Paradox
©
Fisana

Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Genocide and human sacrifice in the OT


  • Please log in to reply
101 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_roo_*

Guest_roo_*
  • Guest

Posted 30 April 2004 - 09:39 PM

Why not! Maybe our species shall do the same someday. Maybe the shroom and the ganga will hitch a ride with us also...

#22 morella

morella

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 119 posts

Posted 02 May 2004 - 09:05 AM

IMO, Jesus did not call for a holy war in the name of his God which is why He was rejected by His people. He assured Pilate that, although he was a king, He had no intentions of overthrowing Rome, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight so that I should not be delivered to the Jews"(Jn 18:36). In 133 C.E., Simon Barzkochba was declared the messiah when he led the Jews in a revolt against Rome.

IMO, Jesus claimed to be more than an enlightened being when He referred to Himself as "The Son of Man", the title that Daniel used in his vision, "And behold, 'One like the Son of Man', Coming on the clouds of heaven!"(Dan 7:13).

Jesus often used this title, "When the Son of Man comes in glory, then He will sit on the throne of His glory"(Mat 25:31). He also claimed that it was He who would raise the dead, "...I will raise him up at the last day" (Jn 6:54).

IMO, with prophecy, there is a patern of first perdicting immediate events first, as they serve as a prototype, then there is a shift to endtime events. In Is 45:1, Isaiah mentions Cyrus by name (2 centuries before he even existed!) as the man who would liberate the Jews from Babylonian captivity; later, Isaiah shifts to the messianic redeemer in chapters 42,49,52,59.

Jeremiah predicted that Cyruus would divert the Euphrates River and march his armies down the its dry riverbed, "devestation on the waters" "they must be dried up" (Jer 50:38). Jeremiah fortells of Israel's 70 year captivity to Babylon in chapter 25:1, then he moves ahead to endtime Babylon on chapters 50 & 51.

Revelations begins by admonishing and encouraging the 7 churches that are about to enter tribulation, then, after chapter 4, the Great Tribulation is decribed. The word "revelation" means apocalypse,from the greek word "apokolupis".
Much of Revelations is apocalyptic, using symbols found in Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah.

Daniel perdicted the Greek empire and according to Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews, Alexander the Great decided to spare Jerusalem after being shown Daniel 8. Daniel perdicted that the "Great Horn" (Alexander), would break and 4 wings would be plucked. This happened after Alexander died at age 33, and his kingdom was divided between 4 of his generals:
Casander-Europe
Lysemicus-Asia Minor
Ptolemy-Egypt & Africa
Seleacius-Syria

Daniel also perdicted that the messiah would be "cut off" 490 years after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem. Jesus was crucified exactly 490 years(adjusting for their 360 day year calendar) after Artaxerxes(Neh 2) issued his decree in 445 B.C.E.

Daniel said that this Temple would be destroyed by "the people of the prince to come" which was fulfilled when the Roman general Titus razed it. Rome serves as prototype for the endtime world empire of the antichrist.




#23 Guest_hippie3_*

Guest_hippie3_*
  • Guest

Posted 02 May 2004 - 12:01 PM

two can play the scripture quote game, you know.
here's one from jesus-
gospel of luke, chapter 12
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

49"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

of course you will say that it doesn't mean what it appears to say,
that's the nice thing about interpreting eh ?

also you'd be hard pressed to prove that the book of isaiah was actually written BEFORE the events it allegedly 'predicted'.
there are NO original manuscripts that old.

#24 morella

morella

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 119 posts

Posted 03 May 2004 - 12:19 PM

"I came to send fire on earth; and I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptisim to be baptised with and how distressed I am till it is accomplished!"

These verses reveal Christ's human response to His death: He wishes that it had already been accomplished so that the "fire" could be kindled.
While fire is associated with the Day of the Lord, IMO, this is not what He meant. The whole purpose of His death was so that the world, through Him might be saved. Only a few would be saved if the Day of the Lord were to happen immediately, scripture indicates that He may tarry so that more people will have time to repent.

IMO, He was referring to another kind of fire, the kind John the Baptist spoke of, "He will baptize you the Holy Spirit and with fire"(Mat 3:11). He makes "His ministers a flame of fire"(Ps 104:4). Acts 2:33 describes how Jesus sent this "fire" on the Day of Pentecost, "Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you see and hear".


"Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you not at all, but rather division. For from now on five in one house will be divided..."

The reign of peace was not to begin with the 1st Coming, but with the 2nd. Jesus was warning His disciples that they could expect to experience severe persecution, "You will be betrayed even by parents and brothers, relatives and friends, and you will be hated by all for My name's sake"(Lk 21:16).

The OT, being written on papyrus and animal skins, needed to be recopied after the originals wore out. The oldest manuscripts are the Dead Sea Scrolls, 200 B.C.E. The fact that these texts agree with the Massoric texts, written 1000 yrs later, shows how accurate the scribes were.

The Qumran community thought highly of Daniel(8 copies were found) and their copies still pre-date the Roman Empire and the crucifixion, prophecies that were fulfilled in Dan 9:25. Other prophesies not only pre-date Christ's crucifixion, they also predate the Roman practice of crucifixtion: "pierced through hands and feet"(Zech 12:10), "Dogs have surrounded Me, a band of evil men has encircled Me, They have pierced My hands and feet"(Ps 22:16). Jesus fulfilled at least 300 OT prophecies, included in the DSS, all of which are dated before He was even born.



(Message edited by morella on May 03, 2004)

#25 Guest_hippie3_*

Guest_hippie3_*
  • Guest

Posted 03 May 2004 - 07:56 PM

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

this is not what He meant. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
sez you.
but that's just your interpretation,
your attempt to reconcile his statements with your existant belief system.
the romans didn't invent crucifiction,
you still have no manuscripts older than the events they claim to forecast.
the issue of jesus' fulfillment of prophecy is complicated because you only pick out the things that can be interpreted as applying. so you self-select, you see a verse that mentions hands and feet pierced so you go 'aha, they must mean jesus, his hands and feet were pierced'
but then you ignore other scripture that 'foretells' of the messiah,
or say 'well he hasn't got around to that one yet but he will someday'.
makes it pretty easy.
jesus may well have deliberately 'fulfilled' prophecy with intent. such as his riding into jerusalem on an ass. jesus knew full well of the scriptures and might easily have done that just to get a reaction.
jesus also no doubt knew of the scriptures that described the suffering of the messiah, the sacrifice and in his deluded mind he meant to fulfill it, much like david koresh.
there was more than one bethlehem too so again he gets wiggle room. then they change the meaning of a nazarene since jesus grew up in nazareth. but that's not really what being a nazarene meant,
was it ? no, not at all.




#26 morella

morella

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 119 posts

Posted 04 May 2004 - 09:52 AM

Yes, this is just my own interpetation of Luke 12:49, many people relate this verse to Armageddon; however, I have trouble with this because, notice that Jesus said, "...I CAME to send fire on earth..." (past tense). If He was speaking of The Day of The Lord, he would have said, "I will come and send fire on the earth". He always used the future tense when He spoke of His 2nd Coming.

The Dead Sea Scrolls contain manuscripts older than some of the events they predict, events that Jesus would not have had conrol over:

"But you Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are smaal among the clans of Judah, out of you will come the One who will rule Israel" (Micah) The Bethlehem near Ephratah is where Rachel was buried (Gen 48:7).

"He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence" (Is 53:9-12).

"They divide My garments among them and cast lots for My clothing" (Ps 22:18).

At the time Psalms was written, crucifixion involved either impaling people on a stake or hanging them on a tree AFTER they had been killed. The practice of piercing the hands and feet came later.


#27 Guest_hippie3_*

Guest_hippie3_*
  • Guest

Posted 04 May 2004 - 11:43 AM

but see, those verses really aren't talking about jesus, there were about other people.
take that verse in Psalms,
that's King David lamenting his treatment,
not jesus'.
and getting one's hands and feet pierced is not always done by crucifiction,
the romans customarily tied their victims to the crosses but they too did not invent the practice nor was it limited to them, impalement had long been a practice in many of their contemporary cultures.
and just about any cemetary has both wicked and rich so there again that's no great leap.
and while jesus might not have had control over the writings of isaiah or micah etc.
he did have the means and the motive to try to fulfill prophecy by his own hand, as i said.
he did things knowing full well what the prophecy was, that's easily done by anyone who has read the book, not just the true messiah.

you believe
because you want to believe,
that's what faith is about right ?
it's your faith that helps you swallow
what i cannot, lacking such faith.


(Message edited by admin on May 04, 2004)

#28 morella

morella

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 119 posts

Posted 12 April 2004 - 05:26 PM

According to Heb 11:19, Abraham believed Isaac
would be brought to life, remembering God's
promise, "In Isaac your seed shall be called,
concluding that God was able to raise him up,
even from the dead...". Abraham told his
servants to stay with their donkey, for, "We will
come back"(Gen 22:5). This incident does not
sanction human sacrifice, to the contrary, the
message was "God will provide the sacrifice".

Archaelologists refer to the Canaanites, who
founded the coastal cities, as "Phoenicians". The
Phoenicians carried on the Canaanite language
and religion up until the Romans invaded.
Excavations at the Pheonician city of Carthage
unearthed a temple to Moloch. The Canaanite
god Moloch(Baal) is mentioned in 2 Ki 23:10,
Deut 18:10, Lev 20:2-5, and Lev 18:21: "Do not
give any of your children to be sacrificed to
Moloch...".

The Amalekites in were welcomed as
immigrants but began attacking Israel
without provocation (Judges 3, 6, 7,10).
They were warned for 200 yrs?
Nations were always warned, "At one moment
I might speak concerning a nation or
concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down,
or to destroy it; if that nation against which I
have spoke turns from its evil, I will relent
concerning the calamity I planned to bring
on it" (Jer 18:7-8).






It's not fair to put other pagan
cultures into the same catagory as the ancient
Canaanites.




Eastern Canaan was made up of Assyrians who
were the fiercest of all the plundering nations. It
was the Assyrian Empire that eventually
destroyed Israel. The atrocities of the Assyrian
kings are recorded in their anuls: skinning people
alive, cutting off hands and feet, pulling out
tongues, putting out eyes etc.

Should the devil be depicted with horns? In 2 Ki,
Baal was called the "Fly-god" or Baalzebub.
When Jesus was accused of being in league with
the devil (Mat 12:24), they said that He
performed miracles through the power of
Baalzabub. Baalzabub(Baal/Molech) was
sometimes represented by a calf with horns.

"Democracy, as has been said of Christianity,
has never really been tried." ~Stuart Chase





(Message edited by morella on April 12, 2004)

(Message edited by morella on April 12, 2004)

(Message edited by morella on April 12, 2004)

(Message edited by morella on April 12, 2004)

#29 Guest_hippie3_*

Guest_hippie3_*
  • Guest

Posted 12 April 2004 - 09:55 PM

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Abraham told his
servants to stay with their donkey, for, "We will
come back"(Gen 22:5).
<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
now come on,
morella.
i expect better from you.
we both know that in the hebrew
the plural and singular are the same.
your god also speaks of himself as 'we'.
some have argued that the plural elohim
'proves' that there were more than one hebrew god.
but we know that's not true, don't we ?
and so by the same logic that excludes
god for being multiple entities
because of the word 'we'
therefore so too,
the word 'we', in your abraham example,
proves nothing,
abraham could have been talking about just himself and the document would still read the same.


(Message edited by admin on April 18, 2004)

#30 Guest_hippie3_*

Guest_hippie3_*
  • Guest

Posted 12 April 2004 - 10:06 PM

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>


Archaelologists refer to the Canaanites, who
founded the coastal cities, as "Phoenicians".
<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
yes, and no.
depends on the time frame.
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

ORIGIN OF THE CANAANITES (ANEP, 3 - Tomb of Khnum-hotep III)

The biblical term, Canaanite, identifies the people who lived in the land of Israel before the Israelites. Torah and the historical books present the idea that <u>the Canaanites were not one ethnic group, but composed of a variety of different groups: the Perizzites, the Hittites, the Hivites.</u> Generally archaeologists and biblical scholars mean the Bronze culture of Palestine when they use the term Canaanite. This culture of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages is viewed as stratified with individual city-states ruled by a monarch and warrior class who governed a large free serf class. Most scholars conclude, on some minimal evidence, that <u>the upper classes were Hurrian</u>, an Indo-European culture which invaded in Middle Bronze II. The <u>lower classes are thought to be Amorite</u>, an earlier invader in the Middle Bronze I. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
from http://www.bu.edu/anep/MB.html

also note
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Phoenicia was the name given by the Greeks, in the first millennium B.C.E., to the coastal provinces of modern Lebanon and northern Israel, although occasionally the term seems to have been applied to the entire Mediterranean seaboard from Syria to Palestine. Phoenicia was not considered a nation, in the strict sense of the word, but rather as a chain of coastal cities, of which the most important were Sidon, Byblos, Tyre and Ras Shamra. To the Greeks the term Phoenician, from the root Phoenix, had connotations of red, and it is likely that the name was derived from the physical appearance of the people themselves. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

my point is that the canaanites were a mixed culture racially, there were lots of egyptians, hittites, etc. blended in the area.
phoenicians, in other words, were not a race but rather a culture of many races,
like americans.
and it was only later,
AFTER the time of joshua,
that the name 'phoenician' was applied
as a generic catch phrase
roughly equivalent to
the canaanites of that day
but they were not exactly the same
as the earlier canaanites
faced by joshua.
those early canaanites were already pretty much gone, killed or assimilated by the israelites,
by the time the term phoenician
began to be used.


(Message edited by admin on April 13, 2004)

#31 Guest_hippie3_*

Guest_hippie3_*
  • Guest

Posted 12 April 2004 - 10:29 PM

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Should the devil be depicted with horns? In 2 Ki,
Baal was called the "Fly-god" or Baalzebub.
When Jesus was accused of being in league with
the devil (Mat 12:24), they said that He
performed miracles through the power of
Baalzabub. Baalzabub(Baal/Molech) was
sometimes represented by a calf with horns.
<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
pretty convoluted reasoning there, too.
flies don't have horns, eh ?
and Baal just means lord,
a word also used in the bible to apply to your god.
a calf has horns so it comes as no great surprise that the idol had horns,
but you still have not shown any link to satan or horns.
the fact that the scribes accused jesus of using the powers of baalzebub proves nothing,
or are you saying they were right ?



#32 Guest_hippie3_*

Guest_hippie3_*
  • Guest

Posted 12 April 2004 - 10:35 PM

morella,
you cannot side-step two central complaints.
one-
your god practices human sacrifice,
as demonstrated by the sacrifice of his son.
he confesses to this in his book
so there really is no argument.
two-
your god practices collective punishment,
imposing severe cruel punishments
upon billions of innocent humans
over several thousands of years
because of the sins of one man and one woman
we never even knew.
refute those points if you can.
the promise of a resurrection does not justify
the initial punishment.
when you god tried to make amends
for the horrible things he had done to Job,
he did not raise up Job's children from the dead.
and the promise of a heavenly resurrection
does little to ease the pain
of the mother of a stillborn baby,
or a child with cancer.
the ones left behind suffer,
what about them ?
how can your god possibly justify
such horrible things
by claiming adam and eve had it coming ?


#33 Guest_rodger_*

Guest_rodger_*
  • Guest

Posted 13 April 2004 - 04:24 PM

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

When Jesus was accused of being in league with
the devil (Mat 12:24), they said that He
performed miracles through the power of
Baalzabub
<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

She's just repeating the Catholic mantra that any god besides YHWH is a 'devil' or satan. It really doesn't merit argument. You can't argue facts against faith. According to the new testament, "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Therefore, one is expected to believe the church fathers(the authors and revisionists of 'the bible') based on 'faith' and not let facts, history, or science get in the way. If the church says that Baal or Pan was the devil, and the devil has horns, it must be so. Until her brainwashing wears off, as it does with all young fanatics, it's useless to try to use facts to change her opinion, and may even be counterproductive. I've seen christians who have lost their faith, and turned into alcohol or drug addicts, unable to even support themselves. If someone builds the entire structure of their psyche on religion, then loses the faith, it can leave them unable to even function productively. I don't want to be responsible for that, and it's why I've backed off the religion threads of late.


#34 morella

morella

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 119 posts

Posted 13 April 2004 - 11:07 PM

Oh Rodger, you're sooooo.. condescending.

Human sacrifices were strictly forbidden in Deut 17:31,18:9-12 and the Israelites who practiced them were condemned (2Ki 16:13,Ps 106:38,Jer 19:4-5). Was Jesus a human sacrifice? Not if he was God in the flesh, in which case, his death would be a divine sacrifice or a mere bruise in God's heel.

Hippie, you are correct, generally Canaan refers to a group of loosely banded tribes west of the Jordan(Nu 33:5, Jos 23:19 Ez 16:3), but the name is also applied to the Phoenicians. The oldest Pheonician city, Sidon, is called the first born of Canaan in Gen 10:15. The "Arkites" from the Pheonician city of Arka are mentioned in Gen Gen 10:17. Gen 10:8, mentions Arvadites from Arvadia, a northern Phoenician town. Ez 27:8-11 describes how the town of Tyre was built by the Phoenicians from Sidon. I agree that the Canaanites were not a race, but a group of tribes that shared a culture.

Baal, meaning master, owner or husband, is a title associated with the chief diety of the Canaanites: Moloch/Milcom or Hadad(Ammorite). Baal worship involved male and female prostitution, orgiastic rites, and child sacrifice. Anyone who believes that the Canaanites were simply liberating these poor repressed chicks has,IMO, been reading too much Alister Crowley. Posted Image

A temple at Amman 1400-1250 B.C.E.,excavated by J.A. Hannessey, Palestinian Exploration Quarterly(1966) p. 162, "Two outstanding features associated with the use of the temple were the enormous quantities of animal, bird, and human bones and the abundant evidence of fire...There can be little doubt that the temple was used as a fire cult...At least 75% of them[the bones] belong to children between the ages of 3 and 14, or thereabouts".

Anath, Baals sister and wife, was fertilized by the blood of men. Blood was considered a substance that could transmit life. "Hecatacombs of 100 men seem to have been sacrificed to Anath when her image was reddened with rouge and henna for the occasion. Like the Lady of the Serpent, Anath hung the shorn penises of her victims on her goatskin apron or aegis". ~Walker 30

Here are some links concerning Hebrew pronouns and "Elohim":
http://www.karaites-..._singular_1.htm

http://www.mc.marico...brew/pr onouns/





#35 Guest_omni_*

Guest_omni_*
  • Guest

Posted 14 April 2004 - 12:43 AM

For a long long long time I was strongly christian. That changed recently when I began challenging my own beliefs, and came up drastically short on reasons for believing what I believed. Faith is a strange thing. I once read somewhere: "For those who believe in God no proof is necessary, and for those who don't no proof is possible". I don't, however, get the impression that Morella is the type that would keel over were it made clear to her that she was wrong (seems very unlikely anyone could do that anyway). By the way it is also possible to be a christian without having been brainwashed, which it seems to me is the case with morella. Several Christians I have met have gone along very roundabout paths to reach christianity. Not at all the typical converts or "brainwashed youth". In my book what is important is to know why you believe something, and that you be able to back that up. By being willing to back up her claims about the bible, and by being fairly knowledgable, Morella already meets my defination of a "not brainwashed youth". Convince away Rodger.

(Message edited by omnibot on April 14, 2004)

#36 Guest_hippie3_*

Guest_hippie3_*
  • Guest

Posted 14 April 2004 - 08:17 AM

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Was Jesus a human sacrifice? Not if he was God in the flesh, in which case, his death would be a divine sacrifice or a mere bruise in God's heel. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
you should know full well
that according to xian doctrine
jesus was fully human while on earth
and really died for 3 days,
it was no 'trick' or sleight-of-hand.

you are side-stepping the issue.
you talk about blood sacrifices
but that is exactly what jesus was all about,
a human blood sacrifice to satisfy the requirement
your god imposed .
there is simply
no way around that fact.
it's the bedrock of the resurrection doctrine,
that we too are promised.

as for 'phoenicians'
you missed my point again.
to put it simply,
the word phoenician did not exist at the time
of joshua and the invasion of canaan,
it did not come into use until several
centuries later.

also you completely ignored the 2nd central complaint against your god-
the doctrines of inherited guilt and
collective punishment.





(Message edited by admin on April 14, 2004)

(Message edited by admin on April 14, 2004)

#37 morella

morella

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 119 posts

Posted 14 April 2004 - 11:28 PM

Most Christians believe Jesus that was both fully human and fully God. This being the case, the atonement was more of a self sacrifice, "I lay down my life - only to take it up again. No one takes it from me; but I lay it down on my own accord"(Jn 10:17,18). In Acts 20:28, God is said to have purchased the church "with His own blood". A mere human could not meet the sacrificial requirements because the lamb had to be of God--forshadowed when God provided the sacrifice to substitute for Isaac. Abraham named the place "The-Lord-Will-Provide"[the sacrifice].

About collective capital punishment...there were not alot of options back then. The extreme measures used in the OT should be abandoned in the same way doctors abandoned the practice of amputating infected limbs with the advent of antibiotics.

(Message edited by morella on April 15, 2004)

#38 Guest_hippie3_*

Guest_hippie3_*
  • Guest

Posted 15 April 2004 - 12:51 PM

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

About collective capital punishment...there were not alot of options back then.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
for GOD ????
how can an all-powerful god
not have 'options' other than mass extermination
for the sins of a few ?
surely he could have just gave the evil-doers
a heart-attack and let the innocent and the misled and decieved live.


#39 morella

morella

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 119 posts

Posted 17 April 2004 - 11:17 PM

Instead of giving heart attacks, God chose to use signs and wonders in the heavens so that all nations might come to know of Him. Ex 14:18, "Then the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I have gained honor for myself over Pharoah and his chariots, and his horsemen". Ex 14:31, "Thus Israel saw the great work which the LORD had done in Egypt and the people feared the LORD". Afterwards, God instructed Moses to celebrate the passover, "And when a stranger[foreigner] dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the Lord...let him come near and keep it, and he shall be as a native of the land. One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you"(Ex 12:36).

Likewise, God will use signs and wonders again to make Himself known to the nations, this time destroying the antichrist and his armies: "As in the days when you came out of Egypt; I will show you wonders"(Micah 7:5). "Once more I will shake heaven and earth, the sea and dry land, and I will shake the nations, and they shall come to see the Desire of All Nations"(Haggi 3). "For behold I am coming and I will dwell in your midst" says the LORD. "Many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and they shall become my people"(Zech 2:10). "It shall be that I will gather nations and tongues, and they shall see my glory"(Is 66:18,19). As in the days of Moses, the foreigners..."shall be to you as native-born among the children of Israel"(Ez 47:21). "At that time Jerusalem shall be called the Throne of the LORD, and all the nations shall be gathered to it, to the name of the LORD. No more shall they follow the dictates of their evil hearts"(Jer 3:16).

(Message edited by morella on April 18, 2004)

#40 Guest_hippie3_*

Guest_hippie3_*
  • Guest

Posted 18 April 2004 - 11:14 AM

so your god put humanity, all of it -
not just the 'bad' people,
thru thousands of years of suffering
just to satisfy his ego.
we all must suffer
so his name will be known to all.

you guys have made a mockery of the concept of god, imo.
you made him into a selfish child
not a real god.
i don't see how a being like
the one described in your bible
is worthy of being worshipped.



(Message edited by admin on April 18, 2004)




Like Mycotopia? Become a member today!