Is God Self-Evident

I don't understand how that would God self-evident, especially in light of a multitude not believing in God or a multitude of people who can't agree on what God is, what God's attributes are, etc, etc. What's the difference between stealing and God-inspired plundering (war booty)? The victims are no longer alive to protest? I know what the answer will come down to eventually for you. and that is because the bible said it happened that way (which is infallible) and God cannot commit sin (philosophically) by his nature, therefore the outcome will always be in favor of God no matter how transparently wrong it would be for anyone else to have ordered such carnage.That's the very problem with your basic assumptions. If you only operate under the assumption that the bible is completely true, then you nullify any possibility of being objective as you set up the protagonist in the bible, God, as just and merciful regardless of what he does and regardless if it appears contradictory to other passages. You do this a priori and posteriori.You may in turn claim that you aren't doing this, but by definition that is circular and tauological reasoning.You then feel compelled to defend the God of the bible regardless of whether or not he orders the massacre of the elderly, men, women, children, or infants, which all but would have to do if you go by those basic assumptions you stated earlier.There is so much at stake for fundamentalist Christians because they set the bar so high for themselves -- so high that it's like a deck of cards on a wobbly precipice. Because it is supposed to be infallible, if even ONE solitary part of the puzzle doesn't fit, the entire deck of cards falls.This is why many find themselves doing mental gymnastics to try and not only convince others that it's infallibly true, but themselves as well.I think it is presumptuous, arrogant, and dangerous to take such a hardline approach to the bible and to speak about God in such a sure manner. After all, isn't that what hardline Muslims do?Exploit the Qu'ran and their belief to act on God's behalf, as if God (the Creator of the entire universe) needed them to enact his will?!?!?!?!

quote:

---

Psalm 137

---

It's not that long of a psalm, plus I already posted it and am feeling too tired and lazy to go get the exact verbiage.

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

So are you saying that God is not self-evident? Therein lies the problem though, as I stated earlier. If you rely on two assumptions, namely that the bible is infallible and that God is perfect, there leaves a void of reason. Allah is also the definition of goodness. The Qu'ran is also supposed to be infallible. Both texts require that it is by faith we come to know and believe these ideals as true. But both contradict one another. So who's right? How are we supposed to honestly know either way? That is often what it comes down to. The Council's of Trent and Nicea come to mind. Society has a standard which, admittedly, is often flexible and constantly evolving. Nonetheless, by today's standards, if a soldier were to pick up an infant and smash their heads on the rocks, the world would be outraged. That much is transparent. Laws only make sense in black and white, as there he has to be some absolute sense of legal and illegal. Seldom, though, do we apply them so rigidly as every case has to look at the overall circumstances involved.This goes back to that great paradox I was referring to earlier concerning truth."Every experience is a paradox in that it means to be absolute, and yet is relative; in that it somehow always goes beyond itself and yet never escapes itself." -T.S. Eliot Yet another paradox. It was not absolutely good, but relatively bad.

quote:

---

You may in turn claim that you aren't doing this, but by definition that is circular and tauological reasoning.

---

Meaning, by the assumptions you hold to (that God exists exactly as the bible describes and that the bible is infallible) you set yourself up for absolute success. That does nothing, however, to advance the belief of God or the bible since it requires no evidence to prove itself.Your logic is therefore circular. Would you care if God ordered someone to smash your infant son or daughter's head on some rocks?Even if we are beholden to God, what purpose does it serve? What purpose does it serve God or humankind to kill Job's family, inflict him with disease, just to teach him about obedience to God? What valuable moral lesson was learned for Job's family members? Why create us at all then? You know that's the one question never answered by the bible -- the reason he created us? Why force us to be weak and then blame us on our weaknesses? He gave us the capacity to sin and then says, "Oh, now look what you've done," and then punishes us for the very thing he imparted. That just may very well be your conditioned response, as captives often suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. So you disagree?

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

So what???!!! I'm pretty pissed at the Taliban, but that doesn't mean that I would delight in taking their precious and innocent infants and smashing them on the rock. Infants don't root for the destruction of Zion, Bailey. "Vengence is mine, saith the Lord, I will repay."Great, except this is more like a mafia hit than a righteous killing. The description is of genocide, attempting to wipe out an entire people's regardless of whether or not they were directly involved or incidentally happened to be there. Yeah... God.

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

Yes, and what exactly makes it any different than the worship of Baal or Molech?

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

The bible has a lot of historical accuracy in it, I will certainly give it that much credit. It is also one of the most important collections of antiquity in the middle east. But there is no telling how much exaggeration, hyperbole, allegory, or falsified information is interjected. In other words, how much biased information was annotated by the Israelites?If we simply assume a priori that the bible is the authoritative and inspired word of God a priori, there is no way to approach it objectively. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

No, the scriptures allude to that at least some of the writers objected to the carnage. I assume like the rest of them, they were finally guilted in to it and feared godly retribution for disobedience. Probably not considering there were rivers of blood during the time when they ritually sacrificed animals on the alter. I'm sure there were some people who objected to it, but they were possibly labelled as "heretics." Torturing an animal versus a swift killing was what I was alluding to. I already told you, if I kill an insect there is no moral in my mind. And I've never killed a mammal and don't think that I would feel good doing so because of the emotion of empathy.There is an interesting thing with humans that the further down on the food chain one goes, and partly based on the intelligence of the animal, one finds it more difficult to kill an animal moreclosely related to themselves. I don't personally think so, but that is my morality. I don't agree with vengence killings, even if the person being executed has committed heinous crimes. However, I have no moral qualms with killing someone who presents an imminent threat to my life or someone else.I suppose you are going to ask where that moral comes from. I don't know. All I know is that some things for morality are conditioned responses and some do feel intrinsic or innate. Is that God? Is that biological? I have no way of knowing for sure at this point in time. My wife and I gave our son and daughter life. Does that give us the right to control their life or take their life? Does that sound logical or moral to you? Whoa, hang on there. Let's look at it in context, please. You asked a question about what moral in me allows me to kill an insect. I didn't say that I live life without morals. Insects don't show anything resembling agony or pain, so no. But would I feel empathy towards other animals? Of course.What makes your equivocation null and void is the simple fact that God, according to you, controls everything and wrote the schematics of life, even evil. How could it be ANY other way? Think about it."I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things." -Isaiah 45:7God wrote the template for this entire facade. If the devil tempts you, it's because God allowed it. According to this passage, if you are prosperous, it's because He made it happened. If bad things happen, according to this passage, He not only allows it but makes it happen.According to the Book of Job it's not beyond him to get in to a pissing contest with Satan, use Job and his loved one's as collateral just to prove a point. In your mind, God can do things like that just because he is God, yet somehow his morality never changes even though in one instance he says one thing and then in another the exact opposite."I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me" - Exodus 20:5"The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. - Ezekiel 18:20Well, which is it, LORD? Do we pay for the sins of the father or not?But his morality doesn't change? I don't think God is guilty. I just think the God described in the bible simply does not exist. He, like all other fables are but pagan tales that have synthesized from different beliefs, having been assimilated in to different cultures, each adding and blending their own beliefs until you have a Mr. Potato Head for a God.Christmas, with all its Norse and Roman influence. Easter, with its Babylonian influence. It's just like that.Does an actual God exist? I think there is some justification to assume that something beyond the physical realm exists. I have been privvy to glimpses, but I can in no way make any kind of solid determination based on such infrequency. Yes, essentially the same thing. No I did not. Please substantiate your claim. Again, I said I feel no moral principle when I kill an insect. Please look at it in context. That's all subjective. Some people would think I'm a monster and others would consider me quite normal. I'm not the arbiter of such things and I doubt the God of the bible is either. I know one thing though. I'm not making excuses for why it's okay to kill infants. Talk about overlooking and letting go disobedience! He seems quite longsuffering with the one who he knows will never repent, and yet so short-tempered with the Amalekites.He slaughters innocent infants, but he can't slaughter the ultimate sinner, the FATHER of SIN??? According to the Book he allows Satan to roam free, tormenting all of humanity and then punishes US when we're enticed by HIS own creation! That really doesn't make you question a thing or two?He seemingly has no problem dealing with the iniquities of men, but not of his fallen angels? During the Judgment Satan will be thrown in to the abyss for exactly 1,000 years (a convenient number), where the lion will lay down with the lamb, we'll beat our weapons in to plowshares and fish hooks, but then he'll be loosed again to infect the world some more.God can stop all of this from ever happening. He can take us up to heaven right now and forgive us our sins. There's not a person on earth that wouldn't opt to bask in his glory forever and forever, if only everyone was given an unambiguous knowledge of his existence.Why are we even here? What great purpose does this serve to have us languish in the physical realm? The bible is completely silent on that matter. There is no reason described for why he chose this path.That leaves one to wonder: Did God create us, or did we create God to fill the void for questions we don't know the answer to and may never know? Sure, in theory he's the measuring rod. But 1. It doesn't make it so just because a book says he's the measuring rod, and 2. The measuring rod often has a change of heart. *See passages above* No, not really. It just adds more confusion. Then why are we paying for Adam and Eve's sin? You stated that God had in mind for mankind to live in perfect harmony with God with no strife or turmoil. But read the opening chapters of Genesis and it goes in to detail about how mankind gets to pay the price for their sins. That's not an answer, that's a diversion. You can't answer it because there is no good reason. It's genocide, plain and simple.

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

What type am I? So then you can answer why we suffer separation from God because of Adam and Eve and why Moses said in Exodus that sin follows up to the 3rd and 4th generation, which is in contradiction with the verse in Ezekiel? But everybody is a sinner, before and after salvation. Oh, yeah, that brings up yet another contradiction."But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." - Genesis 2:17"And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. " - Genesis 5:5 That is not at all what it says in Exodus at all. God says, specifically, that he will punish up to the 3rd and 4th generations for the sins of the father because he's jealous."I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me" - Exodus 20:5That is in complete contradiction to Ezekiel's passage. Read the passages clearly and not what apologetic websites say to try and defend a defenseless position. It's way too clear.I have to go, answer the rest later.

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

What difference does any of that make? I don't know where you are going with this. That doesn't much matter since Exodus is very clear that they were specifically punished for being related, not a victim of someone else's bad choices. Well, you're getting warmer. See theoretically what you say is true. So if I show you were the bible is fallible, then you can't call it infallible. If I show you where the bible says one things and then contradicts somewhere else, then what does that say about God?You add it all up and you begin to realize that it's altogether not true or mostly untrue. The simple deduction is that it's not what it represents itself to be. Yes, but that does nothing to advance God. I said they were the same, not different. No worries, enjoy your weekend!

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

Regardless of whom the human author is, the text clearly states that God commanded genocide. You therefore can't minimize it by saying that the author was an upset Israelite.You don't get to cherry pick back and forth between infallible Word of God to pissed off author to suit a personal agenda. No I wouldn't, not that it matters. We're not talking about hypothetical situations, we're talking about GOD and what HE did supposedly in actuality. Talking about me or an angry author is just distraction taking away from God's role in it. Immaterial to the point at hand, which is the slaughtering of infants, elderly, women, and in general, non-combatants. Which is irrelevant to the point that God commanded it and delighted in the massacre. It is God, Bailey! Read it again. He said how happy they [Israelites] would be if they smashed their enemies infants on the rocks. That is not the only instance I have of God commanding genocide, God commanding rape, and God commanding some of the most heinous things imaginable. This is really the tip of the iceberg. I already know what the author thought. The issue is whether or not this actually came from God. According to the story, it did.... directly... That in turn brings us to he deeper issue which is whether or not the bible is actually the infallible Word of God. If it is, then God certainly called for genocide. If it isn't infallible, then the scriptures have no power or authority, as how would we be able to tell what comes from God and what comes from man's own thoughts.See the dilemma? No matter which you choose you have to concede at least one of them is true.

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

Oh, but there is. No one has been able to explain it away. I'm not talking about physical death. I'm talking about the clear difference between Ezekiel and Exodus. One says we don't pay for the sins of the father, the other one does. And it's very clear on what it means. It has nothing to do with physical death or spiritual death.What does, however, is Adam's sin, which God initially stated that in the day that anyone eats of the fruit, they will die. Then he goes on to live for half an eternity.I get the whole sin is separation from God. That's not what we're talking about here, as if I don't know what the bible says about it already.I'm talking about the plainly clear contradiction for the sins of the father. God says in Exodus that HE will PUNISH them, for several generations. It doesn't say or remotely insinuate that our fathers negative actions have negative consequences.Read them both again. How much time do you need to answer a question directly? Thus far you've made excuses that don't excuse what I've presented as clear contradictions. You bring up irrelevant things like spiritual death or try and turn the question around on me, as if somehow I did the same thing I'd be a hypocrite.Well, guess what? I haven't done any thing even remotely as tragic as what you apparently condone, as long as God does it.I'm not the one in the hot seat here. The bible is. Your answers are insufficient, not just for me, but to any logical debater. It's all hand-waiving and distraction from the topic at hand, which is that the bible has numerous contradictions.Got to get to the rest later.

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

quote:

---

"I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me" - Exodus 20:5

---

quote:

---

"The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. - Ezekiel 18:20

---

Clearly you aren't understanding or you are intentionally obscuring it because you know well that this is a clear contradiction. Either way, there is some deficiency on your part.In BOTH instances God is talking about "sin," right? It says NOTHING or even insinuates anything about physical or spiritual death, not that it matters anyhow because those are the wages of sin! It doesn't matter at all.The ISSUE is that in one instance, only the person who sins is punished for the sin in Ezekiel, yet in Exodus a whole family can be punished for the sins of the father.THAT is the contradiction. Whether it's spiritual, or physical, or whatever is irrelevant since all you are doing is describing what sin does to a person. All that matters is that the SIN in one instance is on your own head, but in the other infects a whole family. I'm aware of that, otherwise no one would be alive. I'm trying to understand why you keep bringing this up, though. What difference does any of this make? "In the day that you eat of it, you shall surely day," is about something else? Can you explain what mystery God is talking about, since plain language doesn't suffice here? Actually, no, I'm genuinely having a hell of a time trying to understand how you are piecing things together. If that makes me dumb then, okay. Yes, if the judge says, "Today as the result of your crime, you will die." The tense, as in past tense, present tense, or future tense makes the case.

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

Yes, but what I am saying is that it is a redundancy since we already know what sin is. Again, the greater issue here really is that Exodus passage, where it states that up to the 3rd and 4th generation that the families would be punished for their father's sin.Let's say for the sake of the argument that Ezekiel and Exodus don't contradict. Fine, whatever. There is still the issue of what it plainly says in Exodus. How do you reconcile that? EMA, there is no issue with that at all. I'm not disputing that the bible talks about souls. I obviously know that. Clear distinction?!?! There is no distinction whatsoever that anyone could reasonably gather from juxtaposing the two. You're making this up because you can see that there is a contradiction and understand the implication.Please explain how from what you can read that it is somehow clear. Not that it matters, it says in plain text that God punishes innocent people for other people's sin.

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

Yes, I get that feeling too. I can understand their position. This is very disconcerting information. Surely I'm getting through and it's problematic. Several people have stopped talking to me altogether. Hopefully we'll be back on track.

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

Morals and principals are subjective. The only way to shift beyond that is to prove it or refute it biblically is through examining the text. You are advancing theoretical morality based on an abstract philosophical argument.So I decided to put that to the test.Biblical contradictions to a literalist who believes the bible is infallible, not simply inspired by God. You haven't been able to answer these questions. You're no different than any one else I've encountered. They all dodge the questions and make up excuses for God. I've answered all of your theoretical questions to the very best of my ability. You're just advancing very weak theological arguments that you assume is a one-size-fits-all argument.You think somehow that if I'm morally allowed to kill an ant, then that is justification for God to kill people.1. That does nothing to prove God's existence.
2. Supposing God does exist, just because it is in a book does not mean that it accurately describes God or his attributes.If God is infallible and the scriptures are incorruptable, however, then you my friend are bound by the contradictions. You claim that there are no contradictions, but you really have not answered any of the questions directly. You keep dodging the questions. We can discuss both if you'd like. No, its not. If there was some ambiguity as to what they were talking about and in relation what, I would say yes. This, however, does not qualify for it is very specific as to what the writers are talking about.But more importantly, it is God talking, remember? Forget Ezekiel and Moses momentarily, and try and remember that it is God speaking through them. If they weren't specifically talking about sin and its entailments, I would say yes. But there is no looming question of uncertainty here.What you are doing is factoring in wild, and I do mean wild, speculations... You are coming up with these wild interpretations and essentially reading what you want to read rather than actually reading the two side by side. Yes, God may very well punish other people for the sins that other people have done as it says in the Exodus passage. Yes, it certainly seems that way. Ah, but they DO contradict. Ezekiel SPECIFICALLY says that only the sinner pays for their sins, whereas Exodus SPECIFICALLY says that other people pay for the sins of the father.Even if it is righteous for God to be an asshole and punish you for things your great-grandfather did, that is still a contradiction. We know the passages are talking about sin. We know the passages are talking about how God chooses to punish sin in relation to family. Each one has a different answer. Well, according to you God can do whatever he wants. Anything he does is by the nature of itself righteous, so that no matter what God does he can do no wrong.Sure, God can punish people for the things other people have done. Yet my own conscience screams out at the utter hypocrisy. Every time you talk, you shift the goal posts a little more every time to make it look like you're going along with it. Put nobody here is stupid, and we all see how you slowly shift to another position.Just like I've demonstrably proven with these two verses that they transparently contradict one another, there are a multitude of others that point to the blood-thirsty nature, the hypocrisy, and the contradictions found in the bible.If it makes you feel better to pretend that there is no glaringly obvious contradiction, then by all means continue living in a fantasy world. Along with it you can have the baby smashing and the punishing the innocent on behalf of the guilty. Have your fill. It would have, had you been able to clearly distinguish that different punishments and circumstances exist, which they didn't, in which case it's trying to swim up stream for you. This is why you continue riding a wave of complete speculation to attempt to reconcile the two. First of all, it DOES contradict. What I was saying, and still say, is that even SUPPOSING it didn't, YOU my friend still have to deal with the Exodus verse that speaks about God's tyranny. Well, lets say your father committed murder before you were born. Years later the police arrest you because your his son.Does that sound reasonable to you? Maybe that's something you would have to RECONCILE, no??? Then SUBSTANTIATE your argument!!! You have no proof of ANYTHING, as it is evident you're just making excuses for the bible as you go along. Here is your argument:1. There's no contradiction because there are different kinds of punishment.ANSWER: That's called speculation, first of all, secondly, what difference does it make? In Ezekiel you are punished for the sins YOU commit, in Exodus you pay for the sins OTHERS commit.Does that sound righteous, especially in light of that being in direct distinction from what Ezekiel said, which is you pay for the things you've done. LOL! You are completely making things up, inventing motives for the authors that you could not possibly know. You have to stick with what we know, and what we know is what is written.Piece it together. You can't just rely on your conjecture, EMA. That's ALL you have is conjecture, while I have let the scriptures speak for themselves and condemns your vagaries. Because it is hypocritical. An omnipotent and omniscient God wouldn't do those things. So when you here the author claiming that God did, what you are actually reading is someone inventing his own God right before your eyes based on the author's own sinful heart. Look I roll with whatever topic we are on. If we are talking philosophy or theology, at any time to make a point beyond speculation and conjecture, we all should be allowed to introduce various things that support what we're referring to.You don't get to sit here and say, "Well, he's God and therefore philosophically can do whatever he wants." You have to then prove that God exists and in the manner you describe, otherwise we aren't really arguing anything other than hypotheticals.And why is that not conducive to good debate? Because your god is set up beforehand to be perfect, so that no matter if he contradicts himself, acts hypocrtically, or whatever, in your mind he is justified or we're all just crazy.That's not how it works. That's how you want it to work, but that's not the case. You are going to substantiate your claims. At any time in order to substantiate mine, I bring up something specific, that should be allowed.

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

So therefore the author is speaking as if God is ordering a command to slaughter children, but God wouldn't actually do that? Not only is that not true, but it brings the whole infallibility question in to disrepute.What I gather is that you don't believe that God would ever actually condone such behavior because it's just a song. What about these:

quote:

---

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. - Isaiah 13:15-18

---

quote:

---

The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered." O LORD, what should I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don't give birth and breasts that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children." - Hosea 9:11-16

---

quote:

---

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all — old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." - Ezekiel 9:5-7

---

quote:

---

If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. - Leviticus 26:21-22

---

Are these all songs too?Do you have an excuse why murder, infanticide, rape, and torture is not only condoned, but commanded? If those songs merely talking about nationalistic poison is tragic, what must you think when God says it? Clearly it hasn't since I have more than sufficiently substantiated my argument at this point. So then you assert that the bible is not infallible, in which case, how is it that you use them to make a point in your arguments?If the bible is not infallible, then how do you know which one's are accurate and come from God versus which one's are written by man to suit man's agendas?How is that any different from Al Qaeda who claims to be doing God's work when they slaughter people in his holy name? If you want my honest opinion, I think none of it actually comes from God. I think the scriptures are man's invention to give power and credence to their own agendas, just like all the pagan religions before them.If you really want to assert that God didn't command such things because the Psalms are a collection of poems, know that I don't buy it for a second, but I'll allow you a small victory. You can have the Psalm argument since the bible is chock full of unambiguous instances where God revels in unspeakable atrocities. It's in the bible, Bailey, you know, the most beloved collection of books in the world, which is the supposed to be the very Word of God. You can minimize this if you want, but I think you and I both know the significance of this. How would you know either way? The bible is what is used to know the mind of God. If it is fallible, then what you think you know about God is therefore nullified by your own admission.See the dilemma with it? If you go the infallible route, you have to suffer the consequences for all the ugly and contradictory verses in the bible and try to make excuses for them. If you go the fallible route, you emasculate the entire bible, for how would you know which scriptures are from God and which are from men claiming to be from God?It's a no-win situation, friend. I for one am not envious of your position.

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams