😡EVILEST PERSON IN HISTORY😡
Forums › General Discussion › 😡EVILEST PERSON IN HISTORY😡-
slugboy wrote:
Elijah/Elisha (I forget which it was) was a man of God: i.e. he represented God in a time of ungodliness.II Kings 2:23-24
Man gets called bald, god maims 42 people in retribution... Awesome
The lads who started making fun of him, were essentially making fun of God, showing a complete disrespect for Him.
Elijah/Elisha had enough of being teased, and he knew that the lads didn't care about God, so he asked God to do something about them.
God knew their hearts, and sent a bear to punish them.Personally, if I was a King, and somebody made fun of my messenger, I'd be sending something to show them better (probably something painful and likely fatal).
I don't see how you could hold that against God. I sure as anything don't!
-
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations.
-
My wife's name is Elisha !! She can be a real cow to when she gets angry hahaha 😜
-
♠Aⅅⅅ ϮuƦƑ₳♠ wrote:
That's a stupid reply haha! If that actually happened it would be completely unfair and the work of a madman!slugboy wrote:
Elijah/Elisha (I forget which it was) was a man of God: i.e. he represented God in a time of ungodliness.II Kings 2:23-24
Man gets called bald, god maims 42 people in retribution... Awesome
The lads who started making fun of him, were essentially making fun of God, showing a complete disrespect for Him.
Elijah/Elisha had enough of being teased, and he knew that the lads didn't care about God, so he asked God to do something about them.
God knew their hearts, and sent a bear to punish them.Personally, if I was a King, and somebody made fun of my messenger, I'd be sending something to show them better (probably something painful and likely fatal).
I don't see how you could hold that against God. I sure as anything don't!
-
TheRamb Add: 86 wrote:
Is it really that stupid? I certainly didn't think so: and my arguments come from the heart. Maybe you should think a a little more carefully before posting insulting comments.♠Aⅅⅅ ϮuƦƑ₳♠ wrote:
That's a stupid reply haha! If that actually happened it would be completely unfair and the work of a madman!slugboy wrote:
snippedII Kings 2:23-24
snippedLet's see what others have to say about it, eh?
-
♠Aⅅⅅ ϮuƦƑ₳♠ wrote:
Yes, it's stupid. A god maiming 42 local people over the actions of a subset of that group for calling someone bald????TheRamb Add: 86 wrote:
Is it really that stupid? I certainly didn't think so: and my arguments come from the heart. Maybe you should think a a little more carefully before posting insulting comments.♠Aⅅⅅ ϮuƦƑ₳♠ wrote:
That's a stupid reply haha! If that actually happened it would be completely unfair and the work of a madman!slugboy wrote:
snippedII Kings 2:23-24
snippedLet's see what others have to say about it, eh?
If you try to say that's acceptable behaviour you are kinda calling yourself stupid -
slugboy wrote:
I say you're missing the point.♠Aⅅⅅ ϮuƦƑ₳♠ wrote:
Yes, it's stupid. A god maiming 42 local people over the actions of a subset of that group for calling someone bald????TheRamb Add: 86 wrote:
snipped♠Aⅅⅅ ϮuƦƑ₳♠ wrote:
snippedslugboy wrote: snipped
snipped
If you try to say that's acceptable behaviour you are kinda calling yourself stupid
Ambassadors are meant to be respected, not ridiculed.
In history, if an ambassador was ridiculed or mocked, it could begin a war.
Tell me then, why shouldn't God be allowed to war with the people who mocked his ambassador?Tell me that.
-
Because the people calling him bald were children.
For starters...
Or are you saying its ok to brutalise and murder minors ? -
Wow, ok... Most of your 'history' is completely misplaced about catholicism and christianity. In the years following Jesus, 'christians' still considered themselves Jewish as the messiah was the figure foretold in Judaism. Later they were united under ONE
church- in which existed various disagreements that never culminated to the split we see today till the Protestant reformation..But to say things like 'Catholicism extended from one out of eleven apostles' is just a completed misunderstanding and/or fabrication of history.
Get your facts right about the history of christianity before you even try to defend the various belief systems that now fall under it
-
Also in terms of gay marriage, whatever anyone's beliefs are... SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE... It's going to happen eventually like any marginalized group denied basic rights (e.g. Women gaining the right to vote or African-American civil rights)
Deal with it
-
What I can't understand is the people who support these madmen. A meglomaniacal personality I can understand, but these people can't achieve much without the people around them supporting them. They are perhaps even more evil.
-
Also, generally, I disagree with this whole topic
I think It is humanity that is inherently evil
Hitler, Stalin, whoever.. they all maintained power by the controlling the masses through the masses' willingness to succumb to their ideaology.
Also, does any one note how the 'evilest' people are simply the losers? Had hitler won the war would people see him as they do today or just another hero of just another genocidal war? Would Stalin be considered evil had the soviet union not buckled? Had it gone the other way, perhaps American could be condemned for being the ONLY country to ever drop a nuclear bomb and decimate a civilian population.
Just saying, what we consider evil is based on our modern determinants of right and wrong and our own biased history (which is why the 'evilist of the evil' according to us have only been in the last couple centuries.)
-
Where has the thread gone too?
-
slugboy wrote:
It says in the New Testament that Jesus loves the little children.Because the people calling him bald were children.
For starters...
Or are you saying its ok to brutalise and murder minors ?
True, that they were children (according to the King James version: the most accurate version of the bible in existence). I won't argue that. They still had minds of their own: and who am I to judge my God anyhow? -
Cont...
Do we idolize or condemn Julius Caesar, a leader who practiced genocide? The decimation of the Native Americans through the united states and Andrew Jackson's trails of tears? The man is on our currency. Or even (following the hijacking of the thread) the genocide the Jews inflicted in the book of Esther against the amalekites and midianites? The winners determine our perception of evil
So if what determines our perception of evil is history- the only consistency throughout is humanity. Therefore I believe that humanity is inherently evil
-
♠Aⅅⅅ ϮuƦƑ₳♠ wrote:
So you are saying its perfectly fine to tear apart children, if they mildly harangue you?slugboy wrote:
It says in the New Testament that Jesus loves the little children.Because the people calling him bald were children.
For starters...
Or are you saying its ok to brutalise and murder minors ?
True, that they were children (according to the King James version: the most accurate version of the bible in existence). I won't argue that. They still had minds of their own: and who am I to judge my God anyhow? -
Ramjet wrote:
Dude. Of course they considered themselves Jewish. they were JEWS: just like I'm Australian.Wow, ok... Most of your 'history' is completely misplaced about catholicism and christianity. In the years following Jesus, 'christians' still considered themselves Jewish as the messiah was the figure foretold in Judaism. Later they were united under ONE
church- in which existed various disagreements that never culminated to the split we see today till the Protestant reformation..But to say things like 'Catholicism extended from one out of eleven apostles' is just a completed misunderstanding and/or fabrication of history.
Get your facts right about the history of christianity before you even try to defend the various belief systems that now fall under it
-
Christianity sprang from the Jewish nation - not from the Jewish religion. Jews lived by a set of rules: Christians lived (and still do so) by faith and under grace.
The early Christian faith was completely different from the early Roman Catholic religion. You should look into it if you are really that interested in arguing about it.
I certainly never said that 'Catholicism extended from one of the eleven apostles'. By the way, there were twelve original apostles. Judas betrayed Christ, and left the faith: leaving eleven.
The 'One' church that you speak of, what is that? The Catholic one? that has never been Christian. The Christian one? It wasn't a church - it still isn't. It's a belief. -
^^ the idea that the king James version is 'the most accurate version of the bible in existence' is wrong. The idea that the king james version is 'the most accurate english translation of the bible' is also highly debatable
-
♠Aⅅⅅ ϮuƦƑ₳♠ wrote:
I lie. Christianity did spring from the Jewish religion: however, not in the way that the Jews expected. I don't know if I can go into depth here: it would take a few hours to jot down the reasons and post repeatedly to tell you.Christianity sprang from the Jewish nation - not from the Jewish religion. Jews lived by a set of rules: Christians lived (and still do so) by faith and under grace.
The early Christian faith was completely different from the early Roman Catholic religion. You should look into it if you are really that interested in arguing about it.
-snipped- -
Ramjet wrote:
My bad choice of words. I meant that it is the most accurate English translation. And in all honesty, I couldn't give two hoots whether you think that's true or not. I've done my research, and I believe it. Try not to change the subject buddy.^^ the idea that the king James version is 'the most accurate version of the bible in existence' is wrong. The idea that the king james version is 'the most accurate english translation of the bible' is also highly debatable
-
The response against how 'catholicism sprung from on out of eleven apostles' wasn't directed at you but at Dino Marchetti
and no, it want 'just a belief' it was as Ignatius wrote in 110ad 'katholike ekklesia' a CHURCH. Like I said, there were disagreements that led to events like the east-west schism and protestant reformation. And yes, in the decades following Christ there were often disagreements- but yet there still emerged a unified Christendom from which every sect today has spun off
-
♠Aⅅⅅ ϮuƦƑ₳♠ wrote:
Do tell what this research was.Ramjet wrote:
My bad choice of words. I meant that it is the most accurate English translation. And in all honesty, I couldn't give two hoots whether you think that's true or not. I've done my research, and I believe it. Try not to change the subject buddy.^^ the idea that the king James version is 'the most accurate version of the bible in existence' is wrong. The idea that the king james version is 'the most accurate english translation of the bible' is also highly debatable
-
Not changing the subject, just can't type fast enough. King James has gone throug multiple revisions not just based on grammar and synatx. The version now is not the original.
Christianity sprang out in a different way than a MAJORITY of Jews expected. The messiah was supposed to the savior of the Jewish people according to the Talmud. A king to stengthen Israel. With the exception of the book of Daniel says nothing of the resurrection. So no, it wasn't generally accepted. Butthose that did still considered him a fulfillment of the Jewish prophecies...so... They were still Jewish
-
Also I was hoping somebody might debate me on my idea of relative evil instead of just theology and bible quoting :/ anybody still want to?
-
If ignorance is bliss, there are many TW players living in rapture.⚡🌀⚡
-
*sigh*
You two.
We all have our opinions, and we all have information to back said opinions. I've put my arguments forward, you've put your arguments forward, and none of us are any closer to accepting the other's opinion.
Say we agree to disagree, and let others have a turn at putting their ideas out there?By the way, Slugboy: I've read numerous books and paraphernalia on the issue of the Bible's authenticy. I make it my business to know what exactly it is that I believe in.
Peace, out. -
Let us get back on track! I repeat my first post, in reply to the OP's subject message.
♠Aⅅⅅ ϮuƦƑ₳♠ wrote:
I propose (having now read every page of this thread) that it was neither Hitler or Stalin.
Charles Dawin invented the theory of evolution. His idea was that darker skinned people were 'closer to the apes' and thus 'less human' than white skinned people (absolute and utter rot). It was his theories that lead both Stalin, and I believe to a degree, Hitler to commit the atrocities they did, besides other racism based genocides.
Charles Dawin's theory (and it is truly only a theory) has caused an astronomical amount of pain and suffering over the years since its birth.
/rant.
-
ΘиэЂuмвBαsтαя₫ wrote:
by the way, my second-last comment wasn't to you. it was to Ramjet and Slugboy. :)If ignorance is bliss, there are many TW players living in rapture.⚡🌀⚡
-
Ꮹཞ།ཀཀ wrote:
Hitler hands down. What a fuckin piece of shit that guy was.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC