Christians Defend Psalm 137:9

[R. S. Martin]

HERE.

 

Never dreamed I'd live to see the day.

 

Start reading with Post 2 for the defense.

 

Apparently, choux--the person who posted the thread (TITLE: Disproof of the Biblical God), is a deist or theist of some kind and believes in a god who created the universe but not in the biblical god who says to kill babies.

 

For those who don't know the verse off by heart, here it is (NRSV):

 

^9

Happy shall they be who take your little onesand dash them against the rock!

[/url]

The defense is sickening, right there on a par with William Lane Craig's defense of the Slaughter of the Canaanites.

 

Feel free to rant and rave this thing to shreds if for no other reason than to rid yourself of the toxic injected by the system that defends it. Remember, these are the people who have a problem with stem cell research meant to help people who are already born.

[Shyone]

HERE.

 

Never dreamed I'd live to see the day.

 

Start reading with Post 2 for the defense.

 

Apparently, choux--the person who posted the thread (TITLE: Disproof of the Biblical God), is a deist or theist of some kind and believes in a god who created the universe but not in the biblical god who says to kill babies.

 

For those who don't know the verse off by heart, here it is (NRSV):

 

^9

Happy shall they be who take your little onesand dash them against the rock!

[/url]

The defense is sickening, right there on a par with William Lane Craig's defense of the Slaughter of the Canaanites.

 

Feel free to rant and rave this thing to shreds if for no other reason than to rid yourself of the toxic injected by the system that defends it. Remember, these are the people who have a problem with stem cell research meant to help people who are already born.

I would probably ask, "If we dash our enemies' childrens' heads on the rocks, can we use their stem cells for research?"

[Moxie]

I've had debates with christians about this verse before, and yes, they defended it.

 

Sickening.

[Franko47]

I think sometimes, that despite the excuses, some of these people admire the idea of a "ruthless" God.

[dagnarus]

HERE.

 

Never dreamed I'd live to see the day.

 

Start reading with Post 2 for the defense.

 

Apparently, choux--the person who posted the thread (TITLE: Disproof of the Biblical God), is a deist or theist of some kind and believes in a god who created the universe but not in the biblical god who says to kill babies.

 

For those who don't know the verse off by heart, here it is (NRSV):

 

^9

Happy shall they be who take your little onesand dash them against the rock!

[/url]

The defense is sickening, right there on a par with William Lane Craig's defense of the Slaughter of the Canaanites.

 

Feel free to rant and rave this thing to shreds if for no other reason than to rid yourself of the toxic injected by the system that defends it. Remember, these are the people who have a problem with stem cell research meant to help people who are already born.

 

I read post 2. It sounded reasonable to me. It's explanation seems to be that the psalms are not necessarily the sentiments of God, but those of those who believed in him and their prayers and relationship with this God. This seems like a reasonable interpretation of the psalms, seeing as how it contains people actively complaining about God's unfair treatment of them. This is the main reason why when I bring up biblical atrocities I don't go with verses like this, or the some of the verses in Judges, but rather things like the invasion of Canaan, the slaughter of the Midianites, and the slaughter of the Amelikites, because with these verses it is clear who is encouraging the killing.

 

The main problem I would have with post 2 is that it states that today secularists use Christian morality, I would argue it is the other way around.

[dagnarus]

I think sometimes, that despite the excuses, some of these people admire the idea of a "ruthless" God.

 

I think the standard excuse is, sure God is loving, but he is also righteous. An analogy which was given to me was that of a professor who gave out As to everybody regardless of whether they did the work. This person is of course far worse than a professors who gives out As only to the people who worship him, and gives everyone else an F.

[dagnarus]

Why do critics of Christianity, attack the morality of Christianity based upon verses such as Psalm 137:9 and some of the dodginess in Judges? To me this strikes me as being counter-productive, as these verse aren't clearly God's sentiments, and as such can be turned into a reasonably easy win for Christians debating it. Then we can contrast this with the book of Joshua and Samuel's sending Saul of to kill every single Amalekite. Parts of the Bible where it explicitly states that God sent the Hebrews of to kill defenseless women, and children. Why take slingshot into battle, when you've got a fully loaded M16.

[Andy]

I think sometimes, that despite the excuses, some of these people admire the idea of a "ruthless" God.

 

I think the standard excuse is, sure God is loving, but he is also righteous. An analogy which was given to me was that of a professor who gave out As to everybody regardless of whether they did the work. This person is of course far worse than a professors who gives out As only to the people who worship him, and gives everyone else an F.

Also in this analogy the professor is teaching a class that no one signed up for, but everyone has to take. He never shows up for class and only tells a handful of people what is expected of them, leaving the rest of the students having to trust those few to relay the message accurately.

[Shyone]

Why do critics of Christianity, attack the morality of Christianity based upon verses such as Psalm 137:9 and some of the dodginess in Judges? To me this strikes me as being counter-productive, as these verse aren't clearly God's sentiments, and as such can be turned into a reasonably easy win for Christians debating it. Then we can contrast this with the book of Joshua and Samuel's sending Saul of to kill every single Amalekite. Parts of the Bible where it explicitly states that God sent the Hebrews of to kill defenseless women, and children. Why take slingshot into battle, when you've got a fully loaded M16.

Very true.

 

Two things however; first, the particular Psalm mentioned is grotesque for it's joy at another's suffering and the indication of a willingness to do this. Second, if the bible is the innerant word of God, and intended for a guide to behavior for all of mankind, then this verse would certainly be included in that.

 

So, although there are clearly worse acts claimed to have been ordered by or performed by God, this one is just so personal and so fiendish that it deserves (dis)honorable mention at least.

[Neon Genesis]

Why do critics of Christianity, attack the morality of Christianity based upon verses such as Psalm 137:9 and some of the dodginess in Judges? To me this strikes me as being counter-productive, as these verse aren't clearly God's sentiments, and as such can be turned into a reasonably easy win for Christians debating it. Then we can contrast this with the book of Joshua and Samuel's sending Saul of to kill every single Amalekite. Parts of the Bible where it explicitly states that God sent the Hebrews of to kill defenseless women, and children. Why take slingshot into battle, when you've got a fully loaded M16.

But when why do biblical literalists turn around and accept the "suffering messiah" passages in Psalm as divinely inspired prophecy when Jews have never read those verses as prophecies? I do agree with you that there are stronger arguments against the morality of the bible than Psalm 137 but it seems like a double standard to me that literalists want us to believe that the "suffering messiah" passages (which never even mention a messiah or that they're prophecies) is divinely inspired while Psalm 137 is not yet they believe the entire bible is divinely inspired at the same time.

[dagnarus]

Very true.

 

Two things however; first, the particular Psalm mentioned is grotesque for it's joy at another's suffering and the indication of a willingness to do this. Second, if the bible is the innerant word of God, and intended for a guide to behavior for all of mankind, then this verse would certainly be included in that.

 

So, although there are clearly worse acts claimed to have been ordered by or performed by God, this one is just so personal and so fiendish that it deserves (dis)honorable mention at least.

 

I agree, it's just that if you do it without laying the proper foundation, that of, the God of the Old Testament supports the total and complete slaughter of his enemies, including children, your opponent is left with far more wiggle room that they should have. If you start with Genocide, when you come to this verse you can show that these sentiments aren't human sentiments separate from the OT's morality, but rather a natural extension of OT moral thinking.

 

But when why do biblical literalists turn around and accept the "suffering messiah" passages in Psalm as divinely inspired prophecy when Jews have never read those verses as prophecies? I do agree with you that there are stronger arguments against the morality of the bible than Psalm 137 but it seems like a double standard to me that literalists want us to believe that the "suffering messiah" passages (which never even mention a messiah or that they're prophecies) is divinely inspired while Psalm 137 is not yet they believe the entire bible is divinely inspired at the same time.

 

I agree, and was considering stating something about that. The thing is that what your talking about isn't even about taking the bible literally. Actually I would argue that taking the suffering messiah passage requires you to not take the OT literally. Irregardless that is probably a separate issue which, really just confuses things.

 

I believe that at least one interpretation of the psalms given by Christian theologians is that they primarily represent the sentiments of Godly men, not moral teachings. I.E. when your reading most of them your not supposed to necessarily get moral teachings from them but to empathize with followers of God, like yourself as they go through their trials, their tribulations, and their successes. To me this doesn't seem like a stretch, and it also makes sense to me why such a section might be useful to be included in a holy book.

[Shyone]

I believe that at least one interpretation of the psalms given by Christian theologians is that they primarily represent the sentiments of Godly men, not moral teachings. I.E. when your reading most of them your not supposed to necessarily get moral teachings from them but to empathize with followers of God, like yourself as they go through their trials, their tribulations, and their successes. To me this doesn't seem like a stretch, and it also makes sense to me why such a section might be useful to be included in a holy book.

Yeah, but as Neon suggested, if they can find "double purposes" for the passages including prophecy, then they are also thought to be divinely inspired and therefore representative of the "mind of God."

[★ Citsonga ★]

I read post 2. It sounded reasonable to me. It's explanation seems to be that the psalms are not necessarily the sentiments of God, but those of those who believed in him and their prayers and relationship with this God.

 

Keep in mind that fundies consider the bible to be entirely inspired by gawd. From that perspective, one would have to conclude that gawd inspired the psalmist to write the phrase about happily dashing infants on the rock. As such, it is a serious problem for the fundies.

 

Why do critics of Christianity, attack the morality of Christianity based upon verses such as Psalm 137:9 and some of the dodginess in Judges? To me this strikes me as being counter-productive, as these verse aren't clearly God's sentiments, and as such can be turned into a reasonably easy win for Christians debating it. Then we can contrast this with the book of Joshua and Samuel's sending Saul of to kill every single Amalekite. Parts of the Bible where it explicitly states that God sent the Hebrews of to kill defenseless women, and children. Why take slingshot into battle, when you've got a fully loaded M16.

 

I agree that the texts that say that gawd commanded certain killings are more damning, but even texts such as Psalm 137:9 are damning to the fundies who believe that the bible in entirely inspired by gawd.

[R. S. Martin]

I don't know how you were raised, dagnarus, but I was raised to believe that the Psalms were appropriate for meditation today. I think a lot of people were raised that way. For example, the Gideons include the books of Psalms and Proverbs in the pocket New Testaments they used to hand out to Grade 5 students. (I don't know if they still do this or not.) Other NTs also include the Psalms in the back. At least, my German NT does and I think I've seen English KJV New Testaments that include them, too.

 

Given that the Psalms are supposed to be appropriate devotional material for Christians today, they should by all means adhere to Christ's teaching. For Mennonites, this means to "turn the other cheek," "bless them that curse you," and not take human life under any circumstances--not even in self-defense. (I realize this standard has been broken in times of war when enemy soldiers entered homes to rape the women but I did not know about this when I was learning to read the Bible as an adolescent.) Because of the very strong teachings of nonresistance with which I was raised, I did not understand why so many of the Psalms ended with ugly wishes on one's enemies.

 

For example, I already had problems with insomnia as a child and the 23rd Psalm was given me as something to calm me and put me to sleep. But it says in Verse 5: Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies...

 

Exactly how, I wondered, was that supposed to put me to sleep...what with enemies and all jealously trying to get at my food???

 

And rods--they are sometimes used to beat people and animals.

 

The first part of Verse 4 might be okay: Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me. But then comes the part about being comforted by a rod and staff--instruments of punishment.

 

 

So there you've got Psalm 23. There's the nice bit about walking beside murmuring brooks and bedding down in nice meadows. And even the part about not being afraid of the dark because sky daddy is right there to take care of you.

 

But how?

 

With the instruments of punishment.

 

 

And by giving you treats and withholding them from the people who are out to kill you.

 

 

As the oldest child of a large family I knew instinctively what this would do.

 

 

There are so very many psalms that at first seem to be lovely nature poems of praise, but in the final verses they denigrate into "God, give my enemies into my hands so I can kill them in the cruelest, most tortuous, way possible. Give them to me before nightfall if you don't mind, oh you almighty and all-powerful Ruler of the Universe whom even the stars obey and the waves of the sea do obeisance."

 

 

That is the only role these wonderful nature poems seem to serve--as flowery speeches with which to address this great over-lord of sky and sea on whom the ancient Israelites depended for military might and victory. So I see it today. Back then I simply could not understand it but I had a problem with these verses. THEY DID NOT FIT!

[Neon Genesis]

Fundamentalists also contradict this argument from personal opinion of the authors when they turn around and quote Psalm 109 as a prayer for Obama

They say,* ‘Appoint a wicked man against him;

let an accuser stand on his right.

7When he is tried, let him be found guilty;

let his prayer be counted as sin.

8May his days be few;

may another seize his position.

9May his children be orphans,

and his wife a widow.

10May his children wander about and beg;

may they be driven out of* the ruins they inhabit.

11May the creditor seize all that he has;

may strangers plunder the fruits of his toil.

12May there be no one to do him a kindness,

nor anyone to pity his orphaned children.

[dagnarus]

I don't know how you were raised, dagnarus, but I was raised to believe that the Psalms were appropriate for meditation today. I think a lot of people were raised that way. For example, the Gideons include the books of Psalms and Proverbs in the pocket New Testaments they used to hand out to Grade 5 students. (I don't know if they still do this or not.) Other NTs also include the Psalms in the back. At least, my German NT does and I think I've seen English KJV New Testaments that include them, too.

 

Given that the Psalms are supposed to be appropriate devotional material for Christians today, they should by all means adhere to Christ's teaching. For Mennonites, this means to "turn the other cheek," "bless them that curse you," and not take human life under any circumstances--not even in self-defense. (I realize this standard has been broken in times of war when enemy soldiers entered homes to rape the women but I did not know about this when I was learning to read the Bible as an adolescent.) Because of the very strong teachings of nonresistance with which I was raised, I did not understand why so many of the Psalms ended with ugly wishes on one's enemies.

 

By that logic the whole OT should be out shouldn't it. Which if that is the point your making is a Good one. The NT may attempts to build itself upon the foundation of the OT, but it really doesn't care about what it actually says.

 

Irregardless, I'm fairly certain that one of the reasons why the Psalms are so popular is that they nominally represent the actual prayers, groaning, and situations of real people. So presumably when a believer is going through a shitty time and doesn't know why God is letting this happen to him, he can read the psalm of another poor smuck who was going through a shitty time, where God didn't seem to give a rat's ass and take comfort that, that person went through a similiar situation, The desired effect is presumably not that the person would realize that God actually doesn't give a rat's ass about him presumably. One interpretation of the Psalms is that this is what it is for, not to provide a doctrinal guide, but to provide the person reading it with insight into followers before them. From the layout and content of the psalms this seems like a very credible interpretation to me.

 

Where do verses such as psalm 137:9 and break the teeth of the wicked fit into this. Well, it isn't clear that these sentiments represent God's mind within the psalms, thus any believer by default has wiggle room. With Just psalm 137:9 it is quite feasible that this is the sentiment of a person who may or may not have had their child killed in front of them, hoping to be avenged, not the words, and desires of God. In this way the believer can pretty easily chop out this atrocious verse with a minimal of mental gymnastics, giving a quick and easy victory for the superiority of the bible God over the evil atheists trying to blaspheme him. If on the other hand you start out with YWHW requiring every last Canaanite be slaughtered, including babies, or other similiar atrocities, take your pick, then when you come to verse psalm 137:9, it's not a verse representing the view of a person in grieve, but the natural view of someone who takes OT morality to heart, fuck up the heathen, be willing to murder even his children. If your going to make a case, use all the evidence, don't just use a drib which on it's own can be explained away.

 

For example, I already had problems with insomnia as a child and the 23rd Psalm was given me as something to calm me and put me to sleep. But it says in Verse 5: Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies...

 

Exactly how, I wondered, was that supposed to put me to sleep...what with enemies and all jealously trying to get at my food???

 

The interpretation of this which I was given, was that the psalmist was surrounded by enemies, and even in this situation God gave him a feast, probably symbolic.

 

And rods--they are sometimes used to beat people and animals.

 

The first part of Verse 4 might be okay: Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me. But then comes the part about being comforted by a rod and staff--instruments of punishment.

 

I believe that ye olde shepherds were equipped with a rod and a staff. The staff was to nudge the sheep to go in the right direction (sheep are idiots), the rod was used to beat off any wild animals which might come along and try to eat the sheep, so I think the whole instruments of punishment thing, here is a bit of a jump. A far more natural interpretation is that the psalmist is comforted by God's rod, which he uses to protect the psalmist from any evils, and the staff which is used to guide him through the valley.

 

So there you've got Psalm 23. There's the nice bit about walking beside murmuring brooks and bedding down in nice meadows. And even the part about not being afraid of the dark because sky daddy is right there to take care of you.

 

But how?

 

With the instruments of punishment.

 

 

And by giving you treats and withholding them from the people who are out to kill you.

 

 

As the oldest child of a large family I knew instinctively what this would do.

 

 

There are so very many psalms that at first seem to be lovely nature poems of praise, but in the final verses they denigrate into "God, give my enemies into my hands so I can kill them in the cruelest, most tortuous, way possible. Give them to me before nightfall if you don't mind, oh you almighty and all-powerful Ruler of the Universe whom even the stars obey and the waves of the sea do obeisance."

 

Well yeah.

 

That is the only role these wonderful nature poems seem to serve--as flowery speeches with which to address this great over-lord of sky and sea on whom the ancient Israelites depended for military might and victory. So I see it today. Back then I simply could not understand it but I had a problem with these verses. THEY DID NOT FIT!

 

Almost certainly, but you need to remember that your average Christian has never bothered to read the OT, so they don't necessarily know that in the OT God was all about the killing of ones enemies. Here's a quote which I have heard. "The Bible says though shalt not kill, doesn't get any clearer than that." And to somebody who hasn't actually read the bible, it is that clear, it's only once you've read the damn thing that you realize that it's clear as mud.

[dagnarus]

Fundamentalists also contradict this argument from personal opinion of the authors when they turn around and quote Psalm 109 as a prayer for Obama

They say,* ‘Appoint a wicked man against him;

let an accuser stand on his right.

...

 

First, I thought that, that was meant to be a prayer against Judas. Second, I would consider pulling random prophecies out of random psalms as being an entirely separate issue. I mean clearly they don't interpret all of it as being prophecy anyway, just the random crap they can turn into one.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Where do verses such as psalm 137:9 and break the teeth of the wicked fit into this. Well, it isn't clear that these sentiments represent God's mind within the psalms, thus any believer by default has wiggle room. With Just psalm 137:9 it is quite feasible that this is the sentiment of a person who may or may not have had their child killed in front of them, hoping to be avenged, not the words, and desires of God. In this way the believer can pretty easily chop out this atrocious verse with a minimal of mental gymnastics, giving a quick and easy victory for the superiority of the bible God over the evil atheists trying to blaspheme him.

 

But if they claim that "wiggle room," then they have to acknowledge that those particular texts were not inspired by god, which is very problematic to the fundy's belief that the whole bible was divinely inspired.

 

If on the other hand you start out with YWHW requiring every last Canaanite be slaughtered, including babies, or other similiar atrocities, take your pick, then when you come to verse psalm 137:9, it's not a verse representing the view of a person in grieve, but the natural view of someone who takes OT morality to heart, fuck up the heathen, be willing to murder even his children. If your going to make a case, use all the evidence, don't just use a drib which on it's own can be explained away.

 

I agree with this. The texts where god commands evil acts are more difficult to wiggle around than psalmists' comments. But, as I noted above, even the psalmists' comments are problematic if one wants to believe that the whole bible is divinely inspired.

[dagnarus]

But if they claim that "wiggle room," then they have to acknowledge that those particular texts were not inspired by god, which is very problematic to the fundy's belief that the whole bible was divinely inspired.

 

I agree with this. The texts where god commands evil acts are more difficult to wiggle around than psalmists' comments. But, as I noted above, even the psalmists' comments are problematic if one wants to believe that the whole bible is divinely inspired.

 

First not all christians are fundies. Second actually you can potentially explain your way out of it. Think of it like this, in Genesis 3, the bible has Satan telling Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge, now obviously from the point of view of the fundamentalist this is not God's speaking/point of view, that doesn't necessarily mean that God didn't inspire Moses (this is from a fundamentalist point of view remember) to write these words down. Similiarly the fundamentalist could say (although a fundamentalist probably wouldn't, I doubt that the discussion on that forum was had with true blue fundamentalists), that the psalms while inspired by God, are not necessarily God's direct speaking, he allowed human sentiments to come in because he wanted to expose how humans think, i.e. maybe some of David's psalms are meant to expose his hypocrisy, or otherwise it could be that human beings need the true sentiments of imperfect humans for comfort when they are going through problems. Some christians will most likely think that this is heresy, sure. But that could be said of pretty much every Christian doctrine, including the core ones. Anyway, (fuck it's hard talking about a fictional like he's real) it's not clear when your reading the psalms whether or not your getting the sentiments of God, or the sentiments of men, thus there is always the potential for any opponent to argue as such, so why bother starting your argument with the psalms, their are plenty of verses which establish unambiguously that God is a baby killer, use those first and then use psalm 137. If you, however, talk to them about Genocide's, and other such definite atrocities first, you are forcing them to see how monstrous the God of the OT actually is, and as a consequence to argue against it they have to use argument like Craig's, which simply serve to show how monstrous the defense of this actually is. I wouldn't be shocked if his apologetic turned many away from Christianity.

[R. S. Martin]

Dagnarus, I'm beginning to think you're a fundamentalist Christian pretending to be a nonbeliever because the fundies themselves couldn't do a better job at defending the indefensible.

[dagnarus]

Dagnarus, I'm beginning to think you're a fundamentalist Christian pretending to be a nonbeliever because the fundies themselves couldn't do a better job at defending the indefensible.

 

First, attack my argument, not me. Because quite frankly, I am really pissed off right now.

 

Second. What have I defended which is indefensible? Have I stated that the verse about smashing in babies skulls is justified, no, I have not. I haven't even stated that such monstrous sentiments don't represent the point of view of the OT god. What I have defended is that there it is perfectly reasonable for believers to think that the psalms represent at least in part the sentiments of people, not necessarily God, what is monstrous about such a thought? If you had read my posts, you would have also noticed that I thought the idea that the sentiments given in psalm 137:9 are somehow foreign to the biblical God, is in fact bullshit. Not because the psalms necessarily represent the speaking of this biblical God, but because the bible gives clear, unambiguous passages in which, this God commands, as a moral imperative, that his people slaughter even the infants of their enemies. These verses show the monstrosity of the biblical god in an unambiguous way, such that you can not possibly get around it, and are clear evidence that psalms 137:9 is perfectly in line with OT concepts of morality, and the morality of the OT God. The problem is that most christians, either have not actually read the bible, and don't know about these verses, or, make a point about trying to ignore them. So when you confront them with things like Psalm 137:9, when apologists says, well that just represents the views of the psalmist immediately following, his/her witnessing the destruction of their city, and the slaughter of their own children, they are inclined to accept it as being reasonable, because, in the end, based solely upon that information, it actually is pretty reasonable. That is why we should actively, point out the parts of the bible which unambiguously encourage the slaughter of innocents, because then, it becomes obvious that things such as psalms 137:9 are not the isolated views of a distraught believer, but part of a system of thought which supports such barbaric behaviour.

 

Maybe you do not agree with these sentiments. That's fine. But if you feel that just because I don't agree with your view of things, that I must be some kind of fundamentalist, who feels the need to defend the killing of babies, well that reflects more upon you, than it does upon me.

[Franko47]

I don't really get that impression from Dagnarus at all, that somehow he's defending any Christian position. He's merely exploring his understanding of it, and has an eloquent insight into the various arguments and ways that Christians and Bible theorists may think about this stuff, and it's various interpretations.

 

I sort of did that last week in another thread and got jumped on by a couple of posters who I guess don't know me that well.

 

Hey, Dagnarus I like your commentary. PM me if you want to talk about anything that might be bothering you.

[★ Citsonga ★]

First not all christians are fundies. Second actually you can potentially explain your way out of it. Think of it like this, in Genesis 3, the bible has Satan telling Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge, now obviously from the point of view of the fundamentalist this is not God's speaking/point of view, that doesn't necessarily mean that God didn't inspire Moses (this is from a fundamentalist point of view remember) to write these words down.

 

I never said that all christians are fundies. Many are, though.

 

Your comparison with quotations in Genesis 3 (which aren't of "Satan" at all, by the way) is invalid. One could argue that the text that quotes someone is inspired while not endorsing the actual quote, and that would not be illogical in and of itself. Psalm 137's comment about happily dashing infants against rocks is NOT stated as a quotation, but IS the text itself. So, NO, when speaking of fundies, they do NOT have wiggle room here.

 

Gotta get to work, so I'll have to read the rest of your post later....

[R. S. Martin]

I don't really get that impression from Dagnarus at all, that somehow he's defending any Christian position. He's merely exploring his understanding of it, and has an eloquent insight into the various arguments and ways that Christians and Bible theorists may think about this stuff, and it's various interpretations.

 

Okay. But he could keep his "eloquent insights" for the theology or coliseum threads, in my opinion. It's downright evil to wish lethal harm to innocent babies--no matter whose babies they are. I think telling us on a rant thread that we need to keep the lid on is inappropriate. This is why I posted in Rants and Replies rather than in Theology. I wanted permission--and the liberty--to rant.

 

And yes, that says something about me, dagnarus. It says that I sometimes have the need to rant. It also says something about you--that you have a need to control that rant for whatever reason.

[Freddy]

No matter what time the OT is from, people had to know that it's evil to kill babies.....or anyone for that matter. Freddy