Del:

Sorry. I specifically mentioned the infants and
sucklings ONLY. So tell me, what did the infants
and sucklings do to the Jews?

Smith:

They were born to the Amalekite s

So what they did to the Jews was to be born
Amalekite?

Apparently so, however you can read the account for yourself to see

have a bet ter idea.

Smith:

and would obviously continue the trend.

Oh yeah, very "obvious." Does this also apply to
the Midianite children?

I do not know in what context you are speaking.

It seems to me, neither do
you.

Del:

What chance did _they_ have to learn the truth and to
make decisions for themselves?

Smith:

They had none, for their parents would certainl y not teach them.

Since this is the reason you give for opposing
abortion: the aborted one will have no chance
to learn the truth and to make decisions for
themselves, then abortion must be ok with you
if the prospective parents would not teach
them the truth, right?

You are wrong, and make wild unsupported accusation.

Smith:

This is what Jehovah of armies has said, 'I must call to account

what

Am Ža·lek did to Israel when he set himself against him in the

way

w hile he

was coming up out of Egypt.

Del:

And how ma ny years previous did this take place? Do
you know?

Smith:

1513 BCE was the exodus from Egypt and 1070 BCE was about the year

that King David finally annihilated all the Amalekites. Why do you

I will explain it to you. You s ee, the Bible God is
claimed to be merciful and quick to forgive. Did
you know that? Now, do you see a problem with
this claim and "God" holding a grudge for about
450 years? Think about it for a while. It should
also be obvious to someone of even average mind
that whatever the Amalekites may have done to
the Israelites in the wilderness, the Amalekites
living 450 years later were not responsible for it.

You do not even understand anything about the Bible do you?

If you did you
would know that the Amalekites opposed the "chosen" people at every

Also, it is not seemly for you to imply anything improper, for your

Oh, and BTW, your claim that the attack was
unprovoked is false witnessing. The children of
Israel allegedly numbered upwards of 3 million
with an army of 600,000. They invaded the
Amalekites land without permission. That
sounds like provocation to me. So frankly, I'm
not impressed with your level of scholarship or
your veracity.

Permission?

As if that was required?

Your census seems dated,

and your claim unproven,

so I am not impressed at all with your claims.

Smith Computer wrote:

<

Smith Computer wrote:

"Olrik"

One sentence, three errors :
- You don't have the truth. "The truth" is a specious philosophical

concept.

- Atheism is not a religion.
- Everyone supports knowledge and education, except fundies like you who
view such things as detrimental.

When I remark about the "truth" in most cases I am referring to the

position

an individual takes in relation to the Creator which is represented by
complete confidence in what the Bible indicates and testing same in the
limited physical world that we are able to discern.

You can't declare your beliefs to be "the truth" for everyone. They're
only yours.

As I said....any individual who takes the above position.

There you go again, seeing "the truth" in your old book. But billions of
people of other faiths, like muslins and hindus, also possess "the
truth". This is where beliefs and religions collapse when confronted
with reality.

A religion is defined by a cause, principle, or activity pursued with

zeal

or conscientious devotion. Atheism has all of these.

Sure. So's a chess club or a political party. Redefining religion to be
so large as to include any activity between two or more people is not
very constructive.

It is not my definition. Your argument appears to be with Webster.

I'm not going to argue linguistics here. The word "religion", like many
other words, has more than one meaning :

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Religion

When I talk about religion, I talk about the first definition. The
fourth one, which is like the quote you posted, is quite broad and can
very well include political parties or any other associations. At that
point, the debate becomes utterly meaningless.

I have no idea what a fundie is, however most religions promote

ignorance.

A religious "fundie", short for "fundamentalist", is someone who takes a
"sacred text", like the bible, to be literaly true. It seems like you
are one of those.

There are texts in the Bible which are literal, and many that are not. How
should one be defined that examines the Bible in accordance with reality in
order to determine the difference?

You just pick and chose, don't you? Where's your guide to determine
which parts are literal from those who are not?

You read an old book, found it "cool", then decided that everything in
it is true without checking first if it made any sense. Funny.

I read accepted canon, and tested it to be certain everything I could

test

was true.
It was.

And what *did* you test? There's almost nothing to objectively test in
the bible. Genesis? Adam & Eve? Talking serpents? The flood? Burning
bushes? What?

Yes, there most certainly is. Now if you are asking if I have found some
physical proof of the burning bush, talking serpants and other things, the
answer is no, however in examing all the scripture and not just part of it I
find many reasons to believe what is being said.

There are lots of novels which contain very accurate descriptions of
real people, cities, historical events, etc. Should I then believe that
everything else in the novel be true? Of course not. The same process
applies to the bible.

It is of vital importance
that what I discern from the Word, be based in accuracy and not on mere
human speculations or religious creeds. I feel like the apostle Paul when he
expressed himself under inspiration: "Let God be found true, though every
man be found a liar." (Romans 3:4, New World Translation)

That is an horrible thought. I'm pretty sure the Inquisition found it
inspiring.

When it comes to
teachings offered as Biblical truth, I tend to endorse the course followed
by the Beroeans when they heard the apostle Paul preach: "They received the
word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures
daily as to whether these things were so." (Acts 17:11) The Creator's people
believe that all religious teachings should be subjected to this test of
agreement with the inspired Scriptures, whether the teaching is offered by
them or by someone else. From this it is apparent that I believe in the
Bible as the Word of God. I consider its 66 books to be inspired and
historically accurate. What is commonly called the New Testament I refer to
as the Greek Scriptures, and the Old Testament I call the Hebrew Scriptures.
I have studied both of these, the Greek and the Hebrew Scriptures, including
the language derivatives and take them literally except where the
expressions or settings obviously indicate that they are figurative or
symbolic. I understand and affirm that many of the prophecies of the Bible
have been fulfilled, others are in the course of fulfillment, and still
others await fulfillment.

Amusingly, hundreds of years have passed since these texts existed, and
thousands of scholars, translators, exegetes, priests, historians,
archeologists, etc., have been dissecting, analysing, translating and
interpreting the bible, and nothing ever came out of it except sects,
wars, dissension, intolerance and other very nasty stuff.

Of course, *you* have "the truth". You must be quite the genius. If only
the whole planet was listening to you...

But you do. Please take your time in answering these :
1- Prove to me that your "god" is real;
2- Prove to me that all the other gods we humans invented are not.

Real is a term used by most to mean .....being or occurring in fact or
actuality while having verifiable existence, and no, the Creator does

not

fit into that definition, however the Creator is quite authentic and

genuine

to be sure.

Only in your mind.

It is my personal faith, actually, as if must be for those who form a
relationship with him.

So it *is* all in your mind.

Other gods, do not interest me and I have no intention of researching

them

more than I already have.

They may be as "real" as the one you worship. Other people believe in
them, and those people are as sure as you are that they hold "the
truth". Think about it.

I have no reason to pursue a course in futility, as my current course and
study has brought me to the conclusion that has surpassed such empty
speculation.

Believers all say that. Your "truth" is blasphemy to other creeds and
beliefs.

Of course. The hard part is to determine if they're right. It's called
science. You, OTOH, take the bible, declare it to be the universal
"truth" and you're done. That's faith, that's ignorance and it's not
very intelligent.

Science has no method that can determine even the age of the universe,

let

alone it's creation. Ignorance in this case, is simply the inability to
prove belief.

Science is not static. Sometimes I wonder if people like you dislike
science (or at least the parts that "conflict" with the bible, like
cosmology and evolution), because it's an on-going process, and rarely
if ever offers certitude.

I love science, very much and study most of it's many branches with
enthusiasm. I see some minor conflicts however none that are so great the
chasm can not be bridged by wisdom and reasoning.

The "chasms" will be bridged by evidence and scientific experiments, not
by "wisdom".

The age of the universe has been calculated to be between 13 and 20
billions years old. The apparent disparity is caused mainly because the
theories are still being perfected, and the instruments measuring the
universe are not powerful enough, too difficult to make yet, or are not
being funded.

We agree, however the fact remains that in most cases science is just not
accurate or refined enough to prove or disprove the age of the universe or
how man came to be.

Maybe. But as I said earlier, you seem like someone who likes to have
all the answers right now. You like to have certitudes.

Whatever you believe in, don't mix religion with science. They are not
complementary, and they can run side by side.

I tend to view both in stereoscopic vision, and adjust my thinking as needed
when new light is presented which demands a different view. However, it
should be noted that I am very particular about the accuracy of such light
and it's resultant reflection.

I'm sure you are. You seem to have "bible glasses".

True. But most of them, throughout history, were religious or exhibited
religious-like behaviours : they all professed to hold "the truth". Hint
hint.
Much hatred in this world is religious in nature.

We agree in this point, however the real truth should be evident to

every

eye.

Well, it seems that it's not!
Your "real truth" is another's blasphemy. If what you believe in was as
real as gravity, we would not have this discussion.

Having studied human behaviour in general for many years, I have come to the
conslusion that many have predispositions which intercepts certain things I
hold as truth, and because they do not have the experiences or the benefit
of background, they ignore it or pretend it is not there.

The bible is not "background". Nor is it knowledge, wisdom or is it even
historically accurate. It represents the views of goat herders.

Justice is civilized revenge. So yes, it can be vindictive. Just read
your bible, for crying out loud.

Justice is the principle of moral rightnessor equity, and it is in the
dictionary.

Sure. It's a nice principle. I'd like to see justice done properly, but
nothing is simple. For example, after an execution in the USA, the
victim's family say : "Justice has been done". In my country, where
capital punishement is banned, when a murderer has been sentenced to 25
years in prison, the victim's family say : "Justice has been done".
Spooky.

Justice, is relative to man, it seems. It takes considerable wisdom and
understanding to exact justice. I believe that you are accurate in your
view that justice is not the same to all people.

"He" is only a concept. We can hypothesize or suppose anything.

Yes, we can, and we can also read the signs which point to that time

being

close at hand.

Yeah, sure. The rapture, the second coming, Armageddon, they're all
"close at hand". They're *always* going to happen in the believer's life
time-frame. That always crack me up.

The fact is that all the signs that point to the end have all happened
before. Those can be discerned and are known. What we see today, is
considerably different in that all those things are now occuring together in
one generation.

I don't know what you're talking about. Please rephrase that.

You are welcome to consume as you will.

It's been tried, but I barfed it up. Indigestible.

Maybe a little wine would help.

Tonight, it's a nice beer.

Have you tried Modelo, or can you get that brand there?

"Negra Modelo"? No, I don't. It seems spanish from what I can tell.

No. It simply *is*. *We* speculate about its origins.

That the universe had a beginning seems to be the current thinking.

Yes. The theory is called the "Big Bang".

Now, if we could just prove what started that process and how it was
designed to generate what we are in evidence of today.

You seem to absolutely want a "will" behind the "creation", while
there's nothing in physics that precludes the current theories
(singularity, multi-verse, etc.).

Indeed. But that's not what you want, now, does it? You want to know
where you come from and where you're headed. Your answer is : "From god,
to paradise".

But the fact remains, these are merely old species that some scientists has
decided that there is enough difference in the adaptation that he can give
it a new name. My question is where are the differences in the fossil
record which supports the idea of mankind having evolved from lower animal
life?

Just everywhere. In our genes and in the fossil record.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

But I guess that you'll never be satisfied with the science behind
evolution. There will never be enough fossils to satisfy you, the
datation techniques will never be accurate enough, and nothing will
satisfy you unless it's in concordance with your bible.

Believing in myths has been shown to be quite harmful to our species.

Myths yes, truth no.

Your "truth" is alien to the vast majority of people on this planet.

That may be, however I can not forsake the truth, until a greater truth
presents itself.

You just said that you don't believe in your "truth" (or have trouble
with it), because there's a possibility that a "greater truth" may show
up. What do you have in mind?

"The soul that is sinning-it itself will die."
The Smitty

--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division

"Olrik"

do you claim that your God
loves or hates the sinner?

He loves those who repent from sin, and he gave his son, because he

loved

all those humans who had lived and those who were yet to come who would

be born into sin. In that every person on the planet is a sinner, I must

answer your question in this manner. He loves all people.

Why did your "god" created us in the first place?

According to the scriptures, it was to subdue the earth. That measn to turn
the entire earth into a pardise.

For not the way man sees [is the way God sees], because mere man sees what
appears to the eyes

Why did your "god" created us in the first place?

Smith Computer wrote:

<* US *>

do you claim that your God
loves or hates the sinner?

He loves those who repent from sin, and he gave his son, because he loved
all those humans who had lived and those who were yet to come who would be
born into sin. In that every person on the planet is a sinner, I must
answer your question in this manner. He loves all people.

Why did your "god" created us in the first place?

<* US *>

do you claim that your God
loves or hates the sinner?

He loves those who repent from sin, and he gave his son,

because he loved
all those humans who had lived and those who were yet to come who would be
born into sin.

In that every person on the planet is a sinner, I must
answer your question in this manner. He loves all people.

For not the way man sees [is the way God sees], because mere man sees what
appears to the eyes

The Smitty