believe in a God that is different than the way you believe him to be, do you? That makes no sense.

(btw - thank heaven for law enforcement, but that's a different deal than sheding innocent blood on purpose.

So there is no reason other than you just refuse to believe it.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? My position is easily understood. If you are deliberately missing the point, it just makes you look silly. If you really don't get it, then I explain further.

No, it is not that I refuse to beleive. I don't refuse. I don't believe it because it is illogical. A god who is all-good and all-just, could/would not act unkindly or unjustly, else he would not be all-just/kind. Human understanding of kindness and goodness and justice does not include deliberately harming innocent life. Therefore, someone who sheds innocent blood is not all-kind/just/good. They are mutually exclusive.

Thus a dilemma exists. Here are some solutions:

1. Define kindness, justice and goodness to include killing innocent children.

2. Declare that that all children are sinners deserving death.

3. Believe that God is NOT all-kind/just/good.

4. Believe that the Bible is mistaken.

Given that the Bible is demonstrably wrong in many, many aspects, 4 is the most logical answer. I don't refuse to believe differently. I just pick the most likely answer.

BTW. you missed the point about law enforcement killing. The point is not that it is an accident, but rather that killing in that case not the same as killing innocent children.

you should add a 5th possibility...and that is God, allows bad things to happen to innocent and good people because there is agency. Men can create an environment on this earth for evil to reign...like Hitler...with blood and horror on the earth.

Small children and babies have always been the innocent victims of bad men and poor countries.

It isn't just in the Bible...it is written in our own history books.

It is more merciful for children and babies to die, than to live in a vile environment. The go straight to their maker. How awesome is that?

God destroys whole cities...children included, for the eternal benefit of the children...who might have been rape victims, beaten, abused emotionally....

Would you think God a kind and good God for sparing the innocent ...just so they could be used and defiled in a vile manner?

All the cities and people who were destroyed by God...were wretched, wicked, debotchering, vile, scum....who abuse children...

God has used the 'sacrificing' of children...as a symbol of His own sacrifice of His innocent Son.

I think we are too over come with the world and the way it thinks....

Look how we hold whales sacred...but thwart a working man from making a decent living for his family.

The whole world is rocking and reeling to and fro with the drunken excesses or results of stupid thinking. We have rationalized all things into acceptence through our mob mentalities....

We strain at a knat and swallow a camel.

We no longer trust that God knows what he is doing...it reminds me of that story...

One day Moses was talking with God and His angels and God was sending out one of His angels to do some work for Him.

Moses beg to go with the angel...but the angel said no...you will not understand what I am doing...

But Moses persisted until finally the angel allowed him to go...but he warned him that he must say nothing ....no matter what he saw.

The first thing Moses and the angel did was to fly over the ocean near a village...in the ocean was a small fishing boat with two men. The angel waved his hand and the boat cracked apart and both men fell into the ocean and were drowned.

Moses was appauled...he began or rail on the angel for doing such a dasterly thing...but the angel reminded him that he was warned that he wouldn't like what he saw and also that he was to say nothing..

Moses sat back and agreed he would keep still....so they flew on to a village and down into the town where the angel blew upon a youth walking down the side walk....the youth dropped dead on the spot.

Moses again was appauled and began to rebel against the angel....but again the angel told him to be still...or he would be sent back and would go no more with him.

Well the angel and Moses then went to the home of a widow and her son...who were working very hard to eek out a living with their small garden of vegatables.

The angel blew again and the large stone wall, which surrounded the small garden,

fell down upon the garden, leaving the widow and her son with nothing....

Moses had had enough...he told the angel that he must stop this rampage of destruction imediately...that it was wrong..

Well the angel had had enough as well...he told Moses that he was taking him back, but first he was going to explain what was going on.

He told Moses that the two men in the fishing boat were just seconds away from being captured and tortured by an enemy ship and that it was more merciful to take their lives by drowning than to allow them to be tortured...when they knew nothing that could help the enemy.

He then told Moses that the youth who was walking down the sidewalk was plotting the murder of his cousin that very day...and it was more merciful to take the lad in his innocence than to allow him to destroy his own life and the lives of others...

And finally he told Moses that the widow and her son were now going to find the treasure of wealth her husband had hidden under the stone wall and would live comfortably the rest of their lives without working at all.

How can we know the big picture...the grand scale purposes of God?

[Guest Starsky]

Also....God knows the beginning from the end...He knows the bounds of our habitation....He set them before we were even born.

Acts 17: 26

26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

[Guest bizabra]

Peace, the POV you describe is the same that prompts some mentally deranged individuals to kill their babies. We sometimes read news stories about mothers who drop their children off bridges, etc. because they want them to go to heaven instead of living in this "evil" world. From your perspective, what they do is "merciful" and "sane" and makes sense. It is the "right" thing to do.

From where I sit, these parents are sick and mentally ill. They are to be pitied, yet should face criminal penalties for their actions. At the very least, they should be locked up and sterilized so that they can never harm another child ever. You make it sound as if they should be praised for "saving" their childrens immortal souls! I mean, what greater love can a parent have for a child than to ensure they make it to the Celestial Kingdom! Even at the expense of their own possible "salvation", though that may not be jeopardized, after all, god should be able to see into their hearts and souls and devine that their motives for killing their children was pure.

HOGWASH!

Religious beliefs can really muck with a persons rational thinking process. After all, the "voice of god" told Nephi to kill Laban. I know that many murders have been perpetrated because some schizophrenic heard the "voice of god" telling them to do it.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by bizabra@Jan 24 2004, 11:38 AM

Peace, the POV you describe is the same that prompts some mentally deranged individuals to kill their babies.  We sometimes read news stories about mothers who drop their children off bridges, etc. because they want them to go to heaven instead of living in this "evil" world.   From your perspective, what they do is "merciful" and "sane" and makes sense.  It is the "right" thing to do.

From where I sit, these parents are sick and mentally ill.  They are to be pitied, yet should face criminal penalties for their actions.  At the very least, they should be locked up and sterilized so that they can never harm another child ever.  You make it sound as if they should be praised for "saving" their childrens immortal souls!  I mean, what greater love can a parent have for a child than to ensure they make it to the Celestial Kingdom!  Even at the expense of their own possible "salvation", though that may not be jeopardized, after all, god should be able to see into their hearts and souls and devine that their motives for killing their children was pure. 

HOGWASH!

Religious beliefs can really muck with a persons rational thinking process.   After all, the "voice of god" told Nephi to kill Laban.  I know that many murders have been perpetrated because some schizophrenic heard the "voice of god" telling them to do it.

There isn't anything on the planet that can't be twisted to make someone think they have the right to play God...

Your logic does nothing but throw out the baby with the bath water.....Your example is extreme, which for me, invalidates it.

The point being made was...God .and human sacrifice.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Tr2@Jan 24 2004, 06:37 AM

snow,

So again, there is no basis whatsoever for you to want to not believe this. You just refuse to. At least be honest and say "I don't believe this because I don't want to".

God's willingness to use deadly force is one of the most significant things of the Old Testament and you just want to cut it out because it doesn't you don't think God would do that. As I said before,why believe the parts about God being loving if you choose not to believe the other parts about him being harsh?

Ah Lewis, you're so transparent.

Remember when I used to say that you were an ambulance driver and you said were not, you were a paramedic, but I would never acknowledged it and kept on saying that you were just an ambulance driver. That was funny because 1. it mad you made, and 2. nobody here really knew if you were an ambulance driver or a paramedic.

So see, when I give you a reason and you keep saying that I don't have a reason, it's not funny because 1. it doesn't make me mad, and 2. everybody knows I gave a reason - 3 times. So that makes you look either dishonest for not acknowledging it or dumb because you can't figure it out. Thus the act you are playing backfires and harms you. No one ever said you weren't a glutton for punishment.

However, since more serious posters who aren't trolls may be reading, I'll explain further. Your participation, Louis, is no longer required.

For the last 300 years or so the Bible has been subjected to higher criticism and, as a infallible, inerrant tome has failed miserably. From internal contradictions, to archeology, to historical anachronism (things that are out of time and place) to mathematical errors, to failed prophecies to scientific impossibilities, to borrowed mythology, to immoral behavior attributed to God, to any more of dozen of ways, the Bible, in its current form is NOT inerrantly and literally true. That is not an opinion. That is a proven fact and no reasonable, educated Bible student denies it.

There are those, perhaps like yourself, who persist in an unreasonable belief. That's not such a big deal. Its a matter of faith. It is possible, in a super-duper-magical world that there was a world-wide flood that covered the tips of the mountains and then God purposely hid all evidence of it to either confuse us or make us live by faith, IN SPITE of the evidence. So, it is certainly possible that you are correct and that God really did command his chosen people to murder women and innocent children, kidnap and rape the virgins, and steal their cattle, AND that such a god is still all-kind, all-good and all-just. The big difference between our positions is that I explain why that does not make sense and so far you have offered absolutely zero reason to support your position. Instead you resort to the little debater's trick of denying that I gave my reasons. Since my reasons are easily read by anyone, your statement, like many parts of the Bible, is demonstrably false.

Let me tell you what you must do in order to counter by argument:

1. Admit that your God is not all-just/kind/good.

or

2. Showing how rape and murder, kidnapping and stealing are good and just and kind.

I don't think you can do it. In fact I predict you won't even try. You will either ignore this post or will make another false statement like you did before. All of which is fine because that makes me gain credibility, relative to you.

[Have you ever noticed how I can be the worst poster this board has ever seen, yet in a heartbeat can turn it around that make insightful, inspiring, engaging honest and sophisticated posts that command instant credibility?]

Oh, there is a 3 option and it the option that you follow.

3. Believe the Bible. Don't know how or why or wherefore but the Bible is the word of God and we have to believe it, all of it, just cuz.

That's even harder to defend than the first 2 positions. Good luck.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by bizabra@Jan 24 2004, 11:05 AM

The Israelites would not have adopted children from another race or culture. Mixing the blood was considered a abomination. Israelites were not allowed to marry the daughters of the Philistines, because to do so would introduce "blood" from a group of people NOT considered to be of the "seed of Abraham" into the family of Israel. And THEY were the CHOSEN people, ya know.

Hi Biz: I'm not sure it was the blood that was as important as the covenant belief system. Maybe you know of a scripture that talks about not accepting foreigner's into the families, but look at Exodus 12:48 "And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be AS ONE THAT IS BORN IN THE LAND: for no uncirumcised person shall eat thereof. "

This is a part of the law of Moses. Perhaps their culture abandoned this law later, but from what I understand about their culture, it was the polytheistic worship they objected to, not the ethnic background of their enemies. This should allow for adoption if the child is circumcised if male and raised in their tradition.

[Guest Starsky]

Actually Snow...as to eternal principles...the bible is perfectly sound. There may be errors in it, but God has been able to use it to serve His purposes for millenia.

Those who do not seek for the underlying principles and mysteries...and only do a surface/evidential evaluation, will miss God's 2nd greatest literary work through man...ever.

[Snow]

Peace, let me touch up your post.

You, Peave HAVE FAITH, that YOUR interpretation of the Bible's eternal principles is perfectly sound. And, you, Peace, have a belief that God allowed or put in the errors in the Bible to serve a purpose as opposed to the errors just getting in their via mistake and/or corruption with no input or specific purpose from God.

Maybe.

[Tr2]

snow,

Again, you answered a question that nobody asked. Give me a reason why your argument holds and ground? Your source to discredit the bible is the bible itself. Why don't you spend more time talking about the issues at hand and less time thinking up insults. It is very easy to name call. You have not had a lot of success with the theological discussions that I've seen you involved in, since you've ducked most of them. Are you going to discuss anything here or just throw out insults? I used to act the way you do, then I turned 9 years old.

[Snow]

Snow's Prediction:

I don't think you can do it. In fact I predict you won't even try. You will either ignore this post or will make another false statement like you did before. All of which is fine because that makes me gain credibility, relative to you.

The result?

...see Trident's response.

However, if there is anyone, not you Lewis, who believes in a literal Bible and thinks that God ordered murder, rape, kidnapping and stealing, would you care to reconcile such a belief with the idea of a god that is kind/good/just.

Anyone? (not you Louis) Anyone?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Snow+Jan 23 2004, 07:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jan 23 2004, 07:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -TheProudDuck@Jan 23 2004, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by -Snow@Jan 22 2004, 11:20 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Jan 22 2004, 09:35 PM

Snow -- Good to have you back, bro.  Or have I just missed your posts?

I haven't posted, except for a popover recipe, since a half dozen posts of mine got deleted; not because there were in poor taste or contra las reglas but because there were geographically proximate to some that were. It bugs me that someone other than the ultimate reader decides which of my post deserve to be read and which don't, (I have precious little readership without the middleman as it is). Not that I am mad, just unmotivated to post.

I missed the popover recipe. My late great-aunt used to make really good ones, but I've never been able to make her recipe work in a gas oven. (Hers was electric.) Maybe a re-posting is in order?

BTW, I know the feeling of low readership. My weblog has attracted a grand total of something like 70 page views in its eight-month history, most of them by me. (It doesn't help that I only post on it once every blue moon.) A Google search for "The Proud Duck" (using quotes) turns up a grand total of eight hits, of which I'm next to last, right below some lesbian porn site. What ducks, proud or humble, have to do with that sort of thing, I'm not really sure I want to know.

You have switched forums. You used to post exclusively in the general forum. Now you only post in the gospel forum. Did you notice? Or, are geographics more important than topic in as much as the gospel forum is now on top. I will google your weblog. You always have something enlightening to say, but please, tell us more about this lesbian porn site of yours...

Here is the link to the recipe:

http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php?ac...f=7&t=2387&st=0

simple and a great FHE.

Oh, there's the general discussion forum. I guess I was just too lazy to scroll down ....