Split from "energy cannot be created" thread split & retitled by admin

[PeteWaldo]

Do you have any opinions regarding Israel or Zionism?

Regarding what exactly?

Are you familiar with the history of the modern day restoration of Jews to the land of Israel and when it began (perhaps more properly, modern day increase of Jews in Israel, since they have been there for thousands of years)?

[Beatrice]

Are you familiar with the history of the modern day restoration of Jews to the land of Israel and when it began (perhaps more properly, modern day increase of Jews in Israel, since they have been there for thousands of years)?

Only the basics.  Is there something specifically that you would like to discuss regarding it?

Also, I was wondering if you found any historical basis for your starting date of Cyrus the Great's rule in Babylon being what you claim instead of the other other date which seems to have a much larger consensus?

[PeteWaldo]

Are you familiar with the history of the modern day restoration of Jews to the land of Israel and when it began (perhaps more properly, modern day increase of Jews in Israel, since they have been there for thousands of years)?

Only the basics.  Is there something specifically that you would like to discuss regarding it?

For openers, about what time in history did it begin?
What was Israel like at the time?
Since you desire to disbelieve it was prophesied in scripture, even though centuries in advance so many were convinced in no uncertain terms through Bible prophecy that it was going to come to pass, do you then suppose it was just some sort of a weird accident?

Also, I was wondering if you found any historical basis for your starting date of Cyrus the Great's rule in Babylon being what you claim instead of the other other date which seems to have a much larger consensus?

First you wished to believe that I was alone with the dating, and now that your false presumption failed you, next you desire to do history by Internet consensus. Any excuse at all that helps to advance your pure blind faith in disbelief. Yet there it is. Jews restored to rule over their land after 2500 years of being scattered among the gentile nations.
I'll let the physical matter of historical fact of the Jews being restored to rule over their land, on the dating that the mathematical miracle prophesied, confirm the dating that myself and others hold.
 
About 8-10 years ago 688 AD was the Internet "consensus" dating for the founding year of the Dome of the Rock. However Microsoft Encarta published another date and that became the new Internet consensus.
Consider the lies parroted as truth even by sources that are traditionally trotted out as informational, like Encyclopedia Britannica.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3355.0
Let alone the Muslim lies and vandalism that permeate Wikipedia.
http://www.petewaldo.com/baca_mecca.htm
As I indicated it is pointless to waste any more discussing that with you, as you further confirmed with your last post. Why not some time studying the subject when you get a chance?
Would begin your study with those that date it at 536-537, or those that date it otherwise? We both know the answer, don't we?
That's why I went to the broader topic of just what it is that Daniel prophesied. The end of the scattered strength of the holy people, and Jews restored power over their land, and then city.

Are we to believe, that you would allow yourself to believe, that Daniel prophesied the year of 1967 even if it were the consensus dating? Ya right. But you are providing a good example of faith in disbelief. While still not a peep on Daniel's other "times" problem.

[Beatrice]

First you wished to believe that I was alone with the dating, and now that your false presumption failed you, you desire to do history by Internet consensus. Anything excuse at all that helps to advance your pure blind faith in disbelief. Yet there it is. Jews restored to rule over their land after 2500 years of being scattered among the gentile nations. I'll let the physical matter of fact of the Jews being restored to their land, and the mathematical miracle attests, confirm the dating that myself and the others hold

I'm not asking whether anyone agrees with you, I'm just saying that most scholarly reports seem to suggest a starting date of the reign of Cyrus was 539 BC, and I have not found one yet that claims that the previous ruler, Nabonidus ended his reign at a different time.  Perhaps you can find some?  I have had no luck

About 8-10 years ago 688 AD was the Internet "consensus" dating for the founding year of the Dome of the Rock. However Microsoft Encarta published another date and that became the new Internet consensus.

Sorry to repeat myself, but did you find any evidence to suggest your date is correct in the end?  And while I admit I have only looked on the internet, I have consulted a fair few articles from peer reviewed journals to try and ascertain an accurate date on the beginning of Cyrus' reign in Babylon, and when Nabonidus lost his empire.

Why don't you spend some time studying the subject when you get a chance?

Gladly, I have thoroughly enjoyed researching Persian and Babylonian history whilst looking into this matter.

You wouldn't really expect us to believe, that you would allow yourself to believe that Daniel prophesied the date of 1967 even if it were the consensus dating, do you?

I would be very open to that, except that there are considerable problem that I have no answer for as yet, most notably:

1.  Why is Cyrus given an incorrect title (specifically one that effects the date), from someone who definitely SHOULD have known his correct title.
2.  What historical justification is there for the starting date you have provided rather than 539 BC?

Since you desire to disbelieve it was prophesied in scripture, even thought centuries in advance so many were convinced in no uncertain terms through Bible prophecy that it was going to come to pass, do you then suppose it was just some sort of a weird accident?

I don't "disbelieve" it same as I don't "disbelieve" in a deity, I just am yet to be convinced by the evidence you have provided.  Which biblical passages are you referring to regarding the restoration of Israel?

I'll continue to look into this Nabonidus business.  Have a good one!

[PeteWaldo]

First you wished to believe that I was alone with the dating, and now that your false presumption failed you, you desire to do history by Internet consensus. Anything excuse at all that helps to advance your pure blind faith in disbelief. Yet there it is. Jews restored to rule over their land after 2500 years of being scattered among the gentile nations. I'll let the physical matter of fact of the Jews being restored to their land, and the mathematical miracle attests, confirm the dating that myself and the others hold

I'm not asking whether anyone agrees with you, I'm just saying that most scholarly reports seem to suggest a starting date of the reign of Cyrus was 539 BC, and I have not found one yet that claims that the previous ruler, Nabonidus ended his reign at a different time.  Perhaps you can find some?  I have had no luck

About 8-10 years ago 688 AD was the Internet "consensus" dating for the founding year of the Dome of the Rock. However Microsoft Encarta published another date and that became the new Internet consensus.

Sorry to repeat myself, .......

No need to become disingenuous. You are obviously not sorry about repeating yourself, even after I pointed out the futility of our continuing with this subject, since you put all your effort into disbelief.
I presented lots of links as well as searches many posts ago.
Here's another:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=first+year+cyrus+%22536%22+%22537%22+darius&qs=n&pq=first+year+cyrus+%22536%22+%22537%22+darius&sc=0-28&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=bb605c565b4845488e69864eab5673ef&first=1&FORM=PERE

........ but did you find any evidence to suggest your date is correct in the end?  And while I admit I have only looked on the internet, I have consulted a fair few articles from peer reviewed journals to try and ascertain an accurate date on the beginning of Cyrus' reign in Babylon, and when Nabonidus lost his empire.

That ignores Darius the Mede's brief reign.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Dan&c=5&t=KJV#s=855031
Here's the first example I spotted:
http://www.presentruth.com/2008/06/darius-the-mede-his-identity-revealed/

Why don't you spend some time studying the subject when you get a chance?

Gladly, I have thoroughly enjoyed researching Persian and Babylonian history whilst looking into this matter.

Then try this:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=darius+the+mede+ruled+babylon+two+years&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=darius+the+mede+ruled+babylon+two+years&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=139bc42466944ef385fec42ca95a2b1d

You wouldn't really expect us to believe, that you would allow yourself to believe that Daniel prophesied the date of 1967 even if it were the consensus dating, do you?

I would be very open to that, except that there are considerable problem that I have no answer for as yet, most notably:

1.  Why is Cyrus given an incorrect title (specifically one that effects the date), from someone who definitely SHOULD have known his correct title.
2.  What historical justification is there for the starting date you have provided rather than 539 BC?

Since you desire to disbelieve it was prophesied in scripture, even thought centuries in advance so many were convinced in no uncertain terms through Bible prophecy that it was going to come to pass, do you then suppose it was just some sort of a weird accident?

I don't "disbelieve" it same as I don't "disbelieve" in a deity, I just am yet to be convinced by the evidence you have provided.  Which biblical passages are you referring to regarding the restoration of Israel?

I'll continue to look into this Nabonidus business.  Have a good one!

Considering your ducking and dodging the subject of the restoration of Jews to Israel, and now your having ignored it altogether, is it safe for me to presume that you join those that suggest that Israeli Jews are what those that don't care for their rule consider "occupiers" of "Palestine"?

[Beatrice]

Considering your ducking and dodging the subject of the restoration of Jews to Israel, and now your having ignored it altogether, is it safe for me to presume that you join those that suggest that Israeli Jews are what those that don't care for their rule consider "occupiers" of "Palestine"?

Not at all.  I  respect their right to the land that the Jewish people received at the end of WWII.

What are you thoughts on land rights in general?  How far back should historical ownership be recognised?

[PeteWaldo]

Considering your ducking and dodging the subject of the restoration of Jews to Israel, and now your having ignored it altogether, is it safe for me to presume that you join those that suggest that Israeli Jews are what those that don't care for their rule consider "occupiers" of "Palestine"?

Not at all.

Good, then this might be easier for you to see than an anti-Zionist.
http://www.zionismchristian.com/anti_zionism.htm#anti_zionists

I  respect their right to the land that the Jewish people received at the end of WWII.

That isn't when they received it but when the international community recognized their rights to the land that they restored from utter desolation over the prior century and a half, as well as their need for a homeland in which they could govern and protect themselves, after 3500 years of persecution while scattered out within the gentile nations of the world.

The Jewish people actually "received" that land over 3,000 years ago, as an everlasting possession, through an everlasting covenant.
http://www.israelinbibleprophecy.com/#everlasting_covenant

However 1200 years of Islamization rendered the Holy Land - at-one-time the land of milk and honey - a depopulated, denuded, desertified wasteland.
http://www.zionismchristian.com/history_of_modern_zionism.htm#desolation_of_israel

Desolated just as prophesied:
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/abomination_of_desolation.htm

Then through the unparalleled hard working and industrious nature of the Jewish people, they restored the land, also as prophesied.....
http://www.zionismchristian.com/zionism_in_prophecy.htm

.....and fruited it:
http://www.zionismchristian.com/zionism_in_prophecy.htm#desert_fruited

Just as Christians anticipated through Bible prophecy, centuries before that restoration began:
http://www.zionismchristian.com/zionism_in_christianity.htm

What are you thoughts on land rights in general?  How far back should historical ownership be recognised?

I understand that God sees humanity as essentially divided into two groups, Jew and Gentile, and within those groups sub-groups of regenerate and unregenerate persons. God assigned the Jews that land as an everlasting possession through an everlasting covenant, so as a Christian, in this particular case, the answer to your question should be obvious.
Let alone that when Jews began to be restored to their land at the beginning of the 19th century, they began rebuilding the despoiled land that had been desolated by Islam, buying title to properties that were titled as they went along. So their modern day rights were through claim and title as well. Consider what Tel-Aviv was still like even as late as the beginning of the 20th century, nearly a century into the restoration of Jews to their covenant land:

Image of Tel-Aviv during the 1909 lottery for building sites.



IAF Flight over Tel-Aviv's beaches for Israel's 63rd Independence Day



The struggle the Godless have put the Jews through to keep their land, and prevent them from simply being left alone to live in peace even on the little scrap of their covenant land they do control, was also prophesied:
http://www.israelinbibleprophecy.com/index.htm#burdensome_stone

While a Godless media continues to obscure the identities of the parties that are actually in conflict:
http://www.zionismchristian.com/palestine_palestinians.htm#the_conflict

[Beatrice]

According to the Bible though, didn't the Jews themselves conquer and mistreat the previous owners quite badly?  What happened to their ownership of the land?

[PeteWaldo]

According to the Bible though, didn't the Jews themselves conquer and mistreat the previous owners quite badly?

Not until after God gave the Canaanites 400 years in which to repent from such as sorcery, spiritism, divination, idolatry, incest, pedophilia, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, ritualistic prostitution, and even sacrifice of children to idols.
http://www.petewaldo.com/old_testament_violence.htm

What happened to their ownership of the land?

God commanded His people to kill them and make the land their own. However they failed to do as God commanded and kill all of the Canaanites, but enslaved some instead, and their seed are likely among those who continue to be the bane of the Jews in Israel today.

[Beatrice]

I was reading your website and found this

It's possible that even the Canaanite babies could have been rife with disease and thus otherwise faced a lifetime of suffering. At a minimum those babies were spared from growing up, and being indoctrinated into such as bestiality and sacrificing of their children to idols, thus separating themselves from God forever. So any babies or children that were killed, were actually saved, through a merciful God. Our temporal life in this world is but a vanishing vapor, compared to the eternity of our next life.

Are you actually defending the murder of babies?

Also regarding this section

However the verses once again may well indicate elimination of those that were rife with sexually transmitted diseases

Are you actually suggesting that having an STI is something someone should be punished for?

[PeteWaldo]

I was reading your website and found this

It's possible that even the Canaanite babies could have been rife with disease and thus otherwise faced a lifetime of suffering. At a minimum those babies were spared from growing up, and being indoctrinated into such as bestiality and sacrificing of their children to idols, thus separating themselves from God forever. So any babies or children that were killed, were actually saved, through a merciful God. Our temporal life in this world is but a vanishing vapor, compared to the eternity of our next life.

Are you actually defending the murder of babies?

Even after quoting it, it's simply amazing that you can't understand it. All innocents who have died or been killed are with the Lord today. Is it that difficult to understand? Killing them simply accelerated the process while precluding them from growing up in understanding, and thus being held accountable for their actions, as they were seduced by their community into the same kinds of behavior and thus be lost to the Lord forever. It would also preclude them from poisoning YHWH's people with the same. Since the Canaanites engaged in bestiality, pedophilia, incest, ritualistic prostitution and such, they were likely rife with disease. Consider the widespread practice of "thighing" infants and children in the Muslim world, even today, as to how an infant could receive STDs.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2589.0
Through ritualistic prostitution and poisoning children the entire community may well have been rife with disease.

Numbers 31:19 And do ye abide without the camp seven days: whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify [both] yourselves and your captives on the third day, and on the seventh day.

Might that suggest, "if ya got any on ya, wash it off!"?

The Jews failure to obey YHWH and complete the task may not only be the reason that seed of the Canaanites could be the bane of Jews - and the rest of humanity - unto this day, but may also be responsible for so many suffering from venereal disease and such over thousands of years.

Since I trust in God, and recognize that all innocent people that have passed from this earth are with Him, I don't have to be concerned about the whys.

Also regarding this section

However the verses once again may well indicate elimination of those that were rife with sexually transmitted diseases

Are you actually suggesting that having an STI is something someone should be punished for?

You have just sanctioned and approved such behavior, as not deserving of punishment, of the guy in Key West that gave dozens of women aids by having sex with them without telling them he had aids before he poisoned them with it. In a Godless world, absent justice, apparently such behavior should not be punished. I have even witnessed atheists suggest the world would be a better place without Christians, and left to the Godless to run.
https://www.mercyships.org/about-mercy-ships/the-result/
Which would of course would be consigning the fate of the world to guys like PolPot and Hitler. The Islamic world demonstrates who would run the show, since the ultimate arbiters of Islam would obviously be the most violent and murderous among them, armed with a beheading knife in one hand, while being supported by the Quran and Hadith in the other.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/the_islamic_state.htm
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jihad_islamic_terrorism.htm

By criticizing YHWH for divine justice you sanction sacrifice of children to idols. You also sanction such behavior as the widespread Muslim practice of "thighing" infants and children as not deserving of punishment. That's the problem with moral relativism. You may not believe in Satan, but that certainly doesn't preclude Satan from believing in you.

Just as YHWH wanted to save His people's minds from being poisoned by the Canaanites behavior, He also may well have wanted to save them from being physically poisoned, and preclude their behavior and diseases from spreading throughout mankind.

[Beatrice]

I quite literally cannot believe what you are saying.

I had thought you must have been mistaken, but it really does appear that in this circumstance you are 100% condoning the cold blooded slaughter of infants.

By criticizing YHWH for divine justice you also sanctioned sacrifice of children to idols. You also sanction such behavior as the widespread Muslim practice of "thighing" infants and children not deserving of punishment. That's the problem with moral relativism. You may not believe in Satan, but that doesn't preclude him from believing in you.

Please do not claim to speak for me on this regard.  I do not condone any of those things, nor do I condone the murder of innocent children.

You have just sanctioned and approved such behavior, as not deserving of punishment, of the guy in Key West that gave dozens of women aids by having sex with them without telling them he had aids before he poisoned them with it.

I was actually talking about the victims in this case, who would have had the diseases through no fault of their own, if what you are claiming is true, that child sexual abuse was around.  I do not sanction his behavior of course, but recognise that the victims of sexual assault who contract STD's have done nothing wrong, and deserve no punishment.

That's the problem with moral relativism

I'm not quite sure why you would accuse me of this.  My position is (and always will be) that murdering an infant is morally wrong.  You appear to be the one saying it is justified in certain circumstances though?

[PeteWaldo]

I quite literally cannot believe what you are saying.

I had thought you must have been mistaken, but it really does appear that in this circumstance you are 100% condoning the cold blooded slaughter of infants.

By criticizing YHWH for divine justice you also sanctioned sacrifice of children to idols. You also sanction such behavior as the widespread Muslim practice of "thighing" infants and children not deserving of punishment. That's the problem with moral relativism. You may not believe in Satan, but that doesn't preclude him from believing in you.

Please do not claim to speak for me on this regard.  I do not condone any of those things, nor do I condone the murder of innocent children.

Even as you continue to insist on sanctioning such behavior through your continuing criticism of YHWH.

You have just sanctioned and approved such behavior, as not deserving of punishment, of the guy in Key West that gave dozens of women aids by having sex with them without telling them he had aids before he poisoned them with it.

I was actually talking about the victims in this case, who would have had the diseases through no fault of their own, if what you are claiming is true, that child sexual abuse was around.  I do not sanction his behavior of course, but recognise that the victims of sexual assault who contract STD's have done nothing wrong, and deserve no punishment.

That's the problem with moral relativism

I'm not quite sure why you would accuse me of this.  My position is (and always will be) that murdering an infant is morally wrong.  You appear to be the one saying it is justified in certain circumstances though?

The bridge you seem unable to cross, is that all of the innocents are living in bliss today - specifically as a result of their being killed - because your view is only of the flesh and this very temporary temporal world.
Plus your carping on this tangent helps you drop and ignore the rest of the subjects we are discussing, eigh?

So how do you explain the restoration of Jews to control over their land, while remaining a cohesive group over thousands years, while being scattered throughout the gentile nations?

[Beatrice]

Even as you continue to insist on sanctioning such behavior through your continuing criticism of YHWH.

Criticising one group does not mean sanctioning their opponent.

The bridge you can't seem unable to cross, is that all of the innocents are living in bliss today - specifically as a result of their being killed - because your view is only of the flesh and this very temporary temporal world.

So, speaking from a non moral-relativism standpoint, is murdering an infant wrong?

[PeteWaldo]

Even as you continue to insist on sanctioning such behavior through your continuing criticism of YHWH.

Criticising one group does not mean sanctioning their opponent.

Now you're not even making sense.
Criticizing YHWH's removal of that abhorrent behavior is tacit approval of it. Sanctioning sacrifice of children to idols, of which the community was ritualistically engaged.

The bridge you can't seem unable to cross, is that all of the innocents are living in bliss today - specifically as a result of their being killed - because your view is only of the flesh and this very temporary temporal world.

So, speaking from a non moral-relativism standpoint, is murdering an infant wrong?

First of all the term murder suggests malice.
Secondly, since God specifically commanded it in this particular historical instance, YHWH's people were not wrong for carrying out God's commands. The Cannanites were murderers themselves, through sacrifice of children to idols (which you have tacitly sanctioned), and even through nothing more than their spreading disease. Since YHWH hasn't given such commands for thousands of years, and when He did so it was limited to specific historical events, it otherwise remains wrong and against His God's commandments to kill. But I've every confidence you'll continue to carp on in efforts to avoid the other subjects.

What you are wishing is that you are in a position of being able to judge a specific historical event that occurred thousands of years ago, while insisting on remaining spiritually blind as you do.

[Beatrice]

Criticizing YHWH's removal of that abhorrent behavior is tacit approval of it.

The abhorrent behavior of being sexually abused?  Remember we are talking about infants here, who almost by definition are not responsible for their behavior at all.

First of all the term murder suggests malice.

Use kill if you like, or whatever equivalent word you would like to use to take a human life.

Let me ask again then.  Speaking from a non moral-relativism standpoint, is murdering an infant wrong?

[PeteWaldo]

Criticizing YHWH's removal of that abhorrent behavior is tacit approval of it.

The abhorrent behavior of being sexually abused?  Remember we are talking about infants here, who almost by definition are not responsible for their behavior at all.

Which is how we can rest assured that they are with the Lord.
While by criticizing YHWH's justice and interest in eliminating the problem entirely, you tacitly champion similar behaviors in the world today, like the Islamic practice of thighing infants.

And you are blind to the fact that it is precisely because of these early lessons at the beginnings of YHWH's revelation to mankind, that became a part of all of us, are the very reason that the Spirit of God is still moving on you enough to allow you to recognize what is right and wrong. That's where, what you might call a "conscience", comes from.

And again, the reason you find yourself befuddled by all of this, has already been explained to you in detail.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4643.msg17843#msg17843
That reason being that you are standing outside the kingdom and Spirit of God:

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

First of all the term murder suggests malice.

Use kill if you like, or whatever equivalent word you would like to use to take a human life.

Let me ask again then.  Speaking from a non moral-relativism standpoint, is murdering an infant wrong?

Already asked and answered in the prior post. Please reread it. See what I mean about carping away on this topic so you can run and hide from the others?
Or maybe I shouldn't have presumed you knew what YHWH commanded:

Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

Next perhaps you will be breaking out another treasured doctrine of the religion of atheism, like "Hitler was a Christian", perhaps?

[Beatrice]

So murdering a kid is wrong unless God says it is ok?  That IS moral relativism.

While by criticizing YHWH's justice and interest in eliminating the problem entirely, you tacitly champion similar behaviors in the world today, like the Islamic practice of thighing infants.

Completely false.  I have already stated my views on this, do not continue to misrepresent my views.

[PeteWaldo]

So murdering a kid is wrong unless God says it is ok?

Since God gave His people a direct command to do so, yes, it was OK. After all it is God - the same one who ordered it - who was then to sort them all out after the fact, and bring the innocents unto Himself. What is it about that that is so hard for you to understand?

It's all about faith in God. Abraham was willing to sacrifice his own son, simply because God asked him to, as a test of his faith. But God stopped the test at the last minute, after Abraham demonstrated his great faith.

Through your self-imposed spiritual blindness, you can't see it is Satan himself that causes you to champion the Canaanite's sacrifice of children to idols, while criticizing God for passing divine justice. There are only to sides. You have chosen Satan's side, like every other antichrist.

That IS moral relativism.

While by criticizing YHWH's justice and interest in eliminating the problem entirely, you tacitly champion similar behaviors in the world today, like the Islamic practice of thighing infants.

Completely false.  I have already stated my views on this, do not continue to misrepresent my views.

By criticizing God for patiently waiting 400 years for the Canaanites to repent, and then passing divine judgment and prescribing their punishment, you are championing all of the lurid behavior of the Canaanites.

Put in secular terms, you have taken the side of the murderer, against the court that would imprison or execute him, to meet out justice for his behavior. Just like others that parrot this cherished doctrine in the religion of atheism.

There are only two sides. You have taken the side of the Canaanites, specifically against God - taken the side of Satan the opposer - but then that is to be expected of a self-proclaimed atheist.

[Beatrice]

When God gives someone a direct command yes, it is OK

This is literally moral relativism.

By criticizing God for patiently waiting 400 years for the Canaanites to repent, and then passing diving judgment and punishment, you are championing all of the lurid behavior of the Canaanites.

This is what is known as a false dichotomy, presenting only two options when there may be more available.  I have presented my argument several times now, please stop attributing views to me that I have not expressed. 

I could have sworn there was a commandment regarding that or something

[PeteWaldo]

When God gives someone a direct command yes, it is OK

This is literally moral relativism.

By criticizing God for patiently waiting 400 years for the Canaanites to repent, and then passing diving judgment and punishment, you are championing all of the lurid behavior of the Canaanites.

This is what is known as a false dichotomy, presenting only two options when there may be more available.

That's really quite hilarious. You accuse moral relativism even as you search for grey area. Now that is moral relativism. While my argument is black and white since there are only two sides. That of God's and that of the Canaanites. That of good and that of evil.
You have so brainwashed yourself into the religion of atheism and moral relativity you can't even see yourself seeking out grey area as an escape.

This whole exercise would be amusing if it weren't so tragic. You are an atheist. So from where you stand there is no God and none of this ever happened. So there were no people killed for you to need to wonder about their disposition, let alone a need to accuse God of murdering them.

I am in the kingdom of God. From where I stand I can rest assured that all innocent/regenerate people that have ever died or been killed are with the Lord, whether they are the innocents that were killed along with the guilty Canaanites, or those killed at the hand of an abortionist, or died in childbirth, or died as a child before reaching a point of understanding and thus accountability, or lived and died in some remote backwater where the Gospel had not been brought.

I have presented my argument several times now, please stop attributing views to me that I have not expressed. 

I could have sworn there was a commandment regarding that or something

You said you read the Bible. Perhaps I should have qualified it by asking how much of the Bible you've read, and in what context, and at what point in your life. Could you please indulge me?

[Beatrice]

I am unsure you are using the standard definition of moral relativism.  But you can see that if killing an innocent person is acceptable under some circumstances and not under others, then that is moral relativism yes?

My position is, and always will be that killing an innocent child is wrong.

It's almost laughable if it weren't so tragic. You are an atheist. So from where you stand there is no God and none of this ever happened anyway.

I do not believe deities exist based on what evidence I have seen, but that isn't the same as denying they exist.  It is by nature very hard to absolutely prove a negative. 

As to the historicity of events in the scriptures, I do not deny that all of it happened.  There seem to be historical grains of truth in them, as there are in many stories of old.  Some of it there does appear to be a distinct lack of evidence however (global flood etc.)

You said you read the Bible. Perhaps I should have qualified it by asking how much of the Bible you've read, and in what context, and at what point in your life. Could you please indulge me?

Sure, have read it cover to cover twice, once close to a decade ago, the other around two years ago.  As to the context/point in my life, I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to, but if you clarify I will gladly give you an answer.  I have also read various books, chapters and verses when looking into particular things.

While I know it is separate to the canon I have also read the Apocrypha through once

[PeteWaldo]

I am unsure you are using the standard definition of moral relativism.  But you can see that if killing an innocent person is acceptable under some circumstances and not under others, then that is moral relativism yes?

I already explained that the specific historical event of God ending the suffering of the Canaanites was acceptable because God commanded it. Period. It's been almost 3,000 years since any Old Testament saints are recording as having used the sword in God's service. As you may have noticed at the beginning of that web page:

As Don Richardson reports in "Secrets of the Koran", "By Muhammad's day, 1,500 years had passed since any Hebrew prophet was described in the Old Testament as using a sword in the service of God. Neither Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Micah, Amos, Malachi nor any other later Hebrew prophet is described as using the sword or prescribing its use."

My position is, and always will be that killing an innocent child is wrong.

I praise the Lord for lifting those Canaanite children up unto Himself - along with the rest of the innocents - before they had to suffer a lifetime of disease, pain and depression that would have resulted from their being indoctrinated by their community into incest, pedophilia, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality and ritualistic prostitution. Let alone saving them before they reached an age of accountability for those actions, which would have separated them from God forever.

Rev 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Yet because you suffer from self-imposed blindness to the Spirit of God and can't see past the flesh and kingdoms of this world, your position is effectively that it's unfortunate that the Canaanite children weren't given the opportunity to be subjected to a lifetime of suffering, from sexually transmitted and other diseases, while being raped by their parents and then going on to engage in ritualistic prostitution as well as have sex with animals and same-sex anuses while joining the community in the sacrifice of children to idols.

It's almost laughable if it weren't so tragic. You are an atheist. So from where you stand there is no God and none of this ever happened anyway.

I do not believe deities exist based on what evidence I have seen, but that isn't the same as denying they exist.  It is by nature very hard to absolutely prove a negative. 

As to the historicity of events in the scriptures, I do not deny that all of it happened.  There seem to be historical grains of truth in them, as there are in many stories of old.  Some of it there does appear to be a distinct lack of evidence however (global flood etc.)

You said you read the Bible. Perhaps I should have qualified it by asking how much of the Bible you've read, and in what context, and at what point in your life. Could you please indulge me?

Sure, have read it cover to cover twice, once close to a decade ago, the other around two years ago.  As to the context/point in my life, I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to, but if you clarify I will gladly give you an answer.

You answered it. It was an age related question following my having been in the Topix forum and chatting with an atheist at some length, before he disclosed that he believed had read enough of the Bible by the time he reached 9 years of age, to make a decision that there is no God. So from then on, before wasting much time, I queried atheists about it first. As it turned out, the vast majority of atheists that I have chatted with insist on self-imposed abject ignorance to the scriptures, as well subjects like related history, archaeology and fulfilled prophecy.

I have also read various books, chapters and verses when looking into particular things.

While I know it is separate to the canon I have also read the Apocrypha through once.

Were you raised by atheists or agnostics?
Roman Catholic church or other?

[PeteWaldo]

I am unsure you are using the standard definition of moral relativism.  But you can see that if killing an innocent person is acceptable under some circumstances and not under others, then that is moral relativism yes?

My position is, and always will be that killing an innocent child is wrong.

So what's your position on the over 50 million abortions that have been performed since Roe vs Wade?

[Beatrice]

I already explained that the specific historical event of God ending the suffering of the Canaanites was acceptable because God commanded it. Period. It's been almost 3,000 years since any Old Testament saints are recording as having used the sword in God's service. As you may have noticed at the beginning of that web page:

...again, isn't this still moral relatavism?

1,500 years had passed since any Hebrew prophet was described in the Old Testament as using a sword in the service of God. Neither Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Micah, Amos, Malachi nor any other later Hebrew prophet is described as using the sword or prescribing its use.

This is kind of irrelevant isn't it?  Your god still prescribed infanticide and genocide.  Presumably such a being would not change right?

I praise the Lord for lifting those Canaanite children up unto Himself

Let's not mince words here, and call it what it is:  murdering babies.

that would have resulted from their being indoctrinated by their community into incest, pedophilia, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality and ritualistic prostitution. Let alone saving them before they reached an age of accountability for those actions, which would have separated them from God forever

These are horrible things, but why could the Israelites (or indeed their God) rescued them instead of butchering them?  Also I haven't asked before, but what is your source that the Canaanites did these things?  I woudn't mind having a look at it if you know where it comes from.

Were you raised by atheists or agnostics?
Roman Catholic church or other?

Remember Pete, those things are not mutually exclusive.  I have said a few times I am both atheist and agnostic.  To answer your question though, one parent was a deist, the other atheist.

So what's your position on the over 50 million abortions that have been performed since Roe vs Wade?

A tragedy for sure.  What is your position?