Hell why not

Today's Bible reading is Luke 17, http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&c=17&v=1&t=NLT#1. Quote of note:
20 One day the Pharisees asked Jesus, “When will the Kingdom of God come?”
Jesus replied, “The Kingdom of God can’t be detected by visible signs. [fn4] 21 You won’t be able to say, ‘Here it is!’ or ‘It’s over there!’ For the Kingdom of God is already among you. [fn5] ”
22 Then he said to his disciples, “The time is coming when you will long to see the day when the Son of Man returns, [fn6] but you won’t see it. 23 People will tell you, ‘Look, there is the Son of Man,’ or ‘Here he is,’ but don’t go out and follow them. 24 For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other, so it will be on the day when the Son of Man comes. 25 But first the Son of Man must suffer terribly [fn7] and be rejected by this generation.
26 “When the Son of Man returns, it will be like it was in Noah’s day. 27 In those days, the people enjoyed banquets and parties and weddings right up to the time Noah entered his boat and the flood came and destroyed them all.
28 “And the world will be as it was in the days of Lot. People went about their daily business—eating and drinking, buying and selling, farming and building— 29 until the morning Lot left Sodom. Then fire and burning sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 Yes, it will be ‘business as usual’ right up to the day when the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day a person out on the deck of a roof must not go down into the house to pack. A person out in the field must not return home. 32 Remember what happened to Lot’s wife! 33 If you cling to your life, you will lose it, and if you let your life go, you will save it. 34 That night two people will be asleep in one bed; one will be taken, the other left. 35 Two women will be grinding flour together at the mill; one will be taken, the other left. [fn8] ”
37 “Where will this happen, Lord?” [fn9] the disciples asked.
Jesus replied, “Just as the gathering of vultures shows there is a carcass nearby, so these signs indicate that the end is near.” [fn10]

Footnotes:
17:20 Or by your speculations.
17:21 Or is within you, or is in your grasp.
17:22 Or long for even one day with the Son of Man. “Son of Man” is a title Jesus used for himself.
17:25 Or suffer many things.
17:35 Some manuscripts add verse 36, Two men will be working in the field; one will be taken, the other left. Compare Matt 24:40.
17:37 Greek “Where, Lord?”
17:37 Greek “Wherever the carcass is, the vultures gather.”

All I'll say is the Pope really shouldn't be in Northern Africa preaching about the evils of condoms unless he's actually trying to bring about the AIDS apocalypse.

Today's Bible reading is Luke Chapter 18--full text follows.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&c=18&v=1&t=NLT#1

Parable of the Persistent Widow
1 One day Jesus told his disciples a story to show that they should always pray and never give up. 2 “There was a judge in a certain city,” he said, “who neither feared God nor cared about people. 3 A widow of that city came to him repeatedly, saying, ‘Give me justice in this dispute with my enemy.’ 4 The judge ignored her for a while, but finally he said to himself, ‘I don’t fear God or care about people, 5 but this woman is driving me crazy. I’m going to see that she gets justice, because she is wearing me out with her constant requests!’”
6 Then the Lord said, “Learn a lesson from this unjust judge. 7 Even he rendered a just decision in the end. So don’t you think God will surely give justice to his chosen people who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? 8 I tell you, he will grant justice to them quickly! But when the Son of Man [fn1] returns, how many will he find on the earth who have faith?”
Parable of the Pharisee and Tax Collector
9 Then Jesus told this story to some who had great confidence in their own righteousness and scorned everyone else: 10 “Two men went to the Temple to pray. One was a Pharisee, and the other was a despised tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed this prayer [fn2] : ‘I thank you, God, that I am not a sinner like everyone else. For I don’t cheat, I don’t sin, and I don’t commit adultery. I’m certainly not like that tax collector! 12 I fast twice a week, and I give you a tenth of my income.’
13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance and dared not even lift his eyes to heaven as he prayed. Instead, he beat his chest in sorrow, saying, ‘O God, be merciful to me, for I am a sinner.’ 14 I tell you, this sinner, not the Pharisee, returned home justified before God. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
Jesus Blesses the Children
15 One day some parents brought their little children to Jesus so he could touch and bless them. But when the disciples saw this, they scolded the parents for bothering him.
16 Then Jesus called for the children and said to the disciples, “Let the children come to me. Don’t stop them! For the Kingdom of God belongs to those who are like these children. 17 I tell you the truth, anyone who doesn’t receive the Kingdom of God like a child will never enter it.”
The Rich Man
18 Once a religious leader asked Jesus this question: “Good Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?”
19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus asked him. “Only God is truly good. 20 But to answer your question, you know the commandments: ‘You must not commit adultery. You must not murder. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely. Honor your father and mother.’ [fn3] ”
21 The man replied, “I’ve obeyed all these commandments since I was young.”
22 When Jesus heard his answer, he said, “There is still one thing you haven’t done. Sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
23 But when the man heard this he became very sad, for he was very rich.
24 When Jesus saw this, [fn4] he said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God! 25 In fact, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!”
26 Those who heard this said, “Then who in the world can be saved?”
27 He replied, “What is impossible for people is possible with God.”
28 Peter said, “We’ve left our homes to follow you.”
29 “Yes,” Jesus replied, “and I assure you that everyone who has given up house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the Kingdom of God, 30 will be repaid many times over in this life, and will have eternal life in the world to come.”
Jesus Again Predicts His Death
31 Taking the twelve disciples aside, Jesus said, “Listen, we’re going up to Jerusalem, where all the predictions of the prophets concerning the Son of Man will come true. 32 He will be handed over to the Romans, [fn5] and he will be mocked, treated shamefully, and spit upon. 33 They will flog him with a whip and kill him, but on the third day he will rise again.”
34 But they didn’t understand any of this. The significance of his words was hidden from them, and they failed to grasp what he was talking about.
Jesus Heals a Blind Beggar
35 As Jesus approached Jericho, a blind beggar was sitting beside the road. 36 When he heard the noise of a crowd going past, he asked what was happening. 37 They told him that Jesus the Nazarene [fn6] was going by. 38 So he began shouting, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”
39 “Be quiet!” the people in front yelled at him.
But he only shouted louder, “Son of David, have mercy on me!”
40 When Jesus heard him, he stopped and ordered that the man be brought to him. As the man came near, Jesus asked him, 41 “What do you want me to do for you?”
“Lord,” he said, “I want to see!”
42 And Jesus said, “All right, receive your sight! Your faith has healed you.” 43 Instantly the man could see, and he followed Jesus, praising God. And all who saw it praised God, too.


Footnotes:
18:8 “Son of Man” is a title Jesus used for himself.
18:11 Some manuscripts read stood and prayed this prayer to himself.
18:20 Exod 20:12-16; Deut 5:16-20.
18:24 Some manuscripts read When Jesus saw how sad the man was.
18:32 Greek the Gentiles.
18:37 Or Jesus of Nazareth.

Parable of the Persistent Bible-thumper:
One day, a man who believed himself to be holier than thou approached Jesus and tried to convince him of his own spurious beliefs, spouting from a book of dubious veracity.
Jesus simply said, "Why are you hitting me over the head with this worthless tome, ye puffed-up idiot? Go get a life. In other words, since you don't seem to be taking this in, although you realise this is the son of God speaking to you . . . go f*ck yourself."
Here the lesson endeth.

See there is the same denigration of Christian beliefs/works/scripture as worthless. Yet, we're still portrayed as intolerant no matter what our actual individual beliefs may be :S

Kind of ironic there; the same folks that say you're intolerant without bothering to find out what you may have to say on any particular issue, have no problem whatsoever being intolerant toward you, lol.

I'm a little bemused by this little turf war. A couple of guys, really no more than about six, take part in a discussin of the Bible. They aren't even going to different threads and saying "Hey everybody! Come to this thread" which I've seen done from time to time. Once or twice even in this one. Yet, they are some sort of a threat that must be addressed. Silly really.

"In the world you will have tribulation, but be of good cheer--for I have overcome the world." --Jesus

+1 Mujus lol, Like I said, not surprised or upset by any means. Just bemused.

'Yet, they are some sort of a threat that must be addressed. Silly really'

Religion is like a flag, it is an idea which people can rally behind, like communism or fascism.

People can do great things when united behind one flag.

Therefore religion can result in great things, so it is little surprise that some people fear a great evil, while others may espouse a great good. (i for one am happy to unite with any christian who wishes to 'build a kingdom of heaven on earth', so long as is compatible with my idea of a utopian paradise... )

OK, folks, I have a double here...a passage and an article--

"Now go, attack the Amalekites, and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."

1 Samuel 15:3

...And...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/30/christian-fundamentalists-plan-teach-genocide

Leaving aside for the moment that's The Guardian, and not everyone cares for that source--which is fair enough, though let the record state that I'm not just giving a NY or LA Times article--and just taking the content...let me ask two questions, one related to the passage itself, and one related to the article:

I. ...HOW is this moral? OR acceptable? At all? Whatsoever?

You can say that it was God's will, all of that, I've heard that argument before, and I'm sorry, I need something better when God, who supposedly is creator of the universe, commands someone to commit genocide...and not just genocide, not even just going to war...

Every man woman...and child? REALLY? Really. I'm sorry, I...infanticide IS argued to be evil on some parts of the Bible, if I'm correct? If I recall--though it's been many years since I watched versions of the stories on TV--there ARE instances in there where a character is killing babies, and is the villain?

So...why is it OK when GOD says to do it?

And again, I want something better than "Because we must obey God" or "Because God is good, ergo everything he says is good and right" or, perhaps most chilling of all, "Because the Amalekites clearly deserved to die for defying God, and that INCLUDES the men, women, AND children...and donkeys!"

Yeah, that's being a bit excessive, don't you think?

Even believers, theists, even you have to agree...even if for some reason you think that killing CHILDREN is somehow not only acceptable, but moral, and not only moral, but indeed, a moral mandate from a higher power that MUST be obeyed, without question...

What the HELL did the poor donkeys do??? XD

Come on--that's either a writer having a VERY bad day and just wanting God to go completely insane in that passage, or I'm sorry, that IS an insane deity...really, the donkeys?! Why??? I mean...to make sure other donkeys stay in their place? To counteract any possible Donkey Revolution? Why? Certainly not as a means of efficiency, you're expending manpower and time killing something you can either take with you and put to use or else just leave the poor donkey and it'll never bother you again, once more, it's not as if the donkeys are a THREAT...and there's no possible way, even if we are to believe some absurd proposition that because one group of people had a dissimilar belief from another they were fated to die and deserved to die and so their deaths were justified...even if we took all that...about the Amalekite PEOPLE...

DONKEYS AREN'T PEOPLE! (I know, shocking, clearly deserving of caps.) ;)

But really, that makes me explode with laughter at just how ludicrous that is and at the same time bristle with rage that such a passage can be taught as not only a moral lesson, and not only quite possibly one of the worst precedents ever to set in history--a DOUBLE bad precedent, that 1. If a superior tells you to obey, you should obey unquestioningly and totally, and 2. That genocide IS in fact permissible, and you CAN be justified in killing men, women, and children systematically, just so long as "God" says its OK--but because of the following:

God is angry that Saul DOESN'T kill everyone...that he spares the king and some animals.

Now.

1. First of all, if Saul were to spare anyone...let's again just roll with this horrific justification for genocide...if YOU were Saul, and YOU were going to spare someone, anyone, maybe even an entire group of the royalty, men, women, donkeys, and CHILDREN you were killing...well, would not the most humane--scratch that, the least horrific--choice be the poor children? I'm sorry, you CANNOT justify exterminating children...they're just kids! They didn't have a CHOICE to be born Amalekites, again, still rolling with the idea that it's OK to kill people because God said so...why spare the king over the damn CHILDREN? Or, hell, even a few ANIMALS get saved...ANIMAL LIVES ARE PLACED AHEAD OF THE LIVES OF CHILDREN IN THIS STORY! (And if you're thinking "he's being rather excessive with those caps," yes, I am, but only because I find it extraordinarily infuriating ANYONE would consider justified, much less moral, and much less STILL agree with God's anger at Saul not exterminating everyone, which brings me to:

2. WHY should God be furious? I mean...over a king and a few mules or cows or donkeys, or whatever? Thousands if not hundreds of thousands slaughtered, and God's angry one person and some livestock survived? How malicious is THAT? I'm sorry, I know it's the OT, and fans of the NT will tell me this is unfair, but I'll say it anyway:

THAT IS *NOT* A LOVING GOD. AT ALL.

I don't care WHAT your station in life is, even if you ARE a "God," ordering the slaughter of an entire race, including the children, is never OK--NEVER...

And then the main issue is that Saul...was wrong to spare the king and some cows because he wasn't "obedient" enough? Exterminating an entire race...is a test of "obedience" for this "loving" God, and the fact one man and some cows survived, while children lay with their throats cut, and every man and woman lie dead as well...God, the all-mighty God of the universe...is OFFENDED that his gestapo Saul allowed one man to survive with some cows, that makes this "Great" God furious, and shows SAUL to be in the wrong?

...

Please. I BEG of you...

Crazy Anglican...
Mujus...
semck...

Please.

Try and justify all that. All of it. The slaughter based on racial identity and failing to believe the same as someone else. The murder of every man, woman, and CHILD...and most of the LIVESTOCK. The fact that Saul spares one man and some cows, and that shows he's in the wrong because he CLEARLY should've obeyed 100%

Please, go ahead, and explain why this is moral, at all.

II. On the article...

Well, as you can see, this group does in fact teach exactly what I said above, that (and I'll quote from this group's manual here, as provided in the article, so these are their exact words):

""Even more important, the Good News Club wants the children to know, the Amalakites were targeted for destruction on account of their religion, or lack of it. The instruction manual reads:

"The Amalekites had heard about Israel's true and living God many years before, but they refused to believe in him. The Amalekites refused to believe in God and God had promised punishment."

The instruction manual goes on to champion obedience in all things. In fact, pretty much every lesson that the Good News Club gives involves reminding children that they must, at all costs, obey. If God tells you to kill nonbelievers, he really wants you to kill them all. No questions asked, no exceptions allowed.

Asking if Saul would "pass the test" of obedience, the text points to Saul's failure to annihilate every last Amalekite, posing the rhetorical question:

"If you are asked to do something, how much of it do you need to do before you can say, 'I did it!'?"

"If only Saul had been willing to seek God for strength to obey!" the lesson concludes.

A review question in the textbook seeks to drive the point home further:

"How did King Saul only partly obey God when he attacked the Amalekites? (He did not completely destroy as God had commanded, he kept the king and some of the animals alive.)""

HOW is that a good thing to teach children?

Leaving aside GENOCIDE for the moment...

Killing someone because they have a different belief than themselves--or, importantly, NO beliefs, atheism being the fastest-growing "group" in the US--is completely OK...?

I think it's going a bit far at the end of the article to ask when a religious organization becomes a hate group...but I'd be lying if I didn't say that teaching children that sort of thing, both that Bible passage as an example of morality and that anyone who disagrees is wrong and will burn forever in hell and, in fact, as the Bible advocates, it's completely OK to kill them, apparently (and if it's not, well, why the Amalekites? If you say "Because that was GOD'S word, not MAN'S word," how long do you think it will take for someone to say "*I* have had an instruction from God, too, and he told *me* that we should all exterminate Group X, every man, woman, child, dog, cat, and goldfish! It's our DUTY, and it's OK, the Book of Samuel says so!") really DOES smack of some pretty intolerant and hateful speech for such a "loving" religious group and for a sect of Christianity that claims atheism is intolerant of THEM.

Well...ATHEISTS aren't the ones with books and groups teaching children genocide is A-OK just as long as "GOD" tells you or someone you trust it's OK.

There have been and are bad, immoral atheists--but there's no atheist BOOK that teaches that, let alone teaches it to grade-school children.

SO!

I think that's just about enough immense rage out of me...

Please--who else cares to speak?

Really, it's OK...I promise I won't kill you, no matter your opinion--even if you hate Shakespeare. ;)

@ Obi
Before I touch your rant, I think it just a little impolite for you to post this huge post and implore an answer, when I have asked for an answer to a two line post in the Christians vs. atheists thread that is going largely ignored. Please indicate whether or not you agree with my statements here
http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?viewthread=878440#878440

and give me some indication as to why, and I’ll be happy to address this post.

Obi, a very good question, and a hard one to wrap our brains around. But let's look at the historical background from 400 years earlier, when the Amalakites fought God's chosen people and attacked the stragglers as the Israelites passed through the land. Exodus 17 reads, 8 While the people of Israel were still at Rephidim, the warriors of Amalek attacked them. 9 Moses commanded Joshua, “Choose some men to go out and fight the army of Amalek for us. Tomorrow, I will stand at the top of the hill, holding the staff of God in my hand.”
10 So Joshua did what Moses had commanded and fought the army of Amalek. Meanwhile, Moses, Aaron, and Hur climbed to the top of a nearby hill. 11 As long as Moses held up the staff in his hand, the Israelites had the advantage. But whenever he dropped his hand, the Amalekites gained the advantage. 12 Moses’ arms soon became so tired he could no longer hold them up. So Aaron and Hur found a stone for him to sit on. Then they stood on each side of Moses, holding up his hands. So his hands held steady until sunset. 13 As a result, Joshua overwhelmed the army of Amalek in battle.
14 After the victory, the LORD instructed Moses, “Write this down on a scroll as a permanent reminder, and read it aloud to Joshua: I will erase the memory of Amalek from under heaven.” 15 Moses built an altar there and named it Yahweh-Nissi (which means “the LORD is my banner”). 16 He said, “They have raised their fist against the LORD’s throne, so now [fn3] the LORD will be at war with Amalek generation after generation.”
and Deuteronomy 25 reads: 17 “Never forget what the Amalekites did to you as you came from Egypt. 18 They attacked you when you were exhausted and weary, and they struck down those who were straggling behind. They had no fear of God. 19 Therefore, when the LORD your God has given you rest from all your enemies in the land he is giving you as a special possession, you must destroy the Amalekites and erase their memory from under heaven. Never forget this!"

@Crazy Anglican:

OK, fair enough...I was done with that thread, I just wanted to post my responses to the article's list, so it's not a snub or anything, I was just done with the thread, really, after that long answer.

But that's fair enough, so let me take a look.

I don't understand why God ordered the killing of all men, women, and children, but I can get my head partially around it. The first point to understand is that the Amalekites set themselves against God, and God promised retribution for that, and yet he waited 400 years to do so. I don't know why, but I can only assume that he was giving them time to repent as he did Nineveh when he sent Jonah to them to warn them about their actions, but the Amalekites rejected him while the people of Nineveh turned back to God.

The second point is that God gave life and also has the power to take life. He raises up nations and also can tear down nations, and on this occasion he does so. I guess I don't have the right to expect to understand all of God's reasons and methods in my 2 and a half pounds of brain tissue.

I do know that God loves each person, including each Amalekite, more than any of us possibly could, and sent Jesus to die for the sins of all people.

Why men, women, and children? I don't know. Were they burning their children on the iron statues? I suspect that's elsewhere in the Bible. Had they set themselves totally against God, as a nation? I think so. But I certainly don't know everything about it. I only trust that the God I know always does the right thing.

OK, I've responded, CA.

I'll wait for CA's response, Mujus, if you don't mind, and then I can address you both at the same time, as you're both, roughly, on the same theological side, yes?

From Crazy's answers, I'm quite sure that has given his life to Jesus.

Obiwan, I'll try to respond to the longer, more central points later. I wanted to address two quickly right now. (I owe a long post to Mafialligator, and I have stuff to do tonight).

1). The animals. From my point of view, you're looking at this specific issue wrong (I'm not saying that makes the children, women etc. easier to take. I'm just focusing on the animals). First, understand that killing an animal was not really seen to be wrong in general in the OT (unlike, say, children). Second, I don't think the animals were being killed to punish the animals. I think they were being killed to keep the Israelites from profitting from the whole thing. The Amalekites were to be killed as a punishment, but God didn't want to turn the Israelites into a plundering people who started to like going around and killing other peoples and taking their animals. So the animals were supposed to die too.

That also explains why Saul didn't kill the animals: they were very valuable. And it explains why God was so angry at him for not killing the animals. God sent Saul on a mission of judgment, and he was not supposed to profit from the horror he was wreaking on these people, but instead he profitted a great deal, and God was furious.

2) I confess I skimmed the second point, but I'll admit that the GNC's presentation of the story seems problematic to me. It seems to lead to the conclusion that God's people should kill those who worship other gods, which was not actually even the lesson of the Amalekites, who instead were being punished for specific wickedness.

Okay Obi,

You did respond, but to an old post (sort of) that wasn't what I directed you to. So I repeated the two line post for you and will choose a little of your post to begin responding to. My first challenge is that you are taking only one small step into the idea of Theism (namely for the sake of argument you assume GOd exists, otherwise how could he have told anyone anything and why are we discussing his morality?), Yet that is as far as you will go. You do not acknowledge any of the concepts that go along with God existing that are part and parcel of the whole Bible reading gig. Therefore, to an extent you are revving up to say "A -Ha! Look how bad God is!" while in the same breath sweeping aside some concepts that are very important to interpreting this passage. If you are to assume God exists for the sake of you argument; you must also assume that everything the Holy Bible says about reality is also true to make your argument valid. That's where I will start. Now about those two lines in the other thread ;-)

The God I believe in is a nice one, he doesn't want to kill anyone.
Most God-botherers follow the Evil one, I actually refer to that one as Satan.

...Do you follow the God of the Bible then, Nigee?

Because...He's pretty explicitly saying to kill...EVERYONE...in that race...and then their livestock as well (which, I think someone above commented on why, perhaps, that was, ie, that God didn't want the Israelites to profit from this...but then, well, why KILL the donkeys, why not just leave them be? Your only options aren't to kill or not to kill, you COULD just leave the poor donkeys alone, you know...!) XD

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/30/aint-no-homos-gonna-make-it-to-heaven_n_1555735.html?ref=mostpopular

Obi- The idea was

1. To make sure nothing survives that could threaten the Israelites in the future.
2. To make sure that the act was not for profit but for pure revenge.

Hey, Nigee, I just want to take issue with the word 'nice'. A 'nice' god.
Nice is overused as an adjective to indicate that something is pleasing to you. It actually doesn't mean anything more these days, although it did in the past and still does, in erudite scholars' writings, to this day. You're just saying he's a good guy in your eyes. Be more specific! Use adjectives that mean something.
Young English students always have a problem with this word. I suggest you dump it. Say what you actually mean, if you can find the vocabulary to do so.

"Satan is a nice guy, in my eyes." What am I saying? You wouldn't know.
I'm saying he is a very precise, accurate guy who does his business with delicacy and skill.
'Nice God'? Pleasant or pleasing or agreeable in nature or appearance? Cool, huh?

Which would you choose?

Votes within 24 hours. We could sort this whole religious debacle within a day.

Obiwan, are you still worried about the Amalakite donkeys? Donkeys aren't people, you know. ;-)

But seriously, Obi, let's look at an allegory. A professor who gives a failing grade for plagiarism would not seem to be loving, but since professors know that sometimes a failure experience is what it takes for someone to learn something, in that situation it's the best thing we can do for a student.