Posted on 10/02/2014 7:54:42 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Some people - and quite a few atheists - have made hay over Obama's comments, primary among them being Obama's comment that "No religion condones the killing of innocents."
Inherent within Obama's statement is that no TRUE Muslim would ever kill innocent people, be they men, women or children. As such, this would fall within the parameters of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
The only problem with this is that it leaves Christians open to the charge that true Christians have (for example) bombed abortion clinics, takes away from Christians the ability to say that "No true Christian would ever bomb an abortion clinic" and thus shows why atheists are taking aim at Obama's comments: this ens up cutting with a double edge and leaves BOTH Christians and Muslims open to attack: True Muslims and True Christians would then in the eys of atheists be able to do wrong and still be Muslims and Christians while doing it.
I have taken Islam to task many times, but here I am concerned for Christianity and Christians in this and not Islam and Muslims...
Matthew 26:54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
The sensibilities of today’s people have no idea of the thought of slaughtering an entire people as was commanded by God.
“Right you are, but this is not an argument that will be accepted by an non-believer.”
For a non-believer, the book is a fiction. I don’t think they would have grounds for moralizing against what they regard as a fictional act by a fictional people against a fictional people. I would also wonder what informs the morality of this hypothetical non-believer.
But it used by Moses only 5 times. Once to describe the Nephilim, 3 times to describe Nimrod, and once to describe God Himself.
Thanks for your reply! Yes, I know those things and agree - I posted in hast. I wasn’t thinking about “innocent” I was just thinking “Wait a minute, the Israelites were told to wipe out all those tribes...” But they were far from innocent. I stand corrected.
So you don't anticipate voting this year ey?
to spell it out for you...
the premise is who defines innocents. there is an assumption that the word innocents is defined the same way in every religion... it is not.
Allah. Or maybe dialectical materialism.
What I meant to say is that I shall vote for any democrat over a republican if the former will warn of the dangers that we face with all the muzzies around, because all of the GOP is quiet on this subject.
Never seen such a bunch of f’n cowards.
Joshua says twice that he encountered Nephilim.
Who should I believe, you or Joshua? And Joshua went on to say "we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight."
Doesn't sound like big men to me, Grasshopper.;-)
I should have stated that I was being fascecious thinking none of them are going to have the guts to tell the truth. At least I sincerely hope they are not all that stupid. Not only are they cowards. I believe they are down right evil.
“Joshua says twice that he encuntered Nephilim”.
Not in my bible. Numbers 13:31-33 says it was the 10 other spies that gave that report. Numbers 14 says Joshua gave a good report and does not mention Nephilim.
After Moses recounts the fearful report of the 10 spies in Deuteronomy 9 you don’t hear about the “sons od Anak” again. When Joshua conquors the promised land there is mention of the 4 peoples, Amalekites, Hittites, Jebusites and Amorites that the 10 spies were afraid of, but there is no mention of Nephilim in the land. Later there is mention of some Philistines being giants but they were a distinct people who had settled in Israel after leaving their homeland Crete and being driven out of Egypt.
In the days of Noah
Genesis 6:4 (KJV)
There were giants in the earth in those days; AND ALSO AFTER THAT, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
report of the spies coming back from Canaan
Numbers 13:33 (ESV)
33 And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”
You need to work on your hermeneutics. Notice the use of “all” in the two verses below.
Gen 7:20-23, “Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. And ALL flesh died that moved upon the earth,...”
Luke 2:1 “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that ALL the world should be taxed.”
Please don’t tell me that you believe Australian aborigines, eskimos, and Mayans were taxed by Rome.
or this
Rev 6:13 “And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth”
Let’s see, the smallest stars are vastly bigger than the earth. So one star(singular) falling to the earth would totally destroy earth and mess up our entire solar system. Yet the passages continue to talk about life on earth after that.
Trying to force scripture into a more literal interpretation than a natural reading is bad hermeneutics.
5303 [e] han-nə-p̄î-lîm הַנְּפִילִ֛ים the giants Noun http://biblehub.com/text/numbers/13-33.htm
All I can say is “see ya there!”
“Trying to force scripture into a more literal interpretation than a natural reading is bad hermeneutics.”
So isn’t failure to compare scripture with scripture. Both Peter and the writer of Hebrews interpreted all and every within the context of Genesis to mean all and every. Only Noah and his family and the animals in the ark were saved. All other living flesh died in the judgment of flood.
Heb 11:7, “By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.”
1Pe 3:20, “Which so metime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.”
2Pe 2:5, “And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;”
I am fully aware of those passages but I am not going to further misdirect this thread into a global vs. local flood thread. I’ll refer you here if you are curious at looking into it more. Suffice it to say there are MANY other passages that have to be answered. From scripture alone it is hard to support global flood when ALL passages are considered. From scripture and a believers look at science it is impossible to support a global flood at least within the young earth interpretation.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html
That said if all can mean all the world can mean less than all of planet earth as it did in the Roman tax, quoting more passages that say all, really isn’t arguing anything new at all.
The discussion is not about a global vs. local flood. It is about whether all humans (flesh) with the exception of Noah and his family were wiped out in the flood.
Your web article agrees that all humans with the Noah exception were killed during the flood.
What kind of Christian would say that to a fellow Christian? What kind of human being would say that to another human being?
I have never seen such evil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.