Here's what all the excitement is about:
The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap. Isaiah 17:1Not since the BP oil spill have Christians had such fun with a looming disaster. God has inspired Barack Obama to attack Syria, which (they hope and pray) will result in the complete destruction of Damascus.
Yes, God is using Obama to destroy Damascus -- the city of praise and the city of God's joy. (The city of God's joy is not Jerusalem, Mecca, Rome, or Salt Lake City. It's Damascus.)
Damascus ... the city of praise ... the city of my joy! Jeremiah 49:24-25
God will destroy his favorite city with fire, and he will light the fire himself.
... Her young men shall fall in her streets, and all the men of war shall be cut off in that day, saith the LORD of hosts. And I will kindle a fire in the wall of Damascus. Jeremiah 49:26-27And why is God going to destroy Damascus? Well, partly, I guess, to fulfill the prophecy in the Bible. He's been embarrassed by failed prophecy ever since Jesus told his followers that he'd return while they were still alive. So it's worth it to God to burn to death 1.7 million people in order to get at least one prophecy properly fulfilled.
But there's another reason, too. It turns out that God can't let Jesus return until he destroys Damascus by fire. I'm not sure how he figures that, but believers say that it is so.
It's right there in the Bible somewhere.
26 comments:
I think it's God planning revenge.
The Syrians once called him a hillbilly god (1 Kings 20:28), and he's held a grudge against them ever since.
"since Jesus told his followers that he'd return while they were still alive."
When Jesus says "this generation" he means 'sinful generation' or sinful fallen mankind as a whole.
Wow, thanks for the update -- I wasn't aware of this crap. Thanks for keeping your pulse on the stupidity and letting us know.
When Jesus says "this generation" he means 'sinful generation' or sinful fallen mankind as a whole.
Gosh, thanks, bob, for clarifying that for Jesus! What would he do without you?
Good thing he has you to clear up all the stupid shit he said. When he said "this generation" he didn't mean "this generation." He meant whatever bob says that he meant. Fallen mankind as a whole, a whole lot of of people that will live a couple thousand years later, whatever bob wants it to mean that's what Jesus meant.
“Wow, thanks for the update -- I wasn't aware of this crap. Thanks for keeping your pulse on the stupidity and letting us know.”
“Gosh, thanks, bob, for clarifying that for Jesus! What would he do without you?”
“Good thing he has you to clear up all the stupid shit he said. When he said "this generation" he didn't mean "this generation." He meant whatever bob says that he meant. Fallen mankind as a whole, a whole lot of of people that will live a couple thousand years later, whatever bob wants it to mean that's what Jesus meant.”
It’s actually what the rest of Scripture says that it means.
The return of Christ (Matthew 25:31):
“Behold, I am coming quickly!” Revelation 22:7, 12, 20 [70 A.D.]
Many have pointed out that 2000 years is not ‘quickly’; but they have not taken into account that when we die our spirits merely fall asleep...
Now all wept and mourned for her; but he [Jesus] said, “Do not weep; she is not dead, but sleeping.” Luke 8:52-56
...until he returns to wake us up (there being some exceptions to this, e.g. Moses and Elijah, who are not sleeping [Mark 9:4])
“Our friend Lazarus sleeps, but I go that I may wake him up.” John 11:11
“Do not marvel at this: for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear his voice and come forth – those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of condemnation.” John 5:28, 29
And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt. Daniel 12:2
So it is the same as when we normally fall into a deep sleep and then wake up later only to realize that we have been asleep for hours with no awareness or memory of it. When we wake up, it seems as if we only just fell asleep moments before.
As far as we are concerned, whether we are still alive or have died and are ‘asleep’, the return of Christ is near. Even if it should take another 2000 years (…that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 2Peter 3:8) it still makes no difference to us personally. All we need to do while we are alive is to believe (John 3:16) and stay faithful until we die, and then we are home and hosed (The Lord is not slack concerning his promise. 2Peter 3:9).
But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep... For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout... and the dead in Christ will arise first. 1Thessalonians 4:13-18
Those who say that the Bible is false on account of the prophesy of Christ’s return being false, are in a prophesy of their own:
Knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 2Peter 3:1-9
@Bob - You keep using the word "knowing" as if it's synonymous with "real life", "factual", or "even likely".
"Many have pointed out that" ...followed by your garbage just shows how, if you believe all the bullshit (that still hasn't come true) in the Bible, you'll believe anything.
Just before you die, remember all the time you've wasted studying bullshit, then go, leave this world with one less mystic, one less liar.
Unknown,
What you do or don't believe is irrelevant. I believe it and you don't, we already know that. If you were paying attention you would see that the argument is not about who believes what, but rather it's about what the Bible is actually saying, that is, the actual intended meaning of Scripture.
You say,
"You keep using the word "knowing" as if it's synonymous with "real life", "factual", or "even likely".
The word 'knowing' was only used once and it was part of a quoted verse i.e. "Knowing this first:"
“Behold, I am coming quickly!”
I thought that was Onan having sex with his dead brother's wife.
"It’s actually what the rest of Scripture says that it means."
And yet we have to have this interpreted and explained to us. God may be omnipotent and omniscient, but he's a piss-poor communicator. He could have telepathically delivered his all-important message, in language understandable to everyone, which would have been much more fair and equitable than telling a bunch of illiterate camel herders and expecting everyone else to figure it out. I guess after the Babel incident, he couldn't do that without appearing capricious.
Steve Weeks
“Behold, I am coming quickly!”
I thought that was Onan having sex with his dead brother's wife.
No, that just shows that you are not even trying.
“And yet we have to have this interpreted and explained to us.”
The overall basic message is that all of mankind is under the curse of sin and death.
The result of the first man’s capitulation to unbelief:
“…but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Genesis 2:17.
This death, inherited by all, is manifested as spiritual blindness; and physically, from the day we are born we shall surely die.
For all our days have passed away in your wrath; we finish our years as a sigh. The days of our lives are seventy years; and if by reason of strength they are eighty years, yet their boast is only labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away. Psalm 90:9, 10.
Death is a disease or plague which infected the whole creation. That’s the bad news. The good news is that God has defeated sin and death on our behalf and for the sake of his glory and name which we have defiled with our sins/crimes.
This is the simple foundation to understanding the whole story, the central thread, from Genesis to Revelation.
“God may be omnipotent and omniscient, but he's a piss-poor communicator.”
He communicates perfectly, but our rebellious, corrupted, damaged-by-sin, blinded natures make us very poor listeners and because we always think we know better.
It is very difficult even for God to communicate with us because of our stubborn, “stiff-necked” rebellious natures. What can he do if people do not want to listen?
But if we are genuine about understanding the message we will find the answers i.e. “Seek and you shall find.” Also, the fact that he sacrificed himself in our place on the cross is a simple enough message to understand so there is really no excuse for not ‘getting it’.
“He could have telepathically delivered his all-important message, in language understandable to everyone, which would have been much more fair and equitable than telling a bunch of illiterate camel herders and expecting everyone else to figure it out.”
If “illiterate camel herders” could understand the message, then why are you having such trouble?
“I guess after the Babel incident, he couldn't do that without appearing capricious.”
That’s the atheist bad interpretation/dodgy excuse. A God who is capricious would not lay down his life for the sins of the world.
"It is very difficult even for God to communicate with us because of our stubborn, “stiff-necked” rebellious natures. What can he do if people do not want to listen?"
Oh, the poor dear. I guess he's not all-powerful then. ;-)
"A God who is capricious would not lay down his life for the sins of the world."
Well, sure he could; that would fit the definition of "capricious" quite nicely. Especially since the results weren't what he imagined. Oops... guess he's not all-knowing either. ^_^
Steve Weeks
“Oh, the poor dear. I guess he's not all-powerful then. ;-)”
If He made everything from nothing then He is all-powerful. But He won’t force people to listen.
“Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into him and dine with him, and he with me.” Revelation 3:20
“If anyone hears my voice” meaning if they respond.
“Well, sure he could; that would fit the definition of "capricious" quite nicely. Especially since the results weren't what he imagined. Oops... guess he's not all-knowing either. ^_^”
And what results might they be?
"And what results might they be?"
Oh, I don't know... maybe the behavior of the people that led the creator to destroy almost all of his creation. "Tarring" the world with a rather broad brush; undoubtedly killing millions of innocent people (children and unborn babies, at least). That would be "capricious". But the god of the bible loves him a mess of violence. And so do the people who made him up.
Steve Weeks
Oh, I don't know... maybe the behavior of the people that led the creator to destroy almost all of his creation. "Tarring" the world with a rather broad brush; undoubtedly killing millions of innocent people (children and unborn babies, at least).””
Why is the behaviour of the people God’s fault since he originally made them good?
Truly, this I have found: That God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes. Ecclesiastes 7:29
It was the people themselves who decided to behave in such a way that brought God’s judgement down on their own heads and after much warning. It is the same as any good father, who, after warning his children often enough eventually has to keep his promise and bring out the big stick in order to keep total chaos from getting the upper hand.
The events concerning Noah’s flood and Sodom and Gomorrah, the Canaanites and other events described in the Bible prompt many to accuse God of being a murderer and a hypocrite. But there is a vast difference between the murder of an innocent and the execution of a criminal.
The events relate to a Righteous Judge executing judgement on criminals for often extreme criminal behaviour and after much warning.
All the infants and children that were killed were spared the inevitable involvement in their parent’s sins and consequent eternal ruin. In this respect God’s judgment was also merciful.
The inherited sin that all children are born with (no one has to teach children to lie and steal; it comes naturally to them) being covered by Christ’s work on the cross, which covers all of human history.
...of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Revelation 13:8.
Another point that can be made for the reason for God’s judgement was to prevent more children being born into a society and a life that would end up destroying them.
For example, a God who did not judge Canaanite evil would not be a God of mercy, love and compassion (the Canaanites’ bag of sins/crimes being full, with, among many other things, frequent child sacrifice – idolatry at its worst).
“That would be "capricious".
That you consider him to be “capricious” is derived from your own blind, distorted, unintelligible view of Scripture.
“But the god of the bible loves him a mess of violence.”
Eventually, as a righteous holy Judge, he has no choice but to back up his threats of judgement against sin and crime.
But, as Luther puts it,
“God’s mercy is the more abundantly exercised because it is his very nature, while wrath is really foreign to him. Obliged to do so by the wickedness of men, God does exercise wrath, although it is against his nature to do so.”
...that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act. Isaiah 28:21
...but is longsuffering towards us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. 2Peter 3:9
Well, that is the best job of making up BS to defend your imaginary friend and his ghost-written book that I have ever seen.
I especially liked this bit:
"Another point that can be made for the reason for God’s judgement was to prevent more children being born into a society and a life that would end up destroying them."
If you have children, and you can say that it would be OK for them to be killed for this (or any "god-approved") reason, then you are a truly disturbed individual.
Steve Weeks
"Well, that is the best job of making up BS to defend your imaginary friend and his ghost-written book that I have ever seen.
I especially liked this bit:"
'Another point that can be made for the reason for God’s judgement was to prevent more children being born into a society and a life that would end up destroying them.'
“If you have children, and you can say that it would be OK for them to be killed for this (or any "god-approved") reason, then you are a truly disturbed individual.”
My statement says “to prevent more children being born into a society...”
They cannot be killed if they haven’t been born.
And “end up destroying them” means the society itself would ultimately be the cause of their demise through the children growing up in an environment that would either kill them (child sacrifice) or corrupt them to the point where God would have to judge them.
“...then you are a truly disturbed individual.”
Relative to what, someone like yourself who would mangle and distort the message of salvation which is able to save people from eternal damnation?
And speaking of disturbed individuals, how about the leaders of atheistic, God hating, ‘survival of the fittest’ regimes who murdered and injured more people in the last century than anyone else in the rest of history?
E.g. 77 million in communist China, 62 million in the Soviet Gulag state, 21 million non-battle killings by the Nazis, 2million killed in the Khmer Rouge killing fields.
The number of deaths in the 20th century alone due to evolution-based philosophies such as Nazism and Communism far outweigh those caused by 'religion'. And any professing Christians who murdered others were acting inconsistently with their professed faith, while Hitler and Stalin were acting consistently with theirs.
As history shows, the greatest evil does not result from people zealous for the God of the Bible. It results when people are convinced there is no God to whom they must answer.
"They cannot be killed if they haven’t been born."
You, my friend, are completely out of touch with reality.
Steve Weeks
bob
And speaking of disturbed individuals, how about the leaders of atheistic, God hating, ‘survival of the fittest’ regimes who murdered and injured more people in the last century than anyone else in the rest of history?
E.g. 77 million in communist China, 62 million in the Soviet Gulag state, 21 million non-battle killings by the Nazis, 2million killed in the Khmer Rouge killing fields.
You've forgotten something: Remember the religous 30 years war in the german states a few hundred years ago? One third of the people got killed. ONE THIRD. How much would those be in today's terms? You see, it wasn't any moral restraint that kept the religious dictatorships of the past from killing more people than the so-called "survival of the fittest" regimes today, it was:
1) less people
2) less effective weapons.
None of the countries you complain about even came close to killing off one third of the population. This deals with your b.s. remarks below as well.
The number of deaths in the 20th century alone due to evolution-based philosophies such as Nazism and Communism far outweigh those caused by 'religion'.
"Evolution-based"? You need to learn something about history.
And any professing Christians who murdered others were acting inconsistently with their professed faith, while Hitler and Stalin were acting consistently with theirs.
Oh? So "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" were NOT following the bible? It's actually a good thing that most xians don't follow the bible otherwise we'd still have slavery and people would still be executed for breaking OT laws.
Too bad that there are some who want that to come back:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2013/04/08/the-theocratic-ron-paul-curriculum/
"You, my friend, are completely out of touch with reality."
Says the evolutionist.
Reynold, hit a nerve have we? But I don’t see how anything you have put forward gets the atheistic philosophy employed by those regimes, or the regimes themselves, off the hook.
“You've forgotten something: Remember the religous 30 years war in the german states a few hundred years ago? One third of the people got killed. ONE THIRD. How much would those be in today's terms? You see, it wasn't any moral restraint that kept the religious dictatorships of the past from killing more people than the so-called "survival of the fittest" regimes today, it was:
1) less people
2) less effective weapons.
None of the countries you complain about even came close to killing off one third of the population. This deals with your b.s. remarks below as well.”
Over a third of the Khmers were killed, more like 3 million
“The worst genocide as a percentage of a nation’s total population happened in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. According to Guinness, ‘More than one third of the 8 million Khmers were killed between 17 Apr 1975 and January 1979.’”
"Evolution-based"? You need to ‘learn something’ about ‘history’.”
The arguments of both articles and others like it are dealt with in: Hitler And The Nazi Darwinian Worldview, by Jerry Bergman.
“Oh? So "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" were NOT following the bible?”
This is simply a warning. It does not say that any witches were killed.
“It's actually a good thing that most xians don't follow the bible otherwise we'd still have slavery and people would still be executed for breaking OT laws.”
More atheist ignorance.
The Bible is criticized for allowing slavery, and for not condemning it. At best, it’s seen to be a reflection of the morals of its time, at worst, actively evil. But it is a mistake to view the institution allowed in the Bible as equivalent to the slavery of Africans in American history. The slavery in the Bible is more like a form of indentured servitude. Such an arrangement would allow a poor man to survive. While not ideal, in an era before government welfare programs, slavery would be preferable to death, especially when some forms were more equivalent to modern-day employment than what we think of as slavery.
We also see the rank hypocrisy of atheistic attacks on the Bible. Slavery was an evil that occurred on all inhabited continents, and all races have practised it and been its victims (the word comes from a heavily enslaved “white” race, the Slavs). It was finally abolished only by evangelical Christians in the West using explicit biblical reasoning (see Anti-slavery activist William Wilberforce: Christian hero). Yet who do the antitheists single out for the evil of slavery? The Christian West!
Atrocity lists in the Bible are not so much a product of bad hermeneutical skills as a complete lack of knowledge about the social context of the passage, and even basic reading skills. While this article only covered a sampling of the most common “biblical atrocities”, this serves to show that the arguments of those who accuse God of moral depravity based on episodes from Scripture unravel upon closer examination. [from: Evil Bible fallacies/creation.com]
"Says the evolutionist."
Well, I accept evolution as the explanation for the world as we see it, at least in terms of biologic diversity. So do virtually *all* scientists, because the evidence is so strong. Evolution (the process) is a *fact*. The "theory" part is that natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution occurs. The person who comes up with an alternative will win the Nobel Prize for sure, and surpass Darwin and Wallace in fame.
Get to work, Bob! ;-)
Steve Weeks
“Well, I accept evolution as the explanation for the world as we see it, at least in terms of biologic diversity.”
That depends on what you call ‘evolution.’ When the evolutionist says, “biological diversity” they are claiming something that creationists recognise as a function of nature, that is, the inbuilt ability to adapt to various environments using information that already exists within the organism. But no new information is being created that can change a microbe into a man.
“So do virtually *all* scientists, because the evidence is so strong. Evolution (the process) is a *fact*.”
This is an equivocation in the use of the word ‘evolution’ where in one part of the argument it is used to describe the process of adaptation through natural selection, which creationists already recognized before Darwin, and then in another part of the argument it is applied to the notion that it has the power to change a germ into a German.
“The "theory" part is that natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution occurs.”
I think you will find that the “theory” part is actually due to the fact that no scientist can explain how life got started from inert chemicals. And in particular they cannot explain the origin of the vast quantities of information required for even the simplest life forms. Information itself needs to be set within a program in order to be functional and of any use which requires an information source and a programmer to install it. Obviously Blind, undirected, mindless forces cannot be the origin of ANY information, much less that which is required for even basic forms of life.
Natural selection also needs something to select against. Without information natural selection does not exist either since it is itself information based with its own program set to perform its function within the multitude of all the other programs within a cell that go into making life possible.
“The person who comes up with an alternative will win the Nobel Prize for sure, and surpass Darwin and Wallace in fame.
Get to work, Bob! ;-)”
We cannot claim credit for something that someone else has already invented, so the prize goes to God.
"I think you will find that the 'theory' part is actually due to the fact that no scientist can explain how life got started from inert chemicals."
No scientist can explain this, true, but there are hypotheses which may be amenable to testing. Even if this is *never* known, it is not evidence for divine creation. Abiogenesis is not part of Darwin's theory.
"We cannot claim credit for something that someone else has already invented, so the prize goes to God."
Just let the Nobel Committee know where to send the check! :lol:
Steve Weeks
"Abiogenesis is not part of Darwin's theory."
From an article about Darwin's theory:
In Origin of Species, Darwin concentrated on the origin of the diversity of life. In a letter to botanist Joseph Hooker in 1863, Darwin lamented having pandered to public opinion in writing in Origin, of the first life form, “into which life was first breathed” (Ref 1) (as if he believed in divine creation). Yet he conceded, “It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter.” (Ref 2, 3)
However, eight years later, consistent with his drive to explain origins entirely materialistically, he speculated:
“...if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes...” (Ref 2)
At that time scientists knew that organisms such as insects did not form spontaneously, but they continued to speculate about microbes. These seemed fairly simple—blobs of jelly—and so, many thought that they might arise spontaneously. However, the creationist scientist Louis Pasteur, a contemporary of Darwin, showed that microbes did not form spontaneously either. (Ref 4)
Today, with so much more known about the complexity of even the simplest living things, the origin of life has become an intractable problem for those who refuse to believe in creation. Cells are not mere blobs of jelly; they are incredibly complex assemblages of nano-machines that Darwin could not have conceived in the slightest way. And they are full of programs (software) that specify how to construct and operate each living cell with its thousands of nano-machines that are essential to life. Professor Paul Davies admitted:
“How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software...? Nobody knows … there is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.” (Ref 5)
Daily, new discoveries add to our knowledge of the breathtaking complexity of life, making the idea of the spontaneous origin of life more and more untenable.
Antony Flew, famous hard-nosed English atheistic philosopher, abandoned atheism because of the weight of evidence from these modern discoveries. He said, “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” (Ref 6) This research, “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved”. (Ref 7)
Darwin was wrong, but then he had little idea of such things.
1. Darwin, C., On the Origin of Species, 1st ed., 1959; page 484.
2. Darwin, F., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. II, D. Appleton & Co., New York, 1911, pp. 202–203.
3. Or as he expressed it elsewhere “our ignorance is as profound on the origin of life as on the origin of force or matter.” Darwin, C., The doctrine of heterogeny and modification of species, Athenaeum 1852:554–555, 1863.
4. Lamont, A., Louis Pasteur (1822–1895)
5. Davies, P., Life force, New Scientist 163 (2204):26–30, 1999.
6. My pilgrimage from atheism to theism: an exclusive interview with former British atheist Professor Antony Flew by Gary Habermas, Philosophia Christi, Winter 2005; .
7. Famous atheist now believes in God: One of world’s leading atheists now believes in God, more or less, based on scientific evidence, 2004, Associated Press; . Flew is a theist/deist
"Just let the Nobel Committee know where to send the check! :lol:"
He will probably come and collect it Himself.
"He will probably come and collect it Himself."
So I guess we're back to "Behold, I am coming quickly."
>crickets<
Steve Weeks
Iconoclast,
“1. Some atheist regimes kill peoples but that never makes atheism as a whole murderous.”
For those regimes, atheism was certainly a necessary condition for removing any inhibitions (there is no God to answer to) for carrying out their plans.
“Many atheists are pacifists & deplore murders.”
I do not doubt that. Being an atheist does not automatically make someone a murderer otherwise we would all be in trouble.
But in the case of Hitler, Stalin, Mau, Pol Pot and others, they took their atheistic, Darwinian based survival of the fittest philosophy to its logical conclusion i.e. they were staunch followers of this philosophy who took the whole thing very seriously, as history shows.
As the full title of Darwin’s book says,
‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’ (1859)
The following excerpt is from one of his later works.
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time anthropomorphous apes... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.” Charles Darwin: The Descent of Man, 2nd edition (New York: A.L. Burt Co., 1874) p. 178
Some of the colonial policies concerning indigenous people around the world a century ago and less were based on Darwin’s ‘scientific’ opinion.
“2. Moreover, there is no religion called "atheism" which advocates the murder of believers”
Except for the above mentioned regimes which enforced atheism as the state religion, with the atheistic, all-powerful leader taking on the role of ‘supreme’ or “God” with the power over life and death.
“in contrast, Judeo-Christian ideology explicitly commands the murder of pagans:”
More ignorance. These commands are not open ended commands for all time. They specifically related to the war between the tribe of Israel and the local pagan tribes in that area at a specific time in history. And as I have already stated in a previous comment above, there is no comparison between the murder of an innocent and the execution of a criminal or group of criminals by a righteous Creator and Judge.
"You shall not prostrate yourself before their gods, and you shall not worship them, and you shall not follow their practices, but you shall tear them down and you shall utterly shatter their monuments." Shemot 23:24"
This is saying to tear down their gods/idols and shatter their monuments so as not be drawn in or seduced by them.
“2 Murder is murder.”
That is correct, and it prohibited by God Himself. “You shall not murder” Exodus 20:13
“Because one Christian murderer (the Holy Roman Emperor) killed fewer people, that does NOT make him less evil than an atheist murderer (Stalin) who killed more.”
That is also correct. But if a self-professing Christian commits murder then he is acting contrary to Christ’s teachings and commands.
Whereas, if an atheist like Stalin commits murder he is acting in accordance with Darwin’s atheistic philosophy of the ‘survival of the fittest’ or the “Preservation of Favoured Races.” That is, it is a righteous and holy work to get rid of, by whatever means, the physically and mentally impaired and/or anyone that was, by their standards, considered ‘subhuman.’
“Are people mere statistics?”
They are part of the history of what happened.
Post a Comment