HIST

Who are you talking about my brother? If you're talking about God, he clearly says in James 1:13 that He does not test us 😃

On the contrary, it is written (Judges 2:22): That through them I may prove Israel, whether they will keep the way of the LORD to walk therein, as their fathers did keep it, or not.

RUTH

Often when lesbians wed, they exchange nuptial vows taken from the Book of Ruth, where she says to Naomi: "Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God . . ."

The book of Ruth reads like a charming short "novella" something along the lines of the book of Jonah. Those two books even share the plot device of non-Jews demonstrating faithfulness. Ruth remains with Naomi. The Ninevehites repent of their abominations.

But the Jews definitely considered the book of Ruth to be historical. They included it in the prophetic histories section of the bible immediately following the Torah, from Joshua to 2 Kings, while Jonah was put in with the minor prophets.

One piece of evidence for a late date of authorship for the book is that the author, when describing the beginning of Naomi's journey, says, "Wherefore she went forth out of the place where she was" and does not specify an exact town in Moab. A novelist would have just thrown a dart at a map of Moab and used the name that came up. A contemporary of Naomi would have known the name of the town. But a historian of a period much later would have not used a name of her town if he did not know it.

Ruth was a Moabitess who became Jewish by conversion. The Moabites were sometimes the enemies of the Jews, and they were definitely treated as second-class citizens. The Law of Moses permitted them to glean from the fields after the harvest, which is what Ruth did to support her mother-in-law Naomi.

During the course of the story Boaz becomes impressed by the faithfulness of Ruth, falls in love with her, and actually marries her. This goes absolutely counter to the prevailing ethos in the aftermath of the exile, when the Jewish leaders were trying to encourage "pure" marriages to prevent the demographic annihilation of their people.

The author of Ruth, then, was a "liberal" who wrote a beautiful and compelling editorial piece speaking out against racism and ethnic supremacy. He (or she) ends the "article" by highlighting that Ruth was genetically (if not legally) the great-grandmother of King David...and thus also the ancestor legally (if not genetically) of Jesus the Christ.

A Ruthless Boaz would mean no Jesus.

1 SAMUEL 15

1 Samuel is such perfect picture of Christianity as it is practiced today it should be moved into the New Testament.

Thus says the LORD of hosts: "I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel... go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." (1 Sam. 15:1-3)

And when did Amalek sin against Israel? Way back in the Sinai days, probably 250 years before the time of King Saul. Christianity is all about holding grudges for centuries. That is why Jews are called "Christ-killers" today.

There are basic principles at play when you punish someone. One, it has to be timely in order to correct the behavior at hand. Two, you have to leave the punishee alive, or the correction is a waste of time. Three, the punishment should be proportional to the offense...you don't cut off someone's hand for flipping the bird. Since the Amalekites did not wipe out the Israelites but only discomfited them, it's not logical to wipe them out down to the last man, woman, child, and head of cattle 250 years later. In fact, it smells like nothing more than vengeance.

As ordered, Saul went ahead and killed every man, woman, child, and animal among the Amalekies but he spared their king, Agag.

Fundies like to say Exodus 20:13 means "do not murder" rather than "do not kill". Well, okay, let's play that game. It's just killing to slay a soldier on the battlefield, and it's just killing to slay all the women and children, but to kill an unarmed man after the battle (the King) is murder. On judgment day, Saul could point to the Law and say, "I slew those fierce babies and women in the heat of the battle, but not the King because I didn't want people to think I was a cold-blooded murderer."

The prophet Samuel, last and greatest of the judges of Israel, immediately rebuked Saul in the name of the LORD for sparing King Agag. And here's the part that makes the whole tale resemble modern Christianity: Saul repented, acknowledged his sin, and begged for forgiveness.

And the forgiveness was not granted!

Then Samuel himself finished the job on Agag, went away, and never saw Saul again. So you can see that Samuel was the perfect proto-Christian.

Yes, this is about you.

Oh, we are just apex predators when we fight against Evil. It's not murder. Murder is against God's laws. We simply sending they to meet God. It's big difference between murder someone and kill someone. God Commandment is about murdering not about killing.

Satan is not inactive.

“Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel.” 1 Chronicles 21:1 ESV

God is not inactive.

"And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah." 2 Samuel 24:1 KJV

You are correct. These are parallel passages, and what we know from studying both is that David had sinned, and Satan was used as a tool of discipline in David's life for moral / ethical violation (which David himself admits in both places).

Either the devil made David do it, or God made David do it, or God made the devil make David do it. In neither passage does David "sin" of his own volition, and that's what an action requires to be sin.

For David had done what was right in the eyes of the LORD and had not failed to keep any of the LORD’S commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.

Also in the matter of numbering Israel:

2 Sam. 24:10 And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done...

Math is the most objective tool for truth coz' if you go for empirical evidence of God Himself (very stupendous ask btw our minds will not even comprehend Him,The Infinite if we see Him) you can still claim it's not God,there's subjectiveness still but math is the most objective

God says ten times pi is thirty, not thirty-one.

1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

And I'm from a family of scientists and Bible-believing Christians. God created the laws of science. There is no conflict.

On the contrary, it is written (1 Chronicles 16:30) Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Science: "Eppur si muove."

1 Chronicles 21



The first mention of Satan by name in the Bible occurs in 1 Chronicles 21:1:

"And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

I hear often about Satan tempting people. One lesser light says when Christians sin, they are specifically being tempted by Satan to sin against God. This makes no sense to me. If Satan is an angel, and if angels are limited in their locality (i.e., they are not omnipresent), then how can Satan tempt all living Christians around the world at the same time?

Here's how:

There are millions of people all over the world today who are succumbing to Demon Rum. That does not mean I'm talking about a literal demon, or one who is omnipresent, but it is a figure of speech representing alcoholism. In the same way, Satan is the personification of temptation. And when "he" is vanquished someday, subjects in the Kingdom of God will never again stray into sin.

So there is no actual person or angel named Satan. When Peter rebuked Jesus for saying openly that he must be crucified and rise the third day, Jesus said to Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men."

Does that mean Jesus thought Peter was Satan or that Peter was possessed by Satan? No, it means Peter was tempting Jesus to take the easy path, and go along to get along, and Jesus recognized that as satanic. But the idea that Satan is a sort of mini-God with almost the same amount of power, competing with God to flip souls to the white side or the black side like some giant game of Othello is a corruption of classic Christianity.

Parables were wonderful ways to teach a religious truth, but they are very poor sources of information if they are taken literally. Some atheists like to play "gotcha" with the parable of the mustard seed, where Jesus said, "when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth, but when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs and becometh a tree". They focus on that because the mustard seed is not really the smallest seed, and it does not really become a tree. Jesus was teaching about how his church would have very inauspicious beginnings, but would someday fill the whole world.

But Christians do that too when they try to derive information about conditions in the afterlife from the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. Jesus wasn't teaching anything about actual conditions in hell, he was teaching about the need to repent before one's life is over and it's too late.

God’s will is determined by His wisdom and goodness which is intrinsically GOOD (Divine Command Theory).

Plato’s Euthyphro Dilemma is a false dilemma.

God is good because He is loving and His nature is immutability good.

2 Chronicles 34:24 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the curses that are written in the book which they have read before the king of Judah

Historical example - Israel. Miraculously preserved as a people, returned to their land, just as Bible prophesied.

The prophecy of Jews returning to their land was already fulfilled when King Cyrus of the Persian Empire decreed they should return to their land.

2 Chronicles 36:23 "...Who is there among you of all his people? The LORD his God be with him, and let him go up."