If God is all-powerful, why did he need the Israelites to kill for him?

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Freedom's price is killing other people apparently. Sounds a lot like the reason the U.S. is in the middle east committing all kinds of war crimes, it's the price of freedom.

If the government didn't get those soldiers to kill for them, those soldiers wouldn't learn how to follow instructions or know what true freedom is. Right?

The Israelites couldn't have just killed the ones actually doing the sacrifices, no, they had to know what following instructions meant so that meant they had to kill the women, children, and animals too. No, don't try to rehabilitate them, either take them as slaves or kill them.

How morbid.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Whatever dude, believe what you want. But realize that people did die just so you could have the freedom to say these things. Not every war is legit, but every now and then freedom demands blood.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
If God could strike Ananias and Sapphira dead in the NT, then why did he need the Israelites to conquer and genocidally kill neighboring towns and cities for him in the OT?

Its not very realistic to expect plot consistency from the bronze age goatherders who wrote the 2000 year old book of tales that we know today as the "holy" bible.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Why does freedom demand blood? Does one persons freedom mean they have to take away the freedom of others? That doesn't sound like freedom, it sounds like tyranny.

The Israelites were already free, they had no reason to attack and kill those people other than to satiate Yahweh's blood lust. If Yahweh wanted them gone, he could have done it without the Israelites, but he reveled in bloodshed. That's why he required Jesus'.

Maybe because God let us play in our children's garden. Most of the stories in many and various religions fail to make sense unless you add this: you are an eternal soul in a school called earth. And not a higher degree one might I add You are here to learn on your own. What is 20-50-80 years in an eternity? So you'll ask yourself: why not only learn from watching from 'above'/getting the knowledge for free? Well lets just say it's kind a different thing seeing and being. Take the exemple of being a parent. Since I'm one I learned to be less judgmental of others, accept I can't control everything and temper myself alot. Something I wouldn't get just studying/watching others.

Near Death Experience site gave some insight/helped me tied some dots plus I got one myself so it helped. But hey, I do feel the same way about injustice around the world. It's just that I blame our under evoluated warmonger specie.

Peace

Jeff

www.nderf.org...

It's a book not all of those events are even accurate.

There are languages older than summarian we havn't even deciphered yet.

those hyroglyph like langauges found all around the world we don't even have a name for it or know who wrote em.
If there's any answers about passed civs its going to be there

Just my oppinion tho.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

God is all-knowing, and He created each of us. He knows all possible outcomes of all of our decisions.

So what you're saying is God knew he would regret his Creation and cause a global flood killing god knows [no really he does] how many innocent babies and toddlers in the process. You're saying he knew it all before he created it to begin with. Yet a global flood was his best solution to a problem he already knew would arise from something he himself caused.

Alright...

He is a lonely bigger and is playing the game of Risk by himself.😁 Didn't he have the angel of death kill for him to on the first Passover.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Not just morbid but twisted and perverted. Anti-Christ. Anti-God. That is not the message of Christ. I can't believe I used to believe that crap.

If Jesus is the image of God and if you have seen him you have seen the father then whatever does not look like Jesus is not God. And the idea that jesus would tell his followers to commit genocide is quite ludicrous. Therefore the idea that God needs asks or wants us or anyone to kill others for him is also ludicrous.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Possibly, the people that wrote the Old Testament and considered themselves "the chosen people" (like all nations did under their deities) felt it would make for a better story. I mean, murder and war is terrible, but if a god made you do it, then you are absolved of all culpability in the matter.

The "God" you speak of is not the Source, it is a demented entity from an advanced technology.

Everyone, the KJV Bible is written in clear 6th grade English, go back and read it again it will answer your questions.

I had to read it at least 20 times before things began to become clear. and I still don't have all the answers.

It is a journey you all must take and it is a life long one not just one or two attempts at pretextual readings of the Bible.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Everyone, the KJV Bible is written in clear 6th grade English, go back and read it again it will answer your questions.

I had to read it at least 20 times before things began to become clear. and I still don't have all the answers.

It is a journey you all must take and it is a life long one not just one or two attempts at pretextual readings of the Bible.

No one has to read the Bible.

Why doesn't he just snap his fingers and take care of Every problem?
What kind of creation would we become under such conditions?

a reply to: ChesterJohn

There are translations older than KJV, and even younger translations more accurate than the KJV.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Everyone, the KJV Bible is written in clear 6th grade English, go back and read it again it will answer your questions.

I had to read it at least 20 times before things began to become clear. and I still don't have all the answers.

If it's so easy a 6th grader could understand it, why did you have to read the Bible 20 times before things became clear? Was the murkiness due to its contradictions or did you have to read it until your cognitive dissonance melded into bias confirmation?

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: ChesterJohn

There are translations older than KJV, and even younger translations more accurate than the KJV.

If the originals of the OT and NT no longer exist, how can you determine which translations, if any, are more accurate?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Possibly, the people that wrote the Old Testament and considered themselves "the chosen people" (like all nations did under their deities) felt it would make for a better story. I mean, murder and war is terrible, but if a god made you do it, then you are absolved of all culpability in the matter.

No, all nations did not consider themselves "the chosen people" under their deities. Only the followers of the Abrahamic religions buy into that crap. Please don't makes claims about religions and cultures with which you are unfamiliar and lump them into the fetid stew of monotheism.

a reply to: Tangerine

If the originals of the OT and NT no longer exist, how can you determine which translations, if any, are more accurate?

The Latin Vulgate is much much closer to the source material than the KJV, which celebrated its 400th anniversary recently. If you had to make a bet which would be closer in accuracy to the source material... would you pick a translation written 400 years after Christ, or one written 400 years ago?

I would suggest looking at the translations used in scholarly work from religious historians.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Tangerine

If the originals of the OT and NT no longer exist, how can you determine which translations, if any, are more accurate?

The Latin Vulgate is much much closer to the source material than the KJV, which celebrated its 400th anniversary recently. If you had to make a bet which would be closer in accuracy to the source material... would you pick a translation written 400 years after Christ, or one written 400 years ago?

I would suggest looking at the translations used in scholarly work from religious historians.

How could you possibly know what is closest to the originals if the originals do not exist for comparison? I wouldn't pick either, but that is immaterial. Those scholarly works from religious historians are not based on the originals. We have no way to know whether significant changes were made early-on or not. Actually, what does it matter?