The unpopular Bible Verses (no arguments, just read!) Theists not welcomed unless you havent read the whole bible.

[jacoblabares]

---

Kuyawa ani sa...what if's

[Walking KB]

6. 1 Samuel 15:2-3 NIV

2"Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 3Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"


Interpretation/Comments:

So Saul was given the command to destroy the Amelikites for the plunder they have been committing against the Israelites for many years. Okay, so this is like divine justice. However, the women, children and infants were also killed? Just let that sink in for a moment. ISIS should bring a good comparison. Historical wars maybe barbaric, but considering this is the All loving God that transcends all time, his morality and justice should have reflected that as well. What have the children done wrong? Oh well, since their parents are gonna die, then its more humane for them to die as well? right.....

Later in the chapter, Saul lost favor from God because he kept all the best livestocks, which angered the Lord. You know, the tone of these verses as you read them feels like as if God did not create other people, nor cared for them. Theres so much things God could improve on as an omnipotent being.

The Amalekites, who were descendents of Esau, had been longtime enemies of Israel. They fought against Israel at Rephidim (Exodus 17:. Apparently, they "entertained a deep-seated grudge against them, especially as the rapid prosperity and marvelous experience of Israel showed that the blessing contained in the birthright [Jacob and Esau] was taking effect."1 They were a constant threat to Israel. Therefore, God said to Moses in Exodus 17:14 “Write this in a book as a memorial, and recite it to Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.”

God lawfully has the right to execute judgment upon anyone. The Bible says that all people have sinned against God and are under his righteous judgment. Therefore, their execution is not an arbitrary killing nor is it murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of life. Killing is the lawful taking of life. For example, we can lawfully take a life in defense of our selves, our families, our nations, etc.

When God authorizes the nation of Israel to wipe out a people, it is a lawful execution due to their rebellion and sin against God. Furthermore, such an extermination can be seen to be merciful by delivering the young into the hands of the Lord and possibly saving their souls by not giving them time to become "utterly sinful".2 Additionally, further generations that would have arisen from the perverse culture, are likewise prevented from coming into existence and spreading their sin.
================================================

Naa kay hidden agenda TS?Do not feed us with poison or even try to corrupt our minds. Anyhow, trying to interpret the message on your own is dangerous. Mas maau mo join ka bible study para enlighten ka.

[NapoleonBlownapart]

A quick historical background of the Bible is that it is a compilation of modified stories from other religions and cultures. Most of it's events and characters, including Jesus Christ, never existed. Ergo, I'm commenting on a fictional book. You may want to ignore this thread, it will just cause you to be filled with anger, pride, and ridicule and may fail to exhibit the goodness of your Jesus Christ through your actions.

There are claims by atheists who say the story of Jesus is like the story of Horus etc, but no it's false. The historicity of Jesus is corroborated by extra biblical accounts and writings of secular historians, so yes, Jesus did exist.

[emow]

The Amalekites, who were descendents of Esau, had been longtime enemies of Israel. They fought against Israel at Rephidim (Exodus 17:. Apparently, they "entertained a deep-seated grudge against them, especially as the rapid prosperity and marvelous experience of Israel showed that the blessing contained in the birthright [Jacob and Esau] was taking effect."1 They were a constant threat to Israel. Therefore, God said to Moses in Exodus 17:14 “Write this in a book as a memorial, and recite it to Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.”

God lawfully has the right to execute judgment upon anyone. The Bible says that all people have sinned against God and are under his righteous judgment. Therefore, their execution is not an arbitrary killing nor is it murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of life. Killing is the lawful taking of life. For example, we can lawfully take a life in defense of our selves, our families, our nations, etc.

When God authorizes the nation of Israel to wipe out a people, it is a lawful execution due to their rebellion and sin against God. Furthermore, such an extermination can be seen to be merciful by delivering the young into the hands of the Lord and possibly saving their souls by not giving them time to become "utterly sinful".2 Additionally, further generations that would have arisen from the perverse culture, are likewise prevented from coming into existence and spreading their sin.
================================================

Naa kay hidden agenda TS?Do not feed us with poison or even try to corrupt our minds. Anyhow, trying to interpret the message on your own is dangerous. Mas maau mo join ka bible study para enlighten ka.

killing of infants and children is okay? right..... You need not stay here. No arguments from theists, create your own thread where you go oh lord oh lord. If you read the instruction, or you need it to be "divinely inspired" before you follow?

Isn't this the same mentality of Isis as they brutally ravaged villages in the name of their god? Are they justified in killing people then? Or they are wrong because they have the wrong god? Only when your god says so makes killing justifiable? If your biblical study makes you this naive to what is the obvious, killing the children of the guilty is still wrong, then I rather not. Killing the guilty adults may be justified, but never the killing of the children, no matter how guilty their parents are. Your God is an abomination. Thank goodness he's not real.

[emow]

There are claims by atheists who say the story of Jesus is like the story of Horus etc, but no it's false. The historicity of Jesus is corroborated by extra biblical accounts and writings of secular historians, so yes, Jesus did exist.

Nope. No corroboration from other leading writers on the time the of Jesus. Example, there are no evidence for the existence of Socrates but there are many corroborative writings during his time from various writers therefore Socrates most probably existed. Jesus on the other hand, has none. As great as he has done, writers forgot to document it. Only after a century did records of Jesus surfaced, and some were deliberate fabrications by some leaders of early christianity. I hope this will be our last interaction in this thread. I'm sure some other threads would make your time worthwhile. spread the "good news." yey

[emow]

7. Deuteronomy 25:11-12 NIV


11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

Interpretation/Comments:

What the fock, god! It is as clear as what you can read in your bible. Nevermind the noble intention of the wife aye God? Just cut off her hand yeah? This must be so common that God specifically commanded for this.

[Walking KB]

killing of infants and children is okay? right..... You need not stay here. No arguments from theists, create your own thread where you go oh lord oh lord. If you read the instruction, or you need it to be "divinely inspired" before you follow?

Isn't this the same mentality of Isis as they brutally ravaged villages in the name of their god? Are they justified in killing people then? Or they are wrong because they have the wrong god? Only when your god says so makes killing justifiable? If your biblical study makes you this naive to what is the obvious, killing the children of the guilty is still wrong, then I rather not. Killing the guilty adults may be justified, but never the killing of the children, no matter how guilty their parents are. Your God is an abomination. Thank goodness he's not real.

You don't compare yourself with God. You're human. Don't try to understand God's decision.

[emow]

You don't compare yourself with God. You're human. Don't try to understand God's decision.

I'm not doing any comparison, I'm just applying common sense. Can you really say killing infants is okay? Say it if you believe God can kill innocent infants because of their guilty parents. Anybody else want to accept this medieval mentality of killing innocent children because their "god" said so as prime example of JUSTICE worthy to be continued in perpetuity?

Your god is as useless as all other gods. It's just a matter of time your nameless god will be part of mythology. From this point, just stay away. I think you are triggered enough.

[RACER X]

Why would it be hilarious? Have you read the Bible cover to cover? I did, and it made me an unbeliever .

This statement alone makes me conclude how flimsy it will be having an intelligent discussion in this topic. Read the Bible cover to cover? LOL.

[Walking KB]

7. Deuteronomy 25:11-12 NIV


11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

Interpretation/Comments:

What the fock, god! It is as clear as what you can read in your bible. Nevermind the noble intention of the wife aye God? Just cut off her hand yeah? This must be so common that God specifically commanded for this.

There are other laws that need to be considered, which might shed light on this situation.

When there is a fight between two people, the general rule is that what damage is done to one person is done to the other when the matter goes to court and the injurer is shown to be in the wrong. "If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him" (Leviticus 24:19-20).

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 takes this in the other direction and someone not involved in the fight tries to intervene and injures one the fighters. The example used is of someone strongly interested in protecting one of the fighters -- his wife. Because of the other laws regarding fights, it is generally assumed that the wife caused permanent damage by her action. If a man had done this and caused injuring, the law in Leviticus 24:19-20 would set the punishment to an equivalent amount of damage to the person who did this. However, a woman doesn't have external genitals, so what would be considered equivalent damage? God set it at the lost of a hand. Even people intervening in a fight have a responsibility to not cause harm.