• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Yawehism a "Religion of Peace"?

Is Yawehism a "Religion of Peace"?


  • Total voters
    21
  • Poll closed .
What do you mean by Christian scripture? Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy does not constitute Christian scripture. Jesus despised the traditions of old. There are some violent references in the New Testament but they are a lot more subtle than the Old Testament references.

LOL Jesus shouted old testament laws at the top of his lungs. Hated the old stuff my ass.
 
Some people may call this religion Judaism, Israelites, Yawehism or something else. I am referring to the ancient religion that is derived from the first five books of the Bible.

When you read Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deuteronomy do you view a society of peaceful individuals? Are you able to visualize this ancient religion without mixing your ideas of modern Judaism?

When I read the first five books of the Bible I see a religion very violent in nature and similar to Islam. It makes it very clear to me why these two tribes insist on killing each other all the time.

Is Yawehism a "Religion of Peace"?

I think one has to make a distinction in the types of "Law" that God has given. In the establishment of ancient Israel and the cultural practice that characterized that ancient culture, Judaism certainly was not a peaceful movement. It was an instrument of God's wrath and a law for building cultural unity amongst tribes. However, the "religion" is a bit different than the building of the culture. The religion was a system of atonement for the transgressions of law. In this aspect it was indeed a religion of peace and mercy. From an affirmative perspective, look at the 10 commandments; is there any thing in them that is not peaceful? No. Once transgressed and from a negative perspective things could get bad, however the religion was established as a vehicle for mercy, while at the same time maintaining justice. So yes it is a religion of peace.
 
The bible describes Yahweh as a war god who enjoys shedding blood and hearing the screams of souls from hell. Definitely not a religion of peace.

The bible describes God as Lord of Hosts, that is understood as a God over the battle, but the bible also refers to God as a God of Light, a God of Bread, A God of Justice, A God of Mercy, etc... I guess you pick the one that means the most to you personally, may I suggest you reconsider and take them all as a whole.
 
Judaism was a sect for those born from the tribe of Judah. Judaism excludes the remaining 11 tribes. I still don't know the proper terminology for this ancient religion even though many people call it Judaism. Is there a better term rather than Yahwehism?

I don't believe that is accurate at all. Judiasm was practiced by all Jewish tribes.
 
No, it isn't. It's a hateful, misogynistic, xenophobic, authoritarian bag of nonsense, just like its children, Islam and Christianity. It turns a blind eye on its own horrors, perpetuates adherence to myth instead of reality, and commits genocide and rape in an effort to maintain its power. Just like its children, Islam and Christianity.



This is not true at all. Judaism is not derived from the tribe of Judah. All 12 tribes are equally part of Judaism.



Judaism likely would as well. Though a history of persecution instead of a history of power might temper it a bit. But Judaism in power isn't treating Palestine terribly well, so maybe not.



Are you suggesting that Protestants don't commit horrific genocide? The various efforts of the British empire would disagree. It wasn't lacking at all in religious motivation to kill heathens. Or the violence committed by largely Protestant Americans against Indian tribes? No, Martin Luther did very little to stem the violence of his religion. Enlightenment thinkers and secular ideas turned society against the validity of killing people for what they think or believe. Education, not theology, taught us that one culture or society is not inherently better than another, and that there should be no violence or discrimination against people just because they're different. No religious idea gave us that value. Abandoning religious ideas did.

Your views are so skewed, what you have written here is a pathetic attempt to draw an equivalence between all religion. That is your first mistake. Many distinctions in philosophy between them exist, and we all know philosophy leads to culture. Like it or not there are superior cultural values that make life better for it's adherents.

Your second mistake is to cherry pick historical references from scripture that you believe uphold your perverted view of religion, while ignoring the greater culture it has produced.
Third ignoring the actual religious content and the positive references that deal with mercy and compassion.
Your fourth mistake is cherry picking atrocities committed by fallible men who use religion to justify evil, while ignoring all of the charity and good will spread by followers of that same religion. Pathetic and weak attack, congratulations.
 
What examples of violence in scripture are found in Christianity? I have no Idea what scripture you have in mind.

There are all sorts of accounts of genocide and various crimes against humanity chronicled in the Old Testament.

Deuteronomy 2:31-35:

31 And the Lord said to me, ‘Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land over to you. Begin to take possession, that you may occupy his land.’ 32 Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Jahaz. 33 And the Lord our God gave him over to us, and we defeated him and his sons and all his people. 34 And we captured all his cities at that time and devoted to destruction every city, men, women, and children. We left no survivors. 35 Only the livestock we took as spoil for ourselves, with the plunder of the cities that we captured.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread:

Numbers 31:7-18

7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.

13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.


So in the above case the Israelites were to kill all the men, women, and children with the exception of little virgin girls whom they could take and rape as spoils of war.

Here is another extremely violent example in scripture:

Hosea 13:16

16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open.


There are plenty more examples like that in the Old Testament.
 
What do you mean by Christian scripture? Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy does not constitute Christian scripture. Jesus despised the traditions of old. There are some violent references in the New Testament but they are a lot more subtle than the Old Testament references.

Sorry for the delay in responding, I just saw this. The Gospels are very clear on the role of the Old Testament with regard to Christianity. Jesus himself said:

Matthew 5:17

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
 
There are all sorts of accounts of genocide and various crimes against humanity chronicled in the Old Testament.

Deuteronomy 2:31-35:

31 And the Lord said to me, ‘Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land over to you. Begin to take possession, that you may occupy his land.’ 32 Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Jahaz. 33 And the Lord our God gave him over to us, and we defeated him and his sons and all his people. 34 And we captured all his cities at that time and devoted to destruction every city, men, women, and children. We left no survivors. 35 Only the livestock we took as spoil for ourselves, with the plunder of the cities that we captured.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread:

Numbers 31:7-18

7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.

13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.


So in the above case the Israelites were to kill all the men, women, and children with the exception of little virgin girls whom they could take and rape as spoils of war.

Here is another extremely violent example in scripture:

Hosea 13:16

16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open.


There are plenty more examples like that in the Old Testament.


These cultural practices were given to Jewish society specifically for their culture and the establishment of ancient Israel. These do not apply to Christians at all. The thing you have to re-examine is the context of what you are reading. You need to know to whom the individual book was written, and for what purpose it is written. Now you may say "Christians hold to both old and new testaments" and that would be correct. However the Christian looks for the lesson and instruction that the historical event provides, We do not believe each historical act is to be emulated. So your examples are poor.
 
Sorry for the delay in responding, I just saw this. The Gospels are very clear on the role of the Old Testament with regard to Christianity. Jesus himself said:

Matthew 5:17

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Well you certainly missed the point of what Jesus was saying. How do you think Jesus "fulfilled" the law and the prophets? What do you suppose that meant? It certainly didn't mean that he intended to continue with the practices contained in the culture.
 
These cultural practices were given to Jewish society specifically for their culture and the establishment of ancient Israel. These do not apply to Christians at all. The thing you have to re-examine is the context of what you are reading. You need to know to whom the individual book was written, and for what purpose it is written. Now you may say "Christians hold to both old and new testaments" and that would be correct. However the Christian looks for the lesson and instruction that the historical event provides, We do not believe each historical act is to be emulated. So your examples are poor.

They were commandments of God to the Israelites. They are no different than commandments of Allah to the Arabs at the time of the Koran. You are right that they reflect the culture of the time. Thats the thing, in both cases they reflected the culture of the time (they had the same violent culture at the time). If you don't think that Christians have committed genocide in the name of God then I suppose you know nothing about the crusades, what happened to native peoples around the world in the colonial era, or for that matter the Bosnian Genocide just back in the 1990s. The only reason why Christianity is less violent today than Islam is that Christianity has been subjected to modernity for longer. After all, it wasn't that long ago that an entire race of people were enslaved by Christians that justified it by scripture.
 
Well you certainly missed the point of what Jesus was saying. How do you think Jesus "fulfilled" the law and the prophets? What do you suppose that meant? It certainly didn't mean that he intended to continue with the practices contained in the culture.

Of course it didn't. Well not completely. My point was that he did not come and just say "burn the Torah, disregard all you have been told before". In this case, the Gospel According to Matthew was written to a Jewish audience.

Theological notes for that particular verse are below:

[5:17–20] This statement of Jesus’ position concerning the Mosaic law is composed of traditional material from Matthew’s sermon documentation (see note on Mt 5:1–7:29), other Q material (cf. Mt 18; Lk 16:17), and the evangelist’s own editorial touches. To fulfill the law appears at first to mean a literal enforcement of the law in the least detail: until heaven and earth pass away nothing of the law will pass (Mt 5:18). Yet the “passing away” of heaven and earth is not necessarily the end of the world understood, as in much apocalyptic literature, as the dissolution of the existing universe. The “turning of the ages” comes with the apocalyptic event of Jesus’ death and resurrection, and those to whom this gospel is addressed are living in the new and final age, prophesied by Isaiah as the time of “new heavens and a new earth” (Is 65:17; 66:22). Meanwhile, during Jesus’ ministry when the kingdom is already breaking in, his mission remains within the framework of the law, though with significant anticipation of the age to come, as the following antitheses (Mt 5:21–48) show.
 
The point in all of this is that peaceful Muslims look to the Koran and see a religion of peace. Peaceful Christians look to the Bible and see a religion of peace. Violent Muslims look to the Koran and see a religion that commands them to defend their faith by any means necessary. Violent Christians look to the Bible and see a religion that commands them to defend their faith by any means necessary. The only difference today is that there are more fundamentalist violent Muslims than fundamentalist violent Christians.

Of course a peaceful Christian would look at a violent Christian's interpretation of scripture and think its heretical. Similarly, a peaceful Muslim looks at an Islamists interpretation of the Koran and thinks its heretical. However, the point is that both Christianity, Islam, and Judaism can find plenty of examples of some of the most violent acts imaginable in their respective holy scriptures.
 
They were commandments of God to the Israelites. They are no different than commandments of Allah to the Arabs at the time of the Koran. You are right that they reflect the culture of the time. Thats the thing, in both cases they reflected the culture of the time (they had the same violent culture at the time). If you don't think that Christians have committed genocide in the name of God then I suppose you know nothing about the crusades, what happened to native peoples around the world in the colonial era, or for that matter the Bosnian Genocide just back in the 1990s. The only reason why Christianity is less violent today than Islam is that Christianity has been subjected to modernity for longer. After all, it wasn't that long ago that an entire race of people were enslaved by Christians that justified it by scripture.

The difference here is that with Christianity there is no overt command to take action against anyone. Fallible Christians have used religion to justify evil acts to be sure, but that based on poor interpretation or more probably perverting text to suit ones own ambition. In Judaism there is lawful commands that in specific instances call for vengence, however forgiveness, mercy and compassion are also given as alternatives, remember God says "I prefer mercy not sacrafice". In Islam there is no need for poor interpretation, there are overt references to violence and murder as being the right thing to do.
 
Of course it didn't. Well not completely. My point was that he did not come and just say "burn the Torah, disregard all you have been told before". In this case, the Gospel According to Matthew was written to a Jewish audience.

Theological notes for that particular verse are below:

[5:17–20] This statement of Jesus’ position concerning the Mosaic law is composed of traditional material from Matthew’s sermon documentation (see note on Mt 5:1–7:29), other Q material (cf. Mt 18; Lk 16:17), and the evangelist’s own editorial touches. To fulfill the law appears at first to mean a literal enforcement of the law in the least detail: until heaven and earth pass away nothing of the law will pass (Mt 5:18). Yet the “passing away” of heaven and earth is not necessarily the end of the world understood, as in much apocalyptic literature, as the dissolution of the existing universe. The “turning of the ages” comes with the apocalyptic event of Jesus’ death and resurrection, and those to whom this gospel is addressed are living in the new and final age, prophesied by Isaiah as the time of “new heavens and a new earth” (Is 65:17; 66:22). Meanwhile, during Jesus’ ministry when the kingdom is already breaking in, his mission remains within the framework of the law, though with significant anticipation of the age to come, as the following antitheses (Mt 5:21–48) show.

Exactly, a Jewish audience, who would have understood that the fulfillment of the law is an act of atonement. Nothing to do with applying Jewish cultural practices to Christian followers. As Paul says, The "Law" is given to accuse and convict all men Christ is come to be a propitiation for all.
 
The OT enemies of Jews are Long Gone, whereas the Koran's enemies: Jews, Christians, (IOW, us) and Pagans (Hindus/Buddhists/etc) are Still here and that scripture Still Invoked by TODAY's Muslims.
If your hear "Allah Akhbar" and you're not a Muslim.. DUCK!

Muslims, that is, that UNLIKE Jews and Christians, are in FAR greater number/MAJORITY/Mainstream Literalist. And Literalist to a Holy Book that is Less compatible with Western Values: Tolerance and Freedom.
Despite the SICK Socialist posts of paschendale that seek to say they're all the same.

Indeed, when the Islam/Peaceful poll came up, his First post was to say that Islam 'was as peaceful as anyone else.'
But when Judaism came up.. it was Right to "Genocide and Rape."

In FACT, the world is Rife with DAILY examples of Violence and Intolerance by Islam's adherents which Overwhelm all other religions put togther in Persecuting and Killing others.
It's a scourge from Mauritania, to Mumbai, to Mindinao.
You don't have to get to the airport an hour early, and still wouldn't have to, save Muslim Terror.

That, Ladies and gentlemen, is how partisanship Perverts the truth, and why many Understandably 'confuse' Leftism with anti-semitism.
 
Last edited:
Christianity was "neutered" before secularism. Separation of church and state relied on the reformation. It's not an inevitability, Christianity was unique and its a mistake to assume it just happens everywhere.

The Islamic world doesn't even have to come up with the idea. Yet it takes so hard.

Islam is only radicalized in countries where it is allowed to be, where there is effectively no competition. As Muslims move to the west, in largely secular countries, you don't see many radicals, most of them adopt a much more secular way of life, just like Christianity did.
 
Very poorly informed statement. Where exactly in scripture are Christians commanded to kill those who differ in their religious view? You can't answer can you?

Of course I can and already have. You seem to have "conveniently" ignored it. I'll do it again. Try Deuteronomy 13:12-15. It says quite clearly that if you come across a town that worships another god, that you are to slaughter its inhabitants down to the last man, and the cattle for some weird reason, because cows apparently can be heretics too.

Geez, are you really that ignorant of your own book of mythology?
 
The only difference in terms of violence between Christianity and Islam is that most of the violence and genocide in Christianity occurs earlier in scripture while most of the violence in Islam occurs later in the Koran.

This says absolutely nothing about whether Christianity or Judaism are religions of peace. I'd say if anything Judaism has a stronger claim to "peace" than Christianity. For the most part, they've been either oppressed or in defense. On the other hand, Christian nations have spent the last 1600 years in continuous struggles of different sorts through different processes. From the Crusades to colonialism to neo-colonialism, Christian nations have found a way to embroil themselves in wars with others and themselves for both dogmatic and material reasons.
 
Islam is only radicalized in countries where it is Allowed to be, where there is effectively no competition.
As Muslims move to the west, in largely secular countries,
you don't see many radicals, most of them adopt a much more secular way of life, just like Christianity did.
IOW, when Muslims are in their Own countries they are Radical and Intolerant.
BUT....When Confined to small Minorities in the Secular Christian West, where this is not "allowed", they are somewhat Domesticated.
You don't post in the Europe section much, do you? There are Serious problems with 2%-10% of same.

You sure made the case for the peacefullness of Islam!
as long as they are Squashed by a much larger, more civilized, more secular, Christian West.
Oh Yeah!
This was another riveting point for Islam.. when put under a civil Non-Muslim control.
What a backfiring excuse of a post.
 
Last edited:
You'll definitely need to offer some actual evidence of this. Kings were subordinate to the church. Napoleon's refusal to let the pope crown him was shocking at the time. What you're saying sounds like a lot of historical revisionism, trying to overlay your modern American ideals (which are good ideals) over history to justify painting your religion as somehow superior and an ally of those modern ideals when it is anything but.



Secularism didn't "take" in Christian culture. It supplanted it. Christian culture now exists in the southern countries in Africa. We don't have Christian culture here. We have secular culture.

In that same vein, secular culture has been trying since at least the 1950s to gain a foothold in the Middle East (which if, of course, not the entirety of Muslim countries). It's had some successes, and plenty of setbacks, including the propping up of fundamentalist dictators in order to prevent those countries from embracing socialist ideas and allying with the Soviet Union. A lot of the movements behind the Arab Spring (which has been a mixed bag) were secular movements. Why hasn't secular culture supplanted Muslim culture? Because it's still in the process of doing so. Let's root for it to continue.

------------------------------



None of which is the result of Judaism. It comes from American secularism. Why is it important to you to suggest that Judaism is somehow superior to other religions? It isn't. It's a normal crappy one just like all the others.



Christian apostates are killed in Christian countries. This, as usual, requires the explanation that industrialized secular nations aren't Christian countries, while many southern African ones, where they allow religion to dominate their lives in ways that industrialized secular nations would never tolerate. In Lesotho, Zambia, or Nambia, apostasy is met with violence, just like in Saudi Arabia. Why does this fact confuse you?



Why are you only counting since 2000? Again, cherry picking your data. Either way, every single year, including since 2000, thousands of Palestinian children are killed by the Israeli military. How can you possibly not consider that genocide? And why must you invoke emotionally charged terms like "blood libel" (which has nothing to do with the situation we're talking about) in order to support your factually incorrect argument? Are you really suggesting that these children aren't dying? It seems like you are, since you deny the numbers involved and I apparently have to hunt them down for you.

2013 was a deadly year in Israel-Palestine | +972 Magazine (38 Palestinians vs 6 Israeli deaths in 2013)
Israel and the Palestinians: Gaza abacus | The Economist (173 Palestinians vs 4 Israeli deaths in 2012)
Sharp increase in Palestinian deaths in 2011 - Middle East - Al Jazeera English (105 Palestinians vs 11 Israeli deaths in 2011)



I have no idea how you can suggest that a reaction by Jews to religious persecution in Europe is not religious in nature. Do you know what the words you're using mean?



Remember that first post that started your weird rants? The one where I speculated that Judaism might be more peaceful than its contemporaries but we don't really know since it doesn't occupy the position of power that Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam enjoy? And the most available evidence, the violence in Palestine, doesn't really suggest that Judaism is immune to inciting religious violence when it has a little power to do so. I don't see any reason to assume that it wouldn't act exactly the same as its contemporaries with global power.



Judaism's teaching are just as misogynistic, authoritarian, and cruel as other religions' are. Because they are the exact same teachings. It's excellent that Israel isn't the same kind of poor and uneducated nation that Nambia or Afghanistan is. But that doesn't vindicate the religion.



The difference between religiously motivated violence and violence "in the name of a religion" is not the thread topic at all. It's a meaningless distinction that you keep bringing up in order to claim that some religious violence is acceptable and some (the modern string of Islamic-based violence) isn't. Any violence done over religious distinctions or religious ideology is wrong. Do you disagree with that statement? Is a woman being killed for having sex outside of marriage more or less evil when committed by Muslims in Saudi Arabia than it is when committed by Christians in Mozambique or Hindus in India? I say it is completely evil in all three cases and should never be tolerated.



Why do you capitalize "filthy slanders"? I've been dying to ask that for years. Frothing conservatives and religious apologists capitalize words for emphasis rather than just proper nouns and the start of sentences. Why do you do that?

Revisionism? It's well known history.

The gregorian reform was the first major shift in the relationship between church and state. That relationship evolved from there. Why was it possible? Well the nugget is in a well known bible quote "render unto Caesar...".

And I'm not American, but I notice you ducked the question about the bill of rights being a meaningless historical event because slavery still existed.

And secular culture did not supplant Christian culture, since 80% of Americans are Christian. Christian culture just happens to be fertile ground for secularism.
 
The bible describes God as Lord of Hosts, that is understood as a God over the battle, but the bible also refers to God as a God of Light, a God of Bread, A God of Justice, A God of Mercy, etc... I guess you pick the one that means the most to you personally, may I suggest you reconsider and take them all as a whole.

Bahahahaha... A god of MERCY? He takes anyone who doesn't believe in him, even though he hasn't provided any appreciable evidence distinguishing himself from the other 1000's of gods, and throws them into eternal hellfire to be tortured with no chance of reprieve. He could have made the punishment 100 years, 10,000 years, 1 million years, but no, that's not long enough, it had to be eternity and no forgiveness will ever be given.

That's not mercy, that sadism. You can feel free to bow to such a tyrant, but I will continue to call him the sadist that he is.
 
Some people may call this religion Judaism, Israelites, Yawehism or something else. I am referring to the ancient religion that is derived from the first five books of the Bible.

When you read Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deuteronomy do you view a society of peaceful individuals? Are you able to visualize this ancient religion without mixing your ideas of modern Judaism?

When I read the first five books of the Bible I see a religion very violent in nature and similar to Islam. It makes it very clear to me why these two tribes insist on killing each other all the time.

Is Yawehism a "Religion of Peace"
?



Every religion advocates peace except for those who violate its precepts.
 
Of course I can and already have. You seem to have "conveniently" ignored it. I'll do it again. Try Deuteronomy 13:12-15. It says quite clearly that if you come across a town that worships another god, that you are to slaughter its inhabitants down to the last man, and the cattle for some weird reason, because cows apparently can be heretics too.

Geez, are you really that ignorant of your own book of mythology?

Obviously you have no Idea of what you are talking about. Deuteronomy was written to instruct Jews for their culture, in that time. You have failed to make distinctions between God's universal law and an historical event. Those historical texts have nothing to do with Christianity.
 
Bahahahaha... A god of MERCY? He takes anyone who doesn't believe in him, even though he hasn't provided any appreciable evidence distinguishing himself from the other 1000's of gods, and throws them into eternal hellfire to be tortured with no chance of reprieve. He could have made the punishment 100 years, 10,000 years, 1 million years, but no, that's not long enough, it had to be eternity and no forgiveness will ever be given.

That's not mercy, that sadism. You can feel free to bow to such a tyrant, but I will continue to call him the sadist that he is.

You make my point, thank you. You are still focusing on what props up your own view instead of the systematic view that scripture teaches. Do you believe Justice is a virtue? Can one have Justice without some form of consequence? Now, if there were no mention of human will, mercy, forgiveness, or atonement you might have a point. But scripture does and you don't, all you have is a myopic view that holds no merit.
 
Back
Top Bottom