Thou Shalt Not Kill.

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 95
Topic's author
#1
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Exodus 20:13
 "Thou shalt not kill".says God.
 
This didn't stop god murdering his faithful servant Ezekiel's wife for absolutely no reason other than to show who is boss. Ezekiel 24:15-24. and on top of it all, Ezekiel wasn't even allowed to mourn or weep for the loss of his great love.
 
These murders of  innocent people committed by this psychopathic,megalomaniac jealous god of war don't stop there either. No. There is the sanctioning  by god of  the slaughter all of Jobs children for no other reason  than to prove a point. Job 1:13-22. Job recognized by god as his most loyal and faithful servant. 
 
 And there is Jeroboam's son. Again no reason given for these murders only god was proving something. This child was killed to punish Jeroboam, to save him from a massacre God was planning for the rest of Jeroboam's family. Kings 14:10-18
 
There is the killing by god of Bathsheba's baby boy. No reason.
Uzzah. for saving gods  sacred arc from tipping over.
Thousands of of Israelites for no other reason than because they didn't like the bread. And on and on and on it goes. There is no respite from gods wrath and the murder of innocents.
 
 
 
 
The questions that are raised by just these few horrific examples of murders of innocents by the adopted god of the Chrsitians are endless, but one shouldn't expect any fawning, led- by- the- nose- Christian to address the barbarity of this god who will murder for no reason and at the drop of a hat.
 
 

#2
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Sooooo, is your problem that God kills, or that He didn't submit a reason to you explaining why He killed?

I mean, if He had given you a reason, would you be OK with His killing? If not, then why even mention at all that no reason was given?

The OP is like when you read a rant by a 15 year old against the "outrage" of his parents grounding him for having sex when his parents have sex too.

There is nothing to do except just wait for the lad to get older and become less immature.
#3
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8

#4
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Melcharaz
The particulars as they apply to the word with the r-tz-ch root (vs the h-r-g root) are very complex. The general notion that r-tz-ch is an extra judicial killing while h-r-g is (a type of) judicial or approved killing is only true MOST of the time.
#5
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
@Stephen
It's somewhat naïve to assume that an actual god would be a particular one that you prefer to refer to.

As it is not proven that there is an actual god

Or if it was proven.... which particular one it was

Or perhaps it would be a completely different one altogether.

It is therefore impossible to say what regard an actual god would have in respect of killing.

All that we are certain of is that there are a variety of ways and means that bring about the demise of the organic mass (Human)

My suggestion is that a god would probably look at the state of the world and probably not give a toss, especially when you consider expected birth and death rates globally. (A god would be global not regional)

As far as we are currently able to know, murder is a human thing that only bothers humans.


#6
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Whether either of us believes in God is immaterial. We want to discuss whether such killings would be moral or not in the context of Christianity.

No one needs to be a believer for us to be able to do so. We don't care that you don't believe in God. Please stop degrading every discussion with the same obsessive stupidity about God not existing.

At the very least, make your own thread. But we can discuss ANY subject, theoretical or actual. We don't need you always knee-jerking to a "does god exist?" argument every time someone wants to discuss religion on the religion board.

You've told us what you believe several times. Thanks, but no one cares. We want to discuss other things than just your obsession. God need not be actual for a theoretical discussion to take place. But your mind should be able to deal with intellectual discussions other than just the tired, "god doesn't exist" clunker.

So, start your own God doesn't exist thread, but if you don't, and enter the thread of another, contribute to the discussion instead of simply insisting in every thread of every topic, that God doesn't exist.

On topic or gtfo.
Topic's author
#7
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4

It's somewhat naïve to assume that an actual god would be a particular one that you prefer to refer to.

I refer to the god spoken of in the biblical text that is believed by millions to exist. 


My personal belief is that many of these so called gods existed here once millennia ago, but have since returned from where they came. .  Interesting that you mention plural gods though which is something that the bible refers to often without any excuses for "mistranslation" yet , our fawning backward thinking sycophants will insist that there is only "one god". The ancients of such places as Mesopotamia who only ever referred to these beings as "lords" and NOT GODS,  make that fact clear as does the god of the Christians himself says that there were more than one god. But this is not the topic of this thread.

The topic of this thread concerned the fact that this particular god of the scripture  - who is worshiped by millions of fawning backward thinking sycophants  is a megalomaniac psychopathic killer who it shows will simply murder because he is bored and has nothing better to do with his time.

And as mentioned raises many embarrassing questions for said fawning backward thinking sycophantic Christians.

Why would this all powerful god creator all things feel the need to prove himself  to anyone at all let alone to a creature he had condemned to spend the rest of his life on the ground  eating dust millennia before. As in the case of Job.

And what was this creature -Satan-  doing just wondering around the earth having supposedly once been condemned to eat dust "all of his days" by this all powerful god creator all things.Genesis 3:14.  When asked where he had been and where had he just come from he replied:


"From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it".Job 1;7  "WALKING"!?



Topic's author
#8
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@rosends
The particulars as they apply to the word with the r-tz-ch root (vs the h-r-g root) are very complex. The general notion that r-tz-ch is an extra judicial killing while h-r-g is (a type of) judicial or approved killing is only true MOST of the time.


And are you now going to tell me that -  kill -  in the scripture means something entirely different to what all normal people believe the word kill to mean, i.e. to cause the death of. 
#9
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
No, Rosends is telling you that "killing" can have more than one meaning, as when a police officer does it to save a baby, and when a rapist does it to gain access to a woman's body.

You believe words can only have your meaning when they are in the bible. But no one else has to abide by such silliness.

Your belief that God is immoral is just your biased opinion, nothing else. And it's based on nothing but your irrational bias.
#10
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
Of course you're giving us the usual Mel Brook's version of scripture we're left with having to clean up. Not that it would do any good.

Concerning Ezekiel's wife, mourning was a ceremonial act in that day. A tradition. A public display that wasn't necessarily genuine in sentiment in that mourners were often hired. We get a glimpse of the shallowness the ceremony could produce in Matthew when Jesus raised Jairus' Daughter.

“Why are you making a commotion and weeping? The child is not dead but sleeping.” 40 And they laughed at him.

You left out the verse where God said "Groan quietly". A Freudian slip?

Concerning Uzzah and the arc, would you kindly show us where it says the arc was tipping over.
Topic's author
#11
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
Concerning Uzzah and the arc, would you kindly show us where it says the arc was tipping over.

Typical but not surprising. It is clear that Uzzah reached out to steady the arc because the oxen pulling it "had stumbled". Uzzah's concern for gods arc was obvious to everyone , except to fawning backward thinking sycophants such as Christians who will stoop and scrape for all kinds of reasons & excuses that justifies this willful and pointless killing of a innocent human being by this psychopathic tyrant . 

Did Uzzas' heroic action deserve the death penalty.  This was a killing for no reason other than your megalomaniac psychopathic god  wanted to show that he was in charge.

Maybe Uzza should have show kindness to the Ox and untethered the cart carrying the arc and let the poor beast go relieving him of his burden and let it run free. But then acts of kindness are alien to a psychopathic  "The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name."
Exodus 15:3, KJV

Interesting here that it is stated that "the lord" is "a man" and is addressed simply as "the lord", just like in the days of ancient Mesopotamia.



#12
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
First off, they weren't supposed to be carrying it on an ox cart to begin with. They were supposed to carry it on poles on the shoulders of men. And, although Uzzah was strong, he wasn't strong enough to prevent a 600 pound arc from falling over. Why do you think he was the only one to react to the ox stumbling? They didn't seem to think it needed steadying (which is a big jump from your claim to it tipping over).

How would you know what Uzzah's real intentions were if this was fiction? Or, do you you think this event actually happened?


#13
User_2006
User_2006's avatar
Debates: 50
Posts: 510
3
3
11
User_2006's avatar
User_2006
3
3
11
Again, I am new. 

If "Thou shall not kill" is enforced, then every murderer will get away because whoever executed them is deemed immoral. 
#14
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@User_2006
If "Thou shall not kill" is enforced, then every murderer will get away because whoever executed them is deemed immoral. 

Not if you include "eye for an eye" principle in the OT...



#15
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Melcharaz brought in the Hebrew word used in the 10 Statements, which is a word with the root r-tz-ch. I believe his point was to negate the mistranslation in the OP, as the commandment is "thou shalt not kill" but instead, "thou shalt not murder." The r-tz-ch root is usually translated as "murder" as opposed to the root "h-r-g" which is a root used for a more generic "kill" (though it is also a technical root meaning "beheading with a sword as a form of capital punishment") and I'm sure you can recognize that in English, the word "kill" and the word "murder" carry very different meanings even though they both include causing the death of another. Thus, when other people are "killed" there is still a distinction to be made between those deaths and "murders" which are proscribed.

I was simply pointing out that, textually, there are a couple of cases where a "r-tz-ch" word is used for someone/some act that is actually somewhat sanctioned under the law. If you need any other help understanding, please let me know.

#16
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Well as I stated.

The Christian biblical god is hypothetical irrespective of belief.

Therefore any standard that is applied is also hypothetical.

All that we do is design and set human standards.

So my personal conclusion is that a universal god would not be overly concerned about the problems of one evolved organism here on Earth....Such a small problem in the context of a seemingly infinite universe.

It's a bit like us worrying about swatting flies.

#17
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Stephen
for absolutely no reason 
Sure, no reason is evident in just the verses you pick out. But selective argument is not valid. Read the context, my friend. Read that at this time, in the sixth century BCE. Israel is occupied by Babylon, and, rather than resist Babylonians, the Israelites pander to them, delight in their company, and are as wicked as the Babylonians, even Ezekiel's wife. No, there was reason, you just don't want to see it.

Same situation and timing in Kigs, the 6th century BCE, and the same Babylonian occupation, and the same Israelite wickedness. Also the same reason you do not want to acknowledge.

Same with Bathsheba's boy, 400 years earlier, same with Uzzah 400 years before that [ bydisobedience], and same with disobedient Israelites 400 years back again [at least try to make some chronological semblance to your arguments!]  No, there is no innocence in your entire mantra.

You're like a schoolboy satisfied with your wiki search without searching deeper, and your Cliff Notes version of the Bible. How about just reading it, cover to cover. You seem amiable to accept your godless pundits without addressing any credibility, so, no wonder we have yet another skin-deep atheist. If that's your mantra, why not dig deeper into it. Skimming any surface gets you the same thing: skum.

#18
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
murder is a human thing that only bothers humans.

Murder is the shedding of innocent blood, not that the murder victim is sinless, but that the victim is inconsequential to the aims of the murderer, and is therefore dispatched as merely being in the way. It is that attitude that God deplores, and is the distinction between killing, as a soldier in war, or as, by the way, the dispatch by God at diverse times and places people who are continuously, and single-mindedly opposed to obedience to God.
#19
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
Yes. 

But that is based upon your assumption, that a god is real rather than a concept. It also implies that a universal god is only really concerned with human existence.

My assumptions are based upon a hypothetical, universal god.

Taking into consideration a god's universal responsibilities, rather than what would be just an inconsequential organic life form, languishing upon an inconsequential speck of rock, somewhere within the vastness of space.

Topic's author
#20
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
First off, [...........................].

None of your apologetic clap trap can justify the willful killing of this loyal and faithful   human being whose only concern seemed to be saving the arc of god , that is -  gods arc - from falling from the cart that the ox that was pulling it had stumbled. Why couldn't the lazy vile clown of a god look after his own dangerous piece of weaponry instead of trusting it to the hands of mere mortals. 

 This murder can be no more justified BY YOU than the murder of all of  children of Job,  gods MOST faithful and loyal servant, where YOUR psychopathic   jealous god of war,  YES!!! YOUR GOD - murdered for  nothing more than a wager.

These act of willful murder for absolute non reason or trivial reasons only proves your god loves no one  - not even his most faithful and trusted "servants". humans to this maniac are simply ten a penny, small and insignificant ,   no matter how loyal. 

do you you think this event actually happened?

Irreverent. The bible - believed by millions - tells the story of a man Uzzah that was murdered by god when this gods own command is "thou shalt not kill".

Exodus 20:13 King James Version (KJV)
13 Thou shalt not kill.

#21
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
Irreverent. The bible - believed by millions - tells the story of a man Uzzah that was murdered by god when this gods own command is "thou shalt not kill".

Exodus 20:13 King James Version (KJV)
13 Thou shalt not kill.


It most definitely is relevant. If you think it's fiction, what gives you the idea you can speak for the author? Who are you to designate who the heroes and the villains are?

People sometimes joke about Sherlock Holmes And Watson being gay. Silly of course, but at least it's tongue-in-cheek. The fact of the matter is though, they are not gay unless Arthur Conan Doyle says so.


Your trying to use Exodus 20:13 to suggest a contradiction is absurd. We have laws against killing people as well. But if someone commits high treason, they're put to death. Since you're the one who started the thread, the burden of proof is on you. You haven't proven anything except your personal dislike for the God of the Bible. It's as irrelevant to me as someone disliking Trans Ams. I like them and couldn't care less who doesn't. Yeah, we get that you don't like the God of the Bible. So what? I don't watch the Batman franchise movies, but I hear tell that the Joker has become more popular a character than Batman. Sometimes that happens. But that doesn't change the author's or script writer's point of view.



If you believe the incident happened, you'll have to prove the real person named Uzzah didn't see an excuse for bragging rights by touching the ark, using the stumbling of the donkey as an excuse, when the others apparently respected God's command. You'll even have to prove the ark needed
steadying to avoid tipping over.

If you think it's fiction, then you'll have to prove that the author's point of view is yours. And then you'll have to prove it's fiction.
Topic's author
#22
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Your trying to use Exodus 20:13 to suggest a contradiction is absurd.

Even when it is actually a clear contradiction of the gods own commandment.  You really are scrapping the barrel and clutching at straws here. For one to order "do not kill"  and then in the very next breath kills willfully,  is nothing short of insane double standards and the very height of hypocrisy.
These act of willful murder for absolute non reason or trivial reasons only proves your god loves no one  - not even his most faithful and trusted "servants". humans to this maniac are simply ten a penny, small and insignificant ,   no matter how loyal. And your apologetic opinion of it being "absurd" is absurdity at its best.  It is as absurd as the murder of ALL of Jobs children for the fun of it.

AND!!!

You haven't addressed the point of why a god would even need to prove anything to anyone never mind to a lowly creature that he had already condemned to crawl around on its belly ` for the rest of its days` or why it was "walking to and fro on the earth and up and down".

 "From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it".Job 1;7  "WALKING"!?  It was supposed to have been condemned to "crawl on its belly and eat dust for ever" since almost the beginning of time.. Genesis 3:14




We have laws against killing people as well.

That is correct, WE do!  And and even those deemed to be judges of the law and those who make those  laws deeming murder to be a crime and unlawful to murder will be held to account if they themselves have committed murder. As many cases have proven in history. 
#23
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RoderickSpode
No one has as yet proven the whole flood, ark and Christian god thng.

So believers and non-believers alike are always somewhat jumping the gun when attempting to interpret and contextualise, biblical mythology.

I would suggest that we should all appreciate the hypothetical nature of such discussions.



#24
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
It's only illegal if you get caught. 

Topic's author
#25
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4


No one has as yet proven the whole flood, ark and Christian god thng [.........................]

So believers and non-believers alike are always somewhat jumping the gun when attempting to interpret and contextualise, biblical mythology.

Discussions of many so called "mythical" subjects and fantasies are discussed and studied all around the world in every school collage and university. Billions of Books have been written on these "mythical" beings and what is believed about them by different peoples past and present  and by theists and atheist alike.

Shakespeare's  works are for ever boring pupils and students all around the world, they are not true, factual stories. But they are discussed and studied even in non speaking English countries.  



Are you telling me that these mythical gods and their individual religions  should never be discussed at all, anywhere, ever? 

It is my contention that these subjects should be discussed weather or not one believes "gods" existed or not. The point you are missing is that millions of people over millions of years have worshiped these beings in one form or another and millions simply do not believe as such but it doesn't stop them discussing these subjects.  Theists  write and speak as if they existed or still exist. It is up to the atheist then,  should he wish to , to challenge what it is that these sycophantic fawning theist actually believe in .

If you wish to discuss  everything else but the topic of my thread, it would be decent and polite of you if you started your own thread. Rather than continue to repeat yourself over and over thereby clogging up my thread with your well known opinions on why no one should be discussing god or the bible..



Incidentally. It may have actually  escaped your notice that while I agree that there is no real and factual evidence for the Christian god ever existing, the bible does indeed itself exist and,  there-for it  is up for discussion. As would be, and is, any book discussed in book clubs AND internet forums around the globe.   
 
But it is my guess that you have never even considered this although here you are, discussing and opineing to what shouldn't be discussed.











Topic's author
#26
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
It's only illegal if you get caught. 

I am not discussing the legality of it although, we 21st century humans understand the concept of illegality . No. I am referring to the downright double standards and hypocrisy shown by the murdering jealous god of war , who will kill his most faithful of servants for no other reason that to prove  who was in charge to someone whom he had already condemned to crawl on the earth eating dirt for the rest of his days.
Topic's author
#27
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
Your trying to use Exodus 20:13 to suggest a contradiction is absurd.

Even when it is actually showing a clear contradiction of this gods own commandment.  You really are scrapping the barrel and clutching at straws here. For one to order "do not kill"  and then in the very next breath kills willfully,  is nothing short of insane double standards and the very height of hypocrisy.
These act of willful murder for absolute non reason or trivial reasons only proves your god loves no one  - not even his most faithful and trusted "servants". humans to this maniac are simply ten a penny, small and insignificant ,   no matter how loyal. And your apologetic opinion of it being "absurd" is absurdity at its best.  It is as absurd as the murder of ALL of Jobs children for the fun of it.

AND!!!

You haven't addressed the point of why a god would even need to prove anything to anyone never mind to a lowly creature that he had already condemned to crawl around on its belly ` for the rest of its days` or why it was "walking to and fro on the earth and up and down".

 "From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it".Job 1;7  "WALKING"!?  It was supposed to have been condemned to "crawl on its belly and eat dust for ever" since almost the beginning of time.. Genesis 3:14




We have laws against killing people as well.

That is correct, WE do!  And and even those deemed to be judges of the law and those who make those  laws deem murder to be a crime and unlawful to murder will be held to account if they themselves have committed murder. As many cases in history have proven . 

#28
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen

Even when it is actually showing a clear contradiction of this gods own commandment.  You really are scrapping the barrel and clutching at straws here. For one to order "do not kill"  and then in the very next breath kills willfully,  is nothing short of insane double standards and the very height of hypocrisy.
These act of willful murder for absolute non reason or trivial reasons only proves your god loves no one  - not even his most faithful and trusted "servants". humans to this maniac are simply ten a penny, small and insignificant ,   no matter how loyal. And your apologetic opinion of it being "absurd" is absurdity at its best.  It is as absurd as the murder of ALL of Jobs children for the fun of it.

If we ran along with your assessment of the God of the Bible being evil, then you're misrepresenting your view of a god or creator by singling out the God of the Bible (as you use terms like "your god"). Since everyone ultimately dies, any creator, including the deistic creator would be guilty of your claim. So your real problem cannot be with the God of the Bible only. It would have to include not only every concept of god in a religious format, but a deistic (impersonal) god/creator, who created us, and left us alone to fend for ourselves and ultimately die. Even the Richard Dawkins/panspermia alien creators would be guilty for bringing us into an existence leading to ultimate death. It doesn't matter whether someone dies in old age (whatever that is), in their prime, or in infancy.

So in your worldview as an atheist, you would have to conclude that if we weren't brought into the world by complete natural means, our existence
is based on a completely unjust proposition.


Here was a promise given to a jailer in the book of Acts.

Acts 16:31 New International Version (NIV)
31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

 This was not a promise that his household would not face physical death. Not even a promise that they would all live to be old (whatever that is). They all would die a physical death at some point.


The same promise was given to a Roman centurion in Acts 11.

He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.’

Again, no promise of life longevity.

The type of death you've been referring to was physical. Life continues on afterwards.




1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 ESV / 762 helpful votes

But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.

This was meant to comfort those who've lost loved ones to physical death. It would be unlikely that God would take His children into His Kingdom if He didn't love us.

In reference to the underlined word infancy, do you support abortion?


AND!!!

You haven't addressed the point of why a god would even need to prove anything to anyone never mind to a lowly creature that he had already condemned to crawl around on its belly ` for the rest of its days` or why it was "walking to and fro on the earth and up and down".

 "From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it".Job 1;7  "WALKING"!?  It was supposed to have been condemned to "crawl on its belly and eat dust for ever" since almost the beginning of time.. Genesis 3:14
Well in reference to the snake, I don't think a literal snake spoke to Eve. I know some believe Satan possessed a reptile. I don't see any reason to assume that at all. The deceiver was Satan, not a snake. The author referred to him as a snake, possibly because he had no other name for him. Or, he didn't want to describe Satan in any flattering way. Jesus referred to certain religious folk as vipers.  It's not unusual for people to refer to other people as snakes today. The author was either Moses, or someone(s) living about the same time as Moses. They were relating a snakes' cunningness to Satan. Moses was obviously very familiar with snakes. The curse was on Satan, and the description of the curse being a metaphor of the dismal lifestyle a snake seems to possess. They were forced to be held captive and be subject of magic tricks. Probably run over by carts and
chariots, sometimes on purpose. So it's not a description on how Satan would have to maneuver.

There was nothing tempting about the serpent (Satan) who was probably not physically visible just as God wasn't. The temptation was the fruit. To
use a crude example, a John is not tempted by the pimp. The John is tempted by the prostitute. The pimp may be their as an instrument to lure the John. But there's nothing appealing about the pimp.


That is correct, WE do!  And and even those deemed to be judges of the law and those who make those  laws deem murder to be a crime and unlawful to murder will be held to account if they themselves have committed murder. As many cases in history have proven . 
Some of your references were direct judgments via a violation. But as I stated, physical death simply involves departure from the physical body. After departure from the physical body, we see eternal life.

2 Corinthians 5:8 King James Version (KJV)
8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.




#29
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4

No one has as yet proven the whole flood, ark and Christian god thng.

So believers and non-believers alike are always somewhat jumping the gun when attempting to interpret and contextualise, biblical mythology.

I would suggest that we should all appreciate the hypothetical nature of such discussions.
I don't think I have any problem with appreciating any type of discussion.

As far as proving the whole flood, ark, and Christian god thing, do you see any reason they should be dismissed as possibilities?
#30
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@RoderickSpode
Well in reference to the snake, I don't think a literal snake spoke to Eve. I know some believe Satan possessed a reptile. I don't see any reason to assume that at all. The deceiver was Satan, not a snake. The author referred to him as a snake, possibly because he had no other name for him. Or, he didn't want to describe Satan in any flattering way. Jesus referred to certain religious folk as vipers.  It's not unusual for people to refer to other people as snakes today. The author was either Moses, or someone(s) living about the same time as Moses. They were relating a snakes' cunningness to Satan. Moses was obviously very familiar with snakes. The curse was on Satan, and the description of the curse being a metaphor of the dismal lifestyle a snake seems to possess. They were forced to be held captive and be subject of magic tricks. Probably run over by carts and
chariots, sometimes on purpose. So it's not a description on how Satan would have to maneuver.

There was nothing tempting about the serpent (Satan) who was probably not physically visible just as God wasn't. The temptation was the fruit.

+1
Good post, I don't know why everyone abandons the figurative style of writing in the scripture when it's so obvious. I know part of it is because of the poor interpretations of religious people but this is a no-brainer. There was never a talking snake lol, the snake just represents temptation.
This is why atheists get all bothered because they think we believe in talking animals and so we follow an ignorant book, when that was never the point at all. Silly stuff like this we have to then explain.