Even Hitler Provided explanation for his atrocities, just like you did.
God doesn’t need for me to provide apologies for why He did what He did, or does. If He is God, He has the right to do as He wishes and will command His people. But you, who know nothing about the times, the context of God’s actions, the people the Israelites were facing and the warnings that had been issued to them, are perfectly willing to stand in judgment of God. I feel perfectly secure in promising you that you’ll have the opportunity of presenting your charges against Him on the day of judgment.
But, if the “brilliant” Cofty is right and God doesn’t exist, then no one is right or wrong. As atheist playright, philosopher and author Albert Camus, put it:
If we believe in nothing; if nothing has any meaning and if we can affirm no values whatsoever, then everything is possible and nothing has any importance. There is no pro or con: the murderer is neither right nor wrong. We are free to stoke the crematory fires or to devote ourselves to the care of lepers. Evil and virtue are mere chance or caprice.
At the point where it is no longer possible to say what is black and what is white, the light is extinguished and freedom becomes a voluntary prison.
Camus, by the way, changed his views and became a Christian after having written some of the most bitter and antagonistic things about God. At the end, he simply could not believe that your friend Hitler and his ilk would end up the same as those who lived good, honorable, decent lives. So the argument boils down to this: If God lives and if He guided Moses and the Israelites, as recorded in the Bible, then all those He ordered killed were simply placed in a penalty box, as it were, to await later administration of the gospel when Jesus preached to the spirits of the dead (see 1 Peter 3:18-19). Or, two, if God does not exist, then it doesn ’ t matter who killed who, for all will receive the same reward. Thus, who are you or anyone else to judge anyone??
Mormons don't mind a good massacre...
Many inaccuracies here, including the charge that those who carried out the massacre were members of the Nauvoo Legion, which existed in Nauvoo, Illinois. Those who carried it out were individual members who may have been part of the local militia (where every man was considered a member of the militia).
I can’t completely blame the Mormons of the time. Their flocks had been scattered and stolen, they had been run off their lands and an extermination order had been signed by the governor of Missouri, their wives and children raped and murdered. Now they were in the mountains of Utah, and in California newspaper editors were calling for their eradication by the U.S. Army. Wagons full of people heading to California were going through Utah’s valleys hurling insults at the Latter-day Saints and threatening them with further violence once they had the numbers. Mormons had been murdered at the Haun’s Mill Massacre, including men, women and children. Brigham Young had told the saints to let the wagons pass in peace, but he also warned the leaders of the trains to take care in their treatment of the saints and not to insult them or their women, or use foul language. I don’t condone what happened, but the people in the wagons failed to heed Young’s warnings.
Again, it’s the ignorance of the times and events that lead people to casually judge them. People who attempt to blame Young or the church on the massacre are ignoramuses. It was the last thing we needed, and Young, most of all, knew such an atrocity would be a powder keg. And after the War of 1861, the U.S. Army was dispatched. Fortunately for us, the weather and lack of food had the expedition starving and in need of supplies. Had not Young shown the compassion he did, the expedition would have been a one-way trip. It was called the Utah War, Buchanan’s Blunder, the Mormon War or the Utah Campaign. But regardless of what actually happened, it did not come from the church, nor was it a directive of revelation. It was cold blooded murder. See this write-upfrom our perspective. Also this video, which is the first of several.
pt1 Mountain Meadows Massacre
Samson in Hebrews 11 is considered a man of faith.
Who said he was a man of faith? The Lord did not condone one thing that Samson did. Did he deliver the people of Israel? No. He’s an example of a failed hero who didn’t live up to his potential. He did everything you said and he committed fornication with a Philistine woman, which alone was a serious sin. Murdering to pay a gambling debt alone will alone condemn him. And cruelty to animals also was an outrage.
I don't know where you got the idea he was a prophet, man of God or man of faith. He, rather, was a man who missed his calling. And he did not deliver Israel. If that's how the Jehovah's Witnesses see him, they missed the point completely. Samson, blind and bound to two pillars, was to be killed. But people love strength, and the Greeks loved Heracles, even though he could lose his temper and kill people at the drop of the proverbial hat. Like Samson, Thor and others, he wasn't too bright. Yet he, and not Theseus (his cousin), was the one found on most urns. But Samson's story is worth being told.
The only book I'd remove from the Bible is the Song of Solomon. Still, I can see why it was so popular.
.
