What's new

Any questions about bible?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Galeng mo ser na gets mo, eh sa ganun yung law na binigay sa mga Israelita at maging sa Islam ata, sa mga Muslim e,

Yan ang realidad maging sa panahon ngayon kung sino yung nasa taas at may otoridad kung magparusa sila ng death sentence e di ba kailangan ng blessing ng itaas

Naimagine ko tuloy si duterte ng sabihan nya PNP at military na i shoot to kill ang mga addict, at mga pasaway , does it mean a 'blessing' to kill otherwise? Really?
 
And what did god do dun sa mga hindi "nagpakabanal" before?? And ano ulit gagawin nea sa mga ganong tao in the future??

1 Samuel 15:2–3, God tells King Saul, “I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them, put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”

Paki-himay lang bossing. Just or not?
Gaya ng sabi ko, hindi magagawa ng Diyos ang pumatay dahil Siya ay banal. Kung ang isang taong pumapatay ng kapwa tao ay naglalayo sa kanya tungo sa kabanalan, masasabi kong hindi magagawa ng Diyos ang pumatay dahil hindi na Siya matatawag pang banal na Diyos. Hindi Diyos ang may gawa ng mga pagpatay sa lumang tipan. Sabi sa kasulatan; Makatarungang Ama, hindi ka nakikilala ng sanglibutan, nguni't nakikilala kita; at nakikilala ng mga ito na ikaw ang nagsugo sa akin (Juan 17:25). Makatarungan pala ang Diyos ayon kay Cristo. Ngunit kung papatay ang Diyos ng masasama at idadamay o may madadamay naman na mga walang sala o inosenteng tao pati mga hayop, napakalinaw naman na hindi ito matatawag na makatarungan. Kung masasama lang ang mamamatay yan ang matatawag na makatarungan. Ngunit kung idadamay o may madadamay na mga inosente o walang sala ay walang katarungan dito. Ang paniniwala ng mga propeta na pumapatay ang Diyos ay pagpapakita lamang na hindi nila lubos na kilala ang kalikasan o katangian ng Diyos. Mas higit si Cristo kaysa sa mga propeta at apostol kung pagkakakilala sa Diyos ang pagbabatayan dahil Siya ang tanging sinugo ng Diyos na bumaba mula sa langit. Dahil ang nanggaling sa itaas ay sumasaibabaw sa lahat (Juan 3:31).
 
Last edited:
Sa akin kasi logic lang, since si God diumano Ang creator and giver of life, sya lang samakatwid Ang may karapatang pumawi sa buhay ng isang nilalang dahil sya daw Ang lumalang sa buhay nga. Kaya Masama sa paningin ng Diyos na ang isang tao na walang kakayahang bumuhay ng patay ngunit sadyang kumikitil ng kapwa tao niyang may hiram na buhay lamang na mula sa Diyos.

Parang Ang dating Kasi sa paningin ng Diyos ang taong kumikitil ng kanyang sariling buhay o ng kapwa tao niya ay di makatwiran dahil hindi naman siya Ang maylikha at may kanya ng buhay na kaniyang pinawi kundi ang buhay at hininga ng lahat ng nilalang ay tanging mula sa Diyos at sa diyos din lamang magsusulit sa kanyang takdang araw para sa bawat nilalang nga.
Sa'kin logic lang din. Kaya inutos ng Diyos na huwag papatay dahil para sa Kanya masama at isang kasalanan ang gawaing ito. Isa ito sa mga nagpapasama at naglalayo sa tao tungo sa kabanalan na hangad ng Diyos para sa lahat ng Kanyang mga anak. Dahil sabi nga sa atin ng Diyos, magpakabanal tayo sapagkat Siya'y banal (1 Pedro 1:16). Kung gayon, gagawin ba ng Diyos ang pumatay kung maaari itong mag-aalis sa Kanya sa kabanalan? Ang Diyos ay nananatili at mananating banal magpakailanman dahil ito ay parte ng Kanyang kalikasan o katangian. Kaya ang Diyos ay hindi pumapatay.
 
Are children bad people too?? Ung so called "walang pang mga muwang".... Were they freed from god's perfect judgment when decided to wipe out entire populations??

Or when he calls people who smash the heads of infants in a rock "blessed"...thats a just god for you??

And thats the thing im pointing at... Sa dame ng di nagsusubscribe to the same god as yours can u really say that god cares kung ano nasa puso nila??? Do u think nasa puso ng ibang religion ang turo ng bible mo??? Or does it have to be na si god mo dapat ang nasa puso nila??

Why dont ur god just fix things instead of resolving it with death for those na di nea kayang papaniwalain sa kanya?? Ilang beses sya pumatay sa book mo?? Kasi sinuway sya...kasi di sya pniwalaan...eh choice nea ireveal lang existence nea kuno sa a handful of people eh..tapos gusto nea paniwalaan agad ang mga prophets na un???

Sinu din ba ang gumawa ng scenario na magkakasala ang mankind?? And sinu dapat ang may kapangyarihan at kaalaman to prevent that from happening??

Eh ang nangyari eh cycle ng judgement at patayan.... And eventually ganon pa din ang ending..

So ano point ng salvation ni jesus kung may judgemnt pa sa huli??? Another cycle??

Like u said..even if pumatay mawawala na ang kasalanan because of jesus .. so technically wala na ijujudge if jesus died for all our sins...bat masama pa din tayo???
Bigyan mo ako nang verse sa bible na pumatay ang diyos nang wlang awa, I-explain ko sayo
 
Are children bad people too?? Ung so called "walang pang mga muwang".... Were they freed from god's perfect judgment when decided to wipe out entire populations??

Or when he calls people who smash the heads of infants in a rock "blessed"...thats a just god for you??

And thats the thing im pointing at... Sa dame ng di nagsusubscribe to the same god as yours can u really say that god cares kung ano nasa puso nila??? Do u think nasa puso ng ibang religion ang turo ng bible mo??? Or does it have to be na si god mo dapat ang nasa puso nila??

Why dont ur god just fix things instead of resolving it with death for those na di nea kayang papaniwalain sa kanya?? Ilang beses sya pumatay sa book mo?? Kasi sinuway sya...kasi di sya pniwalaan...eh choice nea ireveal lang existence nea kuno sa a handful of people eh..tapos gusto nea paniwalaan agad ang mga prophets na un???

Sinu din ba ang gumawa ng scenario na magkakasala ang mankind?? And sinu dapat ang may kapangyarihan at kaalaman to prevent that from happening??

Eh ang nangyari eh cycle ng judgement at patayan.... And eventually ganon pa din ang ending..

So ano point ng salvation ni jesus kung may judgemnt pa sa huli??? Another cycle??

Like u said..even if pumatay mawawala na ang kasalanan because of jesus .. so technically wala na ijujudge if jesus died for all our sins...bat masama pa din tayo???
Ito lang nakita ko na makaka explain seguro sayong mga katanungan,

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

Marami rami ding explanation yan, paki basa nang mabuti at unawain na lang, Jehova ang naka lagay jan sa pangalan nang diyos,
 
Faith is even better than reliability because it allows you to accept the notion that you cannot "know it all' or "prove it all" based on our limited set of knowledge in this existence. It is in fact the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not yet seen.

U can believe anything because of faith...does that make what u believe in TRUE??
-
Opinyon mo ulit yan. Nasa sa iyo pa din kung anong faith ang tinutukoy mo. Anything can make you believe whether it is true or not.

sige my friend..at the end of the day kamo..the answer is faith... Can u demonstrate that??
-
Nai-demonstrate at natest na yan ng karamihan sa nakilala or kinilala mo, isa sa pinaka matindi eh yung ehemplo ni Kristo Hesus. Hindi question ang demonstration dito eh, ang question dito e kung pinanampalatayanan mo ba yung nag demonstrate o kinuwestyon mo din?

- no matter who i talked to i will asked for the evidence of their claim...an evidence that can be tested, demonstrated and proven... I also said na madame pa unknowns...
Oh ayun na naman pala eh, evidence pala hanap mo kaya sana nung una palang nagtake time kana magbasa nung mga truth claims na nabanggit ko, magiging cycle lang ulet ito dahil ang problema eh nasa pagtanggap mo, gaya ng PAULIT-ULIT kong sinasabi e WALA sa ebidensya ang problema kundi sa PAGTANGGAP mo rito. Kahit gaano pa kalinaw at kabigat ng ebidensya kung hindi mo naman matanggap dahil sa limitado mong komprehensyon at isinantabi mo pa ang PANANAMPALATAYA, hahantong pa din yan sa bokya ma friend.

but i cant accept any bible expert who will tell me na things are "mysterious" and "unknown" so therefore "god"... Im accepting the notion of the unknown.. but i cant accept the answer to that unknown as god unless u can prove it as i said
-
O eh wala na kong magagawa jan eh kung hindi mo na pala maaccept eh hindi kita pipilitin o walang pipilit sayo rito, hindi naman lahat ng tao e binigyan ng kakayahang makaunawa at makasaksi ng Kanyang kahiwagahan. Yan nasa paraan ng pagtanggap mo my friend.

Take time to read din pag may time ka, huwag puro superficial questioning of truth claims na matagal nang napatunayan at marami ng nakaranas, minsan subukan mong iempty yung cup mo at manampalatay, tingnan mo mas madali at panatag yaon, para naman sa ganon eh meron ka ding experienced claim my friend.

Peace out!
 
Ang mga bagay at buhay(living things) na dinatnan ng banal na Espiritu ng Diyos lamang ang maituturing na banal at bago ka maging banal sa paningin ng diyos ay kailangan kang lukuban ng espiritu santo Niya na bababa mula sa kanya gaya ng espiritung anyong kalapati o anyong apoy tulad ng natanggap ni Hesus sa ilog Jordan at ng kanyang mga apostol noong araw ng pentecostes. At para matanggap mo ang banal na espiritu kailangan mo munang mamatay o patayin sa espiritwal na diwa sa pamamagitan ng bautismo, una sa pagpapailalim sa tubig sa bautismo sa tubig, at pangalawa sa pagsalang sa apoy o hurno na simbolo ng pagpapanumbalik mo sa alabok, sa bautismo sa apoy.

Nung mabautismohan ka o nagpabautismo ka bilang Kristyano pinatay mo na ang dating sarili mo at ikaw ay dapat bagong nilalang na at dyan mo maiintindihan ang tunay na kahulugan ng pagiging banal pag nasa iyo na ang espiritu ng diyos sa katauhan mo, yun ay kung sumasaiyo na iyan habang humihinga ka pa sa laman dahil tunay na mga alagad lang ang pinanahanan ng banal na espiritu dito sa lupa at maykapangyarihan ng diyos na buhay. Walang taong naging banal nang sa ganang kanya lamang maliban na lukuban siya ng espiritu santo.

Yan ang lohika ng pagiging banal, at isa pa ang diyos ay di lamang banal, kundi Siya ay Banal ng mga banal nga, sapagkat siya ay Espiritu at sa kanya lamang nagmumula sa ang banal na espiritu at gabay.

Kung tinuturing mo ang sarili mo bilang kristiyano tanggapin mo sa sarili mo na ikaw din ay pinatay na kasama ni kristo at muling nabuhay bilang bagong nilalang,

Kung sino ang pumatay sa iyo e abay sisihin mo pastor na nagbautismo sa iyo dahil ngayon nalaman mo na kasalanan pala ang pumatay hindi lang ng laman kundi ng espiritu, sapagkat higit na parusa ang nakalaan sa nagkakasala sa espiritu ang sinumang taong pumapatay sa kapwa sa pamamagitan ng espiritu ng kamalian at maling aral at bautismo.

Ang parusa ay sa lawang apoy nga dun ilublob para mabautismohan sa apoy nga.
 
u cited him as source...so what he stands for and whether you agree with that is relevant. I have no problem with jews in particular..its a simple question.. and its not a mere "what he believes in".. he needs to prove that what he believes in is true...
So for you, what about Shroeder's beliefs do u agree with?? Why did u agree with it? And can u prove it to be true?


- So by definition when you say "..is true..." is already metaphysical in nature. Simply, we can define truth as: a statement about the way the world actually is. Coming up with a definition of truth falls under the discipline of epistemology or the study of knowledge though some philosophers categorize it as a study in metaphysics--the study of what is real. Ayun nga ano, depende pa rin sa perspective mo at minsan upbringing.

- Can you prove that it's false? Eh hindi ka nga physicist e so hindi mo maiintindihan kahit pa i-break down dito yung claims nya. Simplehan nalang natin my friend mag devote ka ng time mo magbasa tas suriin mo kung kaya mo bang i disprove. Tas tska tayo mag usap in a physicist point of view. Ok? Or do you want to talk in person so I can maybe somehow enlighten you with what you are asking -- "evidence" per se. Mahirap if we don't speak the same language e, it is as if we are giving pearls to pigs, so to speak.

Peace out!
 
have u read his books?? Or even that one u cited?
Di ba u mentioned na his credentials, i even added some..and i also said na his work is deemed "controversial" and "received criticisms"... Do u think that will inspire some confidence in me to read his entire book. Kaya nga im asking you to tell me aling evidence ang naprovide nea...


-Of course I did, kaya nga sana basahin mo rin para we are on the same page. Sino ba kasi ang mga nag deemed controversial at mga nagcriticised din ng mga works nya para maisali na din natin dito for criticisms din, oh baka naman ikaw lang? O yung mga yun eh parang ikaw lang din na hindi mga physicists at least? Depende pa rin sayo eh kung maiinspire kompidens mo, hehe. Tulad nga ng sabi ko sayo eh nasa sa iyo naman kasi talaga iyon kung maniniwala ka o hindi, ang gagawin mo lang, (1) maglaan ka din kahit konting panahon magbasa man lang, (2) idisprove mo din sana dito saken, tas we will start from there base din sa mga ebidensya mo ha. Thank you my friend!

Peace out!
 
Opkors may masasabi pa din...hehehehe...

Okay, have u also looked into mga discrepancies ng bible history sa mga ibang sources???

Or ung mga contradictions within the bible itself..

Or any evidence ng bible myths like the great flood... Or ung exodus ni moses... May evidence ba ng mga yan??

And if you pick the right verses pding pd mo ijustify un to actual facts...and din yan exclusive lang sa bible.. a lit of books has some historical and factual accuracies in them
.but that doesnt mean na the whole theme of any book is true or a fact.

And about yang flat earth...do u know where people who believe in that got that notion from?
Hehehe wala namang problema kung may masabi pa din brow. Ang natawa lang ako, ni hindi mo pinansin yung ibang PROVEN BY SCIENCE na facts na sinabi ko. Dun ka agad nag focus sa tingin mong may mahahanap kang butas. Sabi mo ano ang na prove ng bible outside it, then I gave you some, tas di man lang ni acknowledged haha 🤦‍♂️😅

YUN nga ang point. NAUNANG sinabi ng bible yang mga bagay na yan VS sa ibang beliefs noon. It doesn't matter kung saan nagmula yung flat earth. The fact na yan ang ilang paniniwala sa shape ng Earth noon, malayo sa sinabi ng bible na bilog ito.

"that doesnt mean na the whole theme of any book is true or a fact."? Actually, ang kulang dito ay hindi niyo na kasi hinahanp yung talagang sagot o punto ng bible sa isang particular verse. Like I said many times, walang contradiction sa Bible. Kayo lang mga ganyang beliefs ang nagpupumilit na meron kasi naka stick kayo sa pov niyo. ;)

Proof ng evidence ni Moses? Hmmm, yaan mo check ko. For now, tignan mo tong isa sa mga proof na naging ALIPIN SA EGYPT yung mga Israelita ;)

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
 
naniniwala po ba kayo na lahat ng nangyayari sa isang tao ay nakasulat na sa kanyang libro ng kapalaran?
 
Actual facts nai mention pa nga, ni hindi nya alam yung meaning ng actual facts. Facts noon eh maaaring hindi na maging fact ngayon, pero truth noon will always be truth ngayon.

Hinahanapan ng evidence -> Nakita na yung evidence -> Hindi pinaniwalaan dahil pwede ulit tanungin na "Is that true?" -> Cycle goes on

Cycle of truth-belief perspective...

"The challenge is that our view of truth is very closely tied to our perspective on what is true. This means that in the end, we may be able to come up with a reasonable definition of truth, but if we decide that no one can get to what is true (that is, know truth), what good is the definition? Even more problematic is that our perspective will even influence our ability to come up with a definition!"
 
Ano ba yung libro ng kapalaran? Ngayon ko lang narinig yan. Pero kung meron man eh sino kaya ang nagsusulat doon? Sino na kaya ang nakakita ng mga sinulat nya kung meron man? If nakasulat na lahat, parang naka pre-programmed na kumbaga, nagbubura din kaya ang taga sulat niyon?
 
1 Samuel 15:2–3, God tells King Saul, “I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them, put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”


Gaya ng sabi ko, hindi magagawa ng Diyos ang pumatay dahil Siya ay banal. Kung ang isang taong pumapatay ng kapwa tao ay naglalayo sa kanya tungo sa kabanalan, masasabi kong hindi magagawa ng Diyos ang pumatay dahil hindi na Siya matatawag pang banal na Diyos. Hindi Diyos ang may gawa ng mga pagpatay sa lumang tipan. Sabi sa kasulatan; Makatarungang Ama, hindi ka nakikilala ng sanglibutan, nguni't nakikilala kita; at nakikilala ng mga ito na ikaw ang nagsugo sa akin (Juan 17:25). Makatarungan pala ang Diyos ayon kay Cristo. Ngunit kung papatay ang Diyos ng masasama at idadamay o may madadamay naman na mga walang sala o inosenteng tao pati mga hayop, napakalinaw naman na hindi ito matatawag na makatarungan. Kung masasama lang ang mamamatay yan ang matatawag na makatarungan. Ngunit kung idadamay o may madadamay na mga inosente o walang sala ay walang katarungan dito. Ang paniniwala ng mga propeta na pumapatay ang Diyos ay pagpapakita lamang na hindi nila lubos na kilala ang kalikasan o katangian ng Diyos. Mas higit si Cristo kaysa sa mga propeta at apostol kung pagkakakilala sa Diyos ang pagbabatayan dahil Siya ang tanging sinugo ng Diyos na bumaba mula sa langit. Dahil ang nanggaling sa itaas ay sumasaibabaw sa lahat (Juan 3:31).
So the Great Flood did not happen? ok...
 
1 Samuel 15:2–3, God tells King Saul, “I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them, put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”


Gaya ng sabi ko, hindi magagawa ng Diyos ang pumatay dahil Siya ay banal. Kung ang isang taong pumapatay ng kapwa tao ay naglalayo sa kanya tungo sa kabanalan, masasabi kong hindi magagawa ng Diyos ang pumatay dahil hindi na Siya matatawag pang banal na Diyos. Hindi Diyos ang may gawa ng mga pagpatay sa lumang tipan. Sabi sa kasulatan; Makatarungang Ama, hindi ka nakikilala ng sanglibutan, nguni't nakikilala kita; at nakikilala ng mga ito na ikaw ang nagsugo sa akin (Juan 17:25). Makatarungan pala ang Diyos ayon kay Cristo. Ngunit kung papatay ang Diyos ng masasama at idadamay o may madadamay naman na mga walang sala o inosenteng tao pati mga hayop, napakalinaw naman na hindi ito matatawag na makatarungan. Kung masasama lang ang mamamatay yan ang matatawag na makatarungan. Ngunit kung idadamay o may madadamay na mga inosente o walang sala ay walang katarungan dito. Ang paniniwala ng mga propeta na pumapatay ang Diyos ay pagpapakita lamang na hindi nila lubos na kilala ang kalikasan o katangian ng Diyos. Mas higit si Cristo kaysa sa mga propeta at apostol kung pagkakakilala sa Diyos ang pagbabatayan dahil Siya ang tanging sinugo ng Diyos na bumaba mula sa langit. Dahil ang nanggaling sa itaas ay sumasaibabaw sa lahat (Juan 3:31).
Sabi mo "Gaya ng sabi ko, hindi magagawa ng Diyos ang pumatay dahil Siya ay banal." eh sinabi na ka kay Saul yung motibo nya. Ano paba hindi malinaw sa bersikulo na yun?
 
Just want to comment a little here, by definition my friend, in Christian theology, justification is God's righteous act of removing the guilt and penalty of sin while, at the same time, declaring the ungodly to be righteous, through faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice.

Pero hindi namn ako theologian o hindi rin ako isang bible scholar, pareho lang din siguro tayo na skeptic minsan o madalas. Ang sagot ko lang dyan kung iyong tatanggapin e WALA naman sa atin ang posisyon simula pa noong una ang mag "justify" ng kahit ano pa man dahil hindi naman tayo ang may akda ng "moral laws" or even if maging justifier man tayo ng good and bad ay nagsimula lang iyn noong nalaman o naibigay na sa atin ng Law Giver ang mga ito(moral laws).

So heto na nga't nagmumungkahi tayo ng "justification" sa mga nasabing pagpatay o destructions sa Bibliya. Sa totoo lang e pwede mong piliing ijustify ang pagpatay noon kung kaya mong unawain ang layunin ng lumikha o nagbigay ng iyong pinaniniwalaang "good and bad" base na rin sa pamantayan na ikaw mismo ang may akda kung meron man.

Konklusyon: Hindi natin kayang unawain ang Will lalo na ang Mind of God sa ating batayan, ika nga ni Stephen Hawking On why the universe exists "If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would know the mind of God", dahil walang 1 size fits all answer sa lahat ng tanong patungkol sa kabanalan at katarungan ng Diyos. Subukan mong ipaliwanag at makikinig ako, subukan mong gawin ang nararapat at susunod ako.

PS. Malay mo personal na ireveal sayo ng Diyos ang sagot sa mga tanong mo, just let Him in into your life siguro my friend.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The sixth commandment is "Thou shalt not kill." Atheists claim that God violated His own commandment in ordering the destruction of entire cities, just to allow the Jews to have a homeland in the Middle East. The Bible confirms that God ordered the killing of thousands of people. Isn't this an open and shut case for the hypocrisy of the God of the Bible?

Is all killing the same?
One thing you have to love about atheists is their extreme appreciation for the King James Version (KJV) translation. The KJV was translated in the early 17th century using an archaic form of modern English. In the last 400 years, the English language has changed significantly. Unfortunately, the vast majority of those who read the KJV (both believers and unbelievers) are unqualified to know what the text means in many instances because of word meaning changes. In attempting to demonstrate the contradiction of God's commands to Israel and the sixth commandment, atheist cite the KJV translation, "Thou shalt not kill."

However, like English, Hebrew, the language in which most of the Old Testament was written, uses different words for intentional vs. unintentional killing. The verse translated "Thou shalt not kill" in the KJV translation, is translated "You shall not murder" in modern translations - because these translations represents the real meaning of the Hebrew text. The Bible in Basic English translates the phrase, "Do not put anyone to death without cause." The Hebrew word used here is ratsach, which nearly always refers to intentional killing without cause (unless indicated otherwise by context). Hebrew law recognized accidental killing as not punishable. In fact, specific cities were designated as "cities of refuge," so that an unintentional killer could flee to escape retribution. The Hebrew word for "kill" in this instance is not ratsach, but nakah, which can refer to either premeditated or unintentional killing, depending upon context. Other Hebrew words also can refer to killing. The punishment for murder was the death sentence. However, to be convicted, there needed to be at least two eyewitnesses. The Bible also prescribes that people have a right to defend themselves against attack and use deadly force if necessary.

Is God's killing justified?
To answer the question whether God breaks His own commandments, we need to determine if God committed murder (i.e., killed people without cause). The Bible is quite clear that God has killed people directly (the most prominent example being the flood) and indirectly (ordered peoples to be killed). If God ordered or participated in the killing of innocent people, then He would be guilty of murder. Let's look at two of the most prominent examples.

The flood
According to the Bible, God killed every human except Noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives in the flood. Were any of these people killed unjustly? The Bible says specifically that all people (except Noah and his family) had become corrupted. Not only had all people become corrupted, but they were continually plotting evil! Is it possible that an entire culture can become corrupted? You bet! Recent history proves the point rather well. When the Nazis took over Germany before WWII, opposition was crushed and removed. When they began their purging of the undesirables (e.g., the Jews), virtually the entire society went along with the plan. Further examples are given on another page. So, the Bible indicates that no innocent people were killed in the flood.

God orders killing
What about when God ordered Joshua and his people to kill every man, woman and child in Canaan? What crime could be so great that entire populations of cities were designated for destruction? God told Moses that the nations that the Hebrew were replacing were wicked. How "wicked" were these people? The text tells us that they were burning their own sons and daughters in sacrifices to their gods. So we see that these people were not really innocent. For these reasons (and others), God ordered the destruction of the peoples whom the Israelites dispossessed.

What about the children and other "innocents"
Surely God could have spared the children! People tend to assume that children are innocent, even if their parents are doing bad things. The assumption is unfounded. For example, Palestinian Muslim children are officially taught in grammar school to hate their Jewish neighbors. They are so well indoctrinated that some of them give up their lives in suicide bombings as children. Corruption literally does breed corruption, which is why God did not want the Hebrews tainted by the other corrupt cultures of the Middle East.


Surely there must have been other innocent adults in those cities who were destroyed with the wicked! There actually is an example of a time when God was asked if He would destroy the innocent along with the wicked. Prior to destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham asked God if He would destroy the righteous along with the wicked. God replied that He would spare the entire city for 50 righteous people. Abraham kept reducing the possible number of righteous people, asking God if He would destroy the entire city along with those number of righteous people. God's reply in each case was that He would not destroy the righteous along with the wicked. The lowest number Abraham asked about was ten righteous people, although the answer would likely be the same with as few as one righteous individual. How do we know this? God sent two angels to warn the four righteous people in Sodom to flee before He destroyed the city. It is quite convenient that such details are usually left out of atheistic sites complaining about the "evil" perpetrated by God. In fact, God saved certain people from being killed in cities such as Jericho.

Conclusion
The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is really not as general as the King James version would indicate. The commandment actually refers to premeditated, unjustified killing - murder. Although God ordered the extermination of entire cities, He did so in righteous judgment on a people whose corruption had led to extreme wickedness, including child sacrifice. Did God destroy the righteous along with the wicked? In an exchange with Abraham, God indicated that He would spare the wicked to save the righteous. He demonstrated this principle by saving righteous people from Sodom and Jericho prior to their destruction. The charge that God indiscriminately murdered people does not hold to to critical evaluation of the biblical texts.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hindi natin kaya unawain, kaya ok yung genocide...hmmm. At kung capable yung god na magdala ng kapahamakan sa humanity, how is he different then from satan that the religious people despises?

Not knowing the origin of the material univserse is a lot more acceptable and humbling than accepting your god's atrocities.

Sabi mo "just let him in". Paano kung I don't let him in?

god: <knocks on the door> "let me in".
me: "why should I let you in"
god: "because I am going to save you from things that I will do to you (eg, thrown to hell) if you don't let me in!"
me: <scratch my head and says to myself> "looks like I've got no choice here. He operates both the party house and the prison.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top