The most abusive Christian phrase ...

[John317]

Quote:

John317: I think without the Bible we would have no way of knowing what is true and what is false about God. Think of all the vaious ways that people have viewed God throughout history on the basis only of nature. Some were very cruel, offering thousands of human sacrifices every year because they thought God liked them. When you look closely at nature, you see lots of death and violence. What does this say about God-- that is, apart from the Bible?

Quote:

Overaged: You talk about "looking closely at nature" yet only mention "death and violence." Do you also subscribe to the insurance company label "act of God?" Some will see thorns - some will see roses. All I know is that when ever I go for a walk into nature; I see signs of our Creator in all that He has made. Even if it's Wednesday; I still feel like it is Sabbath when I get out into the woods. Doesn't the Bible say we can learn about God through the things He has made? Take Isaiah 40:31 for one of hundreds of examples. I once stood on a mountain top and watched a great eagle soaring amongst the peaks and valleys during a mountain storm. And then that verse literally came alive; Christ spoke to me through something He made - even in the storm. (part of the death and violence you mention). Of course, it goes without saying that where available, and possible, the Bible is to be used to validate our experiences.

Sure. Nature contains a lot more than simply death and violence. It also contains a great deal of beauty from man's viewpoint. I'm certainly not denying the beautiful things in nature. But it seems to me you just sustained the point that without the Bible those beautiful things in nature you mention wouldn't necessarily tell humans the truth about God. For instance, without the Bible, what did the North American indians-- like the Navaho-- think of when they saw the eagle soaring? Some will say the indians must have thought of the "great spirit," and this is true for some tribes, but some other tribes didn't believe in a "great spirit."

What does the atheist think of when he looks at the plants and animals under the microscope? He looks closely and sees great complexity but he doesn't see evidence of a god or of God. Why not? Because he doesn't see those things through the lenses of the Bible and of faith in God. He would say that he sees those details as they really are, without the fog of faith and the Bible.

What I find ironic is that many scientists think this way about the Bible, but the great thinker Thomas Jefferson believed it to tell us about the "man who taught the most benevolent and submlime system of morality that has ever been taught, more perfect than those of any of the ancient philosophers and the most innocent, the most eloquent and sublime character that ever has been exhibited."

[cardw]

Quote:

I'm not sure how accurate it is to label someone "dishonest" because you don't like what they say. What you mentioned re your brother would not have been "tough love" in fact it would not have been "love" of any kind.

If beating up my brother is not love of any kind then god ordering the Israelites to kill all the non-combatants isn't love of any kind.

Redefining is a form of intellectual dishonesty. It is a way to avoid confronting error. In this case you have redefined vengeance as love.

Does vengeance = Love?

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

Well, Jefferson removed the miracle stories because he did not believe them to be true and he certainly did not believe that Jesus was the Savior of the World or god.

"Our Saviour... has taught us to judge the tree by its fruit, and to leave motives to Him who can alone see into them." --Thomas Jefferson to Martin Van Buren, 1824. ME 16:55

Rich, how can you be so incorrect on your assertions about the beliefs of Jefferson? Maybe you've got too much faith in your fellow atheists' perceptions?

I'm simply repeating what the references I gave you said. If we aren't going to trust what Jefferson says about himself I don't know what to tell you.

Jefferson in clear terms saw himself as a Deist. He saw himself as a Christian only in terms of his respect for the ethical philosophy of Jesus. He rejected his divinity and the theology surrounding his sacrifice for sins. Read what Deism is. That's who you have an argument with, not me.

[John317]

Richard, you've studied the Bible before, and quite a bit, I understand. What do you believe the Bible teaches about the reason God commanded Israel to destroy the nations that lived in ancient Palestine? What was God's purpose?

[cardw]

Richard, you've studied the Bible before and quite a bit, I understand. What do you believe the Bible teaches about the reason God commanded Israel to destroy the nations that lived in ancient Palestine? What was God's purpose?

What I do think we have is a tribal ethical document that allows for these terrible behaviors by claiming that god instructed them to do this. The basic motivation was survival and the expansion of territory to allow for the population of Israel to increase. And when they weren't successful they created the idea that god was punishing them. This way they could still claim they were the promised people and god was going to reward them eventually.

The only problem is the military messiah never came and they never ruled the earth. Christians have been very creative by moving the kingdom off the earth and expanding the chosen people to a spiritual kingdom. And again the reason given is because the Jews weren't good enough.

It makes no sense to me because the rules of the game aren't really all that clear and the way it's set up no one could ever be good enough.

It makes far more sense that we have a syncretic evolution of religious belief.

[Bravus]

Sorry to be so far in arrears of the conversation: it's whipped on by 4 pages or so while I slept.

I have a very good friend who's atheist and despises all religion, and he makes fun of Christians as "do-gooders." He thinks it's a waste of time to help people. If I stop to help some one or give them money, he just thinks it's foolish. Why? Because he doesn't see people as do. I see people as those whom God loves and for whom Jesus Christ gave his life. I see them as candidates for heaven and eternal life. I see them as of infinite worth because that's how God sees us. I don't know exactly how my friend sees them, but I know he doesn't view them as being of great inherent value. I didn't used to see them that way, either, but I do now, and the only reason for it is that I study and believe the Bible.

Fair bit of anecdotal evidence in your posts around this issue. Personal testimony is valuable, of course, but doesn't really establish the broad picture of experience, which is what we're mainly concerned with.

Many atheists are humanists, which means they see people as fundamentally good. Christians see people as redeemable but fundamentally bad.

And it's only necessary to read the contempt expressed toward other people by some Christians on this site to see that your experience is far from universal.

[Bravus]

Richard, you've studied the Bible before, and quite a bit, I understand. What do you believe the Bible teaches about the reason God commanded Israel to destroy the nations that lived in ancient Palestine? What was God's purpose?

I know what the Bible (written by the victors) says his purpose was: annihilating an evil culture. The fact that the Israelites were landless nomads and Canaan was a land 'flowing with milk and honey' probably had something to do with it. And dehumanising the enemy - those who were about to be invaded and slaughtered - by characterising them as those baby-sacrificing, animal-humping sub-humans served its purpose...

[aldona]

Quote:

How many communist organizations in the US have a mission for the poor or the homeless? Churches have hundreds. I know because I've been in some of them. I never saw one run by communists and atheists.

I don't know about communists, because I don't make a point of asking everybody I come in contact with about their political views, but I know that most of the charitable organizations I am involved with are full of a mixture of atheists, agnostics and believers.

Medecins Sans Frontieres, the various refugee organizations, Amnesty, various medical and mental health charities, you name it - all full of people for whom God and religion is just not a part of their life. But they are passionate about helping their fellow humans and trying to make the community a better place.

I have actually noticed that many atheists/agnostics have more time, energy and money to dedicate to these kinds of causes - because their time/energy/money is not all burned up doing church stuff every minute they are not at their day jobs.

AJ

[aldona]

Quote:

I'm not sure how accurate it is to label someone "dishonest" because you don't like what they say. What you mentioned re your brother would not have been "tough love" in fact it would not have been "love" of any kind.

If beating up my brother is not love of any kind then god ordering the Israelites to kill all the non-combatants isn't love of any kind.

Redefining is a form of intellectual dishonesty. It is a way to avoid confronting error. In this case you have redefined vengeance as love.

Does vengeance = Love?

Hmmm..it sounds like a book I read once that talked about a fictitious "Ministry of Love" - whose function was to wage war and kill...

AJ

[John317]

Quote:

cardw: What I do think we have is a tribal ethical document that allows for these terrible behaviors by claiming that god instructed them to do this.

Why would a people write things that showed that they themselves and their leaders and heroes were worse than even their neighbors? The histories show that their God tells them repeatedly that they're worthy of death. The writings don't hide any of their evil acts but reveals them for all the world to see. Most of these acts are not things that God told them to do.

Quote:

cardw: The basic motivation was survival and the expansion of territory to allow for the population of Israel to increase.

OK, you have some of it right-- a basic motivation was survival and they did need to expand the territory. But what reason does the Bible give for God placing Israel there in the first place?

And why does the Bible say God commanded Israel to wipe out those nations which had lived there before Israel took over?

Quote:

cardw: The only problem is the military messiah never came and they never ruled the earth.

When you study the OT prophecies, however, you find that there are prophecies of a military Messiah and a suffering Messiah. I think when we read carefully, we can see that the suffering Messiah was to come first, and then the Messiah is said to return as the military Messiah.

Where do you see the prophecies teaching that Israel would rule the earth? I can think of some verses you may be thinking of but I would like to be sure of exactly what you have in mind.

Quote:

cardw: Christians have been very creative by moving the kingdom off the earth and expanding the chosen people to a spiritual kingdom. And again the reason given is because the Jews weren't good enough.

How do you explain the fact, though, that there are clear indications in the OT long before it happened that this would occur? How could this be if it was the Christians who created the idea? For instance, what do you do with the references to it in Genesis, Isaiah, and particularly in Daniel 9: 24-27?

Quote:

cardw: It makes no sense to me because the rules of the game aren't really all that clear and the way it's set up no one could ever be good enough.

I can see how it could seem very confusing, but I think it's made clear in verses such as Micah 6: 6: "The Lord has shown you, O man, what is good; and what the Lord does require of you, but do do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God."

Compare that with a verse written centuries before then, in Deut. 10: 12, 13: "And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways, and to love Him, and to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, to keep the commandments of the Lord, and His statutes, which I command you this day for your good."

The God of the Bible is recorded to have said about Abraham, "For I know him, that he will command His chilren and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he has spoken of him" (Gen 18: 19).

Quote:

cardw: It makes far more sense that we have a syncretic evolution of religious belief.

[Overaged]

Quote:

I'm not sure how accurate it is to label someone "dishonest" because you don't like what they say. What you mentioned re your brother would not have been "tough love" in fact it would not have been "love" of any kind.

If beating up my brother is not love of any kind then god ordering the Israelites to kill all the non-combatants isn't love of any kind.

Redefining is a form of intellectual dishonesty. It is a way to avoid confronting error. In this case you have redefined vengeance as love.

Does vengeance = Love?

Nice red-herring theology and rationalized definitions. What you call "redefining" is in fact something else. I stated my understanding about something, and although it was quite brief, it was not "dishonest." You can't prove that no matter how you try to describe it. To me, this fact alone tells a story of unproven ideas.

[Overaged]

Sure. Nature contains a lot more than simply death and violence. It also contains a great deal of beauty from man's viewpoint. I'm certainly not denying the beautiful things in nature. But it seems to me you just sustained the point that without the Bible those beautiful things in nature you mention wouldn't necessarily tell humans the truth about God. For instance, without the Bible, what did the North American indians-- like the Navaho-- think of when they saw the eagle soaring? Some will say the indians must have thought of the "great spirit," and this is true for some tribes, but some other tribes didn't believe in a "great spirit."

What does the atheist think of when he looks at the plants and animals under the microscope? He looks closely and sees great complexity but he doesn't see evidence of a god or of God. Why not? Because he doesn't see those things through the lenses of the Bible and of faith in God. He would say that he sees those details as they really are, without the fog of faith and the Bible.

What I find ironic is that many scientists think this way about the Bible, but the great thinker Thomas Jefferson believed it to tell us about the "man who taught the most benevolent and submlime system of morality that has ever been taught, more perfect than those of any of the ancient philosophers and the most innocent, the most eloquent and sublime character that ever has been exhibited."

[John317]

Quote:

How many communist organizations in the US have a mission for the poor or the homeless? Churches have hundreds. I know because I've been in some of them. I never saw one run by communists and atheists.

Quote:

aldona: I don't know about communists, because I don't make a point of asking everybody I come in contact with about their political views,

I don't either, but I'm talking to anyone who knows communists. I spent a couple of years in the Young Socialist Alliance, a communist youth organization founded by Leon Trotsky, who was a close associate of V. Lenin and Joseph Stalin in the Russian revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Socialist_Alliance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Workers_Party_(US)

The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) is a communist political party in the United States.

I'm not saying they are bad people. I'm simply pointing out a difference between them and Christians who are committed to Christ. And this is a difference that I know from personal experience as well as from studying communist and socialist literature and activities.

Quote:

aldona: But I know that most of the charitable organizations I am involved with are full of a mixture of atheists, agnostics and believers.

Medecins Sans Frontieres, the various refugee organizations, Amnesty, various medical and mental health charities, you name it - all full of people for whom God and religion is just not a part of their life. But they are passionate about helping their fellow humans and trying to make the community a better place.

Are of those atheist organization-- for instance, is Doctors Without Borders atheistic?

I'm not denying that there are atheists that are involved in various organizations like that one you mention who are helping people. There are medical doctors and all kinds of professionals who are atheists. But what I'm saying is that unlike Christian organizations, atheist organizations don't have devote their time and effort to helping the poor and needy. At least I don't know of any such oganizations doing this.

I know that there are good people who are atheists. I'm not at all implying that atheists never do anything good or that they don't have morality. But what I'm talking about is the obvious differences between church organizations and atheist organzations that are devoted to helping the poor and the sick. If you compare the amount of money that Churches and Christian organizations raise for helping the poor and the sick, with the amount raised by atheistic organizations, I have no doubt which organizations are doing the most to help the poor.

Quote:

aldona:I have actually noticed that many atheists/agnostics have more time, energy and money to dedicate to these kinds of causes - because their time/energy/money is not all burned up doing church stuff every minute they are not at their day jobs.

My question is, do you know of any organization devoted to atheism where atheists ban together for the purpose of helping the poor, voluntarily giving their time and money to assisting the them? There are many churches aross the country and around the world which do this, and I am wondering if you know of any atheist organization doing it, if any?

If they don't do this, why do you think they don't? And why do so many Christians do it?

[John317]

Quote:

Overaged: Well; there are many who never see a Bible or hear the Word, but who will be saved.

Where do you find clear Bible support for this idea?

Just wondering if you believe that there will be people saved who heard the gospel and rejected it?

Or who heard the gospel and never declared themselves for Christ?

[Bravus]

I addressed it, and aldona (who I credit hugely on this topic because she is probably the most active of all of us) said it too: when atheists work for the betterment of humanity they do it as individuals, not as organisations. Why the obsession with organisations, John317? There are religious organisations, which atheists support, and there are non-sectarian organisations, which atheists support. Is atheists' contribution somehow less effective in actually helping people simply because they do not duplicate organisations that already exist simply to have their own atheist-branded organisations?

[John317]

Quote:

Bravus:

Many atheists are humanists, which means they see people as fundamentally good. Christians see people as redeemable but fundamentally bad.

I think that anyone who studies human history can see evidence that people are bad, or fallen. Of myself, I'm evil. I know that. The only good in me comes as a result of Christ in my life.

Human nature is fallen and sinful and in rebellion against God. But that doesn't mean we don't love people and do all we can to help them. God knows people are evil. The Bible says so, and human experience domonstrates it. But God also loves us infinitely and has give Himself completely to save all humanity. And when our hearts have Christ's love in them, we will have a spontaneous love for all people too, despite their evil and despite their defects. We will then not concentrate on those defects but on their postential for Christ and for his glory. We will see them as God does, as candidates for eternity and as people that Christ died to save.

If you think that people on this Forum talk bad about people, you should try forums and chat-rooms on America Online. (Maybe you already have, in which case you no doubt know exactly what I mean.) Most of those are non-believers. They make our Forum look like a church full of saints by comparison. I won't tell what I saw on it when I went there for years back about 2000-2004. I would be too ashamed and embarrassed.

People do have some good and even wonderful things about them, though. But I don't know how anyone who is knowledgeable about history, has looked deeply into the recesses of their own hearts, and has a broad experience with people, can believe that human nature is "good."

This is not to say that I am pessimistic about human beings. I'm not at all. The reason is altogether of Christ. I know that He is able to change people and that He will save millions in His kingdom and restore us to the way He made us. But I am not optomistic about humanity itself apart from God. God is our only hope. Without Him, humanity and human history would end ultimately in the trash heap-- despite its beautiful music, its scientic achiechments, and its magnificent art and literature. Why? Because our natural heart is completely selfish and sinful. That heart, apart from God, is willing to destroy anything in order to get its way. That's the great danger of the nuclear weapon in the hands of the wrong person.

[karl]

But I am not optomistic about humanity itself apart from God. God is our only hope. Without Him, humanity and human history would end ultimately in the trash heap-- despite its beautiful music, its scientic achiechments, and its magnificent art and literature.

I agree, J317. Man with out God will behave in a graceless, God-forsaken way.

Even when atheists do "good" stuff, it is God that worketh in them to will and to do of His good pleasure to whatever extent they allow.

Transcendent stuff is inspired by the transcendent one.

[Bravus]

Subsumption claims are not logically defensible: 'everything good you do is inspired by my God and everything evil you do is inspired by your humanity' is a statement with no evidence except for the assertion of the one making it. The reverse can be asserted just as easily: 'any good Christians do is because they are humans and humans have a fundamental core of goodness'. Neither is convincing on the evidence, and the phenomenon that needs to be explained is when we look at the overall statistics (not anecdotal evidence) exactly as many Christians as non-believers do both evil and good. That is, the truth as far as the evidence actually shows is that being a Christian does not enhance the incidence of moral behaviour or reduce the incidence of immoral. No-one has yet satisfactorily addressed that point.

[karl]

Jefferson in clear terms saw himself as a Deist. He saw himself as a Christian only in terms of his respect for the ethical philosophy of Jesus. He rejected his divinity and the theology surrounding his sacrifice for sins. Read what Deism is. That's who you have an argument with, not me.

No, my argument is with you, Rich. Methinks thou hast not done thy homework. Do you have any TJ quote in which he claims to be not a Christian, but a Deist? I don't think he ever said he was a Deist. He said he was a Christian.

Defining Jefferson as a non-Christian can only be done on contemporary sectarian theological grounds, because he clearly thought of himself as a Christian and was a Christian with regards to his ethics, conduct, upbringing, and culture. To define Jefferson as a "non-Christian" requires using definitions retroactively to classify Jefferson counter to his own self-concept and counter to the commonly understood meanings of words during his own time.

Jefferson was born into an Anglican family and was raised as an Aglican. He would later be considered an Episcopalian, after the Episcopal Church was officially founded as a separate province within Anglicanism in 1789 (after the Revolution and independence from England).

Later in his adult life Jefferson did not consider himself an Episcopalian, or a member of any other specific denomination. Jefferson held many Christian, Deist, and Unitarian beliefs, but was not a member of any congregation or denomination. So, although Deists want to claim him, unless he claims them, it is absurd to assert anything other than what he claimed for himself, which was that he was a "disciple of Jesus" (a Christian.)

[cardw]

Quote:

Why would a people write things that showed that they themselves and their leaders and heroes were worse than even their neighbors?

The priesthood wrote these things to explain why Israel was losing wars, getting taken into captivity, having famines, etc. etc. You need to have someone to blame so the priesthood could hold the power.

The OT was put together sometime in the 6th century B.C. and Josiah was the boy king at 8 which gave the priesthood an opportunity to establish power. It's rather interesting that Josiah, a relatively minor king in Bible stories is said to be the greatest king of Israel. Sounds like a self written praise since the bible was being put together at that time.

And when Josiah gets killed by the Egyptians lo' and behold we have a writing telling us that amazingly this greatest king doesn't follow the Lord's command.

That's why there is so much writing about their faults.

[karl]

Well; there are many who never see a Bible or hear the Word, but who will be saved. I don't see it as taking away anything from the Bible to say so; rather it enforces scripture:

Those who hear God's voice via the Holy Spirit and respond affirmatively, will be saved. Nature alone won't do it. It will point to the Savior, but it will not save.

Salvation is a transformation of motives, attitudes, appetite, everything, by the indwelling Christ.

Bravus and Rich are correct that there have been many professed Christians, some of them powerful men, who have not been transformed by the Spirit of Christ. This is not an indictment of Christianity, but of halfhearted commitments and unsanctified lives.

[cardw]

Quote:

No, my argument is with you, Rich. Methinks thou hast not done thy homework. Do you have any TJ quote in which he claims to be not a Christian, but a Deist? I don't think he ever said he was a Deist. He said he was a Christian.

Really Karl....

Here is the synopsis and the quote.

Quote:

In an 1803 letter to Joseph Priestley, Jefferson states that he conceived the idea of writing his view of the "Christian System" in a conversation with Dr. Benjamin Rush during 1798–99. He proposes beginning with a review of the morals of the ancient philosophers, moving on to the ethics of the Jews, and concluding with the "principles of a pure deism" taught by Jesus, "omitting the question of his deity." Jefferson explains that he really doesn't have the time, and urges the task on Priestley as the person best equipped to accomplish the task.

Here is the quote in context....

Quote:

I have reflected often on it since, and even sketched the outlines in my own mind. I should first take a general view of the moral doctrines of the most remarkable of the ancient philosophers, of whose ethics we have sufficient information to make an estimate, say Pythagoras, Epicurus, Epictetus, Socrates, Cicero, Seneca, Antoninus. I should do justice to the branches of morality they have treated well; but point out the importance of those in which they are deficient. I should then take a view of the deism and ethics of the Jews, and show in what a degraded state they were, and the necessity they presented of a reformation. I should proceed to a view of the life, character, and doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice and philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state.

This is what he thought about mainline Christianity...

Quote:

I, too, have made a -little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the Gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a System beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature. If I had time I would add to my little book the Greek, Latin and French texts, in columns side by side. And I wish I could subjoin a translation of Gassendi's Syntagma of the doctrines of Epicurus, which, notwithstanding the calumnies of the Stoics and caricatures of Cicero, is the most rational system remaining of the philosophy of the ancients, as frugal of vicious indulgence, and fruitful of virtue as the hyperbolical extravagances of his rival sects.

You will note his recognition of the pagan sources for orthodox Christianity and that true Christianity is based on reason sourced from Epicurus and not Plato, from which orthodox Christianity comes from through Augustine and St. Jerome.

He also clearly states that he considers Jesus a philosopher.

So Karl, you are debating Jefferson himself, not me.

[Neil D]

Quote:

On the contrary, the Isrealites DID take the virgins for themselves...Just that the 'vengence' that God had in mind was different than what the leaders spoke/insisted upon....

And what loving vengeance did god have in mind?

I've told you before....Doing kindness to your enemys is like heaping coals on thier heads...God also promised the Isrealites that in the taking of Caanun, he's use hornets to drive out the canninites...Or do you not remember these texts, Rich?

21(Z)If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink;

22For you will heap burning coals on his head,

And (AA)the LORD will reward you.

I made reference to this before, Rich...

22"But if you truly obey his voice and do all that I say, then (AF)I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries.

23"(AG)For My angel will go before you and bring you in to the land of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will completely destroy them.

24"(AH)You shall not worship their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their deeds; (AI)but you shall utterly overthrow them and break their (AJ)sacred pillars in pieces.

25"(AK)But you shall serve the LORD your God, and He will bless your bread and your water; and (AL)I will remove sickness from your midst.

26"There shall be no one miscarrying or (AM)barren in your land; (AN)I will fulfill the number of your days.

27"I will (AO)send My terror ahead of you, and (AP)throw into confusion all the people among whom you come, and I will (AQ)make all your enemies turn their backs to you.

28"I will send (AR)hornets ahead of you so that they will (AS)drive out the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites before you.

29"(AT)I will not drive them out before you in a single year, that the land may not become desolate and the beasts of the field become too numerous for you.

30"I will drive them out before you (AU)little by little, until you become fruitful and take possession of the land.

31"(AV)I will fix your boundary from the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the River Euphrates; (AW)for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you will (AX)drive them out before you.

Apparently, Isreal didn't do what God had said, because they knew that God was going to make them victorious and THEY were to be the terror....As a result, they misunderstood, and did the warfare themselves....

What do you say to that, Rich?

[cardw]

Quote:

Hmmm..it sounds like a book I read once that talked about a fictitious "Ministry of Love" - whose function was to wage war and kill...

Yeah, the love of Big Brother for all us thought criminals. LOL

[cardw]

Quote:

Apparently, Isreal didn't do what God had said, because they knew that God was going to make them victorious and THEY were to be the terror....As a result, they misunderstood, and did the warfare themselves....

What do you say to that, Rich?

I would say, OK, we killed all the men, I think we're ready for the hornets.