Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Hustle Man on October 24, 2007, 12:20:49 PM
-
OzmO asked a very good question about what seems to be conflicting personal attributes between the God in the OT and Jesus in the NT!
It is such a good question that Stella and I thought it warranted its own thread!
Is there a difference, do they conflict?
I don't think there is a difference nor do I think they conflict; My opinion supported by scripture to follow.
What do you think!
Discuss!
-
I think actions speak louder than words.
Do you really think every person who committed mass murder or slaughtered a group pf people and said "god" told them really did have god tell them? How could you ever know all the people chronicled in the Bible did? I don't see God as someone who would stoop so low and be so petty. Maybe you do.
Scripture is easy to interpret to one's personal liking. That's a fact demonstrated by the many denominations in Christianity.
-
I think actions speak louder than words.
Do you really think every person who committed mass murder or slaughtered a group pf people and said "god" told them really did have god tell them? How could you ever know all the people chronicled in the Bible did? I don't see God as someone who would stoop so low and be so petty. Maybe you do.
Scripture is easy to interpret to one's personal liking. That's a fact demonstrated by the many denominations in Christianity.
To answer your first question here; No! Case and point The Apostle Paul (Saul prior to conversion) killed Christians thinking he was doing God's will but ofc we know he was corrected on the road to Damascus by (Jesus)!
I would also like to point out the similarities in the between OT God/NT Jesus & Saul (the Pharisee)/Paul.
On the surface Saul handled non adherence to the Law pretty much the way God handled disbelief and/or disobedience i.e., death to they offender! Jesus and Paul on the other handle showed patience, forgiveness, grace, peace and mercy etc. we really have to compare scripture with scripture to see what God is doing in both the OT & NT. I think you will see the picture that is being painted. I will find scripture to explain my point further.
The denomination disparity, even though closely related, is another rabbit hole so maybe we should stick to what seems to be contradicting personal attributes between God (The Father) & God (Jesus, the Son).
-
I think actions speak louder than words.
Do you really think every person who committed mass murder or slaughtered a group pf people and said "god" told them really did have god tell them? How could you ever know all the people chronicled in the Bible did? I don't see God as someone who would stoop so low and be so petty. Maybe you do.
Scripture is easy to interpret to one's personal liking. That's a fact demonstrated by the many denominations in Christianity.
You don't think that God can do bad things then? Is that what you are saying? That he would just let people die. I think it is very possible.
For my own understanding of events, there is lessons and experiences that shape people(s). I guess it can be summed up that everything happens for a reason.
-
To answer your first question here; No! Case and point The Apostle Paul (Saul prior to conversion) killed Christians thinking he was doing God's will but ofc we know he was corrected on the road to Damascus by (Jesus)!
I would also like to point out the similarities in the between OT God/NT Jesus & Saul (the Pharisee)/Paul.
On the surface Saul handled non adherence to the Law pretty much the way God handled disbelief and/or disobedience i.e., death to they offender! Jesus and Paul on the other handle showed patience, forgiveness, grace, peace and mercy etc. we really have to compare scripture with scripture to see what God is doing in both the OT & NT. I think you will see the picture that is being painted. I will find scripture to explain my point further.
The denomination disparity, even though closely related, is another rabbit hole so maybe we should stick to what seems to be contradicting personal attributes between God (The Father) & God (Jesus, the Son).
I have no doubt that these father and son progressions in approaches can be explained but your answer to my question is not an explanation nor does it address the question in it's entirety it instead just gives an example.
so let's just talk about this example you gave:
To answer your first question here; No! Case and point The Apostle Paul (Saul prior to conversion) killed Christians thinking he was doing God's will but ofc we know he was corrected on the road to Damascus by (Jesus)!
How do you know Paul wasn't just "seeing and hearing things" in both cases?
I could talk with a Muslim and he can just as surely tell me why Mohammad was on orders from God to slaughter just as many poeple, kids etc... as was done in the OT on similar orders from God with the same scripture backed conviction you are surely to use.
What's the difference?
What makes it one credible and another not credible?
I get the Christian explanation of God changing his approach, but don't buy into any of it because i don't think God in the OT is accurately identified but instead used as a scape goat to commit some hideous crimes. Heck, Bush has said the same thing in so many words in justifying his intentions which in some ways are justified without using God.
-
You don't think that God can do bad things then? Is that what you are saying? That he would just let people die. I think it is very possible.
No, the root of what I'm saying here is derived from the notion that "god" wouldn't order men to slaughter a nation of people and it's children. now, he might order the adults to be killed which would make sense, but to kill innocent children makes no sense at all, hence the OT is an inaccurate representation of God's word. Add that to all the other Jealous petty stuff that's attributed to the God int he OT and he looks more like a man than anything else.
For my own understanding of events, there is lessons and experiences that shape people(s). I guess it can be summed up that everything happens for a reason.
I believe that "reason" is to give you an opportunity to grow by overcoming a challenge.
-
I would also like to add that we need to consider the intent of the OT & NT (both spiritual and physical)
We must realize that the OT was for the most part the instruction manual for setting up a new nation so of course we can understand that the OT and would first focus on matters of the law and security for this new nation under its God.
The NT on the other hand is the instruction manual for obtaining an intimate relationship with God on a very personal level.
I know the OT seems harsh but it is because the focus of the OT is mainly focused on defining the law for this very new nation and the emphasis is on the penalties for breaking these laws.
Which again I should point out that Jesus is 1/3 of the Godhead and very distinct in his personality from the other 2/3 I thought I would point this out to show that God's (Father, Son & HS) ineffiable plan to reveal himself to humanity happened in stages, e.g.(Progressive Revelation).
-
so let's just talk about this example you gave:
How do you know Paul wasn't just "seeing and hearing things" in both cases?
I could talk with a Muslim and he can just as surely tell me why Mohammad was on orders from God to slaughter just as many poeple, kids etc... as was done in the OT on similar orders from God with the same scripture backed conviction you are surely to use.
What's the difference?
What makes it one credible and another not credible?
I get the Christian explanation of God changing his approach, but don't buy into any of it because i don't think God in the OT is accurately identified but instead used as a scape goat to commit some hideous crimes. Heck, Bush has said the same thing in so many words in justifying his intentions which in some ways are justified without using God.
OzmO,
One topic at a time man, revelations in Islam and Christianity is another rabbit hole can we stick to the original thread?
The difference between the OT God and NT God (Jesus) I was trying to point out the progression of the book and the progression of the revelation of God's personal attributes.
-
I believe that "reason" is to give you an opportunity to grow by overcoming a challenge.
:)
-
OzmO,
One topic at a time man, revelations in Islam and Christianity is another rabbit hole can we stick to the original thread?
The difference between the OT God and NT God (Jesus) I was trying to point out the progression of the book and the progression of the revelation of God's personal attributes.
OK,
Revelation of personal attributes is very inconsistent in this case as he demonstrated compassion in the OT but also demonstrated attributes more common in man. Both approaches failed to stop people from choosing to sin. Approaching people as a jealous, petty God and making them fear you obviously didn't work and then 2000 years ago doing a 180 spurred about 1500 years of oppression and the hands of the very church created in his name. Only recently in the last hundred years becuase of the progressively easier exchange of information, telegraph, phone, radio, air travel, TV and now the Internet has our race advance into a more civilized state versus the previous 5 or 6 thousand years where life was far more brutal on all levels. But some of the OT approach still remains.......accept Jesus or burn in hell. That's the bottom line, no gray area. Do what i say to do or die. No different than the OT, no different than living in a dictatorship spiritually speaking except that no one pays until they die.
-
OK,
Revelation of personal attributes is very inconsistent in this case as he demonstrated compassion in the OT but also demonstrated attributes more common in man. Both approaches failed to stop people from choosing to sin. Approaching people as a jealous, petty God and making them fear you obviously didn't work and then 2000 years ago doing a 180 spurred about 1500 years of oppression and the hands of the very church created in his name. Only recently in the last hundred years becuase of the progressively easier exchange of information, telegraph, phone, radio, air travel, TV and now the Internet has our race advance into a more civilized state versus the previous 5 or 6 thousand years where life was far more brutal on all levels. But some of the OT approach still remains.......accept Jesus or burn in hell. That's the bottom line, no gray area. Do what i say to do or die. No different than the OT, no different than living in a dictatorship spiritually speaking except that no one pays until they die.
I think you have figured out God! Now what will you do?
You see no one will or can obey his every command ergo Jesus came as the sacrificial Lamb (Showing God's love, grace and mercy)! Hence the redemption of mankind through Jesus! Simple take heed adhere to the call work out your own salvation i.e., figure out what God has in store for you if you are one of his! Are you progressing or regressing?
I am so sorry you don't it; You can't win on your own accord! Simply put, "your arms are to short to box with God!"
-
I think you have figured out God! Now what will you do?
You see no one will or can obey his every command ergo Jesus came as the sacrificial Lamb (Showing God's love, grace and mercy)! Hence the redemption of mankind through Jesus! Simple take heed adhere to the call work out your own salvation i.e., figure out what God has in store for you if you are one of his! Are you progressing or regressing?
I am so sorry you don't it; You can't win on your own accord! Simply put, "your arms are to short to box with God!"
That's the kind of religious doctrine that demonstrates it's manipulative nature.
God did not create us to fail. He created us to succeed.
We are a great creation of God's with so much potential.
But Christians see themselves often as wretched sinful creatures. Sorry, i respect God's creation (us) and believe in him. I don't get so easily manipulated by some doctrine that says i am nothing with out it (the doctrine).
Also, understand very clearly, i do not box with God, i only box with those who perpetuate the madness of religious doctrine such as that you've written.
We are perfect creatures in that our ability to better ourselves is unlimited. Only those looking to control you, will tell you crap like your God given human urges are evil and to even think of them is the same a doing them in god's eyes. Only those looking to control you will try and keep you in their fold with the threat of burning in hell. Only those looking to control you will make you believe you are nothing with out God (which you are) but will put in their doctrine a clause that essentially says do it our way, becuase know the absolute truth or you will burn in hell. Only those looking to control you will make you feel guilty for being human.
No those things are not God.
Those things are man and his urge to glorify himself and feel special.
No HT, I'm far beyond sitting in a fire and brimstone sermon listening to how wretched i am and how evil everyone is and how only a small few will have a heavenly afterlife.
I have progressed far beyond the trappings of a primitive religious doctrine such as Christianity/Islam/Catholicism etc...
I don't have all the answers that's for sure.
But i do know this: The God in the in the OT is a man more often than not. Jesus in the NT is only a glimpse of the entire truth as sure enough those who convinced themselves they were on a mission from God put blinders on as they wrote letters and started what we know as Christianity, but really is a twisted man infested accounting of the truth.
-
God did not create us to fail. He created us to succeed.
We are perfect creatures in that our ability to better ourselves is unlimited.
OzmO, do you believe in "the fall?" What I mean is that God created the earth perfect and Adam and Eve were sinless, and then were tempted by the devil and fell into temptation and sin? Do you believe that happened or could have happened?
But i do know this: The God in the in the OT is a man more often than not. Jesus in the NT is only a glimpse of the entire truth as sure enough those who convinced themselves they were on a mission from God put blinders on as they wrote letters and started what we know as Christianity, but really is a twisted man infested accounting of the truth.
OzmO, who are you saying is a twisted man? The human "penmen" of the bible? Or Jesus?
Do you believe Jesus is God? If not, who do you think He is/was? (I'm sorry if you've answered this somewhere before...if you have I don't remember what your answer was!)
-
what i dont understand is why people who beleive in christianity dont realize or accept that most of the stories are borrowed from paganism and ancient egytian stories
the flood
the prophet
the crucifixtion
the wiseman and emaculate conception
among other stories. doesnt this strike you as odd?
what about god of the old testament? he is ruthless and allows people to die, and orders killings, is selfish and jealous.
people(just my opinion remember), there is no god sitting and watching your moves, how egotistical is it to think that in this huge universe god is watching you, and that your minor actions have warrant in eternity(it doesnt even follow logically). if god did create us, its to do more then entertain him by follow 10 laws. surely there is more to life then this.
-
That's the kind of religious doctrine that demonstrates it's manipulative nature.
God did not create us to fail. He created us to succeed. You are correct he did not create us to fall BUT we did fall just as Stella stated.
We are a great creation of God's with so much potential. Yes but we have gone astray turned away. You sin because Adam sinned first and you come from Adam, you received his fallen nature but by God's grace through Jesus (the second Adam) you can be restored.
But Christians see themselves often as wretched sinful creatures. Sorry, i respect God's creation (us) and believe in him. I don't get so easily manipulated by some doctrine that says i am nothing with out it (the doctrine).
Because you curse God for what you are and for what you are incapable of doing for yourself. Without Jesus your life is futile! You live only to die, with no purpose and you are a slave to that corruptible earth suit but in Christ you live to impact the world, glorify God, die and rise again to live eternally in his presence.
Also, understand very clearly, i do not box with God, i only box with those who perpetuate the madness of religious doctrine such as that you've written.
All I did was tell you what the bible says and you don't like it! you can argue with me all day but you have a problem with God not me! I presented God's word not my opinion but hate me Jesus said you would becauseyou hated him first
We are perfect creatures in that our ability to better ourselves is unlimited. Only those looking to control you, will tell you crap like your God given human urges are evil and to even think of them is the same a doing them in god's eyes. Only those looking to control you will try and keep you in their fold with the threat of burning in hell. Only those looking to control you will make you believe you are nothing with out God (which you are) but will put in their doctrine a clause that essentially says do it our way, becuase know the absolute truth or you will burn in hell. Only those looking to control you will make you feel guilty for being human.
You are a humanist, thats you religion and you serve the god of this corruptible world the prince and power of the air who deceives you daily!
No those things are not God.
Those things are man and his urge to glorify himself and feel special.
No HT, I'm far beyond sitting in a fire and brimstone sermon listening to how wretched i am and how evil everyone is and how only a small few will have a heavenly afterlife.
I have progressed far beyond the trappings of a primitive religious doctrine such as Christianity/Islam/Catholicism etc...
I don't have all the answers that's for sure.
But i do know this: The God in the in the OT is a man more often than not. Jesus in the NT is only a glimpse of the entire truth as sure enough those who convinced themselves they were on a mission from God put blinders on as they wrote letters and started what we know as Christianity, but really is a twisted man infested accounting of the truth.
You my friend are just like Adam and Eve; the serpent has beguiled you and lied to you. You have believed the father of all lies! He has twisted your thoughts how can you say the things you say about our creator but like you we have all gone astray;
Romans 3: 10-18
10 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."
13 "Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit." "The poison of vipers is on their lips."
14 "Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."
15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know."
18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes."[/color]
Are these verses truth to you? If not may God have mercy on your soul!
-
what i dont understand is why people who beleive in christianity dont realize or accept that most of the stories are borrowed from paganism and ancient egytian stories
the flood
the prophet
the crucifixtion
the wiseman and emaculate conception
among other stories. doesnt this strike you as odd?
what about god of the old testament? he is ruthless and allows people to die, and orders killings, is selfish and jealous.
people(just my opinion remember), there is no god sitting and watching your moves, how egotistical is it to think that in this huge universe god is watching you, and that your minor actions have warrant in eternity(it doesnt even follow logically). if god did create us, its to do more then entertain him by follow 10 laws. surely there is more to life then this.
I need sleep but I had to answer this before bed!
SHUSSSSSSH, LOL!
-
OzmO, do you believe in "the fall?" What I mean is that God created the earth perfect and Adam and Eve were sinless, and then were tempted by the devil and fell into temptation and sin? Do you believe that happened or could have happened?
no, i don't think it happened the way Genesis outlines. the only evidence is commonality with other creation stories form other cultures. Why is that one the correct one? how can we know? What makes it more credible than others? Because you say so? The people who decided which books belong in the bible? How did they know? Did anyone have the ability to verify ancient artifacts back then? no. Many more would still believe the shroud of Torin was genuine.
the tree of knowledge makes us bad? It's our free will that makes us bad, the choices we make.
If Adam and Eve were sinless they wouldn't have eaten from the tree. If adam and eve were so perfect how did they get duped by a serpent? So in the context of the bible being sinless means what? they went directly against the expressed orders of God. Sounds sinful to me. Did God plan this? Why not just make us imperfect to begin with? Or were we not perfect becuase satan could influence us to sin?
See, we weren't sinless so to speak to begin with.
OzmO, who are you saying is a twisted man? The human "penmen" of the bible? Or Jesus?
yes, those whose self righteousness dominates their sensibilities. along with those who added and decided which scripture belinged and which didn't fit all to well to their idea of what they think should be as the will of God.
Do you believe Jesus is God? If not, who do you think He is/was? (I'm sorry if you've answered this somewhere before...if you have I don't remember what your answer was!)
Jesus existed, that much is hard to debate, even for an typical atheist. Now did he exist in the capacity he was written about 50-100 years later after his death? No. Do the absolutes of salvation exists as Christians say they do? no. We are precious creations of God.
A god who allowed millions to die in the church created in his name after the death of his son. Christianity as we see it today might even still be as it was before Martin Luther. Hundreds of years and his Message manipulated and millions suffer burned at stakes, slaughter under the sword just as righteously as they did in the OT, only recently in the last few hundred years has christianty and it's modren characteristics grown to what they are today. Before that it was the OT all over again, and it wasn't Luther, or what ever, it was modern science who connected the world, first by paper, then by electrical pulses.
Jesus had a great message. I live by his golden rule. Here's a question for you? Aren't we all sons of god? don't we all have the holy spirit in us and it's whether we chose or not choose to acknowledge that determines how compassionate we become and that spirit can be identified in many religion but the message is still the same? Love one another, do good by them. It's in every religion one way or another.
What makes you Christians think God only speaks to you and forsakes billions of souls he created? What makes you think he doesn't acknowledge the compassion and love from others who aren't Christians who would never by the mere fact of social/culture proximity become Christians? What evidence do you have other than a book that agrees with your assumptions? Basically you have nothing but your believe.
And as i have seen first hand, once that is proven in some Christians minds that that might not be the truth they revert to old shameful, selfish, immoral ways which highlights the flaws of Christian salvation and proves they were impostors all along. (the 2 people i'm pretty close to became this way long after i had these beliefs,,, can you imagine a evangelist stealing....thousands and still preaching? lol)
the funny thing about this post is that some people who respond will not answer the questions i've asked. they find the one they can respond to and only answer that one. Much like how they read the Bible, finding the interpretation they like and focusing there.
-
Are these verses truth to you? If not may God have mercy on your soul!
Would you stop with the purple in my quote box? ;D it's hard to answer you.
You are correct he did not create us to fall BUT we did fall just as Stella stated.
Oh so it was intended by God for us to be sinless and Satan has more power than God? If he intended that then Satan would have nothing to do with it.
Yes but we have gone astray turned away. You sin because Adam sinned first and you come from Adam, you received his fallen nature but by God's grace through Jesus (the second Adam) you can be restored.
No, Adam did what Adam did, if he was sinless he'd have never done it. We are created as we are BY GOD'S hand. Blaming it on the devil when god is all powerful is stupid. Adam gave into temptation then before his fall and we give into temptation now I'm sure he knew who God was.....How then does he and eve choose to believe a serpent over God? Because they were tempted.....
Because you curse God for what you are and for what you are incapable of doing for yourself. Without Jesus your life is futile! You live only to die, with no purpose and you are a slave to that corruptible earth suit but in Christ you live to impact the world, glorify God, die and rise again to live eternally in his presence.
i don;t curse god for what i am, (here you go with that BS accusation crap again). I'm thankful everyday for the gifts he's given me and only hope to better them and myself.
By saying you are a wretched soul YOU are the one cursing God's creation. shame on you. Seriously.
All I did was tell you what the bible says and you don't like it! you can argue with me all day but you have a problem with God not me! I presented God's word not my opinion but hate me Jesus said you would because you hated him first
No, it's time you accept responsibility for your hubris. You accused me of boxing god, i have no problems with god, but i do have a problem with how god is falsely identified in the Bible. Do i have to draw a picture for you to get it? I know you are tired.
You are a humanist, thats you religion and you serve the god of this corruptible world the prince and power of the air who deceives you daily!
All you can do is accuse? you can't address the assertions I've made? very telling HT. Very rank and file.
You my friend are just like Adam and Eve; the serpent has beguiled you and lied to you. You have believed the father of all lies! He has twisted your thoughts how can you say the things you say about our creator but like you we have all gone astray;
No, it's your hubris again putting forth the notion in your head that if I'm not with you I must be against you.
Pride.....righteousness, doesn't the bible say something about that?
-
what i dont understand is why people who beleive in christianity dont realize or accept that most of the stories are borrowed from paganism and ancient egytian stories
the flood
the prophet
the crucifixtion
the wiseman and emaculate conception
among other stories. doesnt this strike you as odd?
Nope. Because skeptics have been making such claims for nearly 200 years; and such claims have shown to be unsubstantiated or flat-out false, for nearly as long.
what about god of the old testament? he is ruthless and allows people to die, and orders killings, is selfish and jealous.
It's the same old song and dance with non-believers. When injustice goes down, especially on God's people, and He seemingly does nothing or gives people the opportunity to repent, we get the smart-alec retorts, "Where is your God, now?"
Yet, when the Lord has had enough and it's judgment time, now He's Mr. Meanie; he's ruthless, cruel, etc., etc.
people(just my opinion remember), there is no god sitting and watching your moves, how egotistical is it to think that in this huge universe god is watching you, and that your minor actions have warrant in eternity(it doesnt even follow logically). if god did create us, its to do more then entertain him by follow 10 laws. surely there is more to life then this.
What's egotistical about that? Why wouldn't God be able to watch over His creation?
-
OzmO,
You ask a lot of questions and that is great. But now I have some questions for you. Please forget, for the sake of discussion, that I am a Christian, that I believe in the Bible, or even that I believe in God. Please pretend for a moment that I am seeking this "truth" you are talking about.
God did not create us to fail. He created us to succeed.
We are a great creation of God's with so much potential.
We are perfect creatures in that our ability to better ourselves is unlimited.
No those things are not God.
How do you know this? Where did you get this information? What spirit, prophet, holy man, holy text or whatever gave you this information?
Jesus in the NT is only a glimpse of the entire truth
What is "the entire truth" and how do you know Jesus in the NT is "only a glimpse" of that entire truth?
We are precious creations of God.
Who told you that? How do you know?
Jesus had a great message. I live by his golden rule.
What is Jesus' golden rule? How do you know Jesus said this? What is his "great message"? How do you know that this is his message?
Aren't we all sons of god?
Is this really a question or do you already know the answer? Do you say "Yes"? How do you know?
don't we all have the holy spirit in us
Again, what is your answer. Is it "Yes"? How do you know this? Who gave you this information?
-
what about god of the old testament? he is ruthless and allows people to die, and orders killings, is selfish and jealous.
The God of the New Testament allows people to die also. In fact, death has an almost 100% success rate taking into account Enoch and Elijah who did not die.
Has no one read Revelation which is in the New Testament? Some of the judgments to come will be far more horrifying than what some call the Old Testament God allowed. Even as some of these judgments are being laid out, men will still be "worshipping demons and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood." (Rev 9:20)
-
no, i don't think it happened the way Genesis outlines. the only evidence is commonality with other creation stories form other cultures. Why is that one the correct one? how can we know? What makes it more credible than others? Because you say so? The people who decided which books belong in the bible? How did they know? Did anyone have the ability to verify ancient artifacts back then? no. Many more would still believe the shroud of Torin was genuine.
OzmO, how the bible was formed etc. is a great idea for another thread! I'll start it later and address this (if anyone wants to start it now, go ahead)!
Why do you think that people didn't have the ability to verify ancient artifacts back then? It seems as though a general theme in some people's thinking is that people that lived many years ago were just not that smart. I can understand this in someone who believes that evolutionary theory is fact and in regard to what they believe was a cro-magnum man or something, but I don't understand why they think it applies to a civilized society, of which there were many, thousands of years ago.
-
the tree of knowledge makes us bad? It's our free will that makes us bad, the choices we make.
No, the tree of knowledge did not make Adam and Eve sin. They chose to disobey God who told them not to eat of that tree. When they disobeyed Him, they sinned and sin was brought into their world.
If Adam and Eve were sinless they wouldn't have eaten from the tree. If adam and eve were so perfect how did they get duped by a serpent? So in the context of the bible being sinless means what? they went directly against the expressed orders of God. Sounds sinful to me. Did God plan this? Why not just make us imperfect to begin with? Or were we not perfect becuase satan could influence us to sin?
See, we weren't sinless so to speak to begin with.
They WERE sinless to begin with. They did have free will and their choice resulted in sin being brought into their world after they made that choice. Before that they had never sinned.
Let's say you have a "perfect" apple. It's perfect, no worms, no holes, etc. While eating your living shoe stuffed with cheese ;D, your hands get greasy and you drop the apple. Now the apple has a huge bruise and is no longer "perfect." It was perfect before, but not after you dropped it.
Adam and Eve being sinless doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't someday make the choice to give into the temptations of the devil who is extremely crafty and the father of lies. It's apples and oranges.
Did God plan it? I don't know about that but He did ALLOW it and yes, He KNEW it would happen.
-
A god who allowed millions to die in the church created in his name after the death of his son. Christianity as we see it today might even still be as it was before Martin Luther. Hundreds of years and his Message manipulated and millions suffer burned at stakes, slaughter under the sword just as righteously as they did in the OT, only recently in the last few hundred years has christianty and it's modren characteristics grown to what they are today. Before that it was the OT all over again, and it wasn't Luther, or what ever, it was modern science who connected the world, first by paper, then by electrical pulses.
The people were burned at the stakes etc. because they would not profess to believe in things like the transubstantiation (which is a load of bull IMO) were burned by misguided and probably egotistical church leaders in the Roman Catholic Church.
That was NOT "righteous killing" as you say.
-
Jesus existed, that much is hard to debate, even for an typical atheist. Now did he exist in the capacity he was written about 50-100 years later after his death? No. Do the absolutes of salvation exists as Christians say they do? no.
Why not? Is it because you don't like it or it doesn't seem to make sense to you? Do you believe there is a possibility (even if in your opinion is minute) that the Jesus in the bible could be the truth?
-
Jesus had a great message. I live by his golden rule.
What is that and where did you read/hear about it?
Here's a question for you? Aren't we all sons of god? don't we all have the holy spirit in us ?
If by "all" you mean all people the answer is no. If by "all" you mean all believers in Christ the answer is yes.
John 1:12,13
Yet to all who received Him (Jesus), to those who believed in His name, he gave the right to become children of God - children born not (just) of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
Galatians 3:26
You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus (Paul speaking to believers here)
-
What makes you Christians think God only speaks to you and forsakes billions of souls he created? What makes you think he doesn't acknowledge the compassion and love from others who aren't Christians who would never by the mere fact of social/culture proximity become Christians? What evidence do you have other than a book that agrees with your assumptions? Basically you have nothing but your believe.
I don't see it as God forsaking anyone but more as them forsaking God.
I've never said He doesn't acknowledge compassion and love from others who aren't Christians ??? But I don't believe that we can work our way to heaven if that is what you are saying ???
And as i have seen first hand, once that is proven in some Christians minds that that might not be the truth they revert to old shameful, selfish, immoral ways which highlights the flaws of Christian salvation and proves they were impostors all along. (the 2 people i'm pretty close to became this way long after i had these beliefs,,, can you imagine a evangelist stealing....thousands and still preaching? lol)
Why would you let the actions of some fallible people "harsh your buzz" so to speak on wanting to learn more about the Christ of the bible? I know people that I believe are true believers that have done some of the most terrible things (I am no angel either).
But why in your mind this prove that Christian Salvation has flaws? The fact that people can act like fools doesn't mean the the Christian Plan of Salvation is wrong. We are still living in the flesh and still sin. Don't look down at people who claim to need a Savior. Look up to the Savior and see what HE is like. In looking at people, you will ALWAYS be disappointed.
Keep in mind also OzmO, that there are people who claim to be believers that are not. Look at that guy Robert Tilton. Now maybe he is a believer but I'll tell ya I have doubts about someone who sells hankerchiefs that he claims he's wiped his sweat on and if you buy one, you'll be blessed financially...oh brother lol!
the funny thing about this post is that some people who respond will not answer the questions i've asked. they find the one they can respond to and only answer that one. Much like how they read the Bible, finding the interpretation they like and focusing there.
:)
-
OzmO, how the bible was formed etc. is a great idea for another thread! I'll start it later and address this (if anyone wants to start it now, go ahead)!
Why do you think that people didn't have the ability to verify ancient artifacts back then? It seems as though a general theme in some people's thinking is that people that lived many years ago were just not that smart. I can understand this in someone who believes that evolutionary theory is fact and in regard to what they believe was a cro-magnum man or something, but I don't understand why they think it applies to a civilized society, of which there were many, thousands of years ago.
Modern science and developed techniques have given us the ability to verify ancient artifacts far more accurately then what they had to use back then. I think it was determine at one point in the 1400's that if you took all the pieces of wood that were supposed to be from the cross that were then being displayed as holy artifacts you could build a building the size of a church.
Point is, with science and the ability to cross check others sources of information we have today, people back then had little clue or the ability to verify the authenticity of what htey might have assumed to be genuine.
No, the tree of knowledge did not make Adam and Eve sin. They chose to disobey God who told them not to eat of that tree. When they disobeyed Him, they sinned and sin was brought into their world.
So they sinned with out it? I thought they were sinless. So Adam and Eve were created with the capacity to sin just as were a born with the same capacity now.
They WERE sinless to begin with. They did have free will and their choice resulted in sin being brought into their world after they made that choice. Before that they had never sinned.
There choice was sinful, they choose to disobey God. Is killing a sin? Has God told you not to kill? If you kill then you have sinned. If you did not have the capcity to sin you would not have the capacity to chose to sin or the strength not to be tempted to sin.
Adam and Eve fail in both areas, hence they were sinners as we are to begin with. Whether it was the serpent or MTV, they would have sinned at some point.
Let's say you have a "perfect" apple. It's perfect, no worms, no holes, etc. While eating your living shoe stuffed with cheese Grin, your hands get greasy and you drop the apple. Now the apple has a huge bruise and is no longer "perfect." It was perfect before, but not after you dropped it.
The analogy would work but in this case the Apple choose to fall to the ground on it's own accord.
Adam and Eve being sinless doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't someday make the choice to give into the temptations of the devil who is extremely crafty and the father of lies. It's apples and oranges.
We do the same thing from Birth.
Did God plan it? I don't know about that but He did ALLOW it and yes, He KNEW it would happen.
Prior knowledge without action to stop it points directly to malice on his part.
The people were burned at the stakes etc. because they would not profess to believe in things like the transubstantiation (which is a load of bull IMO) were burned by misguided and probably egotistical church leaders in the Roman Catholic Church.
That was NOT "righteous killing" as you say.
Yes they were!!! in the minds of those who did the killings they were, the representatives of God church......God allowed this to happen for hundreds of years, from 400AD to 1600AD
What is that and where did you read/hear about it?
Do you doubt the same concept is not in other religions of philosophies?
If by "all" you mean all people the answer is no. If by "all" you mean all believers in Christ the answer is yes.
John 1:12,13
Yet to all who received Him (Jesus), to those who believed in His name, he gave the right to become children of God - children born not (just) of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
Galatians 3:26
You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus (Paul speaking to believers here)
That's religious doctrine speaking whose sole purpose is to operate and protect it's uniqueness and provide an exclusive place for it's followers.
-
Sorry loco and Stella don't have time right now to respond as each response is taking about 10 to 30 minutes to do. I'll get to it later on.
And sorry HT if the thread is going in a different direction. In a religious debate it's hard to stay on point because there is so much to it.
-
Sorry loco and Stella don't have time right now to respond as each response is taking about 10 to 30 minutes to do. I'll get to it later on.
And sorry HT if the thread is going in a different direction. In a religious debate it's hard to stay on point because there is so much to it.
NP bro, I am swamped myself lol
I did an experiment with my kids to explain what happened with Adam and Eve in the Garden.
In short:
I brought home a precision measuring equipment container (black box) with latches and I told my kids not to open it, I told them they could touch it but never open it because it could have grave consequences! needless to say, this drove them crazy! Never have I seen such intense curiosity, even from my GF lol this went on for weeks... what do you think happened?
BTW I put our tickets to Disney World in the box lol talk about a million questions.
-
Why did God create millions of stars in our galaxy, and billions of galaxies in the universe if we're the whole point of it all?
If he did do that, why didn't he give us the brain power to comprehend the vastness of the universe?
-
NP bro, I am swamped myself lol
I did an experiment with my kids to explain what happened with Adam and Eve in the Garden.
In short:
I brought home a precision measuring equipment container (black box) with latches and I told my kids not to open it, I told them they could touch it but never open it because it could have grave consequences! needless to say, this drove them crazy! Never have I seen such intense curiosity, even from my GF lol this went on for weeks... what do you think happened?
BTW I put our tickets to Disney World in the box lol talk about a million questions.
In the end, Adam and Eve, just like your kids, didn't do what they were told to do. I don't see any difference.
BTW, i think that's a great way of teaching your kids.
-
In the end, Adam and Eve, just like your kids, didn't do what they were told to do. I don't see any difference.
BTW, i think that's a great way of teaching your kids.
Man it was so funny the could not stand not know what was in the box especially with the teaser out there lol. BTW my youngest daughter confessed she opened the box while I was away but she didn't tell anyone what was in the box unless the rest are liars and keeping it to themselves not wanting to distroy dad's surprize lol! Just thought I would share some of me with ya!
-
Nope. Because skeptics have been making such claims for nearly 200 years; and such claims have shown to be unsubstantiated or flat-out false, for nearly as long.
It's the same old song and dance with non-believers. When injustice goes down, especially on God's people, and He seemingly does nothing or gives people the opportunity to repent, we get the smart-alec retorts, "Where is your God, now?"
Yet, when the Lord has had enough and it's judgment time, now He's Mr. Meanie; he's ruthless, cruel, etc., etc.
What's egotistical about that? Why wouldn't God be able to watch over His creation?
for one you dont know what your talking about, im sorry you have alot of misinformation. paganism predates the bible and has the same stories.
dude provide some evidence for YOUR god, and why YOUR god.
the flood story is all over the world in many religions are you claiming this is false?
-
for one you dont know what your talking about, im sorry you have alot of misinformation. paganism predates the bible and has the same stories.
dude provide some evidence for YOUR god, and why YOUR god.
the flood story is all over the world in many religions are you claiming this is false?
The Flood story being in different cultures proves one thing: Those cultures acknowledged that, at some point in Earth's history, the planet was destroyed by a massive flood, with only a handful of people surviving by building an structure or Ark.
What that DOES NOT show, however, is your claim that the Hebrews took those accounts from other cultures. With the survivors of the Ark, going on to repopulate the earth, it makes perfect sense that multiple cultures would have some account about the Flood.
Unless you can show SPECIFICALLY that the Israelites took certain accounts from these pagans, all you're doing is spouting tired skeptic claims, that have been refuted more times than I care to mention.
-
The Flood story being in different cultures proves one thing: Those cultures acknowledged that, at some point in Earth's history, the planet was destroyed by a massive flood, with only a handful of people surviving by building an structure or Ark.
What that DOES NOT show, however, is your claim that the Hebrews took those accounts from other cultures. With the survivors of the Ark, going on to repopulate the earth, it makes perfect sense that multiple cultures would have some account about the Flood.
Unless you can show SPECIFICALLY that the Israelites took certain accounts from these pagans, all you're doing is spouting tired skeptic claims, that have been refuted more times than I care to mention.
ok i will post some shit about the date of christmas, the rebirth, all that shit. will you even accept it?
also, why does your god exist? and not the god of any other religion, or any of the greek gods?
i also will have other questions, as im interested in what you have to say
-
OzmO,
You ask a lot of questions and that is great. But now I have some questions for you. Please forget, for the sake of discussion, that I am a Christian, that I believe in the Bible, or even that I believe in God. Please pretend for a moment that I am seeking this "truth" you are talking about.
How do you know this? Where did you get this information? What spirit, prophet, holy man, holy text or whatever gave you this information?
How do i know? Adam and Eve had a predisposition to sin before they did. Just like babies...... And how do i know we are born to succeed?
Do you live in a bubble loco, open your eyes and see the things individuals do to better themselves and the capacity for change.....In your experiences you should be able to see this when people are born again. But it is not limited to Christianity, people in all walks of life in all religions etc... Have done great things to help others and better themselves......they ease suffering, cure decease, feed the hungry with innovations, inventions, people become parents etc...
But in the end whether we succeed at bettering ourselves or not, it is a choice we make with what God has given us. It's like the parable of the talents. (if i remember it right)
What is "the entire truth" and how do you know Jesus in the NT is "only a glimpse" of that entire truth?
Because we don't have all the information. We have eye witness accounts that were written many years after, like many many years right after, and these accounts aren't from the actual paper (papyrus, copper scrolls) they were written on, in fact they are probably reproductions 10 or 20 or even 100 times over. Add that to all the other gospels and you have to wonder how much was left out or added. Basically, it a very logical conclusion if you are objectively investigating it. But what you take a fact is base on belief not real fact.
Who told you that? How do you know?
when you have Children, and one day you will and you wil be a great parent, you'll exactly what i mean and you'll never deny it.
What is Jesus' golden rule? How do you know Jesus said this? What is his "great message"? How do you know that this is his message?
Actually that message is in many religions.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm)
Is this really a question or do you already know the answer? Do you say "Yes"? How do you know?
Again, what is your answer. Is it "Yes"? How do you know this? Who gave you this information?
They are questions. Feel free to answer them. :)
-
Thanks, OzmO, for taking the time to type this up, but you misunderstood my questions. I had asked you to please pretend for a moment that I am NOT a Christian, that I do NOT believe in the Bible, and that I do NOT believe even in God. Let's say I'm seeking this "truth" you talk about:
How do i know? Adam and Eve had a predisposition to sin before they did. Just like babies...... And how do i know we are born to succeed?
How do you know Adam and Eve even existed?
And being "born" to succeed is different than what you said earlier, being "created" to succeed. How do you know that a god would "create" us to succeed?
Do you live in a bubble loco, open your eyes and see the things individuals do to better themselves and the capacity for change.....In your experiences you should be able to see this when people are born again. But it is not limited to Christianity, people in all walks of life in all religions etc... Have done great things to help others and better themselves......they ease suffering, cure decease, feed the hungry with innovations, inventions, people become parents etc...
"Born again"? Do you really believe in being "born again"? If so, why? Who told you about that?
But in the end whether we succeed at bettering ourselves or not, it is a choice we make with what God has given us. It's like the parable of the talents. (if i remember it right)
"The parable of Talents." Who told this parable and how do you know that he/she really told it. How do you know its teaching is good?
Because we don't have all the information. We have eye witness accounts that were written many years after, like many many years right after, and these accounts aren't from the actual paper (papyrus, copper scrolls) they were written on, in fact they are probably reproductions 10 or 20 or even 100 times over. Add that to all the other gospels and you have to wonder how much was left out or added. Basically, it a very logical conclusion if you are objectively investigating it. But what you take a fact is base on belief not real fact.
I was not really asking about "Christian truth". I was asking for what you mean by "truth", how do you know what it is?
when you have Children, and one day you will and you wil be a great parent, you'll exactly what i mean and you'll never deny it.
Okay. "loco, you are too dumb to understand. When you grow up some day you will understand." ;D
Actually that message is in many religions.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm)
And that makes it true? How do you even know that Jesus is one of the ones who said it?
They are questions. Feel free to answer them. :)
I know that they are questions. I was honestly asking for an answer and an explanation. Are we or are we not all children of God? Do we or do we not all have the Holy Spirit? If you don't know the answer just say so. If you do, I would like to know the answer and I would like to know how you know.
And, if there is a God, how do you know that he is good? How do you know that he is not neutral or amoral? How do you know that, if he even did create us, is not just bored and simply entertaining himself by putting us all through experiments and tests for his own amusement?
-
ok i will post some shit about the date of christmas, the rebirth, all that shit. will you even accept it?
also, why does your god exist? and not the god of any other religion, or any of the greek gods?
i also will have other questions, as im interested in what you have to say
Post all you like. But, let's make a few things clear:
1) The Hebrews never claimed that Jesus was born on December 25. That date was assigned by the Roman Catholic Church.
2) Since your initial claim was that paganism predates the Bible and that the Israelites took accounts in the Bible from other religions, that is what I've asked you to support.
3) As for why God exists, as opposed to the Greek gods or any others, my answer would be, among other things:
- Historical and archaeologic evidence that validates Scripture, which leads to another favorite of mine.......
- Biblical prophecy
-
Thanks, OzmO, for taking the time to type this up, but you misunderstood my questions. I had asked you to please pretend for a moment that I am NOT a Christian, that I do NOT believe in the Bible, and that I do NOT believe even in God. Let's say I'm seeking this "truth" you talk about:
I'm not trying to convert anyone to any particular religion. I'm only questioning the doctrine that says "our way" is the only way to a after life in heaven.
How do you know Adam and Eve even existed?
And being "born" to succeed is different than what you said earlier, being "created" to succeed. How do you know that a god would "create" us to succeed?
I don't know Adam and Eve existed. Unitl they dig up an ancient pair of bodies without belly buttons we'll never know. I'm applying common sense and logic to the story of Adam and Eve and mankind's fall.
"The parable of Talents." Who told this parable and how do you know that he/she really told it. How do you know its teaching is good?
The teaching is good for most obvious reasons. In reality it's not that important who said it is it? It's more important that it's followed.
I was not really asking about "Christian truth". I was asking for what you mean by "truth", how do you know what it is?
You never relly know. Only in your heart can you begin to.
Okay. "loco, you are too dumb to understand. When you grow up some day you will understand."
that wasn't my intention. It's just until that time comes you may have a hard time understanding. My parents used to try an explain ti to me and i never understood until i had children of my own. I didn't mean it in a negative or condesending way.
And that makes it true? How do you even know that Jesus is one of the ones who said it?
Same as above. Does it really matter who said it?
Fact is, it's very true and works.
I know that they are questions. I was honestly asking for an answer and an explanation. Are we or are we not all children of God? Do we or do we not all have the Holy Spirit? If you don't know the answer just say so. If you do, I would like to know the answer and I would like to know how you know.
And, if there is a God, how do you know that he is good? How do you know that he is not neutral or amoral? How do you know that, if he even did create us, is not just bored and simply entertaining himself by putting us all through experiments and tests for his own amusement?
It all depends on what you believe. But if you want facts.......based on todays sceince there isn't a GOD I believe science will soon discover God.
-
Post all you like. But, let's make a few things clear:
3) As for why God exists, as opposed to the Greek gods or any others, my answer would be, among other things:
- Historical and archaeologic evidence that validates Scripture, which leads to another favorite of mine.......
- Biblical prophecy
No it doesn't.
Just because you dig something up that was a place or a artifact named in the Bible doesn't all the associated "magical" things happened also.
-
I'm not trying to convert anyone to any particular religion. I'm only questioning the doctrine that says "our way" is the only way to a after life in heaven.
I don't know Adam and Eve existed. Unitl they dig up an ancient pair of bodies without belly buttons we'll never know. I'm applying common sense and logic to the story of Adam and Eve and mankind's fall.
The teaching is good for most obvious reasons. In reality it's not that important who said it is it? It's more important that it's followed.
You never relly know. Only in your heart can you begin to.
that wasn't my intention. It's just until that time comes you may have a hard time understanding. My parents used to try an explain ti to me and i never understood until i had children of my own. I didn't mean it in a negative or condesending way.
Same as above. Does it really matter who said it?
Fact is, it's very true and works.
It all depends on what you believe. But if you want facts.......based on todays sceince there isn't a GOD I believe science will soon discover God.
OzmO,
You should be a politician. :)
I appreciate you answering my questions! But the way you answered the questions, so carefully, left me in the dark. Even after many debates, discussions and arguments with you, I still don't know what you believe, why, and what you base you belief on. You are so vague.
And you talk of the Holy Spirit, being born again, Adam and Eve, the golden rule? For someone who bashes Christianity and the Bible almost constantly, you seem to base much of your belief on Christianity and on the Bible. How do you pick and choose which parts are true and which are not?
Richard Dawkins says that if fundamentalists betray reason, moderates betray both: reason and faith. Then he asks the same question, how do you pick and choose which parts of Christianity or which parts of the Bible are true and which aren't?
Going back and considering your many posts, you seem to base your belief on Christianity, the Bible, your own heart, and what little you know about the many religions and cults out there.
-
Because we don't have all the information. We have eye witness accounts that were written many years after, like many many years right after, and these accounts aren't from the actual paper (papyrus, copper scrolls) they were written on, in fact they are probably reproductions 10 or 20 or even 100 times over. Add that to all the other gospels and you have to wonder how much was left out or added. Basically, it a very logical conclusion if you are objectively investigating it. But what you take a fact is base on belief not real fact.
OzmO,
Are you simply repeating theories you heard or read from skeptics? Are you ready to provide evidence of the above? You, or whoever fed you this is mistaken. I'm no Bible scholar, yet simply by reading the New Testament and knowing a little ancient World History, I can tell you that the gospels were written before 70 AD, within 40 years of Jesus' crucifixion. Conservative Bible scholars agree with me. If you are going to argue with this, you better have some evidence to back it up. And I don't mean posting links to websites. I mean, if this is your personal belief, then you will have evidence to back it up.
In addition:
If we want to disregard the New Testament, then we must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Ceasar. This is because the New Testament documents are better preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writing. Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy...and they are very consistent.
There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament. If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.
Just one example:
Aristotle's ancient writings date 384-322 B.C.. The earliest copy we have is from 1,100 A.D.. The approximate time span between original & copy is 1,400 years. We have only 49 copies.
Ceasar's ancient writings date 100-44 B.C.. The earliest copy we have is from 900 A.D.. The approximate time span between original & copy is 1,000 years. We have only 10 copies.
The New Testament on the other hand dates 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D.). The earliest copies we have are from 2nd Cent. A.D. (130 A.D.). The approximate time span between original & copy is less than 100 years. We have 5,686 copies.
-
OzmO,
You should be a politician. :)
Yikes, thanks i guess. My job involves a good amount of corporate politics.
I think/believe these things:
- The Bible is not the 100% word of God, but there are many things in it that are "of God" just as there are in other religious books or scripture. So when i talk about "the Golden Rule" which is in many other religions that's what I'm talking about.
- I see the Bible full of religious doctrine. The people who chose the books and the scripture chose them because they would serve to support that doctrine. For example: No matter how good you are, or how many good things you do you cannot go to heaven unless you accept Jesus as your savior.
- The murderous God described in the OT is not God. Of course we went round and round with this, but i do believe "gods" actions would be consistent with the moral standards he expects from us at the very least.
- I believe many Christians will go to heaven, but not solely because they accepted Christ, but because they lived loving, good lives and maybe it was the Holy spirit coming into their lives because of accepting Christ then that's great, but the same thing happens to people in other religions.
- I believe God reaches people in many different ways in many different religions, he finds ways to touch them and that might be through Islam, Hinduism, Catholicism etc... Does it really matter how they come to God? Does it matter what rules they accept or what doctrine? Of course you'll show me some verse thats says that isn't true, but that's from the book your church is based on. How effective would a church be of it had a doctrine that said in effect: "we are not the only way"
- I don't believe god would forsake billions of his creations over schematics or man made doctrine.
Richard Dawkins says that if fundamentalists betray reason, moderates betray both: reason and faith. Then he asks the same question, how do you pick and choose which parts of Christianity or which parts of the Bible are true and which aren't?
Richard Dawkins is on one end of a polar extreme, just liek the other end they will try and manipulate the middle to come to their side.
Aristotle's ancient writings date 384-322 B.C.. The earliest copy we have is from 1,100 A.D.. The approximate time span between original & copy is 1,400 years. We have only 49 copies.
Ceasar's ancient writings date 100-44 B.C.. The earliest copy we have is from 900 A.D.. The approximate time span between original & copy is 1,000 years. We have only 10 copies.
The New Testament on the other hand dates 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D.). The earliest copies we have are from 2nd Cent. A.D. (130 A.D.). The approximate time span between original & copy is less than 100 years. We have 5,686 copies.
Comparing that to those other texts doesn't take away from that fact the gospels were written way way way way too long after Christ's death and have been recopied many times over and left open for any to take advantage of by inputing their own "wrongly assumed" God inspired additions and beliefs. Also, Aristotle and Caesar's writing aren't be taken as the exact word of God and all scholars realize that they are but glimpses that are in some respects true and some respect potentially not.
Fact is you don;t know for sure if they are the original words and you don't even know if they remember it right. How much do you remember about what was said 20 years ago? so what's likely? Error, gross error, and bias manipulation based on the belif of church leader of the time that produce this "doctrine of divine exclusivity"
I hope this sheds light a bit on my position and explains why i say the things i do. I tend to try and look at the whole picture more than accepting something that makes little sense and limits my objectivity.
-
Yikes, thanks i guess. My job involves a good amount of corporate politics.
I think/believe these things:
- The Bible is not the 100% word of God, but there are many things in it that are "of God" just as there are in other religious books or scripture. So when i talk about "the Golden Rule" which is in many other religions that's what I'm talking about.
- I see the Bible full of religious doctrine. The people who chose the books and the scripture chose them because they would serve to support that doctrine. For example: No matter how good you are, or how many good things you do you cannot go to heaven unless you accept Jesus as your savior.
- The murderous God described in the OT is not God. Of course we went round and round with this, but i do believe "gods" actions would be consistent with the moral standards he expects from us at the very least.
- I believe many Christians will go to heaven, but not solely because they accepted Christ, but because they lived loving, good lives and maybe it was the Holy spirit coming into their lives because of accepting Christ then that's great, but the same thing happens to people in other religions.
- I believe God reaches people in many different ways in many different religions, he finds ways to touch them and that might be through Islam, Hinduism, Catholicism etc... Does it really matter how they come to God? Does it matter what rules they accept or what doctrine? Of course you'll show me some verse thats says that isn't true, but that's from the book your church is based on. How effective would a church be of it had a doctrine that said in effect: "we are not the only way"
- I don't believe god would forsake billions of his creations over schematics or man made doctrine.
Unbelievable! A classic paradigm of the spiritually delusional!
-
Unbelievable! A classic paradigm of the spiritually delusional!
No, a person with some common sense.
Try reading it again, but then again it might be a waste of time for you because you find your common sense in a book of stories written by MEN passing it off as written by god and passed down from generation to generation to control and keep you in fear and it has worked perfectly on you.
Thump thump ::)
-
Comparing that to those other texts doesn't take away from that fact the gospels were written way way way way too long after Christ's death and have been recopied many times over and left open for any to take advantage of by inputing their own "wrongly assumed" God inspired additions and beliefs.
40 years = "way way way way too long after Christ's death" ?
Also, Aristotle and Caesar's writing aren't be taken as the exact word of God and all scholars realize that they are but glimpses that are in some respects true and some respect potentially not.
"all scholars realize"? Can you name some of these scholars and show that they "all" "realize" this?
And the writings of Aristotle, Socrates, Plato and Caesar do not claim to be the word of God. That is not the point here. The point is that you have a problem with the New Testament because
1. You claim that it was written "way way way way too long after Christ's death"
2. The Gospels and different letters of the NT were copied many times, which they were in order to preserve them. But you completely ignore the fact that we have over 5,000 Greek manuscripts from different times, which can be cross examined for discrepancies to see if they were changed. For example, we can compare a copy from the 1st century with a copy from the 4th century and verify that they match. The New Testament writings are the best preserved ancient writings in existence today.
So you conclude that for these reasons we must assume that they do not say what the originals said.
So the point is that by your own logic, we must disregard the writings of Aristotle, Socrates, Plato and Caesar because we do not have their originals either, their only surviving copies date over 1,000 years after the authors lived, and we have only 10 to 50 copies so we can't cross examine them to the degree that we can cross examine the 5,000 + copies of the New Testament that we have.
-
40 years = "way way way way too long after Christ's death" ?
Tell you what, try writing down a series of conversations exactly word for word you had or witnessed just 5 years ago. Not just a few, but dozens. How accurate would you be?
that's my point.
Another point:
How accurate are eye witness account right after a incident? Police officers will tell you they are not as accurate as they should be and now you are banking that 40 years later they would be?
No, you are believing they would be and have to defend that POV because not to would mean potentially having to redefine your core beliefs.
"all scholars realize"? Can you name some of these scholars and show that they "all" "realize" this?
And the writings of Aristotle, Socrates, Plato and Caesar do not claim to be the word of God. That is not the point here. The point is that you have a problem with the New Testament because
1. You claim that it was written "way way way way too long after Christ's death"
2. The Gospels and different letters of the NT were copied many times, which they were in order to preserve them. But you completely ignore the fact that we have over 5,000 Greek manuscripts from different times, which can be cross examined for discrepancies to see if they were changed. For example, we can compare a copy from the 1st century with a copy from the 4th century and verify that they match. The New Testament writings are the best preserved ancient writings in existence today.
So you conclude that for these reasons we must assume that they do not say what the originals said.
So the point is that by your own logic, we must disregard the writings of Aristotle, Socrates, Plato and Caesar because we do not have their originals either, their only surviving copies date over 1,000 years after the authors lived, and we have only 10 to 50 copies so we can't cross examine them to the degree that we can cross examine the 5,000 + copies of the New Testament that we have.
But you do not have the exact original copy and you don't how many times it was copied or altered before you got the 5000 copies you do have that are consistent.
And yes all scholars realize that any texts or artifacts containing text are but glimpses that are in some respects true and some respect potentially not. You cannot gain the entire truth from examining a few texts from the past. It's plain logic. Otherwise Evolution would be 100% true. That's why the legitimacy and accuracy of the gospels will always be a theory in a sense or just a belief and far more likely to be a product of man made doctrine.
Use some common sense loco.
So the point is that by your own logic, we must disregard the writings of Aristotle, Socrates, Plato and Caesar because we do not have their originals either, their only surviving copies date over 1,000 years after the authors lived, and we have only 10 to 50 copies so we can't cross examine them to the degree that we can cross examine the 5,000 + copies of the New Testament that we have.
We don't need to disregard those writings of those philosophers because we look at the wisdom in their writings NOT as exact words of God. Also, those are their words not other people's accounts of events. The events accounted by them, (philosophers) are taken as a glimpse into how they viewed what happen understanding that their account is not the whole truth but instead a glimpse of it and potentially not true. Remember, History is written by the victors which means it's written from the writers POV.
So you have 3 issues here: (and these aren't all of them, just the ones talked about here)
1. Absence of original documents
2. Documents written too many years after the events occurred for word for word accounting
3. Likely man made doctrine inserted because of the POV of the writers and those who transcribed the copies from the original to the 5000 consistent ones yo have today.
-
No it doesn't.
Just because you dig something up that was a place or a artifact named in the Bible doesn't all the associated "magical" things happened also.
How else do you verify that an event happened, that is mentioned in Scripture? The supernatural has to manifest itself in the natural realm for human beings to witness it. As I said, the historical and archaeological evidence is part of the picture. The other is Biblical prophecy. That's why the dates of the Biblical books are important. When archaeological evidence for events in the Bible weren't discovered, skeptics and atheists assumed the events did not occur and that the Biblical events were inaccurate.
The skeptic game is simple: if there are no artifacts to support an event or prophecy in Scripture, Scripture is deemed false. If there is and such verifies the Bible's accuracy, then it's because the passage was written after the fact.
But, as more evidence is unearthed, this tactic of non-believers is proven ineffective.
But you do not have the exact original copy and you don't how many times it was copied or altered before you got the 5000 copies you do have that are consistent.
No, he doesn't have the originals nor did he claim that he did. The point he is making is that the ancient manuscripts of the NT are far closer to the time period in which Jesus lived, than any other ancient manuscript is to the historical characters they describe. And we have far more copies of those NT manuscripts. Loco also mentioned that the copies, all 5000+ spanning hundreds of years, are virtually identical. And, keep in mind, that's just the copies in Greek. Throw in the other languages and the numbers exceed 20,000. The continuity of the NT documents, in those various language, is unequaled in ancient literature.
If, as Loco stated, the NT copies from 1st century A.D. and those from 4th century A.D. match, the odds heavily favors that the 1st-century copies match the originals.
-
How else do you verify that an event happened, that is mentioned in Scripture? The supernatural has to manifest itself in the natural realm for human beings to witness it. As I said, the historical and archaeological evidence is part of the picture. The other is Biblical prophecy. That's why the dates of the Biblical books are important. When archaeological evidence for events in the Bible weren't discovered, skeptics and atheists assumed the events did not occur and that the Biblical events were inaccurate.
The skeptic game is simple: if there are no artifacts to support an event or prophecy in Scripture, Scripture is deemed false. If there is and such verifies the Bible's accuracy, then it's because the passage was written after the fact.
But, as more evidence is unearthed, this tactic of non-believers is proven ineffective.
No, he doesn't have the originals nor did he claim that he did. The point he is making is that the ancient manuscripts of the NT are far closer to the time period in which Jesus lived, than any other ancient manuscript is to the historical characters they describe. And we have far more copies of those NT manuscripts. Loco also mentioned that the copies, all 5000+ spanning hundreds of years, are virtually identical. And, keep in mind, that's just the copies in Greek. Throw in the other languages and the numbers exceed 20,000. The continuity of the NT documents, in those various language, is unequaled in ancient literature.
If, as Loco stated, the NT copies from 1st century A.D. and those from 4th century A.D. match, the odds heavily favors that the 1st-century copies match the originals.
This is what you said:
- Historical and archaeologic evidence that validates Scripture, which leads to another favorite of mine.......
- Biblical prophecy
Historical and archaeological evidence supports what is said in the Bible but does not make what's attached to it fact.
I understand your point of not being able to prove super natural occurrences, but your acceptance of these occurances as fact is little different from urban legends or other supernatural events from other religion as those religion have archaeological evidence that support them also. Like Mt Olympus.
Re: loco's assertion about 5000 copies. It doesn't matter. You don't have the original or the copies made in the many years before the 5000 were made.
-
This is what you said:
Historical and archaeological evidence supports what is said in the Bible but does not make what's attached to it fact.
I understand your point of not being able to prove super natural occurrences, but your acceptance of these occurances as fact is little different from urban legends or other supernatural events from other religion as those religion have archaeological evidence that support them also. Like Mt Olympus.
Correction: I says you can't prove supernatural occurences DIRECTLY!!! Such must be manifested in the natural realm. That's where prophecy comes into play, which goes back to the dates the Biblical books were written. If archaeological evidence shows certain books being penned at a certain time, and the prophetic content therein comes to pass, in the FUTURE, then that's a clear sign of supernatural occurence.
That's why, again, certain non-believers, when they can't deny the accuracy of Scripture, have to resort to claims that the books were written after the fact. Such is fueled by their disbelief, not a lack of evidence.
Re: loco's assertion about 5000 copies. It doesn't matter. You don't have the original or the copies made in the many years before the 5000 were made.
You're making it sound as if the 5000+ copies were made at one shot or during one time period. We have these copies (and these are just the ones written in Greek) from various time periods. As Loco said, there are some from 4th century A.D. and some from 1st century A.D (and many in between). The consistency and integrity is there. That, again, would suggest that the copies reflect what the originals say.
Why do you think that somehow, the originals have such a drastically different message or different content than the copies that we have?
-
I see a lot of pearls being thrown here.
They are getting muddy.
Ozmo keep denying :)
Ps please stop saying that murdering,raping,thieving people were innocent.thanks.
-
I see a lot of pearls being thrown here.
They are getting muddy.
Ozmo keep denying :)
Ps please stop saying that murdering,raping,thieving people were innocent.thanks.
Learn to read.
I'm talking about the children dumb ass.
-
Correction: I says you can't prove supernatural occurences DIRECTLY!!! Such must be manifested in the natural realm. That's where prophecy comes into play, which goes back to the dates the Biblical books were written. If archaeological evidence shows certain books being penned at a certain time, and the prophetic content therein comes to pass, in the FUTURE, then that's a clear sign of supernatural occurence.
That's why, again, certain non-believers, when they can't deny the accuracy of Scripture, have to resort to claims that the books were written after the fact. Such is fueled by their disbelief, not a lack of evidence.
You're making it sound as if the 5000+ copies were made at one shot or during one time period. We have these copies (and these are just the ones written in Greek) from various time periods. As Loco said, there are some from 4th century A.D. and some from 1st century A.D (and many in between). The consistency and integrity is there. That, again, would suggest that the copies reflect what the originals say.
Why do you think that somehow, the originals have such a drastically different message or different content than the copies that we have?
dude i totally forgot about this thread.
do you know how many religions there are?
why would god forsake all those people. also, because christianity is a north american phenomenon for the most part, why would he allow people to be born in indian where another religion is chief? wouldnt this be like condeming them? also, you know that your sure of your religion, but many religious people of different sects feel the same way. other books have prophecies as well, and Quran talks about conception in detail such that someone would have to know of embryology(or so it seems). your book is not the only book. funny how geography plays a role in religious beleif ::).
supernatural occurencies defy natural law and cannot exist, if natural law is true. if you beleive the laws of the universe are untrue then you are just being ignorant. also, if the future is decided, obviously is if there is prophecies, do we have free will? it would seem unlikely, this contradicts god. miracles etc imply that there where mistakes per se in the design, that intervention was required, again contradicting free will.
either god is intimate or seperate. it cant be both ways otherwise the convo would degenerate into irrational ramblings.
also, what is the point of a retarded child? he cannot choose to repent and surely will sin, is he going to burn in hell? and if not, why? why would god even create him, just to suffer?
would people stop saying that god allowed the murder, rape etc of guilty people. do you even see your logical fallacy? your god is suppose to be omni-benevolent, pure love. thus these options are not possible, unless god has evil, anger etc as well as love, hence he is not perfect.
-
Correction: I says you can't prove supernatural occurences DIRECTLY!!! Such must be manifested in the natural realm. That's where prophecy comes into play, which goes back to the dates the Biblical books were written. If archaeological evidence shows certain books being penned at a certain time, and the prophetic content therein comes to pass, in the FUTURE, then that's a clear sign of supernatural occurence.
That's why, again, certain non-believers, when they can't deny the accuracy of Scripture, have to resort to claims that the books were written after the fact. Such is fueled by their disbelief, not a lack of evidence.
that has got to be the weakest argument for proving fact I've ever heard.
-
dude i totally forgot about this thread.
do you know how many religions there are?
why would god forsake all those people. also, because christianity is a north american phenomenon for the most part
Wrong.How long has north america been around compared to christianity?
would people stop saying that god allowed the murder, rape etc of guilty people. do you even see your logical fallacy? your god is suppose to be omni-benevolent, pure love. thus these options are not possible, unless god has evil, anger etc as well as love, hence he is not perfect.
You are right in saying that Gods first quality is in fact love.But he has love for his people first.His sense of justice is perfect.He doesnt allow his followers to be hammered beyond what they can bear.
-
that has got to be the weakest argument for proving fact I've ever heard.
Really? How so?
-
do you know how many religions there are?
Yes, only two:
1. Human Achievement: Be good as much as you can, avoid evil as much as you can, and some god may bless you and you may have a good "after life".
2. Divine Intervention: God reached down to humans and did everything that needed to be done through Jesus Christ.
why would god forsake all those people. also, because christianity is a north american phenomenon for the most part,
Christianity is Middle Eastern. That's where it originated, in Palestine. We don't know exactly how many Christians exist in countries where Christians are tortured and killed, countries like China and all the Islamic countries. Christianity has been growing in China and South Korea. Christianity is big in Australia too.
why would he allow people to be born in indian where another religion is chief? wouldnt this be like condeming them?
Christians form the third largest group in Kerala, India. They have sometimes, even in some official documents, been called Nazaranis (followers of Jesus of Nazarene) or St. Thomas Christians.
also, you know that your sure of your religion, but many religious people of different sects feel the same way. other books have prophecies as well, and Quran talks about conception in detail such that someone would have to know of embryology(or so it seems). your book is not the only book. funny how geography plays a role in religious beleif ::).
Much of the Quran is based on the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. Muslims don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God or that he died for our sins, but they do believe that Jesus is a prophet sent by God, born of the Virgin Mary, and that Jesus is coming back soon.
supernatural occurencies defy natural law and cannot exist, if natural law is true. if you beleive the laws of the universe are untrue then you are just being ignorant. also, if the future is decided, obviously is if there is prophecies, do we have free will? it would seem unlikely, this contradicts god. miracles etc imply that there where mistakes per se in the design, that intervention was required, again contradicting free will.
either god is intimate or seperate. it cant be both ways otherwise the convo would degenerate into irrational ramblings.
God is a God of order and a God of law. This is manifested in both, the Bible and the Universe that He created. God created natural laws, and they are good laws. However, God will for His own good reasons defy and break His own natural laws to show, among many things, that He is God, that these are His laws, and that just as He created these natural laws, He can also break them. That's what a miracle is.
also, what is the point of a retarded child? he cannot choose to repent and surely will sin, is he going to burn in hell? and if not, why? why would god even create him, just to suffer?
In a perfect world, there would not be retarded children, or pain, or sickness. But this isn't a perfect world. No, a retarded child will not burn in hell. And a retarded child will not suffer, but be happy provided he/she has loving parents and a loving environment. I heard on the radio the other day that a child with down syndrome in some Latin country learned to weave tapestries and they are so artistic that he is now selling them. He is happy just to know that he is making something that people are willing to pay for.
would people stop saying that god allowed the murder, rape etc of guilty people. do you even see your logical fallacy? your god is suppose to be omni-benevolent, pure love. thus these options are not possible, unless god has evil, anger etc as well as love, hence he is not perfect.
Not only that, but God sometimes allows the murder, rape, etc of innocent people too. It is not a perfect world. It used to be, and we messed it up. God is good, and He created a good and perfect world. We messed it up, but one day God will remove this world and again create a new, perfect world.
-
Learn to read.
I'm talking about the children dumb ass.
They were innocent?Or you once again talking out of your ass?
Heres the deal,ive decided with my sinful eye and bad judgement that you are far too stupid to be treacherous apostate scum.
Ive upgraded you to ignorant fool.Do more reading and less typing.You betray your lack of knowledge of the word with every post. :)
Apology for trying to lump christians as murderous child killers accepted.
-
Yes, only two:
1. Human Achievement: Be good as much as you can, avoid evil as much as you can, and some god may bless you and you may have a good "after life".
2. Divine Intervention: God reached down to humans and did everything that needed to be done through Jesus Christ.
Christianity is Middle Eastern. That's where it originated, in Palestine. We don't know exactly how many Christians exist in countries where Christians are tortured and killed, countries like China and all the Islamic countries. Christianity has been growing in China and South Korea. Christianity is big in Australia too.
Christians form the third largest group in Kerala, India. They have sometimes, even in some official documents, been called Nazaranis (followers of Jesus of Nazarene) or St. Thomas Christians.
Much of the Quran is based on the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. Muslims don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God or that he died for our sins, but they do believe that Jesus is a prophet sent by God, born of the Virgin Mary, and that Jesus is coming back soon.
God is a God of order and a God of law. This is manifested in both, the Bible and the Universe that He created. God created natural laws, and they are good laws. However, God will for His own good reasons defy and break His own natural laws to show, among many things, that He is God, that these are His laws, and that just as He created these natural laws, He can also break them. That's what a miracle is.
In a perfect world, there would not be retarded children, or pain, or sickness. But this isn't a perfect world. No, a retarded child will not burn in hell. And a retarded child will not suffer, but be happy provided he/she has loving parents and a loving environment. I heard on the radio the other day that a child with down syndrome in some Latin country learned to weave tapestries and they are so artistic that he is now selling them. He is happy just to know that he is making something that people are willing to pay for.
Not only that, but God sometimes allows the murder, rape, etc of innocent people too. It is not a perfect world. It used to be, and we messed it up. God is good, and He created a good and perfect world. We messed it up, but one day God will remove this world and again create a new, perfect world.
you made some good points until you started defying logic.
"God is a God of order and a God of law. This is manifested in both, the Bible and the Universe that He created. God created natural laws, and they are good laws. However, God will for His own good reasons defy and break His own natural laws to show, among many things, that He is God, that these are His laws, and that just as He created these natural laws, He can also break them. That's what a miracle is. "
you cant have it both ways, show me one verifiable account where natural laws have been broken? if this is so then all of science is wrong, the laws by definition cannot be broken. please dont say god can do it, or he can choose, this is a cop out of a rational argument, show me instances in present day where god does this and it is accepted by all people. you see there is something called confirmation bias so if christians agree with you, that is not that big of a deal, but if other sects do, especially atheists, then we know it is more then likely true. i have never heard of a supernatural event that has been verified.
a miracle is divine intervention, why would god need to intervene, wouldnt that indicate a mistake in the design? yes it would.
also you cant say god is all good then say he condems people or allows evil things to happen, this is impossible if god is all good. for example the devil is pure evil and is the opposite of god, he does all evil acts. the devil will not show compassion, will not help someone in need because he cannot, he is pure evil. you cant have god both ways, its impossible.
"In a perfect world, there would not be retarded children, or pain, or sickness. But this isn't a perfect world. No, a retarded child will not burn in hell. And a retarded child will not suffer, but be happy provided he/she has loving parents and a loving environment. I heard on the radio the other day that a child with down syndrome in some Latin country learned to weave tapestries and they are so artistic that he is now selling them. He is happy just to know that he is making something that people are willing to pay for."
this doesnt answer my question, its just a nice story. obviously the kid has sinned, shouldnt he repent, and accept jesus. and if not wont he burn in hell for eternity? the answer is yes again. im not asking if the world is perfect im saying that you must accept jesus and repent for your sins to go to heaven, are special people, sick people exempt from this point for some reason? and if so why?, and what degree of sickness is needed in order not to repent, a little a lot? physical or mental? what about a person with alzheimers, would he go to hell because he forgot to repent?
"Not only that, but God sometimes allows the murder, rape, etc of innocent people too. It is not a perfect world. It used to be, and we messed it up. God is good, and He created a good and perfect world. We messed it up, but one day God will remove this world and again create a new, perfect world."
your first sentence shows god is not all good, or pure love, see above for explanation. you cant have it both ways, your proposing god has negative traits such as anger, and evil, which if you follow your logic implies GOD IS NOT PERFECT.
-
Yes, only two:
1. Human Achievement: Be good as much as you can, avoid evil as much as you can, and some god may bless you and you may have a good "after life".
2. Divine Intervention: God reached down to humans and did everything that needed to be done through Jesus Christ.
semantics. how do you define religion, i was aware there are twelve classical religions with many belief systems in the world, for example scientology.
-
They were innocent?Or you once again talking out of your ass?
Heres the deal,ive decided with my sinful eye and bad judgement that you are far too stupid to be treacherous apostate scum.
Ive upgraded you to ignorant fool.Do more reading and less typing.You betray your lack of knowledge of the word with every post. :)
Apology for trying to lump christians as murderous child killers accepted.
Yeah, 3 year old Amalikites are evil killers. ::) Who's ass are words coming from?
Again, learn to read.
-
Going back and forth calling each other dumb wont get us closer to the truth of the matter.Please go back and read the context(the surrounding verses and also please research the history regarding what type of opponents that the israelites had to contend with,what they practised and how that affected their children)
This subject hurts my heart because i have children.But back in those days their was no safety net in terms of police or army.If you have any concept of what a bloodfeud is and how tribes interacted with each other way back then,you wouldnt be so hasty to attack basically what is the building blocks of christianity.
You really dont know anything about the Abrahamic covenant.How u can seperate the OT and the New boggles me.
Im still trying to get a handle on what you actually believe.
Jesus and surrounding prophecies would of been unable to be fulfilled if the nation of Israel was overran by pagans.
Harsh life back then.
-
Going back and forth calling each other dumb wont get us closer to the truth of the matter.Please go back and read the context(the surrounding verses and also please research the history regarding what type of opponents that the israelites had to contend with,what they practised and how that affected their children)
This subject hurts my heart because i have children.But back in those days their was no safety net in terms of police or army.If you have any concept of what a bloodfeud is and how tribes interacted with each other way back then,you wouldnt be so hasty to attack basically what is the building blocks of christianity.
You really dont know anything about the Abrahamic covenant.How u can seperate the OT and the New boggles me.
Im still trying to get a handle on what you actually believe.
Jesus and surrounding prophecies would of been unable to be fulfilled if the nation of Israel was overran by pagans.
Harsh life back then.
The bottom line is in the OT it's written that God ordered the Jews to kill all the amelikites. Now, killing the adults was certaintly justified, but killing 3 year girls isn't. That's my contention; that the OT is not the 100% Word of God, becuase that action is inconsistent with the divinity expressed in the NT as well as the OT and contradicts the common decency and moral accountability you'd expect from God.
-
The bottom line is in the OT it's written that God ordered the Jews to kill all the amelikites. Now, killing the adults was certaintly justified, but killing 3 year girls isn't.
Killing all the "adult" Amalekites was "certainly justified"? Okay.
How do you define "adult"? What is the cut off age? 4? Would you have gone around the Amalekite camp asking kids for their age? What if a kid's birthday was that same day, he/she had just turned 4? Would you have killed the kid because he/she was no longer 3 years old?
So what would you have done with all the little ones, say 3 years and younger? Israel's army had to travel days, maybe weeks to find and defeat the Amalekites. They fought them in stages, fighting, pursuing, then fighting again, before coming back home after all their battles.
1 Samuel 15:7
"Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, to the east of Egypt."
Would you have told Israel's army to strap children to their bodies and carry them along from battle to battle? Most of them, if not all, were foot soldiers.
1 Samuel 15:4
"So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim—two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men from Judah."
Or would you have told Israel's army to leave the small children to die a slow, painful death, after killing all the adults?
-
you made some good points until you started defying logic.
"God is a God of order and a God of law. This is manifested in both, the Bible and the Universe that He created. God created natural laws, and they are good laws. However, God will for His own good reasons defy and break His own natural laws to show, among many things, that He is God, that these are His laws, and that just as He created these natural laws, He can also break them. That's what a miracle is. "
you cant have it both ways, show me one verifiable account where natural laws have been broken? if this is so then all of science is wrong, the laws by definition cannot be broken. please dont say god can do it, or he can choose, this is a cop out of a rational argument, show me instances in present day where god does this and it is accepted by all people. you see there is something called confirmation bias so if christians agree with you, that is not that big of a deal, but if other sects do, especially atheists, then we know it is more then likely true. i have never heard of a supernatural event that has been verified.
Why would all of science be wrong? They're God's scientific laws. He created them and put them in motion. As such, He can circumvent them as He sees fit to suit His purpose.
If an atheist believes in the supernatural, then he ain't an atheist anymore. So, your comment makes no sense. And, you forget that there are many Christians, who were once atheists.
a miracle is divine intervention, why would god need to intervene, wouldnt that indicate a mistake in the design? yes it would.
also you cant say god is all good then say he condems people or allows evil things to happen, this is impossible if god is all good. for example the devil is pure evil and is the opposite of god, he does all evil acts. the devil will not show compassion, will not help someone in need because he cannot, he is pure evil. you cant have god both ways, its impossible.
God has laws and principles and there are consequences for violating those. Blaming God for man's flagrant breaking of divine rules is rather ridiculous.
"In a perfect world, there would not be retarded children, or pain, or sickness. But this isn't a perfect world. No, a retarded child will not burn in hell. And a retarded child will not suffer, but be happy provided he/she has loving parents and a loving environment. I heard on the radio the other day that a child with down syndrome in some Latin country learned to weave tapestries and they are so artistic that he is now selling them. He is happy just to know that he is making something that people are willing to pay for."
this doesnt answer my question, its just a nice story. obviously the kid has sinned, shouldnt he repent, and accept jesus. and if not wont he burn in hell for eternity? the answer is yes again. im not asking if the world is perfect im saying that you must accept jesus and repent for your sins to go to heaven, are special people, sick people exempt from this point for some reason? and if so why?, and what degree of sickness is needed in order not to repent, a little a lot? physical or mental? what about a person with alzheimers, would he go to hell because he forgot to repent?
"Not only that, but God sometimes allows the murder, rape, etc of innocent people too. It is not a perfect world. It used to be, and we messed it up. God is good, and He created a good and perfect world. We messed it up, but one day God will remove this world and again create a new, perfect world."
your first sentence shows god is not all good, or pure love, see above for explanation. you cant have it both ways, your proposing god has negative traits such as anger, and evil, which if you follow your logic implies GOD IS NOT PERFECT.
If people want free will to rebel against God, then they'd better be prepared to accept the consequences for doing such, pure and simple. Keep in mind, however, that the worst part about committing sin is that, at some levels, the transgressor isn't the only one who pays the price. There are things that you do that bring pain and suffering on you and your entire family, or your neighbors.
-
Killing all the "adult" Amalekites was "certainly justified"? Okay.
How do you define "adult"? What is the cut off age? 4? Would you have gone around the Amalekite camp asking kids for their age? What if a kid's birthday was that same day, he/she had just turned 4? Would you have killed the kid because he/she was no longer 3 years old?
Is this another sad attempt to justify killing children? Are you attempting to debate me on what considered the age of an adult by asking me about 4 year olds? That's really stupid.
So what would you have done with all the little ones, say 3 years and younger? Israel's army had to travel days, maybe weeks to find and defeat the Amalekites. They fought them in stages, fighting, pursuing, then fighting again, before coming back home after all their battles.
So what? God's directive is not to take responsibility for ones actions? And because they couldn't anything with the children that justifies killing them loco?
Would you feel good and justified if you were one of those Israeli soldiers as you ran a spear through a 6 year old girls chest?
Would you feel like you were doing the work of God?
Would you feel like God was pleased with you as the life of that girl left her?
That's what happed loco. That reality of it times the thousands of children that were surely killed by people "on a mission from GOD". ::)
And what saddens me is people like you, Hustleman, McVay sit here and try and justify it. It's very pathetic and shows a disconnection with your humanity and common sense replaced by fanaticism .
1 Samuel 15:7
"Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, to the east of Egypt."
Would you have told Israel's army to strap children to their bodies and carry them along from battle to battle? Most of them, if not all, were foot soldiers.
1 Samuel 15:4
"So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim—two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men from Judah."
Or would you have told Israel's army to leave the small children to die a slow, painful death, after killing all the adults?
If you know anything about warfare in the time before automobiles, which you obviously don't, an army that size would have a huge logistic support system which would include thousands of men and women who prepared food, procured supplies etc.. that followed that army where ever it went.
In any case, yes they should have took the children and they would had the food they took from the Amalikites to help feed them. And even if they didn't they should have shared there own. It's about common decency, moral obligation, you know all the stuff Christians spout off about.
(Odds are you won't answer all of those questions ;))
-
Is this another sad attempt to justify killing children? Are you attempting to debate me on what considered the age of an adult by asking me about 4 year olds? That's really stupid.
So what? God's directive is not to take responsibility for ones actions? And because they couldn't anything with the children that justifies killing them loco?
Would you feel good and justified if you were one of those Israeli soldiers as you ran a spear through a 6 year old girls chest?
Would you feel like you were doing the work of God?
Would you feel like God was pleased with you as the life of that girl left her?
That's what happed loco. That reality of it times the thousands of children that were surely killed by people "on a mission from GOD". ::)
And what saddens me is people like you, Hustleman, McVay sit here and try and justify it. It's very pathetic and shows a disconnection with your humanity and common sense replaced by fanaticism.
Yes yes OzmO, whatever you say. Spare me the insults and the appeals to emotion which only make your arguments weaker, and please do answer the questions:
Killing all the "adult" Amalekites was "certainly justified"? Okay.
How do you define "adult"? What is the cut off age? 4? Would you have gone around the Amalekite camp asking kids for their age? What if a kid's birthday was that same day, he/she had just turned 4? Would you have killed the kid because he/she was no longer 3 years old?
Stop avoiding the questions.
If you know anything about warfare in the time before automobiles, which you obviously don't, an army that size would have a huge logistic support system which would include thousands of men and women who prepared food, procured supplies etc.. that followed that army where ever it went.
The scripture is very clear on who Saul took into battle and there were no women.
In any case, yes they should have took the children and they would had the food they took from the Amalikites to help feed them. And even if they didn't they should have shared there own. It's about common decency, moral obligation, you know all the stuff Christians spout off about.
God ordered them not to take anything from the Amalekites, no food, no money, nothing.
-
Yes yes OzmO, whatever you say. Spare me the insults and the appeals to emotion which only make your arguments weaker, and please do answer the questions:
It's not about making arguments weaker or stronger loco, I'm trying to get you to see the audacity of your indifference to what those soldiers did to those children and how they justified it.
Get it?
(i knew you'd avoid the questions somehow ;))
Stop avoiding the questions.
I'm not avoiding the question loco, for once drop your debate sword and use some common sense. You know the difference between an adult and a child. Personally, I'd spare any person who wasn't a soldier. Just like civilized armies do TODAY. And we still today have all the same problems with people wanting revenge but that doesn't change our moral obligation not to kill innocent people.
The scripture is very clear on who Saul took into battle and there were no women.
They don't take these people to battle. Use your head! They travel with them. That's how's it's been since the beginning of organized large scale movement of armies before the industrial age. women take care of the livestock, feed the troops help heal wounds etc... And even if there wasn't in an army that size there would thousands of logistical personal.
God ordered them not to take anything from the Amalekites, no food, no money, nothing.
yeah, makes monster sense......Don't take the food and kill the children. ::) Yeah, very Godly. ::)
The assertion the Bible is the 100% Word of GOD is the biggest pile of BULLSHIT EVER
-
It's not about making arguments weaker or stronger loco, I'm trying to get you to see the audacity of your indifference to what those soldiers did to those children and how they justified it.
Get it?
Insults and appeals to emotion don't make your arguments stronger, only weaker.
I'm not avoiding the question loco, for once drop your debate sword and use some common sense. You know the difference between an adult and a child.
You are avoiding the questions
Personally, I'd spare any person who wasn't a soldier. Just like civilized armies do TODAY. And we still today have all the same problems with people wanting revenge but that doesn't change our moral obligation not to kill innocent people.
No, you said that killing all the adults was cerntainly justified.
They don't take these people to battle. Use your head! They travel with them. That's how's it's been since the beginning of organized large scale movement of armies before the industrial age. women take of the livestock, feed the troops help heal wounds etc...
It doesn't matter. Israel did not have any women traveling with them. You just made that up. I'll tell you what. Prove to me with the Bible, or with any other reference outside of the Bible for that matter, that Israel in those days, the days of the Amalekites, had women traveling with soldiers when going to battle?
1 Samuel 15:4-6
4 So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim—two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men from Judah. 5 Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine. 6 Then he said to the Kenites, "Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt." So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites.
yeah, makes monster sense......Don't take the food and kill the children. ::)
It does make sense. God told them to destroy everything that belonged to the Amalekites.
1 Samuel 15:2
"attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them"
The assertion the Bible is the 100% Word of GOD biggest pile of BULLSHIT EVER
Thanks for your opinion!
-
Insults and appeals to emotion don't make your arguments stronger, only weaker.
Once again avoiding what really happen and glazing over as the holy of word of GOD
You are avoiding the questions
what ever. For someone who picks and chooses what to answer it's funny.
re-read, I answered your question.
No, you said that killing all the adults was cerntainly justified.
Another example of the extent you have to go to justify killing children: If the women were evil and guilty of murder then they should have died too.
It doesn't matter. Israel did not have any women traveling with them. You just made that up. I'll tell you what. Prove to me with the Bible, or with any other reference outside of the Bible for that matter, that soldiers in those days, the days of the Amalekites, had women traveling with them when going to battle?
1 Samuel 15:4-6
4 So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim—two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men from Judah. 5 Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine. 6 Then he said to the Kenites, "Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt." So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites.
I'll see if i can do that. I'll have to do some research. I certainly won't use the book of stories to prove it. But what ever the outcome, it still doesn't justify killing children, but for you it does.
It does make sense. God told them to destroy everything that belonged to the Amalekites.
1 Samuel 15:2
"attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them"
Yeah, loco it makes sense that that is what's written in the Bible but for you comprehend beyond that seems difficult for you.
-
Once again avoiding what really happen and glazing over as the holy of word of GOD
You avoid the questions
what ever. For someone who picks and chooses what to answer it's funny.
You are avoiding my questions. And you are the one picking and choosing what suits you.
re-read, I answered your question.
No you didn't. Anytime anyone disagrees with you you insult the persons ability to read, but you are still avoiding the question.
Another example of the extent you have to go to justify killing children: If the women were evil and guilty of murder then they should have died too.
No, you said
The bottom line is in the OT it's written that God ordered the Jews to kill all the amelikites. Now, killing the adults was certaintly justified, but killing 3 year girls isn't.
You are a flip flopper
I'll see if i can do that. I'll have to do some research. I certainly won't use the book of stories to prove it. But what ever the outcome, it still doesn't justify killing children, but for you it does.
What? First you insult my education and knowledge for not accepting your assumption that women were traveling with the Israeli soldiers, now this? In other words, you made it up. This is what you do in most of your posts, make stuff up as you go. When asked for evidence, you say you don't have time, or you say "use common sense.", or you resort to insults. How about from now on you provide some references for your statements instead of pulling stuff out of your butt? ::)
Yeah, loco it makes sense that that is what's written in the Bible but for you comprehend beyond that seems difficult for you.
So you have no problems quoting the Bible when it comes to the murderous Amalekites, the 3000 idolatrous men in Exodus, Judas, etc., But when you are refuted with the same Bible, now it's just a book of stories to you and it doesn't matter what's written in it. ::)
-
You avoid the questions
You are avoiding my questions. And you are the one picking and choosing what suits you.
No you didn't. Anytime anyone disagrees with you you insult the persons ability to read, but you are still avoiding the question.
No, you said
You are a flip flopper
What? First you insult my education and knowledge for not accepting your assumption that women were traveling with the Israeli soldiers, now this? In other words, you made it up. This is what you do in most of your posts, make stuff up as you go. When asked for evidence, you say you don't have time, or you say "use common sense.", or you resort to insults. How about from now on you provide some references for your statements instead of pulling stuff out of your butt? ::)
So you have no problems quoting the Bible when it comes to the murderous Amalekites, the 3000 idolatrous men in Exodus, Judas, etc., But when you are refuted with the same Bible, now it's just a book of stories to you and it doesn't matter what's written in it. ::)
Loco, nothing is refuted, and the fact remains regardless of how you find fault in what i say.........
Nothing will change the fact the GOD ordered the killing of children.
And no matter how hard you try and justify it, there is no justification to killing children.
You can on and on about how i try and pull things out of my ass, but at the end of the day THE GOD IN THE OT ORDERED THE KILLING OF CHILDREN. You believe that is God.
You can't get away from it, even with your candy ass question about what's an adult.
Children loco, are you close to one right now? god ordered many of those to be killed by soldiers.
revel in that god that kills children, loco, praise to him, glorify him.
(ps: I'll still do the research, just don't have much time right now for that)
-
If you didn;t comprehend what i just wrote i'll say it again:
If I'm right or wrong about my assumptions of how armies were composed back then it still doesn't take away form the fact
GOD ORDERED THE DEATH OF innocent children
BTW,
first google hit:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/gabr000a.htm (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/gabr000a.htm)
-
OzmO, these questions are based on something that you, not me, said. Now, one more time, and now that you know women were not traveling with the soldiers and now that you know Israel commanded not to take any food from the Amalekites:
The bottom line is in the OT it's written that God ordered the Jews to kill all the amelikites. Now, killing the adults was certaintly justified, but killing 3 year girls isn't.
Killing all the "adult" Amalekites was "certainly justified"? Okay.
How do you define "adult"? What is the cut off age? 4? Would you have gone around the Amalekite camp asking kids for their age? What if a kid's birthday was that same day, he/she had just turned 4? Would you have killed the kid because he/she was no longer 3 years old?
So what would you have done with all the little ones, say 3 years and younger? Israel's army had to travel days, maybe weeks to find and defeat the Amalekites. They fought them in stages, fighting, pursuing, then fighting again, before coming back home after all their battles.
1 Samuel 15:7
"Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, to the east of Egypt."
Would you have told Israel's army to strap children to their bodies and carry them along from battle to battle? Most of them, if not all, were foot soldiers.
1 Samuel 15:4
"So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim—two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men from Judah."
Or would you have told Israel's army to leave the small children to die a slow, painful death, after killing all the adults?
-
OzmO, these questions are based on something that you, not me, said. Now, one more time, and now that you know women were not traveling with the soldiers and now that you know Israel commanded not to take any food from the Amalekites:
Killing all the "adult" Amalekites was "certainly justified"? Okay.
How do you define "adult"? What is the cut off age? 4? Would you have gone around the Amalekite camp asking kids for their age? What if a kid's birthday was that same day, he/she had just turned 4? Would you have killed the kid because he/she was no longer 3 years old?
So what would you have done with all the little ones, say 3 years and younger? Israel's army had to travel days, maybe weeks to find and defeat the Amalekites. They fought them in stages, fighting, pursuing, then fighting again, before coming back home after all their battles.
1 Samuel 15:7
"Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, to the east of Egypt."
Would you have told Israel's army to strap children to their bodies and carry them along from battle to battle? Most of them, if not all, were foot soldiers.
1 Samuel 15:4
"So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim—two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men from Judah."
Or would you have told Israel's army to leave the small children to die a slow, painful death, after killing all the adults?
answer my question first, i asked them first. and i did answer your questions.
And we don't know if women travel with that army. But it's very likely they did.
-
answer my question first, i asked them first.
No, you did not.
and i did answer your questions.
No, you did not, and you won't.
And we don't know if women travel with that army. But it's very likely they did.
Women did not travel with them.
-
Why would all of science be wrong? They're God's scientific laws. He created them and put them in motion. As such, He can circumvent them as He sees fit to suit His purpose.
If an atheist believes in the supernatural, then he ain't an atheist anymore. So, your comment makes no sense. And, you forget that there are many Christians, who were once atheists.
God has laws and principles and there are consequences for violating those. Blaming God for man's flagrant breaking of divine rules is rather ridiculous.
If people want free will to rebel against God, then they'd better be prepared to accept the consequences for doing such, pure and simple. Keep in mind, however, that the worst part about committing sin is that, at some levels, the transgressor isn't the only one who pays the price. There are things that you do that bring pain and suffering on you and your entire family, or your neighbors.
"Why would all of science be wrong? They're God's scientific laws. He created them and put them in motion. As such, He can circumvent them as He sees fit to suit His purpose. "
oh i see, god can do want he wants so you dont have to make a rational argument. the laws cannot be broken that is scientific fact, if they could they wouldn t be called laws. tell me HOW DOES GOD BREAK THE LAWS WITHOUT US KNOWING, HOW DOES HE "CIRCUMVENT THE LAWS"? if you have no mechanism your geussing and making things up out of thin air, also show me proof where laws have been broken.
"If an atheist believes in the supernatural, then he ain't an atheist anymore. So, your comment makes no sense. And, you forget that there are many Christians, who were once atheists. "
see this is where your ignorance is shining through. if a law was broken and it was verifiable it wouldnt matter what religion you where, you couldnt deny it. for example youd have to be an idiot to refute gravity, no matter what religion. youd also be an idiot if you saw god reach done and change a law or physics, thus your "miracles" likie jesus arent beleived by all because there is not sufficient evidence, like gravity, a law.
"God has laws and principles and there are consequences for violating those. Blaming God for man's flagrant breaking of divine rules is rather ridiculous.
If people want free will to rebel against God, then they'd better be prepared to accept the consequences for doing such, pure and simple. Keep in mind, however, that the worst part about committing sin is that, at some levels, the transgressor isn't the only one who pays the price. There are things that you do that bring pain and suffering on you and your entire family, or your neighbors."
this doesnt even touch my question. ANSWER THE QUESTION. did god order the death of people, does he have negative attributes in the old testament? yes he does, anger, jealousy etc are negative traits making your god imperfect and in direct contradiction with the all loving image. he is suppose to be pure love, if he has negative traits he cannot be. its one or the other, its not up for interpretation.
-
Just in case you lost your vision again..... ::)
How do you define "adult"? What is the cut off age? 4? Would you have gone around the Amalekite camp asking kids for their age? What if a kid's birthday was that same day, he/she had just turned 4? Would you have killed the kid because he/she was no longer 3 years old?
So what would you have done with all the little ones, say 3 years and younger? Israel's army had to travel days, maybe weeks to find and defeat the Amalekites. They fought them in stages, fighting, pursuing, then fighting again, before coming back home after all their battles.
Here:
Personally, I'd spare any person who wasn't a soldier.
-
Just in case you lost your vision again..... ::)
Here:
Yeah, OzmO, continue with the insults, I can't read, I can't see, I know nothing about history, I justify the murder of children. Well, you justify leaving children alone to die a slow, painful death. And you continuously make appeals to emotion to make people feel sympathy for the murderous Amalekites. And all for what? To prove to yourself that the Bible is not 100% the word of God, only because it doesn't suit you 100%.
How is the above an answer to my question when the question itself is based on your own statement that killing the adults was certainly justified? You make no sense and you are flip flopping.
-
Yeah, OzmO, continue with the insults, I can't read, I can't see, I know nothing about history, I justify the murder of children. Well, you justify leaving children alone to die a slow, painful death. And you continuously make appeals to emotion to make people feel sympathy for the murderous Amalekites. And all for what? To prove to yourself that the Bible is not 100% the word of God, only because it doesn't suit you 100%.
How is the above an answer to my question when the question itself is based on your own statement that killing the adults was certainly justified? You make no sense and you are flip flopping.
It's sad, you have to go through these links to discredit my argument to justify killing children.
I justify the murder of children.
Yes you do.
Well, you justify leaving children alone to die a slow, painful death.
I never said they should have left them there, you think that's an answer. but I'm not surprised because you support killing them.
They should have took them back and assimilated them into their nation.
And you continuously make appeals to emotion to make people feel sympathy for the murderous Amalekites.
More loco induced bullshit of putting words into my mouth. No sympathy for the evil adults.
Sympathy for the innocent children who were murdered on God's order!
get it now? Or are you gonna put words in my mouth?
To prove to yourself that the Bible is not 100% the word of God, only because it doesn't suit you 100%.
At this point what does it matter? Only those with an absence of god given common sense would still think the bible is the 100% WOG.
-
If you didn;t comprehend what i just wrote i'll say it again:
If I'm right or wrong about my assumptions of how armies were composed back then it still doesn't take away form the fact
GOD ORDERED THE DEATH OF innocent children
BTW,
first google hit:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/gabr000a.htm (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/gabrmetz/gabr000a.htm)
First google hit? What? You don't get it, do you? You make bold statements that you say are fact and you can back them up, but it is not until after you make the statement that you go and start googling stuff to see if you guessed right? You are just making stuff up as you go, hoping that you guessed right.
I did look at your link above. Did you even read it? Please do tell me where it says that women traveled with soldiers in those days.
-
First google hit? What? You don't get it, do you? You make bold statements that you say are fact and you can back them up, but it is not until after you make the statement that you go and start googling stuff to see if you guessed right? You are just making stuff up as you go, hoping that you guessed right.
I did look at your link above. Did you even read it? Please do tell me where it says that women traveled with soldiers in those days.
OK loco, you are right, i was wrong. Women did not travel with armies back then.
What does that have to do with GOD ordering the killing of children?
What exactly?
BTW, I'll find it later. And i didn't make the guess that women travel with armies, i assumed it because they did in medieval times. I read some books on it years ago.
-
It's sad, you have to go through these links to discredit my argument to justify killing children.
Yes you do.
I never said they should have left them there, you think that's an answer. but I'm not surprised because you support killing them.
They should have took them back and assimilated them into their nation.
More loco induced bullshit of putting words into my mouth. No sympathy for the evil adults.
Sympathy for the innocent children who were murdered on God's order!
get it now? Or are you gonna put words in my mouth?
At this point what does it matter? Only those with an absence of god given common sense would still think the bible is the 100% WOG.
Insults, appeals to emotion and typing in big letters only show that you are out of arguments and you continue to avoid the questions after your statement.
You do justify killing all the adults and leaving the children to die a slow painful death. And asking the soldiers to strap children to their bodies and drag them into the rest of their battles before returning home is ridiculous.
-
Insults, appeals to emotion and typing in big letters only show that you are out of arguments and you continue to avoid the questions after your statement.
What ever dude, you accused me of something i did not say. and you knew you did. Yeah, i take that a bit personally.
You do justify killing all the adults and leaving the children to die a slow painful death. And asking the soldiers to strap children to their bodies and drag them into the rest of their battles before returning home is ridiculous.
What ever they have to do to keep the children safe they HAVE TO DO. That is not a justification to kill them.
-
What ever dude, you accused me of something i did not say. and you knew you did. Yeah, i take that a bit personally.
What ever they have to do to keep the children safe they HAVE TO DO. That is not a justification to kill them.
OzmO, what did I accuse of saying that you did not say? That wasn't my intention.
-
OzmO, what did I accuse of saying that you did not say? That wasn't my intention.
here:
And you continuously make appeals to emotion to make people feel sympathy for the murderous Amalekites.
And here's what i'm getting at:
Sympathy for the innocent children who were murdered on God's order!
And that NOT god, but murderous soldiers or a General who deiced not to accept the moral responsibly of taking of the innocnet children left over from killing all the Adult amelekites
-
OK loco, you are right, i was wrong. Women did not travel with armies back then.
What does that have to do with GOD ordering the killing of children?
What exactly?
BTW, I'll find it later. And i didn't make the guess that women travel with armies, i assumed it because they did in medieval times. I read some books on it years ago.
Thanks, OzmO!
And to answer "what exactly", you brought it up when I asked you some questions.
-
Thanks, OzmO!
And to answer "what exactly", you brought it up when I asked you some questions.
And how is killing children Godly?
-
And how is killing children Godly?
Who said killing children is Godly?
How is leaving the Amalekite children alone to die a slow painful death Godly?
-
Who said killing children is Godly?
How is leaving the Amalekite children alone to die a slow painful death Godly?
You think the only option was to leave. I say absolutely not. They had food and they likely had a logistics train. They didn't need to leave them. And even if some of them died form hunger on the journey back because there wasn't enough food at least they made an effort and could have assimilated the survivors into the rest of the population. That is the right thing to do, the godly thing to do. Not to kill them.
But murderous soldiers or a General who deiced not to accept the moral responsibly of taking of the innocent children left over from killing all the Adult amelekites
-
You think the only option was to leave. I say absolutely not. They had food and they likely had a logistics train. They didn't need to leave them. And even if some of them died form hunger on the journey back because there wasn't enough food at least they made an effort and could have assimilated the survivors into the rest of the population. That is the right thing to do, the godly thing to do. Not to kill them.
But murderous soldiers or a General who deiced not to accept the moral responsibly of taking of the innocent children left over from killing all the Adult amelekites
Would you have left the mothers and the children alive? What if you had done that, and a generation later they come back to kill and destroy your nation? And say you go back and kill them again, but again leaving the mothers and children alive. What if again and again they keep coming back, for many generations. As a leader of a nation, Israel in this case, what would you do? Would you just keep the cycle going for ever?
-
Would you have left the mothers and the children alive? What if you had done that, and a generation later they come back to kill and destroy your nation? And say you go back and kill them again, but again leaving the mothers and children alive. What if again and again they keep coming back, for many generations. As a leader of a nation, Israel in this case, what would you do? Would you just keep the cycle going for ever?
I think you are assuming a lot there loco.
What if you had done that, and a generation later they come back to kill and destroy your nation?
Killing innocent people based on what their off spring might do a generation later is no justification.
By that same logic, when we kill a terrorist should we then kill their kids to? Incidentally some of their kids end up being suicide bombers, but does killing innocent children becuase of what they might become make that right?
That's very fear based. I don't think God wants you to kill innocent children or live your life in fear, although some people might interpret the bible that way.
"What ifs" don;t justify the killing of children.
And say you go back and kill them again, but again leaving the mothers and children alive. What if again and again they keep coming back, for many generations.
You remember i said the best thing to do would be to assimilate them into your population? That would prevent that as some would carry the grudge all their lives while others would accept their lives and be touched by the grace of God and realize their evil ways.
and what if you left them and they kept coming back? Well that's their choice and each time they would die. chances are the entire culture would be shattered any way and the survivors would realize, that being Evil or not, messing with Israel means death.
and in the end, it is not right ot kill innocent children for something there decedents might do.
As a leader of a nation, Israel in this case, what would you do? Would you just keep the cycle going for ever?
If the Bible description of the Amilallikites is accurate, (which i doubt, but probably reasonably close) I would, kill the soldiers and help rebuild their nation.....kind of like we did with Germany and Japan. As time goes on, the hatred dies down and as you've seen us do, we have instilled many or our values in their culture just as the Israleites would have done with them.
-
I think you are assuming a lot there loco.
Killing innocent people based on what their off spring might do a generation later is no justification.
By that same logic, when we kill a terrorist should we then kill their kids to? Incidentally some of their kids end up being suicide bombers, but does killing innocent children becuase of what they might become make that right?
That's very fear based. I don't think God wants you to kill innocent children or live your life in fear, although some people might interpret the bible that way.
"What ifs" don;t justify the killing of children.
You remember i said the best thing to do would be to assimilate them into your population? That would prevent that as some would carry the grudge all their lives while others would accept their lives and be touched by the grace of God and realize their evil ways.
and what if you left them and they kept coming back? Well that's their choice and each time they would die. chances are the entire culture would be shattered any way and the survivors would realize, that being Evil or not, messing with Israel means death.
and in the end, it is not right ot kill innocent children for something there decedents might do.
If the Bible description of the Amilallikites is accurate, (which i doubt, but probably reasonably close) I would, kill the soldiers and help rebuild their nation.....kind of like we did with Germany and Japan. As time goes on, the hatred dies down and as you've seen us do, we have instilled many or our values in their culture just as the Israleites would have done with them.
But the Amalekites kept coming back to attack Israel, killing, destroying, kidnapping, stealing, etc., for 300+ years, even after King Saul had destroyed "almost" all of them.
In the case of terrorists, that is different because there is no such thing as an entire nation of men who are terrorists. Even in Palestine, with their suicide bombers and all, there are many Palestinians who want peace with Israel. The suicide bombers do not represent the entire population. In the case of the Amalekites, they were nomads who supported themselves through pillaging and plundering other nations.
-
But the Amalekites kept coming back to attack Israel, killing, destroying, kidnapping, stealing, etc., for 300+ years, even after King Saul had destroyed "almost" all of them.
In the case of terrorists, that is different because there is no such thing as an entire nation of men who are terrorists. Even in Palestine, with their suicide bombers and all, there are many Palestinians who want peace with Israel. The suicide bombers do not represent the entire population. In the case of the Amalekites, they were nomads who supported themselves through pillaging and plundering other nations.
Then you assimilate them (the non-soldiers) into your population. Or if god really desired the Amalikites to stop attacking Israel he could have just made them stop by changing their hearts, erecting an invisible wall, or scatter them like he's done before in other situations. Either way the innocent children are spared. Or he could have made a spectacle of his power and made the murderous adults disappear before the eyes of the women and children so they know the punishment that awaits them becuase of their evil ways if they don't change.
-
Then you assimilate them (the non-soldiers) into your population. Or if god really desired the Amalikites to stop attacking Israel he could have just made them stop by changing their hearts, erecting an invisible wall, or scatter them like he's done before in other situations. Either way the innocent children are spared. Or he could have made a spectacle of his power and made the murderous adults disappear before the eyes of the women and children so they know the punishment that awaits them becuase of their evil ways if they don't change.
I guess from this line of reasoning that the Nephilim were just victims of circumstance,the people that passed away in the flood were hard done by.The egyptians only needed cheap labour.The assyrians even though they liked to flay their victim and wear his skin were only making a fashion statement.
Bad is bad is bad .
God was fully justified in wiping this race off the face of the planet.
Ozmo where were you at the foundation of the world?
-
I guess from this line of reasoning that the Nephilim were just victims of circumstance,the people that passed away in the flood were hard done by.The egyptians only needed cheap labour.The assyrians even though they liked to flay their victim and wear his skin were only making a fashion statement.
Bad is bad is bad .
God was fully justified in wiping this race off the face of the planet.
All of which makes total sense except when it comes to killing innocent children.
Ozmo where were you at the foundation of the world?
???
-
Ozmo they werent innocent.Im not going into detail as its too sick to even describe what these pagan assholes used to inflict on their kids.
Blame the parents ,not the judgement.
Gods smarter than you.
Where were you at the foundation of the world?
-
Ozmo they werent innocent.Im not going into detail as its too sick to even describe what these pagan assholes used to inflict on their kids.
Blame the parents ,not the judgement.
Gods smarter than you.
A 4 year girl is not innocent? Sorry don't buy that BS. It doesn't matter what the parents were doing to the children.
And if you go into detail, show me in the Bible where it says or describes how evil these children were. Otherwise you are just making statements and backing them up with the assumption that God is justified to kill children because God is smarter than me. Which is really stupid because first off you'd have to prove he did exactly that.
What did likely happen? If you know anything about history, you know that history is written by the victors. the victors in this case justified their slaughter of children by blaming it on orders from God. Not exactly a new idea in history isn't? A leader of some army or nation saying he's been given orders to do something that otherwise would be considered a war crime.
Where were you at the foundation of the world?
What do you mean? What are you trying to get at? You aren't making much sense.
Also, I'm starting to think English isn't your first language. Am i right?
-
ARE THE CHRISTIANS AWARE THAT WHEN THEY SAY GOD KILLED PEOPLE, OR WAS JUSTIFIED IT FULLY CONTRADICTS AN ALL LOVING GOD, AND FREE WILL?
-
ARE THE CHRISTIANS AWARE THAT WHEN THEY SAY GOD KILLED PEOPLE, OR WAS JUSTIFIED IT FULLY CONTRADICTS AN ALL LOVING GOD, AND FREE WILL?
Do you mean it contradicts free will in that maybe those people wanted to live ???
OzmO, and usmoke, sometimes I'll read about something in the bible, or see something happen and it can make me scratch my head and think, "Why Lord?"
But I realize that He is omniscient and I'm not. I think that maybe be what nzhardgain is trying to say. We don't know everything but God does.
-
Do you mean it contradicts free will in that maybe those people wanted to live ???
OzmO, and usmoke, sometimes I'll read about something in the bible, or see something happen and it can make me scratch my head and think, "Why Lord?"
But I realize that He is omniscient and I'm not. I think that maybe be what nzhardgain is trying to say. We don't know everything but God does.
I totally believe that. But in this case it doesn't apply, becuase what happened here wasn't God ordering it, it was the victors writing that God ordered them to escape any accountability for such a despicable evil act........Killing innocent children, 2-3-4 year olds, braining babies, etc. goes against everything GOD teaches.
-
Do you mean it contradicts free will in that maybe those people wanted to live ???
OzmO, and usmoke, sometimes I'll read about something in the bible, or see something happen and it can make me scratch my head and think, "Why Lord?"
But I realize that He is omniscient and I'm not. I think that maybe be what nzhardgain is trying to say. We don't know everything but God does.
free will means that god is seperate from our decisions and cannot impact our actions, hence free will. if god could intervene in our lives we are ultimately not in control, thus we have no free will.
if god is PURE GOOD, he cannot commit acts of evil, see my devil analogy. its simple logic. ive said before that when you start describing attributes of god your entering unknown territory. if it is omipotent etc.. then any attribute you do or dont prescribe are incorrect, since we are finite and imperfect, our logic and thinking wouldnt apply.
-
free will means that god is seperate from our decisions and cannot impact our actions, hence free will. if god could intervene in our lives we are ultimately not in control, thus we have no free will.
if god is PURE GOOD, he cannot commit acts of evil, see my devil analogy. its simple logic. ive said before that when you start describing attributes of god your entering unknown territory. if it is omipotent etc.. then any attribute you do or dont prescribe are incorrect, since we are finite and imperfect, our logic and thinking wouldnt apply.
you really need to stick to one point and one point only in your posts.Its hard to answer you when you have 6 different points or questions in your posts.Youre all over the place.
I suspect after reading your attitude to being corrected by various posters here,that you wont like the answers provided.
Why waste my time?
-
I totally believe that. But in this case it doesn't apply, becuase what happened here wasn't God ordering it, it was the victors writing that God ordered them to escape any accountability for such a despicable evil act........Killing innocent children, 2-3-4 year olds, braining babies, etc. goes against everything GOD teaches.
Hey buddy
You were there?
Whats clear to me is that you have no personal relationship with your maker.You dont put trust in the decisions that he makes.Do you even pray?
You know that the flood wiped away everyone right?You surely know when Sodom and Gomarrah was laid to waste noone got out?
Never grieve for the wicked.You surely know whats in store as predicted in revelations that there will be a huge bloody battle in the future.
Make sure your paths are straight my man.I will try to do the same.
-
I totally believe that. But in this case it doesn't apply, becuase what happened here wasn't God ordering it, it was the victors writing that God ordered them to escape any accountability for such a despicable evil act........Killing innocent children, 2-3-4 year olds, braining babies, etc. goes against everything GOD teaches.
You're not making any sense, here. The account states that God rejected Saul as king, ultimately replacing him with David, because Saul did not obey God's command fully. Saul spared the Amalekite king and kept the prize livestock, silver, and gold for himself. His orders from God were to destroy everything and everyone.
If this were just about the victors writing the story, keeping the loot would not have been an offense, let alone an offense severe enough to cost Saul his throne. The surviving Amalekites repopulated and once agaiin started assaulting Israel. So, Saul didn't carry out God's instructions.
Plus, you keep forgetting that all of this happened, because the Amalekites repeatedly attacked Israel without provocation, all starting as Israel left Egypt. They attacked the weakest of Israel's population, specifically the elderly, women, and children. The Amalekites were far from boy scouts, and as we've discussed before, they continued this type of behavior against Israel (and Lord know who else) for over 300 years. Had they repented, this attack from Saul wouldn't have occured. However, they didn't. The Lord decided that enough was enough and the Amalekites got pounded, as a result.
Yes, it's sad what happen to the children. But, that's what's terrible about sinful behavior. The Amalekites paid the price and so did their children.
free will means that god is seperate from our decisions and cannot impact our actions, hence free will. if god could intervene in our lives we are ultimately not in control, thus we have no free will.
if god is PURE GOOD, he cannot commit acts of evil, see my devil analogy. its simple logic. ive said before that when you start describing attributes of god your entering unknown territory. if it is omipotent etc.. then any attribute you do or dont prescribe are incorrect, since we are finite and imperfect, our logic and thinking wouldnt apply.
Free will means nothing of the sort. If you have the freedom to make a choice, you also take the consequence (good or bad) for that choice. Just because you suffer the bad consequence of a decision you made doesn't mean you don't have free will, especially if you've been warned that such adverse consequences would/could happen. You don't complain about not having free will, if you make a good decision and reap the rewards, now do you?
Man's evil nature always seeks to break God's laws, without suffering the consequences. When bad things happen, now God is the big meanie. That's simply not the case. Just as the good things we do can bless others, the bad things we do can curse others.
-
you really need to stick to one point and one point only in your posts.Its hard to answer you when you have 6 different points or questions in your posts.Youre all over the place.
I suspect after reading your attitude to being corrected by various posters here,that you wont like the answers provided.
Why waste my time?
LMAO!!! who corrected me? loco made some valid points about christianity but its based on your interpretation then chose not to respond to my reply, the same thing with mcway. everyone has avoided my questions, my two posts are still sitting there, and the one answer by MCWAY was as irrational, and avoidant as you could make it.
trust me, i dont need you to explain anything with regards to logic or reason to me, this thread is totally off the wall. you got bodies exploding on impact, two different descriptions of someones death.
then you have people arguing that even though judas did not participate in the purchasing process whatsoever, he somehow bought the field? why is it so unclear, and cryptic?
ill lay it out again for you. you cant have an ALL loving god that condems people to death, or even feels negative feelings, like anger and jealousy, sadness etc... these are negative emotions and are not GOOD. for example you cant have omipotence if there is even one thing you cannot do, if there is, you are not omnipotent. this logic seems to evade most the christians i have talked too. you also cant have god interacting or changing the course of peoples life if we have free will. this contradicts free will, and also means that god does not know the future, another incosistency. there are more, but ill wait for your reply, please answer my questions directly, or arguments if you will.
how can god do evil, or commit negativity if he is ALL LOVING, how can god impact the course of peoples actions, if we have free will?
simple questions.
-
Hey buddy
You were there?
Whats clear to me is that you have no personal relationship with your maker.You dont put trust in the decisions that he makes.Do you even pray?
You know that the flood wiped away everyone right?You surely know when Sodom and Gomarrah was laid to waste noone got out?
Never grieve for the wicked.You surely know whats in store as predicted in revelations that there will be a huge bloody battle in the future.
Make sure your paths are straight my man.I will try to do the same.
It's clear to you i have no personal relationship with my maker only becuase i don't subscribe to a book of stories as the 100% word of god. It looks like you do and you devalue your God given common sense with statements like "god is smarter then you" I'm sorry for you.
And then when someone has a differing opinion or belief outside that of yours now you question if they even pray.
It's very telling of you.
Do you believe the bible word for word?
Do you believe the earth and the universe is only about 13,000 years old?
Do you believe there was a worldwide deluge that killed every living thing on earth save the "2" of every animal in the ark?
I'm starting to think you do.
It's ok if you do. More power to you. But don't you assume for one minute that just becuase someone does not share the same beliefs you do that they don't have a personal relationship with God,don't pray or haven't read the bible.
It shows your ignorance more than anything.
-
anyone who beleives the universe is not billions of years old is a moron, plain and simple, that should kill the 100% word of god right there.
the book was written a long time ago people, when gods where what people needed to feel secure, where is this god now?
where is he, when children are burning alive, dying starving. why would he intervene back then but allow everyone to suffer now.
the most common answer is because of sin. but wait, isnt god all knowing? meaning he knows the past present and future? if that is so then how come it didnt know that man would sin? was god unaware of this?
this shit is so illogical it hurts my head sometimes. i love arguments for god, but not fairytales.
-
You're not making any sense, here. The account states that God rejected Saul as king, ultimately replacing him with David, because Saul did not obey God's command fully. Saul spared the Amalekite king and kept the prize livestock, silver, and gold for himself. His orders from God were to destroy everything and everyone.
If this were just about the victors writing the story, keeping the loot would not have been an offense, let alone an offense severe enough to cost Saul his throne. The surviving Amalekites repopulated and once agaiin started assaulting Israel. So, Saul didn't carry out God's instructions.
Plus, you keep forgetting that all of this happened, because the Amalekites repeatedly attacked Israel without provocation, all starting as Israel left Egypt. They attacked the weakest of Israel's population, specifically the elderly, women, and children. The Amalekites were far from boy scouts, and as we've discussed before, they continued this type of behavior against Israel (and Lord know who else) for over 300 years. Had they repented, this attack from Saul wouldn't have occured. However, they didn't. The Lord decided that enough was enough and the Amalekites got pounded, as a result.
Yes, it's sad what happen to the children. But, that's what's terrible about sinful behavior. The Amalekites paid the price and so did their children.
Why is it that you and everyone else seem to always go back to what the adult Amalekites were doing? It's not about them.
It doesn't matter how evil or barbaric they were. What matters is innocent children and regardless of children paying the price of their parents evilness killing them is still wrong. In every case killing the adults seems justified, but you cannot justify killing the children unless you do it on God's orders....that's why i say history is written by the victors in this case, otherwise the Jews would be known and child murdering evil bastards. But blame it on God, and people can accept that like yourself. Well i don't. If God is all good and all loving he would not order the slaughter of children. What's sad is that so many people turn a blind eye to what killing children really is as if to glaze over the truth of what it is.
What if that happened in this day in age? It would be total outrage. It would be hailed as pure evil. And yet, becuase "god" ordered it it's justified. Children do not have to pay for their parents sins with their lives. There is nothing that can justify the slaughtering of children and becuase of that (among other things) unfortunately the Bible is not the 100% truth of God.
Everyone of you folks dance around the fact that killing children is wrong and "god" supposedly ordered they should be killed. No one wants to look at what that really means, especially when I describe it, i get accused of making a weak argument. It's almost hilarious to think that. How can you sit here and tell me there was anything right about slaughtering thousands of children?
-
Why is it that you and everyone else seem to always go back to what the adult Amalekites were doing? It's not about them.
It doesn't matter how evil or barbaric they were. What matters is innocent children and regardless of children paying the price of their parents evilness killing them is still wrong. In every case killing the adults seems justified, but you cannot justify killing the children unless you do it on God's orders....that's why i say history is written by the victors in this case, otherwise the Jews would be known and child murdering evil bastards. But blame it on God, and people can accept that like yourself. Well i don't. If God is all good and all loving he would not order the slaughter of children. What's sad is that so many people turn a blind eye to what killing children really is as if to glaze over the truth of what it is.
What if that happened in this day in age? It would be total outrage. It would be hailed as pure evil. And yet, becuase "god" ordered it it's justified. Children do not have to pay for their parents sins with their lives. There is nothing that can justify the slaughtering of children and becuase of that (among other things) unfortunately the Bible is not the 100% truth of God.
Everyone of you folks dance around the fact that killing children is wrong and "god" supposedly ordered they should be killed. No one wants to look at what that really means, especially when I describe it, i get accused of making a weak argument. It's almost hilarious to think that. How can you sit here and tell me there was anything right about slaughtering thousands of children?
because god is hyperlogical. somehow its ok for him to order children to be murdered, yet with our logic it is not. ::), but wait, he is a pure, and all loving, so the kids he created needed to be put to death, because he messed up when he wrote that part of the script, just a little mistake by a perfect being. we should throw the logic GOD gave us out the window and accept a book where you have to follow ten rules or go to hell, which was created by god.
wait a minute, could it be more rational that this book was used to control people? that its made up? that it contains some universal truth, but is mainly a control mechanism?
i also love this doosy. if all is eternal, that is there is no end, then what the fuck does anything we do matter? in eternity it would not, since it would never end.
-
LMAO!!! who corrected me? loco made some valid points about christianity but its based on your interpretation then chose not to respond to my reply, the same thing with mcway. everyone has avoided my questions, my two posts are still sitting there, and the one answer by MCWAY was as irrational, and avoidant as you could make it.
trust me, i dont need you to explain anything with regards to logic or reason to me, this thread is totally off the wall. you got bodies exploding on impact, two different descriptions of someones death.
usmokepole,
"bodies exploding on impact"? I must admit, that made me laugh. ;D
Hey, I haven't replied to your posts only because I haven't had time. I have been busy at work, while reading and responding to posts here, in the political board and on the nutrition board. I'll get back to you.
BTW, Judas' body decomposing, then falling off the tree is one possibility. But there are many other possibilities, like Judas hanging himself on a tree near a cliff, like Tom Hanks tried to do in that movie "Cast Away." Then, from the strong winds and the earthquake that took place after Jesus' death, the rope or the branch from which Judas was hanging could have easily snapped, sending Judas' body down the cliff, hitting rocks on its way down, and finally hitting the rocks below.
We could probably think of many other possibilities. But we do know from the Bible that 1. He hanged himself, and 2. His body fell and hit something and his insides spilled out. Both 1 and 2 are possible, both are true.
-
It's clear to you i have no personal relationship with my maker only becuase i don't subscribe to a book of stories as the 100% word of god. It looks like you do and you devalue your God given common sense with statements like "god is smarter then you" I'm sorry for you.
And then when someone has a differing opinion or belief outside that of yours now you question if they even pray.
It's very telling of you.
Do you believe the bible word for word?
Do you believe the earth and the universe is only about 13,000 years old?
Do you believe there was a worldwide deluge that killed every living thing on earth save the "2" of every animal in the ark?
I'm starting to think you do.
It's ok if you do. More power to you. But don't you assume for one minute that just becuase someone does not share the same beliefs you do that they don't have a personal relationship with God,don't pray or haven't read the bible.
It shows your ignorance more than anything.
Answers to your questions
1.I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.Surely you must of figured that out by now :)
2.No ,i believe the creative days werent literal 24 hr days.I know some other christians do believe that ,to me its a minor thing compared to say ,trying to act like an all knowing God.
3.Of course i believe the flood came.Of course you will deny it.Thats your role as an opposer.
I dont believe you pray to the same God as me bud.Whatever you worship, its inferior.You dont have the same hope as me,i dont even think you really know the word well enough to even come challenge anyone here.But keep opposing.You reflect your god.He must be proud.
Done with you ,take care .
-
LMAO!!! who corrected me? loco made some valid points about christianity but its based on your interpretation then chose not to respond to my reply, the same thing with mcway. everyone has avoided my questions, my two posts are still sitting there, and the one answer by MCWAY was as irrational, and avoidant as you could make it.
trust me, i dont need you to explain anything with regards to logic or reason to me, this thread is totally off the wall. you got bodies exploding on impact, two different descriptions of someones death.
then you have people arguing that even though judas did not participate in the purchasing process whatsoever, he somehow bought the field? why is it so unclear, and cryptic?
ill lay it out again for you. you cant have an ALL loving god that condems people to death, or even feels negative feelings, like anger and jealousy, sadness etc... these are negative emotions and are not GOOD. for example you cant have omipotence if there is even one thing you cannot do, if there is, you are not omnipotent. this logic seems to evade most the christians i have talked too. you also cant have god interacting or changing the course of peoples life if we have free will. this contradicts free will, and also means that god does not know the future, another incosistency. there are more, but ill wait for your reply, please answer my questions directly, or arguments if you will.
how can god do evil, or commit negativity if he is ALL LOVING, how can god impact the course of peoples actions, if we have free will?
simple questions.
I thought the Judas question was answered comprehensively by McWay.Nothing cryptic about that.
Question for you,when you were growing up did your parents ever tell you not to play in traffic or put your hands in the fire?Bear with me,time is short, im freakin busy.
-
Answers to your questions
1.I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.Surely you must of figured that out by now :)
2.No ,i believe the creative days werent literal 24 hr days.I know some other christians do believe that ,to me its a minor thing compared to say ,trying to act like an all knowing God.
3.Of course i believe the flood came.Of course you will deny it.Thats your role as an opposer.
I asked you if you believe it word for word. do you? If you don't then you are picking and choosing and no different than me in that regard.
My role? How dramatic. ::)
I dont believe you pray to the same God as me bud.Whatever you worship, its inferior.You dont have the same hope as me,i dont even think you really know the word well enough to even come challenge anyone here.But keep opposing.You reflect your god.He must be proud.
Done with you ,take care .
Good, I'm glad you are done with me. For the most part you've been more of a waste of time as you lack the knowledge in the bible to even give a reasonable argument aside from condemning, condescending and attacking. But that's how it is with many thumpers who are drunk from their righteousness so much so they become blind to their own soul's ability to see objectively.
I dont believe you pray to the same God as me bud.Whatever you worship, its inferior.
::)
How old are you anyway?
-
so much for judge lest ye be judged. ;D. dude cant even follow jesus's word, let alone form a cogent argument.
now hes comparing god to human parents? lol
you do know that its logically impossible to be omi-everything as you claim your god to be right?
MCWAY, has answered none of the questions posed, he is speculating, that maybe he decomposed, and maybe he fell, and maybe he burst into pieces. then what they might of meant was that because it was judas's money, that maybe he was responsible for the purchase, which makes no sense.
by the way, i knew you wouldnt answer my questions or choose to engage me, keep living in your dream world and avoiding conflicting information. maybe that way you wont have to think for yourself, since your life is laid out for you.
-
Why is it that you and everyone else seem to always go back to what the adult Amalekites were doing? It's not about them.
It doesn't matter how evil or barbaric they were. What matters is innocent children and regardless of children paying the price of their parents evilness killing them is still wrong. In every case killing the adults seems justified, but you cannot justify killing the children unless you do it on God's orders....that's why i say history is written by the victors in this case, otherwise the Jews would be known and child murdering evil bastards. But blame it on God, and people can accept that like yourself. Well i don't. If God is all good and all loving he would not order the slaughter of children. What's sad is that so many people turn a blind eye to what killing children really is as if to glaze over the truth of what it is.
Nobody's turning a blind eye to anything. Unfortunately, when you get involved in war, stuff like this happens. When we dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima, do you think that bomb merely killed the adult Japanese?
Like it or not, it IS about the adult Amalekites and the simple concept that, sometimes when you do wrong, you ARE NOT the only one who pays for it. I've used this analogy before. If I do something stupid that costs me my job and I can't pay my bills, my entire family will be out on the street, not just me. My wife and kids will suffer the consequences for my actions.
What if that happened in this day in age? It would be total outrage. It would be hailed as pure evil. And yet, becuase "god" ordered it it's justified. Children do not have to pay for their parents sins with their lives. There is nothing that can justify the slaughtering of children and becuase of that (among other things) unfortunately the Bible is not the 100% truth of God.
Everyone of you folks dance around the fact that killing children is wrong and "god" supposedly ordered they should be killed. No one wants to look at what that really means, especially when I describe it, i get accused of making a weak argument. It's almost hilarious to think that. How can you sit here and tell me there was anything right about slaughtering thousands of children?
No one has danced around anything. In fact, Loco (and others) have asked you, point blank, what was to have happened to those children, which I'm not sure you answered. You kill the adult Amalekites; the kids either get enslaved or are left to starve and die, because no parents are there to feed them.
Of course, you and other who bring up this issue continue to forget that, had the Amalekites left the Israelites alone, or at least, repented for attacking them in years past (BTW, they attacked Israel's women and children unprovoked, but I don't hear you complaining about that), their kids would not have suffered such a fate and neither would they.
-
LMAO!!! who corrected me? loco made some valid points about christianity but its based on your interpretation then chose not to respond to my reply, the same thing with mcway. everyone has avoided my questions, my two posts are still sitting there, and the one answer by MCWAY was as irrational, and avoidant as you could make it.
trust me, i dont need you to explain anything with regards to logic or reason to me, this thread is totally off the wall. you got bodies exploding on impact, two different descriptions of someones death.
then you have people arguing that even though judas did not participate in the purchasing process whatsoever, he somehow bought the field? why is it so unclear, and cryptic?
ill lay it out again for you. you cant have an ALL loving god that condems people to death, or even feels negative feelings, like anger and jealousy, sadness etc... these are negative emotions and are not GOOD. for example you cant have omipotence if there is even one thing you cannot do, if there is, you are not omnipotent. this logic seems to evade most the christians i have talked too. you also cant have god interacting or changing the course of peoples life if we have free will. this contradicts free will, and also means that god does not know the future, another incosistency. there are more, but ill wait for your reply, please answer my questions directly, or arguments if you will.
how can god do evil, or commit negativity if he is ALL LOVING, how can god impact the course of peoples actions, if we have free will?
simple questions.
Those questions have long been answered. Your disliking of the answers (or claiming that such was "irrational") is no indcation that your questions weren't addressed. Your problem is you want free will without consequence (specifically, you want to commit sin, while avoding the penalty for that sin). That ain't happening, no matter how much "logic" you claim to have. You have the free will to obey or disobey God; there are consequences to doing both. In doing either, the Lord can intervene as He sees fit. But, either way, the choice is YOURS; as are the ramifications. And the Lord knows the results of your decisions, regardless of which ones you make.
In short, free will doesn't mean absence of consequence nor does it mean that God doesn't know what will happen, based on your decisions.
There's even a verse that describes it, Deut. 30:19, I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.
[/i] If the Israelites decided not to heed the Lord's counsel, then any negative outcome falls on their heads, pure and simple.
As for the Judas thing, there's nothing cryptic about it. The priests couldn't legally or ritually accept blood money (which was unclean), and they told Judas as much. Therefore, based on that ancient context, that money (or anything bought with it) still belonged to Judas.
Again, why else would that field have been purchased (which just so happens to be the same on in which Judas' body lay), if the priests could keep the money themselves?
-
Those questions have long been answered. Your disliking of the answers (or claiming that such was "irrational") is no indcation that your questions weren't addressed. Your problem is you want free will without consequence (specifically, you want to commit sin, while avoding the penalty for that sin). That ain't happening, no matter how much "logic" you claim to have. You have the free will to obey or disobey God; there are consequences to doing both. In doing either, the Lord can intervene as He sees fit. But, either way, the choice is YOURS; as are the ramifications. And the Lord knows the results of your decisions, regardless of which ones you make.
In short, free will doesn't mean absence of consequence nor does it mean that God doesn't know what will happen, based on your decisions.
There's even a verse that describes it, Deut. 30:19, I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.
[/i] If the Israelites decided not to heed the Lord's counsel, then any negative outcome falls on their heads, pure and simple.
As for the Judas thing, there's nothing cryptic about it. The priests couldn't legally or ritually accept blood money (which was unclean), and they told Judas as much. Therefore, based on that ancient context, that money (or anything bought with it) still belonged to Judas.
Again, why else would that field have been purchased (which just so happens to be the same on in which Judas' body lay), if the priests could keep the money themselves?
no, that is your opinion. free will means we can act without interference from anything, and that we have infinite choices at our disposal. god intervening would violate this principle. sorry but no passage in the bible trumps reason and logic. you cant say we have free will, then say god can change the course of our lives, dont you see how this statement contradicts itself?
the fact of the matter is, you dont know how judas died, he could of fell from a tree, he could of been hung on a cliff, OR the passage is wrong, and there is miscommunication. when i read two statements that report an event in different detail, i tend to think of things like observer bias, the community effect etc.... that is, one is right and the other is wrong. i dont try to connect the dots through ridiculous scenarios.
-
Nobody's turning a blind eye to anything. Unfortunately, when you get involved in war, stuff like this happens. When we dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima, do you think that bomb merely killed the adult Japanese?
Like it or not, it IS about the adult Amalekites and the simple concept that, sometimes when you do wrong, you ARE NOT the only one who pays for it. I've used this analogy before. If I do something stupid that costs me my job and I can't pay my bills, my entire family will be out on the street, not just me. My wife and kids will suffer the consequences for my actions.
Was the death of those innocent civilians in japan right? Was killing innocent children in Japan good and right? NO. I understand why we did it. But it doesn't change the fact that it is wrong to kill children and there is no-justification and with a "god" who has "omni" powers it just doesn't fit. It's a sin the people who decided and carried out the order will have to deal with and be accountable to God for. When you compare Hiroshima you forget the USA was not God the all good and loving.
And when you compare losing your job to killing children it's almost asinine to do so. Your kids weren't getting brained by a club becuase you lost your Job.
No one has danced around anything. In fact, Loco (and others) have asked you, point blank, what was to have happened to those children, which I'm not sure you answered. You kill the adult Amalekites; the kids either get enslaved or are left to starve and die, because no parents are there to feed them.
Of course, you and other who bring up this issue continue to forget that, had the Amalekites left the Israelites alone, or at least, repented for attacking them in years past (BTW, they attacked Israel's women and children unprovoked, but I don't hear you complaining about that), their kids would not have suffered such a fate and neither would they.
I have answered the question, you either assimilate them into your culture or population or you leave them be with their mothers who you don't kill or assimilate the mothers too. Either way although the burden and solution isn't perfect it far out weighs the evil alternative of killing children which is not a all loving and good God.
-
No one has danced around anything. In fact, Loco (and others) have asked you, point blank, what was to have happened to those children, which I'm not sure you answered. You kill the adult Amalekites; the kids either get enslaved or are left to starve and die, because no parents are there to feed them.
Of course, you and other who bring up this issue continue to forget that, had the Amalekites left the Israelites alone, or at least, repented for attacking them in years past (BTW, they attacked Israel's women and children unprovoked, but I don't hear you complaining about that), their kids would not have suffered such a fate and neither would they.
man if god was like jesus life would be good. lol.
why dont you show a little compassion and love and raise and teach the kids, care for them etc.....
or
you could be loving by killing them ::)
-
no, that is your opinion. free will means we can act without interference from anything, and that we have infinite choices at our disposal. god intervening would violate this principle. sorry but no passage in the bible trumps reason and logic. you cant say we have free will, then say god can change the course of our lives, dont you see how this statement contradicts itself?
Free will means nothing of the sort. Again, you seek free will without consequence. That will not happen in this world, not on a natural level or a supernatural one. Infinite choices have infinite consequences. Everything you do and every choice you make has such (good or evil). Those consequences affect, at the very least, you. But, depending on the circumstances, they could affect other people.
This has nothing to do with trumping so-called logic and reason. For example, you have the free will to steal. If you get caught, of course, you're going to jail. You made a decision, likely knowing what the consequences would/could be. Your having to pay the price for your actions in no way altered your free will. "Logic and reason" would indicate that, if you don't avoid the consequences in the natural realm, you certainly don't so such in the supernatural realm.
the fact of the matter is, you dont know how judas died, he could of fell from a tree, he could of been hung on a cliff, OR the passage is wrong, and there is miscommunication. when i read two statements that report an event in different detail, i tend to think of things like observer bias, the community effect etc.... that is, one is right and the other is wrong. i dont try to connect the dots through ridiculous scenarios.
The fact of the matter is we have the data, surrounding Judas' death, in the Bible. And, just like any other scenario, one would gather as much information as possible and based the conclusion on that data.
What "observer bias" is there in the account surrounding Judas' death? One says that Judas bought the field; the other says that the priest did so, on his behalf, because they could not accept his blood money. What bias is there, especially given the seriousness of the stigma, attached with blood money in ancient Israel? And once again (since you want to complain about unanswered questions) why did the priests buy that field with Judas' body in it, on Judas' behalf, if they were able to keep the money for themselves?
As for his death, one account says he hung himself; the other says he fell and his bowels splattered upon impace. Again, how does one render the other impossible (the very definition of a contradiction)? Did Judas hang indefinitely? Did no one attempt to cut him down (eventually, after Passover and the Sabbath)?
-
Was the death of those innocent civilians in japan right? Was killing innocent children in Japan good and right? NO. I understand why we did it. But it doesn't change the fact that it is wrong to kill children and there is no-justification and with a "god" who has "omni" powers it just doesn't fit. It's a sin the people who decided and carried out the order will have to deal with and be accountable to God for. When you compare Hiroshima you forget the USA was not God the all good and loving.
And when you compare losing your job to killing children it's almost asinine to do so. Your kids weren't getting brained by a club becuase you lost your Job.
The analogy is far from asinine. Do the kids suffer for something I did? YES!!! Granted, the consequences are far less tragic. But, that's not the point. The point is that others can be impacted by the things you do. As I said before, sometimes when you sin, YOU ARE NOT the only one who pays the price for it. Tha's what so horrible about sin.
Furthermore, the people who carried out the order were accountable to God (He gave the command to deal with Amalekites in the first place, or did you forget that part). That very accountability is why Saul lost the throne of Israel. Saul spared the choice livestock, the silver and gold, and the Amalekite king, despite being given specific order to destroy everyone and everything.
I have answered the question, you either assimilate them into your culture or population or you leave them be with their mothers who you don't kill or assimilate the mothers too. Either way although the burden and solution isn't perfect it far out weighs the evil alternative of killing children which is not a all loving and good God.
And how long do you think a city with mainly women and children would last? And, I'm sure there'd be plenty of Biblical skeptics who would blame Israel (and ultimately God, Himself) for leaving the Amalekite women and children, ripe for the pickings, as the saying goes, for another nation.
But, none of this happens if the Amalekites didn't attack Israel in the first place, or had they tried to make amends, down the line. Instead, for three centuries and change, they assaulted Israel. They paid the price for it and so did their offspring.
Plus, if I remember correctly, Israel did assimilate women and children of their enemies (different ones than the Amalekites) into their society. Of course, the skeptical argument then became that the Israelite men were just using them as sex slaves (as most of the survivors were female).
The point being is that, no matter how the Amalekites (or any of Israel's enemies) were punished, Biblical skeptics are going to find fault with it, as has been demonstrated here on this thread.
The sin of the Amalekites had far-reaching consequences, which were metted on their children.
-
The analogy is far from asinine. Do the kids suffer for something I did? YES!!! Granted, the consequences are far less tragic. But, that's not the point. The point is that others can be impacted by the things you do. As I said before, sometimes when you sin, YOU ARE NOT the only one who pays the price for it. Tha's what so horrible about sin.
We are talking about the needless wrongful evil murder of children here MCWAY something that you are obviously indifferent to as you try and support this kind of thing becuase to do otherwise would negate the integrity and credibility of the WOG being 100% in the bible.
Tha's what so horrible about sin.
So God responds to a sin by ordering people to commit another even more horrible sin?
Makes no sense and is appalling to even think someone would compare it.
Furthermore, the people who carried out the order were accountable to God (He gave the command to deal with Amalekites in the first place, or did you forget that part). That very accountability is why Saul lost the throne of Israel. Saul spared the choice livestock, the silver and gold, and the Amalekite king, despite being given specific order to destroy everyone and everything.
My exact point, that's why the bible is a load of crap in some areas.
How many people have suffered becuase those in power thought they were on orders from God?
And how long do you think a city with mainly women and children would last? And, I'm sure there'd be plenty of Biblical skeptics who would blame Israel (and ultimately God, Himself) for leaving the Amalekite women and children, ripe for the pickings, as the saying goes, for another nation.
the Jews had a moral obligation to take care of the women and children. do you even believe that? Would follow that same example McWAY in this day in age? Would kill children if god told you?
I wouldn't. He can stick that order in his ass. And if he sends me to hell he's a hypocrite and cannot possibly be god. And if he really is GOD, then to hell i go, becuase i'd rather burn in hell than kill a child, becuase if that's what i'm supposed to do to go to heaven then forget it. i will not lose my soul becuase GOD couldn't in all "his wisdom and power" find a better answer.
But, none of this happens if the Amalekites didn't attack Israel in the first place, or had they tried to make amends, down the line. Instead, for three centuries and change, they assaulted Israel. They paid the price for it and so did their offspring.
They paid price for it? The offspring? and this is your all loving God? ::) this god is hypocrite murderous butcher. But if you would open your eyes to even one sliver of common sense you'll see that this is NOT god, but some murderous Hews looking to lie about their justification of murder.
Plus, if I remember correctly, Israel did assimilate women and children of their enemies (different ones than the Amalekites) into their society. Of course, the skeptical argument then became that the Israelite men were just using them as sex slaves (as most of the survivors were female).
Oh goody! More stupid excuses to try and justify killing children.
We did assimilate children into our society but becuase our men would use them as sex slaves it was better off to just KILL them. ::) Instead of addressing the fact that slavery is wrong which another can of worms with God and the bible, they use that to justify killing them?
The point being is that, no matter how the Amalekites (or any of Israel's enemies) were punished, Biblical skeptics are going to find fault with it, as has been demonstrated here on this thread.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Leave them there with all there food and belongings, In a few years it will be many old women and children that grew up to be men and women or assimilate them into their culture. Either way, far more morally accountable than killing tham. Also, i don't believe every amailikite was evil. That's just stupid propaganda by the victors.
But now we are saying no matter what they did there would still be skeptics so they might have well just killed them anyway? that's really dumb.
The sin of the Amalekites had far-reaching consequences, which were metted on their children.
What do you think the opinion of the world would be if anything like that happened today?
That's why in some ways the Bible holds back the progression of our civilization when people actually try and finds ways to justify killing children.
McWay i respect you and i hope you do not take anything i said personally. but at some point, These attempts to justify killing children anger me.
-
We are talking about the needless wrongful evil murder of children here MCWAY something that you are obviously indifferent to as you try and support this kind of thing becuase to do otherwise would negate the integrity and credibility of the WOG being 100% in the bible.
I'm not indifferent to anything. I simply realize the widespread reprecussions of certain sinful behaviors.
So God responds to a sin by ordering people to commit another even more horrible sin?
Makes no sense and is appalling to even think someone would compare it.
My exact point, that's why the bible is a load of crap in some areas.
How many people have suffered becuase those in power thought they were on orders from God?
What's that got to do with the Amalekites, their continued unprovoked attacks on Israel, and the punishment that befell them?
the Jews had a moral obligation to take care of the women and children. do you even believe that? Would follow that same example McWAY in this day in age? Would kill children if god told you?
Their orders weren't to take care of them. Otherwise they would have, as they did when they dealt with other enemies.
Would I follow that same example? My people aren't being relentlessly attacked without provocation by an enemy for hundreds of years. So, no I wouldn't.
I wouldn't. He can stick that order in his ass. And if he sends me to hell he's a hypocrite and cannot possibly be god. And if he really is GOD, then to hell i go, becuase i'd rather burn in hell than kill a child, becuase if that's what i'm supposed to do to go to heaven then forget it. i will not lose my soul becuase GOD couldn't in all "his wisdom and power" find a better answer.
As I said earlier, if you ended up separated from God, you've already lost your soul. And, nowhere is there a prerequisite to entering the pearly gates by killing children. Your implication that God can only be God, if and when He acts the way you think you He should, is rather juvenile.
They paid price for it? The offspring? and this is your all loving God? ::) this god is hypocrite murderous butcher. But if you would open your eyes to even one sliver of common sense you'll see that this is NOT god, but some murderous Hews looking to lie about their justification of murder.
They're going to LIE about this issue, with the end result being their king being DETHRONED, despite the outcome being (by earthly standards) a success? They beat the Amalekites, took the gold and silver and livestock, and have their king of their oppressors groveling before them. Yet, their king gets the heave-ho, and his lineage doesn't follow him on the throne. And the Jews lied about all this because.......
Oh goody! More stupid excuses to try and justify killing children.
Try that again! The point was/is that you (and several others) have a problem with God's judgment, no matter what that judgment is.
We did assimilate children into our society but becuase our men would use them as sex slaves it was better off to just KILL them. ::) Instead of addressing the fact that slavery is wrong which another can of worms with God and the bible, they use that to justify killing them?
You complain about the death of the children; another skeptic complains about their being assimilated. My point stands, no matter what judgment hits the Amalekites (who could have avoided all of this by leaving Israel alone), non-believers will have a problem with it.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Leave them there with all there food and belongings, In a few years it will be many old women and children that grew up to be men and women or assimilate them into their culture. Either way, far more morally accountable than killing tham. Also, i don't believe every amailikite was evil. That's just stupid propaganda by the victors.
Those men and women would pick up, where their ancestors left off (as was documeted in Scripture). Your claim of "stupid propoganda by the victors" makes no sense. For starters, no one states that all the Amalekites were evil. And, as you clearly missed, the "victors" were happy with the outcome. By and large, they were happy that Saul kept the booty of war and had King Agag (of the Amalekites) as a captive.
God, however, was not (nor was the prophet, Samuel). Agag would later pay for his actions. As Samuel put it, the sword of Agag made women childless; he and his people would suffer the same fate.
But now we are saying no matter what they did there would still be skeptics so they might have well just killed them anyway? that's really dumb.
What do you think the opinion of the world would be if anything like that happened today?
That's why in some ways the Bible holds back the progression of our civilization when people actually try and finds ways to justify killing children.
The Bible hasn't held up the progression of our society.
McWay i respect you and i hope you do not take anything i said personally. but at some point, These attempts to justify killing children anger me.
Be as angry as you wish. The simple fact is that this is about the reprecussions of sin. And, whether you like or not or how much it angers you, those reprecussions aren't limited to the transgressors. Why aren't you angry about the Amalekites and their behavior or the fact that, despite centuries of being able to repent, they kept up their unprovoked attacks on Israel?
God's chosen people got harrassed repeatedly; the harrassers paid dearly for it.