Christianity's views on violent games?

You ignored my post if you posted this. They were fighting over which god was the right one since before our great grandfathers were thoughts. I suppose when Jehu butchered all the ball worshippers, he kinda setteled it for the undecided jewish nations ;).

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="buldog300"]

I hope you realize the only way into heaven is to accept christ, not by doing good or bad deeds. Deeds just determine how good you'll get it after judgement (treasures in heaven vs. treasures on earth which christ covered).

buldog300

If you want to get into heaven it's not. You said stab someone and then charity, as if that were balancing your odds; I just don't like anything that could lead to moral inaccuracy

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]And as we know, all sixteen-year-olds know on sight who is connected to God, and thus whether their religion is the right one.Funky_Llama

If it's customary for a bald man to be a prophet, and if you live in these customs and know perfectly well of them, then yeah, all sixteen-year-olds do know who is connected to God.:|

Right let me just pull out my big book of children and faith information... oh wait. Your asking for quite alot for a rather trivial arguement, don't you think? It doesn't matter what god you believe in if you piss off a holy man of the TRUE god, now does it?

At any rate, those children didn't walk down the street to jeer him, they walked pretty far, which means they went out of their way to antogonize this man. God didn't murder them, as that implies unlawful killing. God didn't kill them, two very angered mother bears did. This also helped elisha establish himself as a prophet in the area, did it not? Apparently it only offends your moral compass, because I fail to see what it wrong here. If a five year old was throwing rock at you, wouldn't you kick the crap out of him? Now multiply that to a group of kids the size of a small mob, and one unarmed holy man.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

If it's customary for a bald man to be a prophet, and if you live in these customs and know perfectly well of them, then yeah, all sixteen-year-olds do know who is connected to God.:|

Theokhoth

The fact that everyone had to follow that religion makes it pretty likely that the kids figured "Hey, this guy's a prophet."

And again, you act like this was nothing but being rude. . . .hard as it is for you to believe, it was a serious offence at the time. Just like if you went out and killed somebody you could be tried as an adult and be put to death, so the teens were. They were probably considered adults anyway.

[QUOTE="buldog300"]You ignored my post if you posted this. They were fighting over which god was the right one since before our great grandfathers were thoughts. I suppose when Jehu butchered all the ball worshippers, he kinda setteled it for the undecided jewish nations ;).

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Irrelevant.Funky_Llama

If you want to get into heaven it's not. You said stab someone and then charity, as if that were balancing your odds; I just don't like anything that could lead to moral inaccuracy

I know, and what I did was merely correct that because any innacuracy can lead to arguements like this later down the road. Look, let's just get back on topic.

The New Testament supercedes the Old Testament. When you take anything from the Bible out of context, you're automatically invalidating your point.abdelmessih101

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

If it's customary for a bald man to be a prophet, and if you live in these customs and know perfectly well of them, then yeah, all sixteen-year-olds do know who is connected to God.:|

buldog300

Right let me just pull out my big book of children and faith information... oh wait. Your asking for quite alot for a rather trivial arguement, don't you think? It doesn't matter what god you believe in if you piss off a holy man of the TRUE god, now does it?

At any rate, those children didn't walk down the street to jeer him, they walked pretty far, which means they went out of their way to antogonize this man. God didn't murder them, as that implies unlawful killing. God didn't kill them, two very angered mother bears did. This also helped elisha establish himself as a prophet in the area, did it not? Apparently it only offends your moral compass, because I fail to see what it wrong here. If a five year old was throwing rock at you, wouldn't you kick the crap out of him? Now multiply that to a group of kids the size of a small mob, and one unarmed holy man.

[QUOTE="Cherokee_Jack"]

It's hard to compress it all into what "Christians" think about violent games because everyone has their own opinion. The Bible obviously doesn't talk about games, so it's all up for debate.

Whicker89

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Where is the evidence that the children believed that the religion followed by the bald guy to be the right one? Secondly... this whole tangent is totally irrelevant. No just God would murder children for being rude to a prophet. Anyone with a functioning moral compass can see this.Funky_Llama

The fact that everyone had to follow that religion makes it pretty likely that the kids figured "Hey, this guy's a prophet."

And again, you act like this was nothing but being rude. . . .hard as it is for you to believe, it was a serious offence at the time. Just like if you went out and killed somebody you could be tried as an adult and be put to death, so the teens were. They were probably considered adults anyway.

No, they were probably just stupid. A teen can know the rules of driving but still drive like a dumbass and get himself killed.

This is ridiculous. No one in their right mind would fully expect to be murdered by God as a response to anything, let alone something as minor as this.

Minor only by your standards and your culture's standards. Things are cushier now than they used to be. Ever take an anthropology course?

Divine intervention is hardly common.

Irrelevant.

It IS nothing but being rude.

"Being rude" was a big deal.

It may have been considered a serious offence, but that doesn't mean it was genuinely that bad.

No, but people are expected to go by what they believe, not what is, if you can pinpoint what the "is" is.

And as for their age... "And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head." (emphasis added) Where's your source for them being teens?

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qmeanelisha.html

The Hebrew expression neurim qetannim is best rendered 'young lads' or 'young men.' From numerous examples where ages are specified in the Old Testament, we know that these were boys from twelve to thirty years old. One of these words described Isaac at his sacrifice in Genesis 22:12, when he was easily in his early twenties. It described Joseph in Genesis 37:2 when he was seventeen years old. In fact, the same word described army men in 1 Kings 20:14-15...these are young men ages between twelve and thirty.

[QUOTE="abdelmessih101"]The New Testament supercedes the Old Testament. When you take anything from the Bible out of context, you're automatically invalidating your point.foxhound_fox

They must have.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Where is the evidence that the children believed that the religion followed by the bald guy to be the right one? Secondly... this whole tangent is totally irrelevant. No just God would murder children for being rude to a prophet. Anyone with a functioning moral compass can see this.Funky_Llama

The fact that everyone had to follow that religion makes it pretty likely that the kids figured "Hey, this guy's a prophet."

And again, you act like this was nothing but being rude. . . .hard as it is for you to believe, it was a serious offence at the time. Just like if you went out and killed somebody you could be tried as an adult and be put to death, so the teens were. They were probably considered adults anyway.

This is rediculous to a liberal atheist living in the 21st century, not a GROUP of children who had learned jewish law, and in bible it says youth. Now I'll give you that in jewish culture, a thirteen year old is a man, but that doesn't mean they aren't young men. They might have turned their head to a follower of Baal, but of all the false prophets that must've went through their town, they decided to antagonize the real one. If you read jewishlaw at the time, you'd learn that they weren't so lienient (and that is an understatement) towards offenders of any kind.

It's hard to compress it all into what "Christians" think about violent games because everyone has their own opinion. The Bible obviously doesn't talk about games, so it's all up for debate.

Cherokee_Jack

They didn't expect humans to get that far to games.

[QUOTE="Cherokee_Jack"]

It's hard to compress it all into what "Christians" think about violent games because everyone has their own opinion. The Bible obviously doesn't talk about games, so it's all up for debate.

Makemap

They didn't expect humans to get that far to games.

They didn't have any idea as to what a "game" was. >_>

[QUOTE="buldog300"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Where is the evidence that the children believed that the religion followed by the bald guy to be the right one? Secondly... this whole tangent is totally irrelevant. No just God would murder children for being rude to a prophet. Anyone with a functioning moral compass can see this.Funky_Llama

Right let me just pull out my big book of children and faith information... oh wait. Your asking for quite alot for a rather trivial arguement, don't you think? It doesn't matter what god you believe in if you piss off a holy man of the TRUE god, now does it?

At any rate, those children didn't walk down the street to jeer him, they walked pretty far, which means they went out of their way to antogonize this man. God didn't murder them, as that implies unlawful killing. God didn't kill them, two very angered mother bears did. This also helped elisha establish himself as a prophet in the area, did it not? Apparently it only offends your moral compass, because I fail to see what it wrong here. If a five year old was throwing rock at you, wouldn't you kick the crap out of him? Now multiply that to a group of kids the size of a small mob, and one unarmed holy man.

God does restrain people, the enemies of the jews infact. Latter on in that boko, he blinds several thousand enemy soldiers, which the jewish king then feeds and sends them on their way. This infuriates the enemy kind. Now why would god punish his own and not the enemy? Maybe because he expects more from his chosen people!

Alright, so if I hypothetically walked all the way to where you lived, cursed you out and threatened your life, you wouldn't do anything about it. Note: thepolice can't help you. I bet you'd say no, and then I'd call you a coward who will get walked all over in this world, but then I'd be jumping ahead in the arguement.

[QUOTE="Makemap"][QUOTE="Cherokee_Jack"]

It's hard to compress it all into what "Christians" think about violent games because everyone has their own opinion. The Bible obviously doesn't talk about games, so it's all up for debate.

Theokhoth

They didn't expect humans to get that far to games.

They didn't have any idea as to what a "game" was. >_>

not in our sense of the word.They had dradles, but dradles didn't explode or teachwrong morals.

[QUOTE="Whicker89"][QUOTE="Cherokee_Jack"]

It's hard to compress it all into what "Christians" think about violent games because everyone has their own opinion. The Bible obviously doesn't talk about games, so it's all up for debate.

jesseandnikki

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

The fact that everyone had to follow that religion makes it pretty likely that the kids figured "Hey, this guy's a prophet."

And again, you act like this was nothing but being rude. . . .hard as it is for you to believe, it was a serious offence at the time. Just like if you went out and killed somebody you could be tried as an adult and be put to death, so the teens were. They were probably considered adults anyway.

Theokhoth

No, they were probably just stupid. A teen can know the rules of driving but still drive like a dumbass and get himself killed.

And the parallel here would be me ramming someone off the road because they didn't know the rules of driving. >__>

This is ridiculous. No one in their right mind would fully expect to be murdered by God as a response to anything, let alone something as minor as this.

Minor only by your standards and your culture's standards. Things are cushier now than they used to be. Ever take an anthropology course?

All it boils down to, then, is this: can you justify it?

Divine intervention is hardly common.

Irrelevant.

No. It meant they had no reason to expect to die, despite claims to the contrary.

It IS nothing but being rude.

"Being rude" was a big deal.

A big deal only by their standards and their culture's standards. ;)

It may have been considered a serious offence, but that doesn't mean it was genuinely that bad.

No, but people are expected to go by what they believe, not what is, if you can pinpoint what the "is" is.

They are indeed, but this is God we're talking about. Justification based on culture of the time hardly cuts the mustard.

And as for their age... "And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head." (emphasis added) Where's your source for them being teens?

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qmeanelisha.html

The Hebrew expression neurim qetannim is best rendered 'young lads' or 'young men.' From numerous examples where ages are specified in the Old Testament, we know that these were boys from twelve to thirty years old. One of these words described Isaac at his sacrifice in Genesis 22:12, when he was easily in his early twenties. It described Joseph in Genesis 37:2 when he was seventeen years old. In fact, the same word described army men in 1 Kings 20:14-15...these are young men ages between twelve and thirty.

Meh. Their age is irrelevant; no one deserves death for such a minor offence. Oh, and another thing - why it is best rendered like that?

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Makemap"]

They didn't expect humans to get that far to games.

buldog300

They didn't have any idea as to what a "game" was. >_>

not in our sense of the word.They had dradles, but dradles didn't explode or teachwrong morals.

[QUOTE="jesseandnikki"][QUOTE="Whicker89"]Just wait till they edit it again, then videogames'll be in there somewhereWhicker89

it is. Our technology may be getting better and better, but a hooker is still a hooker, a thief is still a thief, and misguided morals are still misguided morals no matter how they're delivered (word of mouth, tv, video games, ect.).

[QUOTE="buldog300"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

They didn't have any idea as to what a "game" was. >_>

Theokhoth

not in our sense of the word.They had dradles, but dradles didn't explode or teachwrong morals.

I meant videogames.

I know. I'm just illustrating thepoint that entertainment was different with an amusing conjecture.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="buldog300"]

Right let me just pull out my big book of children and faith information... oh wait. Your asking for quite alot for a rather trivial arguement, don't you think? It doesn't matter what god you believe in if you piss off a holy man of the TRUE god, now does it?

At any rate, those children didn't walk down the street to jeer him, they walked pretty far, which means they went out of their way to antogonize this man. God didn't murder them, as that implies unlawful killing. God didn't kill them, two very angered mother bears did. This also helped elisha establish himself as a prophet in the area, did it not? Apparently it only offends your moral compass, because I fail to see what it wrong here. If a five year old was throwing rock at you, wouldn't you kick the crap out of him? Now multiply that to a group of kids the size of a small mob, and one unarmed holy man.

buldog300

God does restrain people, the enemies of the jews infact. Latter on in that boko, he blinds several thousand enemy soldiers, which the jewish king then feeds and sends them on their way. This infuriates the enemy kind. Now why would god punish his own and not the enemy? Maybe because he expects more from his chosen people!

Alright, so if I hypothetically walked all the way to where you lived, cursed you out and threatened your life, you wouldn't do anything about it. Note: thepolice can't help you. I bet you'd say no, and then I'd call you a coward who will get walked all over in this world, but then I'd be jumping ahead in the arguement.

If we can watch horror movie and porn,then why not play them.I say have fun.people64

um porn... yeah, I don't think porn counts as moral, but I see your point.

[QUOTE="people64"]If we can watch horror movie and porn,then why not play them.I say have fun.buldog300

um porn... yeah, I don't think porn counts as moral, but I see your point.

And the parallel here would be me ramming someone off the road because they didn't know the rules of driving. >__>

No, the parallel is running yourself off the road for not knowing, then blaming the guy who was following the rules but got in your way, causing you to swerve too fast and fall off the bridge.>___>

All it boils down to, then, is this: can you justify it?

Today? No. How often do you hear of God sending bears down to Earth to eat rude kids today? But if I lived back then, yes I could justify it, and easily.

No. It meant they had no reason to expect to die, despite claims to the contrary.

They knew the customs, believed God exists, and had just been through a miracle themselves. They knew what they were doing, and in any case, even if they didn't, that does not excuse them any more than if I disrespected a king I don't worship.

A big deal only by their standards and their culture's standards. ;)

Since they lived in their culture and with their culture's standards, that's relevant to their actions and their repercussions.:|

They are indeed, but this is God we're talking about. Justification based on culture of the time hardly cuts the mustard.

Did you even read the article I gave you? >_>

Meh. Their age is irrelevant; no one deserves death for such a minor offence.

Moving the goalpost. One second it is relevant, then it isn't?;) It wasn't a minor offence. You never really answered me; have you ever taken an anthropology course?

Oh, and another thing - why it is best rendered like that?

The article goes into that detail. . . .I'd rather not re-write it.

Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="buldog300"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]'God didn't kill them'... I'll have to try that excuse in the future. 'I didn't hit him, my fist did.' :lol: And no, I would NOT kick the crap out of a five-year-old for throwing a rock at me. :| I would restrain him as non-violently as possible, which would of course be entirely possible for an omnipotent God.Funky_Llama

God does restrain people, the enemies of the jews infact. Latter on in that boko, he blinds several thousand enemy soldiers, which the jewish king then feeds and sends them on their way. This infuriates the enemy kind. Now why would god punish his own and not the enemy? Maybe because he expects more from his chosen people!

Alright, so if I hypothetically walked all the way to where you lived, cursed you out and threatened your life, you wouldn't do anything about it. Note: thepolice can't help you. I bet you'd say no, and then I'd call you a coward who will get walked all over in this world, but then I'd be jumping ahead in the arguement.

You were the one who made them interchangable, not me. You asked why god didn't just detain them, and I gave you the answer.

Not murder, you'd only get in trouble because our laws are different, and what do you think would happen next? When does a group harrassing a single just leave it at that, ever? Yeah, looks like we all covered this ground already, so now we are going in circles. Grates.

[QUOTE="buldog300"]

[QUOTE="people64"]If we can watch horror movie and porn,then why not play them.I say have fun.Funky_Llama

um porn... yeah, I don't think porn counts as moral, but I see your point.

now you're just being silly. Lust = sin.

[QUOTE="Whicker89"][QUOTE="jesseandnikki"] The Bible hasn't been edited. It's just been translated a lot and some things get lost in translation. buldog300

it is. Our technology may be getting better and better, but a hooker is still a hooker, a thief is still a thief, and misguided morals are still misguided morals no matter how they're delivered (word of mouth, tv, video games, ect.).

[QUOTE="abdelmessih101"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Yes. I eagerly await your point.buldog300

It's out of context because foxhound_fox took the Old Testament out of the context of the whole Bible and tried to claim that Christianity being anti-violent is hypocritical. In the context of the whole Bible, Old Testament and New, Christianity in no way condones violence. That's why his point is invalid.

So obviously they omit things because they translated it wrong to begin with? or you either saying people are stupidly putting their faith into a book which translation is mediocre at bestWhicker89

What is omitted?

[QUOTE="buldog300"][QUOTE="Whicker89"]Yeah thats the reason :roll:Whicker89

it is. Our technology may be getting better and better, but a hooker is still a hooker, a thief is still a thief, and misguided morals are still misguided morals no matter how they're delivered (word of mouth, tv, video games, ect.).

lolwat? I'm saying things intepreted can be applied because sins never truly change.Read more first post for more info kind sir.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

And the parallel here would be me ramming someone off the road because they didn't know the rules of driving. >__>

No, the parallel is running yourself off the road for not knowing, then blaming the guy who was following the rules but got in your way, causing you to swerve too fast and fall off the bridge.>___>

No it isn't. I'm pretty sure they didn't maul themselves. >____>And according to that article you gave, the event took place around a 'cult city'. Which means the perpetrators quite possibly did not believe that Elisha's God even existed.

All it boils down to, then, is this: can you justify it?

Today? No. How often do you hear of God sending bears down to Earth to eat rude kids today? But if I lived back then, yes I could justify it, and easily.

Now that sounds like moral relativism to me. *eyes Theokhoth suspiciously*

No. It meant they had no reason to expect to die, despite claims to the contrary.

They knew the customs, believed God exists, and had just been through a miracle themselves. They knew what they were doing, and in any case, even if they didn't, that does not excuse them any more than if I disrespected a king I don't worship.

Oh, I'm not saying that they had an excuse - what they did was undoutedly wrong. But God's response makes a mockery of any notion of proportionate punishment.

A big deal only by their standards and their culture's standards. ;)

Since they lived in their culture and with their culture's standards, that's relevant to their actions and their repercussions.:|

So morality is defined by culture?

They are indeed, but this is God we're talking about. Justification based on culture of the time hardly cuts the mustard.

Did you even read the article I gave you? >_>

Um... part of it. >__>

Meh. Their age is irrelevant; no one deserves death for such a minor offence.

Moving the goalpost. One second it is relevant, then it isn't?;) It wasn't a minor offence. You never really answered me; have you ever taken an anthropology course?

When did I say it was relevant? And in answer to your question, which I assumed it to be rhetorical, no.

Oh, and another thing - why it is best rendered like that?

The article goes into that detail. . . .I'd rather not re-write it.

It just gives an example of how it's used to refer to an older person. Words can have more than one meaning, you know. >__>

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Whicker89"][QUOTE="buldog300"]

it is. Our technology may be getting better and better, but a hooker is still a hooker, a thief is still a thief, and misguided morals are still misguided morals no matter how they're delivered (word of mouth, tv, video games, ect.).

buldog300

lolwat? I'm saying things intepreted can be applied because sins never truly change.Read more first post for more info kind sir.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="buldog300"]

God does restrain people, the enemies of the jews infact. Latter on in that boko, he blinds several thousand enemy soldiers, which the jewish king then feeds and sends them on their way. This infuriates the enemy kind. Now why would god punish his own and not the enemy? Maybe because he expects more from his chosen people!

Alright, so if I hypothetically walked all the way to where you lived, cursed you out and threatened your life, you wouldn't do anything about it. Note: thepolice can't help you. I bet you'd say no, and then I'd call you a coward who will get walked all over in this world, but then I'd be jumping ahead in the arguement.

buldog300

You were the one who made them interchangable, not me. You asked why god didn't just detain them, and I gave you the answer.

Not murder, you'd only get in trouble because our laws are different, and what do you think would happen next? When does a group harrassing a single just leave it at that, ever? Yeah, looks like we all covered this ground already, so now we are going in circles. Grates.

Don't patronize me when you were the one who misunderstood my point.

It's out of context because foxhound_fox took the Old Testament out of the context of the whole Bible and tried to claim that Christianity being anti-violent is hypocritical. In the context of the whole Bible, Old Testament and New, Christianity in no way condones violence. That's why his point is invalid.

abdelmessih101

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="buldog300"]

um porn... yeah, I don't think porn counts as moral, but I see your point.

buldog300

now you're just being silly. Lust = sin.

What's wrong with lust?Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="abdelmessih101"]The New Testament supercedes the Old Testament. When you take anything from the Bible out of context, you're automatically invalidating your point.abdelmessih101

It's out of context because foxhound_fox took the Old Testament out of the context of the whole Bible and tried to claim that Christianity being anti-violent is hypocritical. In the context of the whole Bible, Old Testament and New, Christianity in no way condones violence. That's why his point is invalid.

Considering the fact that violent videogames didn't exist 2,000 years ago, the Bible is mum on that subject. Real-life violence is, of course, a no-no, but simulated violence? If I were the one making the rules (which I'm not, but hey, we can dream), then I think violent videogames would be all right provided that they are not played by children or other impressionable people and that the person(s) playing them don't get any bad ideas.Theokhoth

Llama and theokoth always have the most epic-est of battles. I find them more entertaining than people out trying to disprove a religion.3eyedrazorback

Eye no, rite? I just wish we weren't both so goddamn stubborn. >_>

*Sigh* I guess I'll go on to his post now. . .

[QUOTE="3eyedrazorback"]Llama and theokoth always have the most epic-est of battles. I find them more entertaining than people out trying to disprove a religion.Theokhoth

Eye no, rite? I just wish we weren't both so goddamn stubborn. >_>

*Sigh* I guess I'll go on to his post now. . .

[QUOTE="abdelmessih101"]Don't patronize me when you were the one who misunderstood my point.

It's out of context because foxhound_fox took the Old Testament out of the context of the whole Bible and tried to claim that Christianity being anti-violent is hypocritical. In the context of the whole Bible, Old Testament and New, Christianity in no way condones violence. That's why his point is invalid.

foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

And the parallel here would be me ramming someone off the road because they didn't know the rules of driving. >__>

No, the parallel is running yourself off the road for not knowing, then blaming the guy who was following the rules but got in your way, causing you to swerve too fast and fall off the bridge.>___>

No it isn't. I'm pretty sure they didn't maul themselves. >____>And according to that article you gave, the event took place around a 'cult city'. Which means the perpetrators quite possibly did not believe that Elisha's God even existed.

All it boils down to, then, is this: can you justify it?

Today? No. How often do you hear of God sending bears down to Earth to eat rude kids today? But if I lived back then, yes I could justify it, and easily.

Now that sounds like moral relativism to me. *eyes Theokhoth suspiciously*

No. It meant they had no reason to expect to die, despite claims to the contrary.

They knew the customs, believed God exists, and had just been through a miracle themselves. They knew what they were doing, and in any case, even if they didn't, that does not excuse them any more than if I disrespected a king I don't worship.

Oh, I'm not saying that they had an excuse - what they did was undoutedly wrong. But God's response makes a mockery of any notion of proportionate punishment.

A big deal only by their standards and their culture's standards. ;)

Since they lived in their culture and with their culture's standards, that's relevant to their actions and their repercussions.:|

So morality is defined by culture?

They are indeed, but this is God we're talking about. Justification based on culture of the time hardly cuts the mustard.

Did you even read the article I gave you? >_>

Um... part of it. >__>

Meh. Their age is irrelevant; no one deserves death for such a minor offence.

Moving the goalpost. One second it is relevant, then it isn't?;) It wasn't a minor offence. You never really answered me; have you ever taken an anthropology course?

When did I say it was relevant? And in answer to your question, which I assumed it to be rhetorical, no.

Oh, and another thing - why it is best rendered like that?

The article goes into that detail. . . .I'd rather not re-write it.

It just gives an example of how it's used to refer to an older person. Words can have more than one meaning, you know. >__>

Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="buldog300"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="buldog300"]

God does restrain people, the enemies of the jews infact. Latter on in that boko, he blinds several thousand enemy soldiers, which the jewish king then feeds and sends them on their way. This infuriates the enemy kind. Now why would god punish his own and not the enemy? Maybe because he expects more from his chosen people!

Alright, so if I hypothetically walked all the way to where you lived, cursed you out and threatened your life, you wouldn't do anything about it. Note: thepolice can't help you. I bet you'd say no, and then I'd call you a coward who will get walked all over in this world, but then I'd be jumping ahead in the arguement.

Funky_Llama

You were the one who made them interchangable, not me. You asked why god didn't just detain them, and I gave you the answer.

Not murder, you'd only get in trouble because our laws are different, and what do you think would happen next? When does a group harrassing a single just leave it at that, ever? Yeah, looks like we all covered this ground already, so now we are going in circles. Grates.

You ever been arrested for dui? Probably not, but the fines here are weak compared to the ones in the middle east (which is death). Guess how many duis they get over there when the punishment is death?

[QUOTE="buldog300"][QUOTE="Whicker89"][QUOTE="buldog300"]

it is. Our technology may be getting better and better, but a hooker is still a hooker, a thief is still a thief, and misguided morals are still misguided morals no matter how they're delivered (word of mouth, tv, video games, ect.).

Whicker89

lolwat? I'm saying things intepreted can be applied because sins never truly change.Read more first post for more info kind sir.

Christianity has no view on the subject, as simple as that.123625

but they do have a stance for morality, as being the salt of the earth (perserving it), and if somethnig is immoral, it is our job to say it's not right.

Why do people think that because video games didn't exist back then, the bible doesn't have a stance? Video games are a form of amusement, and they are also a way to get a message across. The bible has plenty of things to say about methods of getting messages across and amusement.Like I said, technology develops, but sins never change.

Llama and theokoth always have the most epic-est of battles. I find them more entertaining than people out trying to disprove a religion.3eyedrazorback

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="buldog300"]

lolwat? I'm saying things intepreted can be applied because sins never truly change.Read more first post for more info kind sir.

buldog300

[QUOTE="3eyedrazorback"]Llama and theokoth always have the most epic-est of battles. I find them more entertaining than people out trying to disprove a religion.LJS9502_basic