God plays favorites, deal with it

Abram was fast becoming the world's only monotheist under 100. He wasn't perfect and had no clear theology, but if God started talking to him he might obey.
God started tentatively, asking him to move. Abram wanted to, but stalled, so God let his brother die, perhaps a signal that just because some people are living past 200 is no promise that any individual will get old. That made Abram the guardian of his nephew Lot, a young man God could also influence.
Next God killed Abram's father at 205, a little early, but he wasn't going to do anything useful with another 10 years except be a drag on Abram and Lot. Abram moved.
A few extra years in Ur was bad for Lot. He became a successful businessman and comfortable with urban life. God gave him more sheep to keep him rural, but it became a problem with Abram, so Lot found a place where he could live in a city and have pastureland for his sheep. (It appears someone in this forum believes the Stewart Granger movie that makes him a recent widow when he moved to Sodom with four young daughters, remarried, and married off two of his daughters to Sodomites.)
That left Abram childless. A miracle baby son would be raised in the faith and insulated from all evil influences, allowing the religion to gestate. God tested abraham's faith with the sacrifice of Isaac, protected Hagar and Ishmael but set them loose, and never spoke to Abraham again.
God tested Isaac and Rebecca by making her barren for 20 years before letting her have twins.
If Isaac was insulated, Jacob was the quintessential mother's boy. Esau could not be influenced by God. When he tried to do something good he only made things worse. Jacob had hope but God had to hammer him into shape with decades of hardship. He learned the ruthless business tactics you mention and his 12 sons were inconsistent in their ethics.
So God isolated the best son and his faithfulness saved the family and allowed the true faith to gestate within an ethnic group devoted to each other. Unlike Lot, they didn't blend with the Egyptians. To give them more isolation he gave them a country and made it the staging ground for God's eternal purpose.
God commanded them to obey certain laws. He didn't command them to run banks, make movies, eat gefilte fish, talk with their hands or use unpronouncible words in the middle of sentences in another language.
If the Jews in Germany lived like the Amish things might have been different. Maybe they'd have been killed in one day in April and Himmler would have run for Governor of Florida.

 

That's a nice analysis. Thanks for sharing it.

 

Yes, for example, "what evidence is there for the existence of god". That can easily be reasoned out abstractly, given that it's not asking for anything concrete...

...Oh wait.

 

The premise of Phil, that "God plays favorites" is not valid for several reasons:

1. The family lines of Shem, Israel and Syria from Adam to the current Christian Israel nations of Europe, America and elsewhere were chosen because they are the worst of humanity. When "nature's God" saves them, the rest of humanity will be very simple.

2. Ashkenazi "Jews" are descended from Japheth, not Shem.

3. No one, no matter how purely their blood line connects to Abraham & Jacob , can lawfully claim to be Israel unless they are following the God of Abraham and Israel, Jesus Christ. Any one of Israel who rejects the Prophets and the King of Israel, Jesus Christ, is cut off and no longer part of Israel and Judah.

 

Therefore the prophesy had little to do with the matter except to provide an excuse, and a questionable one since it was based on literal interpretation of Gen 13:14 - 13:17 and 17:6, 17:8. Canaan, the Promised Land, is actually the whole earth, promised to all life, and their seed is the seed of all life.

Some Jews were aware of the claim's weakness. Rabbi Elmer Berger is quoted as saying " Actually, there is no historical proof that the present state of Israel ever was the ancestral homeland of the Jews."

Literal belief in mythology supported the theft of a country and driving a million Arabs out to starve. Is it any wonder that certain neighboring nations persist in hating them? When will the Jews take all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates, as "promised" in Gen 15:18?

Note Zecharia 12:3, "I will make Jerusalem a stone of burden for all the people; all that burden themselves with it shall be sore wounded." This kind of overlord is indeed a devious one.

 

1. Their favor with God has always been contingent upon their obedience to Him. Whatever "chosenness" they may have once possessed, has been totally relinquished when they rejected their Messiah, Jesus Christ.

[video=youtube;SLPH4YslYD8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLPH4YslYD8[/video]

2. There is considerable evidence pointing to the Khazarian theory; that the majority of modern day "Jews" are actually not likely related to the Israelites of the Bible. Israeli's researcher Eran Elhaik lead a study that seemed to confirm this. These so-called Jews could be what Christ was referring to as the "Synogogue of Satan" in Revelations 2:9 and 3:9.

Revelation 2:9

Revelation 3:9

 

Too bad this is not a court of law within the Federal Court system of the United States. If it were, your entire posting would be stricken from the record because you admit that what you have written is based on "belief" as in "I believe". On the other hand, because you pose an argument that supports the 2.c. definition of "fact", then I cannot argue with you as I also have a firm conviction regarding the issue of 'belief' being a 'fact'... Therefore, the fact is true and real for the 'believers'.

 

I know. Because then each person witnessing could be held in contempt for 'false witness'. I would love it, if that was the rule of law on this forum.

ie.... you would perhaps still be in jail for the last time you showed up.

And with garbage like that, anyone can 'therefore' witness that incorporeal beliefs are often stoned cold lies.

 

Not true. Do you even comprehend how a contempt charge can come about? Obviously you don't know the Federal rules of Evidence or the Federal Rules of Court Proceedings.

Please provide irrefutable proof of claim that what I have stated and which you quoted are "stoned cold lies." I will be waiting.

 

what 'not true'...?

sure. Lying under oath. The bible may burn when you put your hand on it.

i am not a legal player.

Hopefully people would sustain an integrity, by choice.

I already see your choice

Above yu posted 'not true' on a line of my opinion.

 

"Because then each person witnessing could be held in contempt for 'false witness'." Not true.

No! That would fall under the charge of 'false testimony' and has nothing to do with 'contempt'. Check your law resources. Another delusion on your part. I Put my hands on the Bible quite frequently each week and not one time has it ever burned.

Then you need to steer away from making claims about legalities which you cannot validate.

Yeah, and you should try accomplishing that feat yourself.

See my choice? What color is that choice and what is the shape of that choice?

That is correct. I did post not true on a line of your opinion. Because it is my opinion that your opinion is "not true". My opinion on the other hand, can be validated and would subsequently show that your opinion on that subject matter is 'false'... (not true).

 

nah..... i will just show YOU a news clip and let you argue with the judge

A federal judge yesterday held President Clinton in contempt of court for giving "intentionally false" testimony ...

Yu didnt make an oath of no lying.

I dont believe you have the yahoos to do that. You have the capability but lack personal responsibility.

shut up

black and white and in writing (words)

but then i proved you wrong, as oooosual

How is that?

If you were in court, and claimed an oath as ALL witnesses do, then found to be a liar; you can be held in contempt. Please show me how that is 'not true'.


I said i would love to hold these conversations to such a level of sustaining a penalty of responsibility to any and all that 'false witness' (mislead, lie, false testimony); do you have a problem with that standard?

 

Now pay attention to what you just said..... "intentionally".... that would mean premeditated and with "intent". Intent to do what? Deceive the court.

Your claim is false. No need to go any further with you, because you just submitted information that concurs with what I have stated. In other words, you don't know what you are talking about when you are talking about Federal law.

 

really you are going to use this raving lunatic to support your argument????????????
As for the synagogue of satan bit..seriously..........bigotry has no place in this discussion.

 

BTW Bishadi... this may enlighten you regarding your desire toward implementing those court rules against the testimony relating to religious belief.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_610

 

[video=youtube;3xwZt8ypufE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xwZt8ypufE[/video]

 

A nice assessment of Judaism but, you should review a bit more history of those natives of your America's; and Africa (the Aborigines of Australia are a bit of a different case, although the surrounding aboriginal peoples of the various islands are similar to your American and African natives).
Tribal warfare is tribal warfare.
One of the main features of native American tribal warfare was the use of torture and mutilation of their enemies. It was considered a point of great bravery to be flayed alive without screaming for your enemy to stop. This was one of the main points of contention between the Europeans and the American natives. Europeans considered torture as a way of life as bloodthirsty barbarism. The Northern native Americans considered the European domination of the land as against the Laws of Nature.
Today (as it was in the bible) ownership of land is considered civilized. Torture is not.
Which is why the "culture" of the North and South native Americans no longer exists.
African tribal warfare continues as it was when they first began capturing native tribes and selling them as slaves to the Arabs and Europeans. In those places where the Europeans dominated, there was a period of civilization for awhile, as there is in North America.
However, with the resurgence of native African dominance, the tribes have resumed their bloodthirsty barbarism against each other. Europeans put a STOP to that kind of slaughter for awhile. In a country such as India, the English strictures against natives slaughtering each other has apparently left a permanent mark.
Not so much in Pakistan; the neighboring Muslim and Arab countries; and Africa.

 

Your evaluation of the genocide of the native Americans is an enormous whitewash. Torture was widespread by the colonials, burning natives alive, starving them to death, massacring them along with women and children and using deception as a tool of destruction.
As for land ownership being a biblical good, Jesus owned nothing and suggested that where you store your treasure will be where you find your heart.
I think you have invented a truth that comforts you.

 

I didn't mention any "genocide" of native Americans. And, there was no deliberate "genocide" of native Americans by Europeans.
The majority of natives that disappeared through contact with Europeans did so as the result of disease transmitters.

Could you define "widespread" and give examples?

This is called brutal warfare and is not the same as deliberate torture as an essential part of warfare. All peoples, including native Americans and Europeans and everyone else, were most definitely guilty of such atrocities in warfare.

I did not claim that land ownership is a "biblical good." I only claimed that land ownership is most definitely part and parcel of the bible and civilization.
Torture as a way of life is not.

 

Not mentioning genocide is the point. It was most certainly intentional and started with Columbus's deliberate and total genocide of the natives of Hispaniola. He reduced their population to zero.
All in the name of God, of course.
Some of the disease was intentional, like providing blankets to the natives taken from smallpox hospitals, causing a successful widespread epidemic that killed thousands.
As for land ownership you termed it "civilized" in biblical terms, the same excuse that the colonials used to unwind the natives more communal view of life. Interestingly the early Christian communities and of course kibbutzs eschew the idea of personal ownership.

 

Thank you for joining this discussion. You know how highly I value your input in all matters concerning the attributes of YHWH. I can trust almost no one else and those I trust are not qualified to address a post such as mine.
I would love to gather further historical input on the interactions of Native American tribes relevant to each other and especially how the tribes interacted with settlers-especially the English colonists.
That is part of my more epic interpretation of God's intervention in US history, which is a subset of God's intervention in non-Biblical world history (a work I can't possibly finish without finding a team of like-minded collaborators who specialize in regions of the world I understand less).
What is clearly true is that the Americas had enough room and enough arable soil and edible animals and plants to allow all its residents to live peacefully if they chose to do so. If God never did anything to directly influence one life of any creature on the continent before 1492 that would not be unkind.
Do you agree, and if so could you expand my OP with additional supporting arguments involving cultures I didn't mention?