Solomon has his brother murdered
1 Kings 2:24-25 Now therefore, as the LORD lives, who has confirmed me and set me on the throne of David my father, and who has established a house[a] for me, as He promised, Adonijah shall be put to death today!” So King Solomon sent by the hand of Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; and he struck him down, and he died.
PERSONAL COMMENTARY
Solomon is famous for being a wise man.
12 comments:
Was the killing of Adonijah unwise?
A wise man would be motivated by love and seek to restore, not be so angered he murdered his own brother.
He could have had him thrown in a jail cell and given him the chance to see the error of his ways.
Bottom line, Solomon was a mythical figure, there is no real proof he or his kingdom ever existed.
Then again David killed a guy just to f--K his wife and jews and christians have a fetish for him as well. (makes you wonder why clinton getting a blow job was so bad?)
Would I respect a king or politician that killed his own brother. Absolutely not!
Would I respect a "moral" leader that had 700 mistresses and 300 wives and probably fathered hundreds of children in secret. Absolutely not!
Solomon is another outdated,
useless, misogynist mythical
icon of the abrahamic faiths.
I'm sorry, are you saying Solomon was perfect? Because I'm not entirely sure where you read that...?
David was severely punished for his actions. Or maybe you haven't read that part yet.
BTW Martin, these posts aren't discussions about whether or not the characters mentioned in the Bible are real. They're posts discussing "difficult" passages. Whenever you want to add something constructive instead of ranting about fetishes, 21st century morals, and your own personal demons, go right ahead.
Never said he was perfect, but he is certainly not one of the greatest or wisest kings to have ever lived as most believers claim.
He is just a character in a book no different than Gandolf in the Lord of the Rings or Yoda from the Star Wars trilogy.
The problem is religious people, like you, speak of Solomon and David as actual historical figures whom are examples for us to live by.
Most historians agree that they probably never existed except in hebrew and christian mythology.
You are a troll from what I can tell, Jason.
Afraid of a real debate with someone that might know more
than you.
Haven't heard one good
counterpoint yet.
As far as something constructive, you have yet to offer anything thought provoking and have resorting to judging me personally instead of being able to debate my points with any elegance or proof of your own.
Jason the Christadelphian...
That explains it!!!
Aren't you the weirdos that teach a man should NEVER have long hair even though most images of Christ show him with long hair.
There are even groups of Christadelphians who teach a woman should never have short hair either as backed up by many scriptures.
I remember Christadelphians protesting christian heavy metal bands like Stryper in the 80s simply because of their hair.
I am arguing with a wacko.
You do realize your "flavor" of christianity is classified as a cult by many mainstream theologians and masters of apologetics, don't you?
"Christadelphian teaching bears certain important doctrinal resemblances to traditional Armstrongism and the Jehovah’s Witnesses: rejection of the Trinity as Satanic; Christ’s atonement for past sins only; the necessity of good works for salvation; the impersonality of the Holy Spirit; a denial of eternal punishment and so on." John Ankerberg
Good, so we've agreed that Solomon wasn't perfect. That was quite the mountain to climb!
I'm afraid of a "real debate"? Oh no, not in the least. I'll debate as soon as you decide to impart some of your infamous wealth of Bible knowledge. Because "makes you wonder why clinton getting a blow job was so bad" is a bit difficult for me to debate with "elegance".
I'm curious what points you expect me to argue.
"Resorting to judging me personally..." Martin, do you realize you've called me a troll, a problematic religious person. a weirdo, a wacko and a cultist all in the short span of a just two posts?
"A man should never have long hair..." Hmmm...I know a number of long-haired Christadelphians. They're either going to non-hell or it's really not an issue. You choose.
The good news in all of this is that since you know your Bible inside and out, I'm sure that converting a certified trollish wacko should be no problem!!
"makes you wonder why clinton getting a blow job was so bad"
Christians went so far as to proclaim Clinton the anti-christ
in the 90s.
They wanted him impeached over a f--king blowjob and his clever semantic way of explaining it away and the religious right spent close to $100 million dollars to try to do it.
Where was the forgiveness?
Where was the compassion?
If King David could KILL A MAN JUST TO F--K HIS WIFE...
and still be consider a good and moral leader and "a man after god's own heart", why did so many christians rush to lynch and crucify Clinton for a discretion that was nowhere near as bad when he is a self proclaimed christian?
I got the answer...
THEY ARE ALL HYPOCRITES!!!
As far as long hair goes...
When I was still a church going youth in the 80s, I had long hair and I had Christadelphians hand me tracts about long hair and talk about how my pastor was a false teacher because of a great many reasons. I read their literature, went to the library to find out more and realized it was nothing more than a cult.
Your token "long hair" member means nothing, when the official church doctrine states that men should not have long hair from what I remember.
Kind of like when we had a token gay guy in our Assemblies of God church and we were so proud of our church that jesus was healing him from his gayness. He left and stayed gay, by the way.
The Holy Ghostbuster couldn't change him to a breeder.
Are far as converting you, you are so deep into your delusion that you are probably beyond help. That was never my mission. I stumbled across this blog from an atheist friend of mine's site and saw that this person "Jason" leaving smug yet flawed comments on almost every post. So... I decided to f--k with you a bit for my amusement.
I know many more just like you.
Your decision to miss out on the only life you will ever have is your own. I really don't care.
It's your loss, not mine.
Christians are human beings, Martin. They're not perfect you know :) Don't judge the Bible or God by the behaviour of the people who claim they believe in him :) You'll only get more angry.
As already stated, David was punished for his actions. God carried out the judgment, not the people.
Why are Christadelphians a cult? (I've never understood this)
"Official church doctrine" talks about long hair? Hm. No it doesn't. Maybe your memory is a bit clouded - this might help (it's the only 'official doctrine' we have and I couldn't find any reference to hair...)
I've been leaving smug yet flawed comments? Really? Then this is a great opportunity to act as tough as you talk and show me where I've erred. You're not afraid of a 'real debate' are you...?
Afraid of the real debate? Of course not. I am not the one avoiding questions like this one.
WHAT about the flood "story" and Noah's Ark? Is it truth or a lie as presented in the black and white?
According to the book of Genesis, god killed all of creation (plants and animals) and all humans but the 8 Jews in Noah's family with a global worldwide flood that left no scientific eveidence... AND all this happened within the last 5000 - 6000 years!
Are you now turning off your brain and telling me that over the course of a few thousand years all those animals and plants went through super fast micro-evolution and that from 8 jewish people we got all the races re-established on earth such as White, Mediterranean, Hispanic, African, Caribbean, Indian, Nepalese, Maldivian, Sri Lankan, Bangladeshi, Chinese, Japanese, South-East Asian, Arabic, Egyptian or Maghreb?
8 genetically jewish people are responsible for the creation of 15 - 20 races and 6 billion people over only 50 to 60 generations.
The MATH and the DNA do not add up.
It is scientifically impossible.
MORE...
What about polar bears?
How did Noah get polar bears on the ark and how did they survive in the desert conditions of the middle east? Or did they "evolve" from a sole bear species Noah saved over a few decades as some looney bible literalists suggest.
What about the dinosaurs?
How and when does their undeniable existence factor in?
What about carnivourous plants? What purpose would a non-sentient life that kills sentient life for food serve? Are venus fly traps pre-fall or post-fall creations?
What about parasites and viruses? What would god re-introduced them or perhaps introduce them in the first place when there only purpose is to kill and destroy other beings? Were they all on the ark? Why didn't they kill off the crew and animals then? They could not have survived in salt water. Why are they still around?
MORE...
What about Carnivores?
Gen 1:30
"And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so."
Please explain the Great White Shark eating plants... What plants would it possibly eat? SEAWEED?
Jaws was a "veggie" before Eve ate the forbidden fruit?
Answer these, you master-debater, you.
Interesting discussions. Drop by AgnosticAtheism.com sometime. I link to the Wordpress version of this blog.
aA
Mat 19:26 “…with God all things are possible.”
The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins. To prove the possibility of anything, science must be able to reproduce exact original conditions. Even when it proves something is possible, it doesn't mean it therefore happened. Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I accept the Bible's teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data.
No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered. Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from "amoeba" to "man" would require a massive net increase in information. There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory.
The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created. A system that is irreducibly complex has precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) If any part of that system were missing, the system would cease to function. Gradual additions could not account for the origin of such a system. It would have to come together fully formed and integrated. Many living systems exhibit this (vision, blood-clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch.
(Source: Randy Alcorn)
Creation vs. Evolution. This is a timeless argument that is ultimately based on faith. It will never be resolved because we’re not experts in the required fields. Thanks though.
Post a Comment