Why would I worship and love a "God" who ordered infanticide?

Exactly....AT BEST, the attack on the Amalekites could be excused as "pre-emptive war" due to some attack they had made against the Israelites.

But even that....offers NO EXCUSE for God deliberately and clearly ordering the slaughter of children.

None.

 

Also, in context, the excuse can't possibly be disease:

"And Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart, get you down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them: for ye shewed kindness to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt. So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites."

God scolded Saul for other decisions, but not for sparing the Kenites. If the goal was to wipe out disease, and if this disease could jump between Amalekite children and adults, then the Kenites, who had lived among the Amalekites, would have had to have been wiped out as well.

 

That's irrelevant and you're making my point for me. The likelihood that those people with their different understanding of Jesus' teachings would have been able to keep them without contradiction and the authors of the gospel just happened to all pick the certain oral traditions that agreed with the other gospel writers is an impossibility to occur. It's far more likely they were simply telling the truth.

- - - Updated - - -

As I've pointed out already that description of gods desire is incongruous with the doctrines of Jesus Christ. As such they cannot be accurate.

 

The Gospel of Thomas presents very different doctrine from the others. So does the Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Mary Magdalene, etc.

So make your claim again that none of the Gospels contradict each other. I'll post specific examples if you need me to.

 

And I'm extremely happy you have come to that conclusion. However, other Christians here have come to far different conclusions; in fact Christians are the only people I've seen on this forum who have tried to excuse the slaughter of infants.. You, on the other hand, understand that purposefully targeting children is wrong and that any scripture that tries to justify it cannot possibly be the product of a loving, perfect God. I hope your view gains more prominence.

 

No they don't. I've read them. Show me contradictory doctrine in those books.

 

Immortal....

how did Judas Iscariot die and who purchased the land where he died?

 

The Gospel of Thomas denies the Trinity. How is that not a contradicting doctrine?

 

Once again...

What would you have done? Why won't you tell me? What would you have done if you came across a village of people infected with small pox with no cure and no doctor? I want to hear what your solutions are.

And again...

What would you have done? Why won't you tell me? What would you have done if you came across a village of people infected with small pox with no cure and no doctor? I want to hear what your solutions are.

Atheists are so quick to condemn something, but when you ask them what their solutions are, they present none.

 

There is 0 reason to think that smallpox or anything like it was a factor. The Israelites spared the Kenites, who lived among the Amalekites. If they could spare the Kenites, then why not the Amalkeite children? They spared children in other battles. The Bible's version of the story gives us only one "justification": genocidal vengeance. These colorful attempts to come up with creative excuses have no Biblical or rational basis.

 

Is that doctrine? I've stated time and again that there are differences in times places and order of events. But there are zero contradictions in regards to the doctrines teachings and examples set forth by Jesus Christ.

- - - Updated - - -

Because Jesus never claims to be God.

 

You want me to answer a FALSE premise.

There is NOTHING.....zero, zip, nada...in 1st Samuel that indicates the Amalekite children were "infected".

Nothing.

You just made that up and then demand we respond to it as if it was "fact."

And if you want to generalize about atheists....I'll generalize about Bible believers...

they are fundamentally DISHONEST PEOPLE.

 

I'm not going to a gangs in your idiotic scenario that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I can certainly tell you what I wouldn't do: murder children. But then I am more moral than your God.

 

"places"? "order of events"? There are two CONTRADICTORY accounts of how Judas died...and who purchased the land where he died.


BTW, don't you use your religious beliefs to oppose gay rights....yet there is NOTHING in the Gospels (contradictory or not) about homosexuality.

 

"The Father and I are one"?

 

You see his disengenuous style.

He comes up with a fantasy ....totally unsupported by the Bible...and then demands we debate on his "field of play."

It's like a Star Trek nerd saying "Prove that a Klingon wouldn't sacrifice himself in battle!" (and I'm a Star Trek nerd. )

 

Seems like you have the bible confused. The Kenites weren't ever mentioned in Leviticus or Deuteronomy.

 

Where were "infected Amalekite babies" mentioned in the Bible?

 

Yes there are teachings against homosexuality in the gospels.

As for your first claim, do u understand the difference between an event and a doctrine?

- - - Updated - - -

He said that the Pharisees and their father are one as well. does that mean that the Pharisees were actually the physical manifestation of satan? Of course not.

 

What would you do then? Just answer the question and quit beating around the bush. You make it seem like you're so moral and that you have the answers, but when people ask you about those morals, you say absolutely nothing. You offer no facts, no insight... Just nothing.

This is why atheism is on the decline in the rest of the world. As people begin to start asking questions, atheists increasingly have no answers. And yet, they claim to be smarter than everyone else. What a joke.

Sad.

Do you not realize small pox was (and still is) a real disease that devastated hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people? What do you think warring soldiers did to quarantined people? I'll let you figure that one out. In the meantime, learn a thing or two about how various countries quarantined their sickly. It's highly educational. Brings out the worse in people.
Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3076745/n...quarantine-methods-through-ages/#.VYB7KlQVhBc

 

The story we are talking about is in 1 Samuel 15, not Leviticus or Deuteronomy. The same chapter that says the Israelites were to kill all of the Amalekites, including the children, also says that the Kenites, who lived with the Amalekites, were spared. This does not mesh with the smallpox theory.

 

You are making a claim you have provided no evidence in support of. Why would I answer a question based on that claim? You need to present evidence the Amelekite children were infected with a disease or admit you have no such evidence and drop this stupid apologetic.

- - - Updated - - -

Where exactly did he say that about the Pharisees?

 

Why didn't they spread disease to the Kenites?

 

Quote them, please? And remember, they have to be teachings ...in the Gospels....that oppose homosexuality....not some tangent that you say "means opposition to homosexuality".

- - - Updated - - -

Notice as his apologia falls apart....he gets angry and starts resorting to ad hominem attacks on "atheists".

- - - Updated - - -

ROFLMAO.....the irony....it burns!!!!!

 

John 8:44. There is an even better one but I'm at work so it's hard to search for it. But He uses the exact same verbage about them and their father as he does him and his father.

Regardless you're misinterpreting the scripture anyway. The scripture you are referencing is John 10. This is IMMEDIATELY preceding that scripture:

I told you and you do not believe. The works that I do in my fathers name they bear witness of me. But you do not believe because you are not of my sheep... My father who has GIVEN them to me is greater than ALL and no one is able to snatch them out of my fathers hand.

He made a CLEAR distinction between himself and God. Even pointing out that he only has what he has because God gave it to him.