t3gah:
the law stated eye for an eye later on in exodus but the account of the father of the sons is in genesis. the father later on was doing a blessing on the children but said what they did was bad and that no one else should do like they had done. the father banishes them both from his land.
Well in
context he cursed their vengeance.
Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. 6 O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill they digged down a wall. 7 Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel: I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel
Emphasis added.
Nobody here is arguing that vengefully killing is ok.
Now, if Abraham had cursed them for killing as a part of war, then he would be
completely hypocritical.
Genisis 14:12-15
12 And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed. 13 And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram. 14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan. 15 And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus.
Sunstone:
I hear there are thousands of murders each year in the United States. Does that give another country the right to invade us? Perhaps by the logic of your statement regarding the Native Americans it would.
Really, some of you go and pick and choose parts of a persons post to discredit him, without intelligently assessing what's being said. I hope you don't take pride in that. I certainly try and understand what a person is saying before I challenge them on it.
But I'll do you a favor and explain it out for you this time.....
Taken in
CONTEXT, the arguement wasn't about whether one has the right to invade based on murder. It was whether, as Retrorich argues:
we should NOT be "sitting where we are right now." Consider the murder of countless Native Americans by invading Pilgrims and their progeny--all in the name of God, of course.
Now that in itself can be an innocent stance. But to assume that "murdering of countless Native Americans" wouldn't have occured had the pilgrims not arrived, is beyond innocent, and into naive.
Do I fault Retrorich for what he/che believes? Not at all. He/she must be pretty considerate, or compassionate to some degree. The statement itself is, indeed, misleading.
I wasn't justifying the pilgrims actions based on the rate of murder..... There are plenty of other good reasons to justify it. But that's another arguement.
Now, in the future I hope that people will correctly read the articles, and understand the context before flapping off about something they're only imagining. I'll try and give the same consideration. Otherwise we'll be stuck on arguing the semantics as opposed to the
issues!
Up next, No*s:
No, they weren't all peaceful, but they were attacked, their land was taken, and the European Americans broke their treaties repeatedly, while the Native Americans broke relatively few by comparison. Lastly there is RR's sentiment: they were here first.
I've addressed most af that issue already. Furthermore, I'd like to add for you No*s, since we share a considerable amount of beliefs due to our common religion, the Canaanites were kicked out by the Israelites from their land, and it was God's will. Who's to say that God didn't make things happen this way.
And please..... that last remark was for No*s and other Bible believers, so if it doesn't bear any credence to you, then it wasn't directed to you......
Melody - I agree with in most part.
