Please explain this psalm...

Laser Eyes said:
When the USA does it in Iraq.
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: ...while the innocent's heads are rolling? Collateral damage is neither fair nor just, but bringing down the terrorists has to be our mission of priority.
 
invert_nexus said:
Beware that the means don't become the ends...

Also, answers nothing.
Click to expand...

The answer is NO.

18"Here is my servant whom I have chosen,
the one I love, in whom I delight;
I will put my Spirit on him,
and he will proclaim justice to the nations.
19He will not quarrel or cry out;
no one will hear his voice in the streets.
20A bruised reed he will not break,
and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out,
till he leads justice to victory.
21In his name the nations will put their hope."[
 
What prevents me from becoming a fundamentalist is that I do not allow a book to override my common sense.
 
Then, what does anything you have been posting have to do with the topic? The topic being Psalm 137 advocating smashing babies heads against rocks.

You can equivocate all day long, but in the end you must either say that your religion advocates baby-killing or that the old testament is crap and therefore has nothing to do with christianity. Then, your statements regarding jesus sticking to the old testament must be brought into line...
 
sevenblu said:
"Happy is the one who takes your babies
and smashes them against the rocks!" - Psalms 137:9

Just happened to roll up on it the other days while perusing the NIV; it means nothing to the modern world, I'm sure... I'll be doing research on it,
perhaps I'll find out what it is suppose to be about.


Does anyone here know what this is a reference to? I see there are several sites online that are devoted to saying this is proof a an evil God, but I've yet to find a rebutal... please help me understand.
Click to expand...

@ sevenblu and invert_nexus

Isaiah 13:16
16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
their houses will be looted and their wives ravished.

This verse is what the writer was referring to.

I looked it up in the Geneva Study Bible and here it says:

This was not accomplished when Cyrus took Babylon, but after the death of Alexander the great.

Obviously, it wasn't Jews who did this after Alexander died but some other pagans. Therefore, it is in NO way advocating such an action. If you actually READ the chapter of Isaiah, you will find that it is a prophecy of things to come, NOT a "recommendation" to do such a thing.
 
I typically explain away Christianity's inconstisteny with this:

Religion can be broadly defined as a set of beliefs that a human believes without absolute proof. Evidence shows that every society, ever, had religion, or at least a set of beliefs Because Christianity declares those beliefs wrong, it can be said that religion is a human construct: all people have the capacity for religion, whether it be cannabilistic or environmental.
Any successful human must interact with other humans (see Plato's Republic for an explanation) in order to be successful. This necessity of interaction dictates a necessity for politics; a formal code for conduct with people. Because one's belief system is inextricably tied up with that individual, their interactions with others will be controlled by that belief set. The inverse is also true, people can control others with their beliefs.

Thus, politics being human, religion being politics, religion is human.

Therefore, religion's human-ness contradicts Christianity's claim to being divine.
 
Roman said:
I typically explain away Christianity's inconstisteny with this:

Religion can be broadly defined as a set of beliefs that a human believes without absolute proof. Evidence shows that every society, ever, had religion, or at least a set of beliefs Because Christianity declares those beliefs wrong, it can be said that religion is a human construct: all people have the capacity for religion, whether it be cannabilistic or environmental.
Any successful human must interact with other humans (see Plato's Republic for an explanation) in order to be successful. This necessity of interaction dictates a necessity for politics; a formal code for conduct with people. Because one's belief system is inextricably tied up with that individual, their interactions with others will be controlled by that belief set. The inverse is also true, people can control others with their beliefs.

Thus, politics being human, religion being politics, religion is human.

Therefore, religion's human-ness contradicts Christianity's claim to being divine.
Click to expand...

You are basing your argument on the belief that if there is absolute proof you would be able to identify it. :rolleyes:

Please see the thread on absolute truth, which is lying around here somewhere..
 
M*W said:
Hebrew?
Click to expand...
Then why "translate and retranslate" it numerous times, if we still have the original Hebrew?
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head."
Click to expand...
There's an interesting practice behind this: in those days you needed to keep your fire burning if you didn't want to get stuck in the dark and cold. So they always kept hot coals burning in a bowl. If you needed coals, you would fetch them in this bowl, and carry them on your head (as is still done in most African countries). Heaping burning coals on his head is a gesture of benevolence. From the context it is impossible to deduce that it has a more sinister, almost spiteful, meaning. Not from what Paul is expressly saying. The person might be shamed by your helping him, but that's a matter of his conscience, not his punishment.

Now, on the topic of vengeance vs. punishment. I have have frequently explained that Israel was at that time the "hand of God" - through them, He exacted what only He could order. In ANE culture, the fate of the children were inextricably linked with their fathers. The parents and community had the duty to take care of their children and provide their future. What do you think happens to children whose parents had been killed in war? (In case nobody noticed, we do not live in that culture anymore - their inclusive judgment does not apply today, Jesus carried it for us). But you can see the same principle happening today: when "parents" fool around and their children are born outside a relationship of love, in circumstances their parents chose, often with venereal diseases they did not deserve. Sin affects children too, those who live in it should keep that in mind - their children might be prevented from finding salvation, and predisposed to continue the sins of their parents, bringing judgment on themselves.
 
southstar

I am not claiming anything about knowing what absolute proof is– I'm simply saying that no one understands everything, so there interpretation of the world is based on a belief that lacks absolute truth.

Here's an example:
I'm somewhat of a nihilist, and think that absolute truth cannot be found since it doesn't exist. This is simply a belief, there is not any proof to support my claim irrefutably, no any proof to destroy it utterly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top