Why We Can’t Trust Christians To Run ANYTHING.

[LittleNipper]

Dropping bombs on "ungodly" nations is exactly what I would expect when Christians are put in charge of bombs. That is why Christians should perhaps not be trusted to be in charge of bombs.



In scripture, God specifically mentioned children and infants as primary targets for the armies that served him. There was nothing indirect about it.

It was war and the Hebrews were expected to remove the pagan blight from their land (given to them by GOD) or they would become indoctrinated by pagan influences. They in fact did not fully eliminate all the pagans for various reasons and in fact were currupted eventually. This resulted in the Babylonian captivity and the nation being split. It must be understood that these pagans practiced child sacrifices, sodomy, witchcraft and idol worship. And these people ALSO had opportunities to flee the advancing Israelites. However, this is preChristian history. Christ had not come to save the lost, yet. Technically, the only way to be save prior to Christianity was to become Jewish and follow the LAW of Moses. BUT, such an individual also had to be trusting in GOD for his eventual salvation and not upon any "birthright". The coming MESSIAH would redeem past, present, and future GOD fearing sinners.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

It was war and the Hebrews were expected to remove the pagan blight from their land (given to them by GOD) or they would become indoctrinated by pagan influences.

I see. I hadn't considered that. So stabbing little babies to death was actually a good thing, because the faithful of God had a moral obligation to exterminate the pagans, in order to avoid becoming "indoctrinated by pagan influences."

Between your explanation of why stabbing babies to death is justified and @Logicman saying that all non-Christians deserve to be burned alive in a lake of fire, I think the two of you are making a great case for why non-Christians should totally be comfortable with Christians holding positions of power. [/sarcasm]

 

[Logicman]

The find at Tel Dan was a stele, not tablets, a stone monument that had been broken and the fragments re-used in building a wall. There are 3 pieces of the stele that have provided the inscription which some archaeologists have interpreted as verifying the existence of a King David of Israel. Other specialists disagree with that interpretation, a few have even said they believe the inscription, at least in part, to be a modern forgery on an ancient find.

Skeptics be darned. Confirmation of King David.

 

[Logicman]

tell that to your god - it killed, and kills babies and the unborn with extreme regularity.

Nuts. Here's the real butchers.

 

[Somerville]

Skeptics be darned. Confirmation of King David.

Ah yes, confirmation of what you knew to be TRUE without confirmation. Without reading some of the papers that present alternative explankations for the phrase, you really only have your beliefs. The phrase "House of David" does not necessarily indicate that there was a King David.

One possible alternative explanation may be found in King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice by Francesca Stavrakopoulou
"However, though the reference to a "king of Israel" is fairly secure, the rendering of the phrase bytdwd as "House of David" is disputed, not least because it occurs without the expected word dividers, which are employed elsewhere throughout the inscription.
[. . .]
"As such, this fragmentary text cannot bear the weight of arguments heaped upon it concerning the historicity of the early monarchy. [. . .] Most importantly, however, is the consideration that if this inscription does refer to a king of Israel and House of David, it clearly distinguishes them as separate entities"

 

[nota bene]

I can understand that initially, people can need some help. The problem is that when those claiming to need help take and take and take, but feel no obligation to give anything of themselves ----- it becomes exploitation. Everyone's time and energy is wasted at the expense of others who might really want to be helped... Very often the help needed and necessary to turn someone's life around is spiritual. Throwing money at this will not break that cycle.

No, it won't. Entrenched poverty is not just about money; it's also about the restoration of self-respect and of dignity. For many it's about learning not to make decisions based on the moment, about learning how to live in a state other than perpetual emergency. Meanwhile, the reality is that today there are people who have nowhere indoors to sleep and no way to be clean, people who are hungry today.

And Jesus's directive (Matthew 25) is clear about who you are actually feeding.

 

[Mulefoot]

So if someone hates you, you think that you are justified in ordering your armies to murder their great-grandchildren in the cradle? And you wonder why some of us might not feel that people who hold such views can be trusted with power?

You've now mentioned several times your reservations about Christians in positions of power as a result of the Amalek story. It should be acknowledged that for Christians of the God of the OT, Christ very specifically, and multiple times, condemned revenge and tribalism as displayed in the Old Testament. He even went so far as to quote OT passages and condemn those for any who would turn away from such mindsets.

With such an obvious focus on OT revenge stories, it's strange for me that you're yet to mention the Jewish race and their role in power and politics. Now there may indeed be subsequent OT passages that are at seemingly at odds with the Amalek slaughter, but I know of no about-turn in Jewish thought that parallels Christ's teaching on the matter. Maybe it exists and I haven't seen it.

With that said, do you also feel that the Jewish race should not be trusted with national leadership, power, bombs, etc?

 

[Somerville]

You've now mentioned several times your reservations about Christians in positions of power as a result of the Amalek story. It should be acknowledged that for Christians of the God of the OT, Christ very specifically, and multiple times, condemned revenge and tribalism as displayed in the Old Testament. He even went so far as to quote OT passages and condemn those for any who would turn away from such mindsets.

With such an obvious focus on OT revenge stories, it's strange for me that you're yet to mention the Jewish race and their role in power and politics. Now there may indeed be subsequent OT passages that are at seemingly at odds with the Amalek slaughter, but I know of no about-turn in Jewish thought that parallels Christ's teaching on the matter. Maybe it exists and I haven't seen it.

With that said, do you also feel that the Jewish race should not be trusted with national leadership, power, bombs, etc?

There is no "Jewish race"? There are people who follow the tenets of the Tanakh from many different ethnic backgrounds.

The fact that you have used the term, "Jewish race", says a great deal about you.

 

[Logicman]

Ah yes, confirmation of what you knew to be TRUE without confirmation. Without reading some of the papers that present alternative explankations for the phrase, you really only have your beliefs. The phrase "House of David" does not necessarily indicate that there was a King David.

One possible alternative explanation may be found in King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice by Francesca Stavrakopoulou
"However, though the reference to a "king of Israel" is fairly secure, the rendering of the phrase bytdwd as "House of David" is disputed, not least because it occurs without the expected word dividers, which are employed elsewhere throughout the inscription.
[. . .]
"As such, this fragmentary text cannot bear the weight of arguments heaped upon it concerning the historicity of the early monarchy. [. . .] Most importantly, however, is the consideration that if this inscription does refer to a king of Israel and House of David, it clearly distinguishes them as separate entities"

LOL. Read the Bible so you'll have a clue who King David was.

 

[Mulefoot]

There is no "Jewish race"? There are people who follow the tenets of the Tanakh from many different ethnic backgrounds.

The fact that you have used the term, "Jewish race", says a great deal about you.

Antisemitism has always been a form of racism to me (not assuming that Concerned Citizen is racist of course). Probably the times I grew up in.

Thanks for the clarification, but it has no bearing on my point.

 

[LittleNipper]

I see. I hadn't considered that. So stabbing little babies to death was actually a good thing, because the faithful of God had a moral obligation to exterminate the pagans, in order to avoid becoming "indoctrinated by pagan influences."

Between your explanation of why stabbing babies to death is justified and @Logicman saying that all non-Christians deserve to be burned alive in a lake of fire, I think the two of you are making a great case for why non-Christians should totally be comfortable with Christians holding positions of power. [/sarcasm]

The issue is that Christians wish to keep discussions open and nonbelievers want to exclude "religious" matters. Regan was a great President and a Christian individual. The same can be said of Eisenhower. These men didn't make no bones regarding the importance of spirituality and their relationship with the LORD. And people can look back at those times in history with fond memories. Everything wasn't perfect, but there were hight hopes and improvements that are presently unimaginable under todays govermental secualism. The pendulum swings back and forth; however, each time it swings to the left ---- it goes alittle further. Today it is all about fear. Fear of Covid! Fear for the environment! Fear of plastics. Fear of saying the wrong thing, the wrong way, at the wrong time, to the wrong people. Fear of letting children play outside with other children. Fear of trusting one's neighbors. Fear of being ladeled. Fear of asteroids. Fear of Aids. And the list goes on and on. Who wants to live in a secular society that promises all the solutions but fulfills nothing, and takes away more and more freedom to speak one's mind and openly propose even GOD given solutions.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

You've now mentioned several times your reservations about Christians in positions of power as a result of the Amalek story. It should be acknowledged that for Christians of the God of the OT, Christ very specifically, and multiple times, condemned revenge and tribalism as displayed in the Old Testament. He even went so far as to quote OT passages and condemn those for any who would turn away from such mindsets.

With such an obvious focus on OT revenge stories, it's strange for me that you're yet to mention the Jewish race and their role in power and politics. Now there may indeed be subsequent OT passages that are at seemingly at odds with the Amalek slaughter, but I know of no about-turn in Jewish thought that parallels Christ's teaching on the matter. Maybe it exists and I haven't seen it.

With that said, do you also feel that the Jewish race should not be trusted with national leadership, power, bombs, etc?

Why would race have anything to do with it?

 

[Mulefoot]

Why would race have anything to do with it?

Nothing. What does religion have to do with it?

You confess that Christians, being exposed to the OT stories of revenge and tribalism are an issue with you. How much more are Jews being exposed without a Christlike about-face teaching on revenge and tribalism?

Would you have a problem voting for a Jewish politician because of the Amalek story? Would you vote for a practicing Muslim?

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Nothing. What does religion have to do with it?

You confess that Christians, being exposed to the OT stories of revenge and tribalism are an issue with you.

It is not about exposure to the stories. I have obviously been exposed to them myself.

People who believe that killing little babies is a noble and worthwhile thing to do in order to avoid becoming "indoctrinated by pagan influences" have a poisonous ideology. People who think that all those outside their religion deserve to be burned alive in a lake of fire have a poisonous ideology. People who long for the earth to be plagued by pestilence, famine, war, and death in order to pave the way for the entire world to be conquered and ruled with an Iron Scepter by a theocratic Dictator, have a poisonous ideology.

To be clear, I don't think those people deserve to suffer eternal torment in a lake of fire for their poisonous ideology. I just don't think they can be trusted with power.

How much more are Jews being exposed without a Christlike about-face teaching on revenge and tribalism?

Perhaps you could clarify. Before, you referred to them as the "Jewish race." So by "Jews," do you mean people of Semitic ethnic origin? Many Semites are secular humanists, Buddhists, Pastafarians, Wiccans, Jedi, etc.

Loyalty to a violent God has nothing to do with race. Ambitions of global theocracy have nothing to do with race.

Would you have a problem voting for a Jewish politician because of the Amalek story? Would you vote for a practicing Muslim?

I'm not too keen on any of the Abrahamic religions. Given the choice, I would prefer to be represented by someone who feels a duty to the humans they were charged with representing, rather than to a violent bronze age God.

 

[Allan]

I am not Catholic and will leave that side of the issue to be addressed by others.

I am "evangelical" and so will address that only.

The rise of "megachurches" tied to singular personalities has been a problem. Such a concentration of wealth and influence has corrupted many who started out with good intentions, and drawn others who are already opportunists to mimic the megachurch dynamic.

There is a saying that "power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." I would add that institutions where there is great wealth and power tend to ATTRACT the already-corrupt, who wish to exploit it. This is true whether we're talking about institutions that are political, financial, or religious.

However, we need to put these things in context. The media (and the haters) tend to focus on the big names, the big churches, and the big scandals, because that is what sells news.

That isn't the everyday experience of the average Christian, nor of the average church pastor.

For every one preacher caught in a public scandal, there are hundreds of small-church pastors laboring in obscurity: visiting the sick and shut-ins, counseling people in trouble, reaching out to drug addicts and the homeless, spending hours a day on the phone with people who are hurting or worried or in need of advice, comforting families at funeral after funeral, and working themselves half to death for the cause of Christ and their love of their congregation. Most of them make a salary comparable to their working-class members or smaller; some work a regular job on top of their pastoral duties because the church can't afford to pay them a living wage.

You almost never see them on the news.

Excellent post @Goshin

 

[Logicman]

People who believe that killing little babies is a noble and worthwhile thing to do in order to avoid becoming "indoctrinated by pagan influences" have a poisonous ideology. People who think that all those outside their religion deserve to be burned alive in a lake of fire have a poisonous ideology. People who long for the earth to be plagued by pestilence, famine, war, and death in order to pave the way for the entire world to be conquered and ruled with an Iron Scepter by a theocratic Dictator, have a poisonous ideology.

To be clear, I don't think those people deserve to suffer eternal torment in a lake of fire for their poisonous ideology. I just don't think they can be trusted with power.

Personally I don't like any little ones killed. I've seen way too much of that at the hands of the bloodthirsty liberals and others, and their morally-challenged abortion partners. But thank God folks like you don't run the universe. Seems like you're weak on justice and you also are a full quart low on being able to see the future. So you can't foresee the horrendous damage that might well have occurred if God had *****-footed around with the Amalekites.

What's more, God's Judgments Save Lives!

Here's how that works: How many people would 100 evil men kill in their lifetimes? Let's say a thousand, and the 100 evil men wind up in hell when they die. Now, let's let those 100 evil men have 100 offspring that over time grow up to kill an additional 1,000 people. Now, you have 200 evil men in hell and 2,000 murdered others.

Now let's take it to the 10th or so generation. By now, you've had 10,000 evil men giving birth to 10,000 offspring and together those 20,000 evil men and/or women murder 200,000 people total. So, you now have 20,000 evil men and women in hell (vs. 100 if you had judged and executed them earlier), plus 200,000 other dead people.

So, God, being smarter than his critics, and able to see consequences further out in time than the mathematically-challenged "God is evil" crowd, saves 19,900 people from going to hell plus he saves 199,000 others from getting murdered. And he does that by stopping the bloodshed before it gets rolling.

Get the picture? God Judgment saves lives, and saves multitudes from winding up in Hell.

Finally, the stiff-necked crowd who kicks the salvation of Jesus Christ to the curb because they haven't done their proper homework, send themselves to Hell. It doesn't get any dumber than that.

 

[Logicman]

I'm not too keen on any of the Abrahamic religions. Given the choice, I would prefer to be represented by someone who feels a duty to the humans they were charged with representing, rather than to a violent bronze age God.

If it wasn't for the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, you wouldn't even be breathing. Nor would you have a universe to live in.

 

[Somerville]

LOL. Read the Bible so you'll have a clue who King David was.

I have read the book and I know a bit about the character portrayed in that book. Until we have more physical evidence for the reality of that character, I will hold my opinion that he was created, just like Harry Potter or Gandalf, in order to convey a message to the readers of the story.

 

[Logicman]

I have read the book and I know a bit about the character portrayed in that book. Until we have more physical evidence for the reality of that character, I will hold my opinion that he was created, just like Harry Potter or Gandalf, in order to convey a message to the readers of the story.

Not the least impressed.

 

[Mulefoot]

It is not about exposure to the stories. I have obviously been exposed to them myself.

People who believe that killing little babies is a noble and worthwhile thing to do in order to avoid becoming "indoctrinated by pagan influences" have a poisonous ideology. People who think that all those outside their religion deserve to be burned alive in a lake of fire have a poisonous ideology. People who long for the earth to be plagued by pestilence, famine, war, and death in order to pave the way for the entire world to be conquered and ruled with an Iron Scepter by a theocratic Dictator, have a poisonous ideology.

To be clear, I don't think those people deserve to suffer eternal torment in a lake of fire for their poisonous ideology. I just don't think they can be trusted with power.



Perhaps you could clarify. Before, you referred to them as the "Jewish race." So by "Jews," do you mean people of Semitic ethnic origin? Many Semites are secular humanists, Buddhists, Pastafarians, Wiccans, Jedi, etc.

Loyalty to a violent God has nothing to do with race. Ambitions of global theocracy have nothing to do with race.



I'm not too keen on any of the Abrahamic religions. Given the choice, I would prefer to be represented by someone who feels a duty to the humans they were charged with representing, rather than to a violent bronze age God.

You're entitled to your opinions of course. I know many Christians who view Muslims as politically untrustworthy - specifically for similar fears that Muslims have goals of "ambitions of global theocracy". I personally find your position fairly unpalatable. As in just about every case, Christians, Muslims, Jews and atheists would do better by judging individuals on the individuals' merits, instead of their religious affiliation or ideology.

 

[beancounter]

Humans sin?

Even religious humans?


You don’t say…

The problem is that these people are not everyday Joe's. They are wealthy and influential, and that makes their actions potentially destructive beyond just a small circle of influence that most people have.

 

[Somerville]

Not the least impressed.

I could respond with the same words in regards to your posts.
You only quote from the blogs of fellow evangelicals, 19thcentury historians, and professors with the right credentials but who have all signed statements of faith in order to keep their positions. In other words, you only believe the words of those who agree with you.

One of the courses in grad school had to do with the ways in which personal bias can cause even well-educated people to suffer from blindness in regards to information that contradicts what they believed to be true.

 

[Logicman]

I could respond with the same words in regards to your posts.
You only quote from the blogs of fellow evangelicals, 19thcentury historians, and professors with the right credentials but who have all signed statements of faith in order to keep their positions. In other words, you only believe the words of those who agree with you.

I quote from sources that have common sense and historical insight. You, on the other hand, tend to quote from any skeptic you can dredge up. I have a formal education and degrees in Biblical Theology. No evidence I've seen that you've availed yourself of that.

One of the courses in grad school had to do with the ways in which personal bias can cause even well-educated people to suffer from blindness in regards to information that contradicts what they believed to be true.

Lots of "educated" people will be dropping down into Hell when they belly up for kicking Christ the Savior to the curb. They think the Gospels and New Testament authors are either liars, charlatans, fools, or even fiction writers. Amazing blindness on their part.

 

[Logicman]

Somerville OP: "Why We Can’t Trust Christians To Run ANYTHING"

Response:

"How widespread was deism among America’s Founding Fathers?"

"Dr. M. E. Bradford of the University of Dallas conducted a study of the Founding Founders to look at this question (whether the Founding Fathers were deists or Christians / monotheists, etc.). He discovered the Founders were members of denominations as follows: twenty-eight Episcopalians, eight Presbyterians, seven Congregationalists, two Lutherans, two Dutch Reformed, two Methodists, two Roman Catholics, and three deists. – Reference: M. E. Bradford, A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution (Marlborough, NH: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1982), iv–v. " - https://righterreport.com/2014/06/15/were-the-founding-fathers-deists/

A lot of Christians and monotheists there. But no atheists. Not even one God-denying meathead. Zip. Nada. And they started up the greatest nation and Constitution the world has ever seen. Has there ever been an atheist President? Can't recall any. They must have all concluded atheism sucks.

"Can't be trusted"?? The nation's forefathers even tried socialism at the Plymouth Colony, and suffered to the point they kicked socialism to the curb. Not a good start for Somerville's pet ideology, LOL.

So, the OP headline is a trash bin for fools, antichrist's, Harry Potter fans, and the history-challenged. Flush it down the commode where it belongs.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Personally I don't like any little ones killed. I've seen way too much of that at the hands of the bloodthirsty liberals and others, and their morally-challenged abortion partners. But thank God folks like you don't run the universe. Seems like you're weak on justice and you also are a full quart low on being able to see the future. So you can't foresee the horrendous damage that might well have occurred if God had *****-footed around with the Amalekites.

What's more, God's Judgments Save Lives!

Here's how that works: How many people would 100 evil men kill in their lifetimes? Let's say a thousand, and the 100 evil men wind up in hell when they die. Now, let's let those 100 evil men have 100 offspring that over time grow up to kill an additional 1,000 people. Now, you have 200 evil men in hell and 2,000 murdered others.

Now let's take it to the 10th or so generation. By now, you've had 10,000 evil men giving birth to 10,000 offspring and together those 20,000 evil men and/or women murder 200,000 people total. So, you now have 20,000 evil men and women in hell (vs. 100 if you had judged and executed them earlier), plus 200,000 other dead people.

So, God, being smarter than his critics, and able to see consequences further out in time than the mathematically-challenged "God is evil" crowd, saves 19,900 people from going to hell plus he saves 199,000 others from getting murdered. And he does that by stopping the bloodshed before it gets rolling.

Get the picture? God Judgment saves lives, and saves multitudes from winding up in Hell.

Finally, the stiff-necked crowd who kicks the salvation of Jesus Christ to the curb because they haven't done their proper homework, send themselves to Hell. It doesn't get any dumber than that.

I am familiar with how religious people have justified evil throughout history. The Crusaders thought they were justified. The Spanish Inquisition thought they were justified. The folks hanging innocent women from trees during the Salem witch trials thought they were justified. The folks who flew those planes into the twin towers thought they were justified.

I can understand why you would want to make the Bible stories more palatable for yourself by imagining that God was motivated by some noble desire to prevent unnecessary deaths, but that is not the justification given in the Bible. The justification in the Bible was this:

"This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘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 all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." - 1 Samuel 15:2-3

The 11th century BC slaughter of women, children, and infants was in revenge for something their long-dead ancestors did in the 15th century BC, ~400 years earlier.