I am Gay - if your god told you to murder me, would you murder me?

Author: Theweakeredge

Posts

Total: 458
#451
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
As compared to any of the new testament? No, it is not important,
It is very important. That's why its mentioned numerous times and expounded on in the NT in several books, and God is called the "God of Abraham". You think its relatively unimportant because you do not know Christian doctrine or bible history.

I did not know this.
Sorry. I meant you did not know it. I told you, so obviously, I knew. It is pertinent to the argument I made, so yes, I did know it. You didn't.

None of the verses in the chapter, nor does the actual verse itself imply anything about a messiah being born through Isaac's line:
Because you don't know Christian doctrine and think verses are independent of each other.

They will both have nations risen in there name, that's all you can get without making assumptions.
Untrue. Gd tells Abraham in the chapter that his seed shall be called through Isaac. And again, the bible is not one verse.

That is not the conclusion you get, as in not the main idea, but it is a conclusion you can get.
Not reasonably or logically.

...there are the way more blatant examples
Then you should have brought those "examples", because this one has failed to live up to the claim that it is an example of God telling someone to kill another.

So because god thought them bad they just were? 
A new point. You don't know me yet so I will explain. The atheist tendency to ooze to another point after he loses the previous point I don't entertain. I will not spend my time playing musical " contradictions" with atheists. Make a new thread if you want to introduce a new topic. Or at the very least, concede the old point before you introduce a new one.

That's pretty lose for a genocide,...
Who told you it was genocide?

...and is even looser for some of the god of the old testament, not to mention the salt thing.
?? Something tells me you lack of knowledge of bible history has tripped you up again.

First of all this isn't decreed from god as far as my understanding leads, but a work of Paul and his writings, second the only thing they speak of is being god's children or not, yet later god claims all people who accept him are his children. I find these verses propagating contradictions.
Of course you do. You don't know anything about the Christian doctrine of adoption and inheritance. It is far too tedious to have to teach you all these things in every exchange we have. The problem is not actually your ignorance, but the fact that you think you know when you don't.

Indeed we have, but that was not my point here, my point is that its not out of the realm of believability for god to ask such a thing.
As long as there are uninformed, illogical people in the world, nothing is out of the realm of believability.
Topic's author
#452
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@ethang5
Before I jump into this, that example you wanted? It is that supposedly new point. That was the example.

#453
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
Whom did God tell to go kill another person in the story of Sodom?
Topic's author
#454
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@ethang5
As compared to any of the new testament? No, it is not important,
It is very important. That's why its mentioned numerous times and expounded on in the NT in several books, and God is called the "God of Abraham". You think its relatively unimportant because you do not know Christian doctrine or bible history.
I don't know your bible doctrine, but as far as I'm concerned and I was taught, Jesus's resurrection and his journies through rome were much more important, this was always a sidenote. Also, you don't actually refute what I said there besides the "God of Abraham" But God is more often referred to as Jesus than as the "God of Abraham" obviously Jesus is more important.


Sorry. I meant you did not know it. I told you, so obviously, I knew. It is pertinent to the argument I made, so yes, I did know it. You didn't.
I mean, I did show a specific verse that kind of put doubt on that.. so, apparently, I knew some of it. Now, I didn't know your interpretation no, but I was familiar with the general circumstances. I am not familiar with any sorts of promises that the messiah will come through Isaac's line. 

None of the verses in the chapter, nor does the actual verse itself imply anything about a messiah being born through Isaac's line:
Because you don't know Christian doctrine and think verses are independent of each other.
Provide doctrine that specifically links Isaac's descendants and the Messiah. 


They will both have nations risen in there name, that's all you can get without making assumptions.
Untrue. Gd tells Abraham in the chapter that his seed shall be called through Isaac. And again, the bible is not one verse.
God also says that all of their children are his, so.... That doesn't work, there isn't a specific reference of a messiah there, and again, considering how important Jesus is, you'd think there would be a specific mention if that were true.


That is not the conclusion you get, as in not the main idea, but it is a conclusion you can get.
Not reasonably or logically.
Instead of making quippy one-liners, prove why not. I have shown why I reasonably believe my position to be true, even if I were ignorant in x or y, it still wouldn't be not logically, but ignorantly, but specific flaws in reasoning must be provided to claim that. 


...there are the way more blatant examples
Then you should have brought those "examples", because this one has failed to live up to the claim that it is an example of God telling someone to kill another.
I gave you another example, and then you go on about, "atheist musical chairs" or whatever


So because god thought them bad they just were? 
A new point. You don't know me yet so I will explain. The atheist tendency to ooze to another point after he loses the previous point I don't entertain. I will not spend my time playing musical " contradictions" with atheists. Make a new thread if you want to introduce a new topic. Or at the very least, concede the old point before you introduce a new one.
You literally asked for those other examples in the line before this one, so I gave you another example! If you ask me for something, and I comply, how the hell is that "ooze to another point" I haven't even lost the last point, nor am I ignoring it. You asked for another example, here it is. Instead of dismissing it out of hand, why you don't actually address it?


That's pretty lose for a genocide,...
Who told you it was genocide?
Okay, I'm sorry, a mass killing, is that better? That's pretty loose for killing a city full of people. 


...and is even looser for some of the god of the old testament, not to mention the salt thing.
?? Something tells me you lack of knowledge of bible history has tripped you up again.
Then please explain why I'm wrong. Did God not turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt whenever she looked back? Did he not destroy that city because he couldn't find 10 righteous men (Originally 55 or so)? Did that God not do this to other communities? 


First of all this isn't decreed from god as far as my understanding leads, but a work of Paul and his writings, second the only thing they speak of is being god's children or not, yet later god claims all people who accept him are his children. I find these verses propagating contradictions.
Of course you do. You don't know anything about the Christian doctrine of adoption and inheritance. It is far too tedious to have to teach you all these things in every exchange we have. The problem is not actually your ignorance, but the fact that you think you know when you don't.
I'm aware of the concept, haven't given it much thought in a couple of years, but if you aren't bothered to explain your position, then I should not believe your proposition reasonably. So... either explain, or I really have no reason to believe you. Also, you don't address half of my points there that would negate your own. 


Indeed we have, but that was not my point here, my point is that its not out of the realm of believability for god to ask such a thing.
As long as there are uninformed, illogical people in the world, nothing is out of the realm of believability.
You imply that I am illogical, but provide no actual reasoning to support that claim.


Please actually quote the entirety of what you are trying to refute, as I feel it would clear up some problems you have, I at the very least quote the entirety of what you say unless it's verses or something. 





Topic's author
#455
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@ethang5
He killed them himself, that's even worse, also, the bible recommends that people be like him, so ideally his actions should be the ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong, his actions there mean that this killing is right. At least according to the bible. 
#456
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
I don't know your bible doctrine, but as far as I'm concerned and I was taught,...
Does the fact that you consider yourself no longer a Christian not make you doubt the correctness of what you were taught?

...obviously Jesus is more important.
Jesus is most important, but Jesus isn't a doctrine. He is a person. Adoption is a doctrine.

I am not familiar with any sorts of promises that the messiah will come through Isaac's line.
That is clear.

Provide doctrine that specifically links Isaac's descendants and the Messiah. 
I did. Look at the chapter of Romans I provided.

God also says that all of their children are his, so.... 
But not all of Abraham's children have the promise. Please read the passage I posted.

...considering how important Jesus is, you'd think there would be a specific mention if that were true.
You think everything should be in a single verse? Really, I'm not interested in teaching you. You as supposed to know the subject you choose to talk about. It is your responsibility, not mine.

I gave you another example, and then you go on about, "atheist musical chairs" or whatever
That was not an example of God telling someone to go kill another person.

That's pretty lose for a genocide,...
Who told you it was genocide?

Okay, I'm sorry, a mass killing, is that better?
Saying God killed someone is neither here no there. Are you trying to imply it was immoral?

Did God not turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt whenever she looked back? Did he not destroy that city because he couldn't find 10 righteous men (Originally 55 or so)? Did that God not do this to other communities?
Are you just reciting bible history or do you mean to imply something by repeating these stories? If you are just reciting history, OK. But if you mean to imply God acted immorally you will have to do more than just simply repeat what happened.

...then I should not believe your proposition reasonably. So... either explain, or I really have no reason to believe you.
You are mistaken if you think I desire your belief. If your attitude was one of learning, I would teach you, but as of now, you are incapable of learning with your attitude, so I will not waste my time trying to teach you.

He killed them himself, that's even worse, also, the bible recommends that people be like him, so ideally his actions should be the ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong, his actions there mean that this killing is right. At least according to the bible. 
I haven't a clue who you're talking about here, or even what you're talking about. But off the cuff I can say that someone can be a role model even if he has some failings.

You imply that I am illogical, but provide no actual reasoning to support that claim.
You're not stupid or insincere, you just don't know stuff. There may be other Christians willing to hold your hand, but I am not. Two Christians who will gladly go into the details with you are Tradesecret and PGA2.0. Ask them.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to blow you off but this is akin to trying to explain why planes fly to a person who knows nothing about air pressure. And when you try to teach him about air pressure you find out that he must first know about atoms, which he doesn't know about. I have limited time. I cannot hold your hand.

Or go to google and research "the christian doctrine of adoption" and then google, "why was Isaac chosen and Ishmael rejected?" And then get back to me. But since you don't believe, and have renounced Christianity, what does it matter?
#457
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,322
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
....they are not interchangeable words...
They can be.

Nope. 



And they are not interchangeable words either.  They are two distinct words with individual meanings in their own right
Yet the different versions of the bible does interchange them!
Nope.


You are forgetting that your  god just loves the aroma of burning flesh; 
And yet He stopped Isaac being burned! Weird huh?

That is not the point of the question and you know it.  Stop acting dumb...... if you can






#458
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
....they are not interchangeable words...
They can be.

Nope. 
OK. But you know you have a reading comprehension problem right?


And they are not interchangeable words either.  They are two distinct words with individual meanings in their own right

Yet the different versions of the bible does interchange them!

Nope.
Lol!! OK.

You are forgetting that your  god just loves the aroma of burning flesh; 
And yet He stopped Isaac being burned! Weird huh?

That is not the point of the question and you know it. 
That wasn't a question. It was a comment.

Stop acting dumb...... if you can
You aren't acting are you?