-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God and homosexuality.
- Thread starter leov
- Start date
Moz
Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
Hi. Back to it being propaganda. Ok, but that is not the whole story ,the Romans did not sow too many places with salt because of their hate.
I"m not sure if your being smart or what with the Assyrian thing. Surely to even broach this subject you'd have some grounding in the history of the period. Anyway...... here a taste
How cruel were the Assyrian Kings? What were there reasons? And finally, what were the effects of such cruelty they exemplified?
Many Kings of Assyrian had displayed proudly their cruelty towards their enemies. Sometimes in reliefs or in their annals, New Assyrian gave detail of their gory exploits against their opponents. King Ashurnasirpal laid out many of his sadistic activities in one of his annals. He liked burning, skinning, and decapitating his enemies. When he defeated a rebelling city, he made sure they pay a huge price. Disobedient cities were destroyed and razed to the ground with fire, with their wealth and all material riches taken by the king. Their youth and women were either burned alive or made into slaves or placed into the harem. In the City of Nistun, Ashurnasirpal showed how he cut of the heads of 260 rebelling soldiers and piled it together. Their leader named Bubu suffered horrific punishment. He was flayed and his skin was placed in the walls of Arbail. In the city of Suri, rebelling nobles were also skinned and were displayed like trophies. Some skin were left to rot but some were placed in a stake. Officials of the city suffered decapitation of their limbs. The leader of the Suri rebellion, Ahiyababa, underwent flaying and his skin was then placed in the walls of Niniveh. After Ashurnasirpal defeated the city of Tila, he ordered to cut the hands and feet of the soldiers of the fallen city. Other than that, some soldiers found themselves without noses and ears. But also, many defeated soldiers had their eyes gouged out. The heads of the leaders of the Tila were hang in the trees around the city.
King Ashurnasirpal was actually an average Assyrian King their were a lot worse. All this is done to glory of Ashur. Better to fall into Jewish hands than Assryian any day of the week.
These are the types, by the way, that you suggest a Geneva convention like arrangement would have worked on.
peace
You still haven't shown an example of a deity commanding that a genocide takes place. What you posted is more the exaggerated boasting of the sacking of a city, not targeted extermination. Also, a deity accepting a sacrifice is a far cry from that deity ordering it to happen in the first place.
When I mentioned the Geneva Conventions, I thought you were asking me what I'd want done now. I don't judge the ancients for what they did.
Moz
Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
Hi.
I don't judge the ancients for what they did.
It seems this whole discussion has been you judging them
Look up the Assyrian reliefs, you will see Ashur smiling down on the decapitated heads of captives. They CARVED IT IN STONE they were that proud of their God's military might. You do realise that they attributed victory to their God don't you?
Also, a deity accepting a sacrifice is a far cry from that deity ordering it to happen in the first place.
[When] the god Ashur sent [me] to the lands [Nairi and] the lands on the coast of the [Upper] Sea; (when) I swept over with my raging warfare; (when) I conquered ...
Their are dozens of these . Look up -: Assryian Royal Inscriptions by Albert Grayson and read plenty of them yourself if you want.
You thought i was asking what should happen to modern day prisoners of war.... really?
Anyway... were ok with "slaughter or slavery" as the only available option now are we?
Oh and this is not exaggerated boasting it's what they did.
Peace
I don't judge the ancients for what they did.
It seems this whole discussion has been you judging them
Look up the Assyrian reliefs, you will see Ashur smiling down on the decapitated heads of captives. They CARVED IT IN STONE they were that proud of their God's military might. You do realise that they attributed victory to their God don't you?
Also, a deity accepting a sacrifice is a far cry from that deity ordering it to happen in the first place.
[When] the god Ashur sent [me] to the lands [Nairi and] the lands on the coast of the [Upper] Sea; (when) I swept over with my raging warfare; (when) I conquered ...
Their are dozens of these . Look up -: Assryian Royal Inscriptions by Albert Grayson and read plenty of them yourself if you want.
You thought i was asking what should happen to modern day prisoners of war.... really?
Anyway... were ok with "slaughter or slavery" as the only available option now are we?
Oh and this is not exaggerated boasting it's what they did.
Peace
Goodman John
Active Member
(Not addressed to the issue of homosexuality, but concerning a recent post)
In one of the recent posts I saw that it was posited that 'Christianity' hasn't killed anyone in 300 years (or words to that effect). My thought on this is that the REASON Christians haven't been on the warpath is because the Church has been separated from politics to a large degree. Rome (and its Protestant counterparts) do not enjoy having the ear of the Emperor as they did in the past, and they lack the means to wage war themselves.
If we step back to pre-Constantine days, we see the Church as being largely laissez-faire and just trying to make it. Once Christianity was given the Seal of Approval, though, it quickly made moves to solidify its presence in government- and it wasn't long after that the rounding up of those considered to be heretics was begun. And the Church didn't stop there- anything or anyone it condemned was on the chopping block for having a Crusade mounted against it, and more often than not God's love and mercy was demonstrated with thousands being burned alive. This went on and on, with the Church (and again, its Protestant counterpart later on) launching war after war in pursuit of religious (and secular) agendas. It wasn't until the Church as a whole was separated from State power that the wholesale killing in God's name stopped.
Christianity didn't stop killing its opponents (and its own internal dissidents) because it 'evolved' or decided to become peaceful on its own- it became peaceful only because it was forced to be peaceful. Given the rhetoric of hard-line religious figures and particularly with regard to the present troubles with the Islamic world- it would not surprise me at all if the blood started to flow again if Christianity were given the means and authority to wage wars as it did in the past.
In one of the recent posts I saw that it was posited that 'Christianity' hasn't killed anyone in 300 years (or words to that effect). My thought on this is that the REASON Christians haven't been on the warpath is because the Church has been separated from politics to a large degree. Rome (and its Protestant counterparts) do not enjoy having the ear of the Emperor as they did in the past, and they lack the means to wage war themselves.
If we step back to pre-Constantine days, we see the Church as being largely laissez-faire and just trying to make it. Once Christianity was given the Seal of Approval, though, it quickly made moves to solidify its presence in government- and it wasn't long after that the rounding up of those considered to be heretics was begun. And the Church didn't stop there- anything or anyone it condemned was on the chopping block for having a Crusade mounted against it, and more often than not God's love and mercy was demonstrated with thousands being burned alive. This went on and on, with the Church (and again, its Protestant counterpart later on) launching war after war in pursuit of religious (and secular) agendas. It wasn't until the Church as a whole was separated from State power that the wholesale killing in God's name stopped.
Christianity didn't stop killing its opponents (and its own internal dissidents) because it 'evolved' or decided to become peaceful on its own- it became peaceful only because it was forced to be peaceful. Given the rhetoric of hard-line religious figures and particularly with regard to the present troubles with the Islamic world- it would not surprise me at all if the blood started to flow again if Christianity were given the means and authority to wage wars as it did in the past.
Last edited:
why is God against homosexuality. is he against 2 nude women or men touching each other or are you cutting asunder the work of Gods conception. God knows those victims that don't exist as though they did exist. God knows those things in shadow of darkness as though they came to light. he can see way beyond abels blood. of course birth control comes under fire as well as natural bc. the barren womb says the seed is not enough. prior to 1930s everybody was against birth control. since the heteros are doing it under covenant they appear to be worse. I am not catholic either.
None of that makes the slightest bit of sense!
Spartan
Well-Known Member
If Christians were true killers they probably would have torn down your front door ages ago and nailed you up on a cross. But you're still breathing, aren't you?!
Non believers have every right to state their opinions, especially those like myself who were religious and lost their faith.
Spartan
Well-Known Member
Sure you do. You have a right to the consequences in the Bible that goes along with that.
You seem to get off on others burning in the mythical hell.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Do you agree with the JWs that blood transfusions are banned by God?
Yes? No?
I look forward to your answer...
As no one had blood transfusions in those days, how can they be banned by the god character?Do you agree with the JWs that blood transfusions are banned by God?
Yes? No?
I look forward to your answer...
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
That is a No from you.
So you ignore laws about the intaking of blood in the OT.
That's all I needed to know.
I ignore stupidity, which is what much of the Bible consists of.
Perhaps if God sent a more credible messenger than you are more people would believe what you believe.
Tom
If god exists it can't be very intelligent as some of the people it signs up don't do it any favours like that particular poster.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Ah ha!
And so.......
You believe that much of the bible is stupidity, but you have a way of sifting through all, recognising the junk, but selecting out God's truth..... Have I got that right?