The God of the Old testament.

Akrasia

Is the God of the Old Testament the same god as christians follow today?


The Christian god as revealed by Jesus, is a relatively loving, merciful, compassionate and pacifist god who wants us all to love our neighbours and do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

In contrast, Yahweh, the god of the Old testament was a vengeful, jealous, violent, vindictive, racist, genocidal, misogynistic entity, who told us it is better to rape a virgin child than for two men to have consensual intercourse, and that we should murder our neighbours if they don't express belief in him or if they break any one of a huge number of arbitrary rules he imposed on his people.

What is the role of the old testament in modern christianity? The morals within appear to be very warped, and the stories about creation and early events (like the flood) are flatly contradicted by all available science.

If you accept some of the positive or inspirational messages in the Old Testament, does that mean you ought to accept all of the violent and immoral parts too? If the old testament is the word of god, (as many believe).

It is often said in defence of Yahweh, that he is harsh, but he also gave people the opportunity to turn away from their evil ways and repent (and so he was fair) But this does not seem to stand up when we look at how God often orders the murder, rape and torture of innocents as a way to get the sinful to change their minds. In these cases, no opportunity was given to these people to change their ways, often, they were not doing anything wrong and were being punished simply by virtue of being female, or a slave, or a child or of the wrong race, religion or sexual orientation.

Was there really a significant difference between the way Yahweh treated his chosen people and how Hitler treated the Aryan race and loyal members of the Nazi party? (as mentioned by another poster on a different thread) If you were obedient and enthusiastic for the cause, you would be rewarded handsomely, but if you were of a different ethnicity, or if you were jewish or gay or a gipsy, you would be oppressed and tortured and eventually wiped out to make way for the 'promised land' for the 'chosen people'. Hitler ordered the invasion of other nations to provide living space for his people with little regard to the welfare of the people who were already living there, much like how Yahweh ordered the israelites to invade the promised land and drive out the existing populations to maintain a pure race?

How can two completely different versions of god both refer to the same deity? Did God suddenly change his personality 2000 years ago? Did he see the errors of his ways and decided that we should be compassionate instead of vengeful, sharing and tolerant instead of insular and greedy?

kelly1

Akrasia wrote: »

Is the God of the Old Testament the same god as christians follow today?

Yes, we just have a different understanding of His nature thanks to Jesus.

Akrasia wrote: »

In contrast, Yahweh, the god of the Old testament was a vengeful, jealous, violent, vindictive, racist, genocidal, misogynistic entity, who told us it is better to rape a virgin child than for two men to have consensual intercourse, and that we should murder our neighbours if they don't express belief in him or if they break any one of a huge number of arbitrary rules he imposed on his people.

Could I suggest that you provide quotes to support your claims. You've made very serious accusations against God. BTW, I don't know a whole lot about the OT but you seem to know it quite well.

I'm currently reading the "Dialogue" of St. Catherine of Sienna and it in she says that God punishes all sins but in the days before Christ people were punished during their lives on earth and since then they are punished in Purgatory. This applies of course only to the just.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Could I suggest that you provide quotes to support your claims. You've made very serious accusations against God. BTW, I don't know a whole lot about the OT but you seem to know it quite well.

The issue has never been if God does those things (he does by the way, I can pull out OT passages if you like), but rather the excuse that he can because he is God, and therefore nothing he does is bad, by definition.

So to properly discuss this the Christians need to ask themselves what act Akrasia describes would actually cause you trouble?

interestinguser

From Genesis 19 (New International Version):

1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

What moral guidance can one take from this passage?

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

The issue has never been if God does those things (he does by the way, I can pull out OT passages if you like), but rather the excuse that he can because he is God, and therefore nothing he does is bad, by definition.

So to properly discuss this the Christians need to ask themselves what act Akrasia describes would actually cause you trouble?

I would appreciate it if you or Akrasia could provide quotes to support these claims:

"[God] told us it is better to rape a virgin child than for two men to have consensual intercourse."

and

"God often orders the murder, rape and torture of innocents"

God bless,
Noel.

neuro-praxis

Akrasia wrote: »

Is the God of the Old Testament the same god as christians follow today?

Yes he is.

The Christian god as revealed by Jesus, is a shockingly loving, merciful, compassionate and fascinating god who call on all of us to respond to his love and share it with our neighbours and treat others in the way he has treated us.

Christians believe that in Jesus we see the fullness of YHWH, the god of the Old testament, who was a merciful, passionate, patient, God entity, who began his revelation to man by making a covenant with Abrahm stating that if he failed to deliver on his side he would be torn asunder and if Abrahm failed to deliver on his side, YHWH would be torn asunder. Ultimately, this first encounter between God and man came to its conclusion on Golgotha. There is no serious difficulty reconciling YHWH with Jesus.

The Old Testament is viewed as God-inspired writing by Christians. The "morals within" are in fact an interpretation you have brought to the text, an interpretation that couldn't stand up in any debate, private Bible study or seminary class.

If YHWH is real, then surely he is the one who defines good? If YHWH is not real, then surely everything, even the "inspirational messages" is ethically uninteresting if not negative? Comparing it to NAZIism is preposterous.

No less preposterous than your references to "creation stories" or indeed the alleged arbitrary racism of the Levitical Codes which are stunning in contrast to its contemporaries and which are, whether you like it or not, the very basis of the modern ideal of democracy that I for one espouse.

The only way a chasm can open up between Jesus and YHWH, the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian, is to create one through ignorance.

That doesn't mean there are not real ethical, hermunetial and historic issues to be wrestled with but I think that this approach is definitely bound to end in polemical and aggressive counter-stating instead of an informed and reasoned discussion.

PDN

interestinguser wrote: »

What moral guidance can one take from this passage?

The same moral guidance you can take from any passage - by seeing what is good and worthy of imitation and what is bad and to be avoided.

Any father should, upon reading this passage, see that Lot compromised himself by choosing to live in Sodom and behaved and spoke disgustingly. The historical books of the Old Testament, including Genesis, frequently record events that reflect badly on the people involved (including the heroes of the stories such as Noah, Moses, David etc.).

interestinguser

Any father should, upon reading this passage, see that Lot compromised himself by choosing to live in Sodom and behaved and spoke disgustingly.

You are saying he said these things because he choose to live in Sodom? I don't see how this is clear from the text.
Were not the angels there to take him and his family from the place because god left they should be saved? This was a man who was willing to hand over his daughters to be gang raped.

PDN

interestinguser wrote: »

You are saying he said these things because he choose to live in Sodom? I don't see how this is clear from the text.
Were not the angels there to take him and his family from the place because god left they should be saved? This was a man who was willing to hand over his daughters to be gang raped.

Lot put himself in this situation by choosing to live in such a place. Abraham gave Lot the choice of where to settle and Lot chose the area around Sodom for reasons of material gain (Genesis 13:5-11). It didn't take Lot long to get in trouble and Abraham had to launch a rescue mission after Lot and his family were kidnapped by a rival king (Genesis 14:1-16). His wife was turned into a pillar of salt because Lot begged to be allowed to stay in Zoar, within sight of Sodom, instead of obeying the angelic instructions to get well clear of the place (Genesis 19:15-26). Lot, as we have already seen, was a crap father, and even after his escape from Sodom he got drunk and committed incest with his daughters (Genesis 19:30-38). His descendants were the Moabites and the Ammonites - bitter enemies of Israel. In fact, everything we are told about Lot is overwhelmingly negative and is certainly not presented as an example to be followed. No open-minded reader of the text would possibly reach such an absurd conclusion as to see any approval of Lot's actions concerning his daughters.

Amazingly, the New Testament actual refers to Lot as "righteous Lot" (2 Peter 2:7) and for a very good reason. Lot did manage to do one solitary good thing - he believed. He trusted the word of warning and fled accordingly. This is entirely consistent with the New Testament's assessment of Abraham (another guy who did some dodgy stuff that is recorded in Genesis but certainly not offered as an example to follow) as "righteous" for one reason alone - "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness" (Galatians 3:6).

The message I get from this is a wonderful one, that even a greedy, useless ratbag like Lot can obtain redemption and salvation by trusting in God's offer of salvation.

However, I have to admit that I approach the Bible with an open mind, a desire to really understand what it teaches, and a hope that I will find something that helps me live a better life. For that reason, each time I read the Bible, I ask God the Holy Spirit to help me understand the text. When I do this I find that the Bible is fairly clear and easy to understand.

I appreciate that if I approached the Bible with a closed mind, a desire to come to a negative interpretation, and using it a source book for proof texts to attack my opponents then I might well be confused and find myself complaining that the Bible isn't clear.

kelly1

Good post PDN! Nowhere does it say that God wanted Lot to hand his daughters over to be raped. Why would God ask someone to commit evil?

robindch

kelly1 wrote:

Why would God ask someone to commit evil?

Quite apart from god allowing/commanding all kinds of misfortune to befall Job, the OT god demanded that Abraham kill his son. Is that not evil?

BTW, the islamic festival of Eid al-Adha two weeks or so ago celebrates Abraham's (Ibrahim's) willingness to murder.

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

Quite apart from god allowing/commanding all kinds of misfortune to befall Job, the OT god demanded that Abraham kill his son. Is that not evil?

I'm sure you're also aware that God was testing Abraham's faithfulness and didn't allow Abraham to go ahead with the sacrifice.

As for Job, I'd be quite confident that he was richly rewarded for his faith in God. God does nothing except what's ultimately good for us. This life is only a pilgrimage to our final destination.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Quite apart from god allowing/commanding all kinds of misfortune to befall Job, the OT god demanded that Abraham kill his son. Is that not evil?

BTW, the islamic festival of Eid al-Adha two weeks or so ago celebrates Abraham's (Ibrahim's) willingness to murder.

And what was the cause of death of the son? Or are you actually referring to a killing that never actually took place? In which case I guess we must hold God responsible for all the non-existent atrocities that have never actually occurred?

Purely as a matter of interest, Muslims do celebrate this event, but in a garbled version where Ishmael, rather than Isaac, was the intended sacrifice. Obviously the intended killing of an Arab is more acceptable to Islam. Camus (and the Cure) would be happy.

Akrasia

kelly1 wrote: »

Good post PDN! Nowhere does it say that God wanted Lot to hand his daughters over to be raped. Why would God ask someone to commit evil?

Where did Lot get his morals from that he thought it was less evil to hand his innocent daughters over to be brutally raped, than to allow men to have sex with each other? Why didn't the angels stop him?

And I don't think the message as outlined by PDN is a wonderful one at all. I think it is pretty horrific that someone could do such awful awful awful things and god would still rush to his side to protect him simply because Lot Believed in him. That is not a good message, that is the worst possible message in my mind. It gives anyone carte blanche to do anything they like as long as they are loyal to the idea that God exists.

You probably interpret it differently, but you can not deny that my interpretation is valid, at least on some level, and that it is likely that this passage has encouraged warped individuals to do very nasty things in the past.

Akrasia

kelly1 wrote: »

.

As for Job, I'd be quite confident that he was richly rewarded for his faith in God. God does nothing except what's ultimately good for us. This life is only a pilgrimage to our final destination.

So heaven is like earth? There are VIP areas and scaled rewards? some people only get a 2 bedroom cloud out on the commuter belt near the M 5billion, while the people god feels guilty about torturing get penthouse apartments in the trendy part of heaven?

What if Job had forsaken his god because of the torture he was put through, would he have been cast down into hell? Would that have been fair? to stop believing in a god who promised good but delivered only the most horrific torture and abuse?
Why would it be fair for god to reward Lot, a bad man, just for believing in him, but forsake Job, a very good man, if he had wavered in his faith?

PDN

Akrasia wrote: »

You probably interpret it differently, but you can not deny that my interpretation is valid, at least on some level, and that it is likely that this passage has encouraged warped individuals to do very nasty things in the past.

I certainly can deny that your interpretation is valid.

And yes, I am sure that have been hundreds of times throughout history that someone who is biblically illiterate enough to reach such an interpretation has had angels in their house while a crowd outside wanted to homosexually rape said angels. In these many cases I guess that thousands of virgin young women have been handed over to be raped by homosexuals over the years thus saving the lives of myriads of angels. :rolleyes:

God give me patience!

Never have I seen such an apt signature at the foot of a post.

Akrasia

PDN wrote: »

And what was the cause of death of the son? Or are you actually referring to a killing that never actually took place? In which case I guess we must hold God responsible for all the non-existent atrocities that have never actually occurred?

Purely as a matter of interest, Muslims do celebrate this event, but in a garbled version where Ishmael, rather than Isaac, was the intended sacrifice. Obviously the intended killing of an Arab is more acceptable to Islam. Camus (and the Cure) would be happy.

I find the moral difficulties in that story not about whether god actually killed Isaac in the end, but that god expected Abraham to be fully prepared to kill his only son just because he was commanded by god. What would have happened to Abraham if he had refused?

There are a lot of crazy fundamentalist nutjobs out there who think god commands them to kill in his name. The story of Abraham and Isaac could easily be one of the justifications that they use.

Akrasia

PDN wrote: »

I certainly can deny that your interpretation is valid.

And yes, I am sure that have been hundreds of times throughout history that someone who is biblically illiterate enough to reach such an interpretation has had angels in their house while a crowd outside wanted to homosexually rape said angels. In these many cases I guess that thousands of virgin young women have been handed over to be raped by homosexuals over the years thus saving the lives of myriads of angels. :rolleyes:

God give me patience!

Never have I seen such an apt signature at the foot of a post.

So the bible doesn't give any messages, it is only a historical record of things that happened exactly the way they did? Give me a break. The whole point of reading the bible is so people can try to understand the nature of god, and what he expects of them in this world.
It is unlikely that any of the events described in any of the bible stories (old testament or new) would ever happen again exactly as they were described, does this mean none of the messages in the bible should be applied to different or modern situations?

But we don't even need to interpret stories in the bible to have warped morals handed down by god. There are places where god specifically orders his followers to murder adulterers

If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her,

you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you. Deuteronomy 22:23-24

for being a rebellious son

21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

or for a woman having sex before marriage

13If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

14And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

15Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

16And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

17And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

18And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;

19And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

20But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. Deuteronomy 22:13-21

kelly1

Akrasia wrote: »

So the bible doesn't give any messages, it is only a historical record of things that happened exactly the way they did? Give me a break.

You seem a bit prone to jumping to false conclusions.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

I would appreciate it if you or Akrasia could provide quotes to support these claims:

"[God] told us it is better to rape a virgin child than for two men to have consensual intercourse."

and

"God often orders the murder, rape and torture of innocents"

God bless,
Noel.

If I or Akrasia can will that cause you trouble? Or will you dismiss it as simply being an act of a God that cannot do bad and therefore cannot have been immoral?

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm sure you're also aware that God was testing Abraham's faithfulness and didn't allow Abraham to go ahead with the sacrifice.

And ... ?

Are you saying that it is only immoral to demand someone execute their son if you actually make them go ahead with it.

Did Abraham's son know he wasn't going to be killed? This is under any standard at the very least child abuse.

And for what exactly?

God already knew if Abraham would do it or not. It wasn't necessary to put either Abraham or the son through that just to demonstrate a point that God already knew.

(thats a noodle scratcher for the idea of free will as well)

kelly1 wrote: »

As for Job, I'd be quite confident that he was richly rewarded for his faith in God.

Wouldn't he have been richly awarded anyway. Again what purpose does murdering everyone around him serve?

kelly1 wrote: »

God does nothing except what's ultimately good for us.

Well yes if you start from that axiom then by definition nothing God does is anything other than for the ultimate good of us. But there is nothing demonstrating that in the Bible. God does a ton of terrible things, you add this axiom in later to excuse them all.

But you run into a problem because since that axiom is clearly not demonstrated in the Bible, the things in the Bible only becomes good when you apply this axiom, how do you actually know the axiom itself is true? God can't demonstrate it himself.

By the very act of believing it you make it impossible to actually judge if it is true or not, because even the things that appear bad are dismissed as actually good.

You get lost in yet another cyclical reasoning feed back loop, where it becomes impossible to actually judge things on their own.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The same moral guidance you can take from any passage - by seeing what is good and worthy of imitation and what is bad and to be avoided.

If you already know the good and the bad how are you talking moral guidance from it?

PDN wrote: »

Any father should, upon reading this passage, see that Lot compromised himself by choosing to live in Sodom and behaved and spoke disgustingly.

Lot is described in the Bible as a "righteous man"

The message is that Lot was so righteous that he would give up his daughters rather than have the men harm messengers of the Lord. That is put forward as a good thing, in the same way that Abraham being willing to kill his son for the Lord is considered a good thing.

Or at least that is a valid interpretation, as Akrasia says.

Your excuse that the daughters didn't get raped, or that the son didn't get killed, is really missing the point. The point isn't that these actually happened, it is that being willing to do them for God is put forward as the correct way to be.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

If I or Akrasia can will that cause you trouble? Or will you dismiss it as simply being an act of a God that cannot do bad and therefore cannot have been immoral?

I would certainly be troubled if I discovered that God did something evil. But I don't believe God is capable of evil because it is absolute anathema to Him.

The claims I'm disputing are:

"[God] told us it is better to rape a virgin child than for two men to have consensual intercourse." and "God often orders the murder, rape and torture of innocents".

Akrasia is claiming that God ordered the commission of sin and I'm waiting for evidence of this.

If God however decides to take a life, that's not for us to question because it would always be for good, e.g. the salvation of souls. None of us fully understands the ways of God because we can't see the ultimate reality or the mind of God. God might for instance allow someone to die in a car crash because He knows that in the future that person would have gone to Hell had they been allowed to live and instead they end up in Purgatory. This would be an example of God's mercy.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Purely as a matter of interest, Muslims do celebrate this event, but in a garbled version where Ishmael, rather than Isaac, was the intended sacrifice.

Well, muslims claim that christians have the garbled version, citing contradictions in the Genesis account.

PDN wrote: »

Or are you actually referring to a killing that never actually took place?

Are you really suggesting that it's morally acceptable behavior for a father to take his only child, tie him up, put him on top of a pile of firewood on an altar, then pull out a knife with the full intention to murder him?

What would an open-minded reader of the text think about this?

neuro-praxis

I agree with Robin that of course it would be a bad thing for Joe Father on the street to take his son, tie him to a pyre and raise a knife to him. But that is not what the Biblical story of Abraham and his son Lot deals with.

Ultimately, to reject this section of Genesis as immoral is to categorically rule out of bounds the event to which it pointed- the death of God's son on the cross.

SubjectSean

IMO right at the start

Then the JEHOVAH God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- therefore the JEHOVAH God sent him forth from the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a sword flaming and turning to guard the way to the tree of life.

this is not Love.

Zombrex

neuro-praxis wrote: »

I agree with Robin that of course it would be a bad thing for Joe Father on the street to take his son, tie him to a pyre and raise a knife to him. But that is not what the Biblical story of Abraham and his son Lot deals with.

Well that is kinda the point.

Christians claim that God reveals how good he is. But as you admit God does and orders things that if anyone else did them they would be considered immoral. But Christians work under the assertion that because God and only God is doing them, it is not immoral.

So how then can you say that God reveals how good he is. God reveals how bad he is, but because of the axiom that God can only do good, you state that these bad things are actually good things.

So where does the axiom that God can only do good come from? It certainly doesn't come from the Bible.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

I would certainly be troubled if I discovered that God did something evil. But I don't believe God is capable of evil because it is absolute anathema to Him.

The claims I'm disputing are:

"[God] told us it is better to rape a virgin child than for two men to have consensual intercourse." and "God often orders the murder, rape and torture of innocents".

Akrasia is claiming that God ordered the commission of sin and I'm waiting for evidence of this.

Certainly

Evidence of the rape of innocents -

Deuteronomy 21
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

A Hebrew man may select a wife from the virgin female captives (the non-virgins are killed along with the men). She may "mourn" for a month the fact that you killed her father and mother, and they you may have sex with her.

I have heard some Christians attempt to justify this by saying that I don't know for certain that the female "wife" doesn't actually want to be his wife and have sex with the soldier who genocided her people. Therefore I can't say this is an example of rape.

I don't tend to dignify that with a response.

kelly1 wrote: »

If God however decides to take a life, that's not for us to question because it would always be for good, e.g. the salvation of souls.

Yes but how have you come to that conclusion in the first place, the conclusion that God is always good?

To say that this is revealed in the Bible is nonsensical, because you can only justify these things if you have already decided that God only does good.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Well, muslims claim that christians have the garbled version, citing contradictions in the Genesis account.Are you really suggesting that it's morally acceptable behavior for a father to take his only child, tie him up, put him on top of a pile of firewood on an altar, then pull out a knife with the full intention to murder him?

What would an open-minded reader of the text think about this?

An open-minded reader would see it as interesting, but (like having kids at 100 years old) hardly something to be emulated. Abraham lived at a different time under very different conditions. BTW, Jewish tradition reckons Isaac was 33 years old at the time - which would make him a willing participant. Anyways, no harm was done so it's hardly worth all the false outrage.

I find the slaughter in the Book of Joshua much more troubling, but trolls generally seem to pick texts that are much less disturbing. Anyway, I'm off to Zimbabwe in 10 minutes & don't expect to have any internet connection for the next 9 days - so have fun with this one.

Schuhart

PDN wrote: »

BTW, Jewish tradition reckons Isaac was 33 years old at the time - which would make him a willing participant.

So suicide is OK? How about volunteering to be eaten?

PDN wrote: »

I find the slaughter in the Book of Joshua much more troubling, but trolls generally seem to pick texts that are much less disturbing. Anyway, I'm off to Zimbabwe in 10 minutes & don't expect to have any internet connection for the next 9 days - so have fun with this one.

Pot stirrer.

We're dedicated troublemakers, with memories that last for a fortnight or more and attention spans that would shame a Mayfly. We'll have the Book of Joshua read and a thread waiting for your return.

Akrasia

Schuhart wrote: »

So suicide is OK? How about volunteering to be eaten?Pot stirrer.

We're dedicated troublemakers, with memories that last for a fortnight or more and attention spans that would shame a Mayfly. We'll have the Book of Joshua read and a thread waiting for your return.

The Book of Joshua is basically the action adventure episode of the Old testament. Joshua leads the Israelites to war against the Babylonians and basically goes from town to town defeating the defending armies and murdering the civilian population 'leaving nobody alive'

It's a brutal and murderous rampage of the chosen people as they invade the homes of innocents and wipe them out. It's basically genocide