Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
How is that text a WARNING? It's from god's own command, thou SHALT. I don't want you to get all upset over it, so I can find a compromise: let's say it's not a command, and I'll read it as phis permission, which changes thou shalt into "if you want to." I don't know how the F you read what's there as a warning AGAINST taking a war bride. It's certainly not using anything in the text. Which probably means it's not really worth discussing anything in the actual bible with you, because apparently the words are meaningless, you're allowed to add your interpretation, you're allowed to tell others their interpretation is wrong, without telling why your sis right.
Wow! Isn't amazing how sin makes people stupid. Here we are in a passage talking about the way God expects his soldiers to act in war. And you make it about rape. Wow! Isn't amazing how sin makes some people stupid? !!!
This female is captured by Israel in the midst of a battle. Back then - there was no Geneva Conventions. What would the enemies of Israel do with this woman? They did not have prisons of war camps? The enemies of Israel would have done one of three things. They would have killed them. They would have sold them to someone else. They would have kept them as their slaves, letting them out as prostitutes. They would not have let them go.
But God's soldiers have a higher standard than this. In this particular situation - they were not to kill them. So firstly, a pretty big tick in a time well before the Geneva Conventions were even a twinkle in someone's eyes. I guess they could have let her go and hope that she does not try and kill them. But even if they did let go, where is going to go? And how is she going to live? No welfare back then. All her family dead in the battle. So they only way she is going to be able to survive is beg, or whore herself out. No self-respecting man is going to marry a slave. But hey why don't we just gloss over this and keep going?
Secondly, let's consider Exodus 20:14 - no committing adultery. This is a commandment - not just a no permission. If they were married men, they could not just have sex with someone, even a prisoner. Hence God is not condoning sex outside of marriage - and a second person puts them in danger of adultery. Clearly he not condoning rape - if anything it actually prevents this from happening.
Thirdly, even if he is attracted to one of the females - how is supposed to treat her? Clean her up - get rid of the nits - get rid of the hangnails. Put new clothes on her. And then for a month don't you dare touch her. Gee that Bible God is evil. How dare he show such mercy to anyone. How dare he show any kindness. And why is the month important? Because God happens to think that a girl mourning over her parents is necessary and a kind act. Wow - what an evil God to insist that his soldiers let their enemies mourn over their parents? None of the enemies of Israel would have been concerned about the girl mourning over her parents - they would just slit her throat or rape her and throw her out.
But here - God says - we will not treat our enemies in that fashion. We will treat them with respect and dignity. And not only that- if you still desire her - then you must marry her. Context is important here as well. In those times - as it is still in many parts of the world - arranged marriages were normal. Marriage for love is a western idea and a modern idea. And if the Soldier wanted to marry her - it meant obligations on his part - before he even considered having sex with her. Apart from the fact that he might already have a wife - which would cause problems as even the next passage highlights - from v 15- 17 - but by marrying her - he was promising to be responsible for her for the rest of her life. And this was the case even if he rejected her.
God was actually providing significant mercy for her in this situation. And notice that even if he rejects her - he still is not allowed to sell her or treat her like a slave. He must not dishonor her. The enemies of Israel would have laughed and mocked the Israel soldiers for being so naive.
In fact these rights are really quite amazing given the historical time it was placed in. And I might add - that if the same principles applied today - in war - there would be less killing. If enemies of the state were killed and our nations were to become responsible for their widows and children - wow!
This is an amazing system of mercy towards the enemy. Of course it is not talking about men, nor elder parents - but it direct on point of whether or not rape is being condoned or commanded. And the fact is - there is nothing but kindness shown to the woman - once the battle has taken place and she has become an orphan. And you can try and read it otherwise - but you will be over reaching.
This is an amazing picture of how God deals with mercy and kindness towards even the enemy. And to say otherwise - simply is nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
@Barney
@BrotherDThomas
@MisterChris
@SirAnonymous
It appears that the fact that I have chosen to directly place all of the so called links that the Brother says I have run away into one link and then labeled the post with the Brother's name has perhaps breached the c of c terms.
I say may - because there was no intention to harass Brother. So far as I am aware, and I am sure the moderators can correct me, intention must form a part of any breach of the terms and not just an act.
My intention was merely to place the many so called posts of Brother Thomas's complaints about me allegedly running away into one topic - in order to address them rather than attempting to find every little place he believes I have not responded. In my view this is not harassment - it is responding to him in a manner which is both helpful for both of us - and which contains the discussion to one specific topic. And actually is an attempt to prevent the harassment.
On re - reading the C of C, it would perhaps have been more prudent for me to simply ask him politely not to address me.
In any event - it is a matter for the moderators and again I am content to accept their ruling - whatever that might be.
I reiterate however, there WAS NO intention to harass, rather to stop harassment. I also accept that I do use banter in my language and that banter perhaps has been construed as harassment. If that is the case, then it is what it is.
I would suggest that in the context of this forum, the Brother continuing to call me a coward, a runaway, etc is more pointedly and direct harassment as opposed to me attempting to bring all of his alleged charges against me into one thread.
I will therefore, remain silent until the moderators make a ruling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Probably not.
I guess I am just wanting to put all of his posts here so I can address them. He chases me around everywhere to do so.
If I receive appropriate punishment from the moderators - fair enough.
I just wanted all of his posts here. If that is not acceptable - fair enough.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I see your game as one who provokes and bullies until you get what you want. Perhaps this is the reason you are so spiteful towards a being you say you do not believe in.On the contrary. The Brother believes in the god of the bible, warts and-all. This is the Brothers struggle. Your god and the Brothers god are the same vicious, vile, psychopathic, egotistic, warmongering, jealous and intolerant god.Christians and you tell us that Jesus is god from the beginning. The first and the last god. The Alpha and the Omega. I can see the Brothers dilemma, where as you simply ignore the facts and cannot accept that Jesus - by your own christian dogma - is also the god of the Old Testament.
Oh Stephen, well done - so insightful. He does not believe in the god of the bible. he believes in the god of his own mind. His interpretation only takes into account the things that the Brother wants to take into account. He refuses to refer to the other parts of the bible which promote God in a different light. In fact he steers clear of these passages and only ever focuses on stuff he figures is negative. I use the phrase "he figures is negative" because in the context of the whole bible and in fact for the largest proportion of the Bible - God is always portrayed in a different light. Yet the Brother omits this truth. And so do you. God is not vicious. He is not vile. He is not a psychopathic. He is not egotistic. He does believe in war - as I do. He is jealous which incidently in his case is a good thing. He is tolerant only of the good which is one reason you find him vile.
I have said and I will repeat - Jesus was born in the NT. He was not in the OT. To claim Jesus is in the OT is nonsense. The bible does not make this claim. Christians do not make this claim. Only those wanting to provoke nonsense arguments make this claim. Yet - it is also true that Jesus is the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity. And although it is also true that the Second Person of the Trinity existed in the OT, Jesus did not. When Jesus claims to be the same yesterday, today and forever, he was speaking as the Son, not as Jesus. When Jesus said "before Abraham I am" he was referring to the second person of the Trinity, the Son, not Jesus.
Jesus is the Man. The Son is God. The church and Christianity do not get this mixed up. Yet the Brother does. And given that his understanding of the bible refuses to take into account the ordinary Christian hermeneutic, this is hardly surprising. If he wants to refute Christian theology in relation to Jesus, then he really ought to learn what Christians teach, otherwise he will continue to, like you do, to argue on straw man arguments and not actually achieve any thing except to make himself look like a goose.
including intellectual honesty.Don't make me laugh. You have claimed things about the bible that simply are not true and have been called on the fact and to support your claims but refused via extremely lame excuses. #30
Stop telling lies. I always answer. If I don't know an answer I say so. If I am wrong I accept it. Sometimes I do use hyperbole. So what? It is a part of our language and all of us do it. For the most part I do provide evidence as I understand evidence. You on the other hand, use assertion and ridicule as your forms of argument. It is one of the reasons people find your posts boorish and why people refuse to engage with you. You dislike any person who disagrees with you. And your most common form of addressing them is to call them a liar or stupid. People dislike this.
But we warned. I will not respond to [very difficult questions] . In other words, I will call [ difficult questions] rubbish and leave them [unanswered] in the bin.I have corrected that for you.
No you have just added words - just like you insert words in every opportunity you can - to try and rewrite history and the bible.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Well, If God tells us to find hope in even the worst scenarios, then we could easily have hope in Hell. It is golden opportunity that I get to have a place such cozy and can help me to ingore the externals and achieve inner piece and achieve internal happiness. If a religion teaches us to be afraid of something, then sorry no. I would rather be an atheist, living liberal and myself.
While it is true that God can ask us to find hope in even the worst scenarios, I would think that the qualification is that it refers to the finite life we live in. I do not take the view that it is referring to Hell.
I do not take the view that the Christian religion is about causing people to fear Hell. In fact it is more about fearing God who has the power to put you into Hell.
Yet I would add that I take the view that the topic of Hell is not a means to be used to try and scare people into Heaven. I would personally be against such an idea - because then the reason to be religious is built on guilt manipulation and not faith. Guilt manipulation is unfortunately used by many well meaning religious people - but the problem with such a tactic is that it does not really work. Yes, it might guilty some gullible people into going to church, saying a prayer but it does nothing to deal with sin and a change of heart. In other words, it does not achieve lasting change. People who think they become Christians in this sense have not really become Christians. They have simply been manipulated into thinking that all they need to do is say a prayer and go to church and then they will be saved from Hell. It is nonsense. And the reason it is nonsense is because it is not faith. It is guilt manipulation and does great harm to the individual and to the church's reputation.
I love God, not because I want to go heaven. I don't particularly care about heaven. I care about God. And there is a significant difference. A good test to find out about what people really think is to ask them, who do you really want to see in Heaven? Or who would be the one person that must be in heaven for you to want to be there? And if the answer is anything but Jesus, then there is a really good reason to think that their so called Christianity is not real Christianity.
Life teaches us to be afraid of lots of things. Being afraid is not wrong. Using it however as a tool of guilt manipulation is.
As for why I responded to your thought - it was not because I want to guilt you, but rather because I think you are ignorant. You raised Hell as a good place. I think that demonstrates a profound ignorance. And is reckless as well. What it is not - is humorous.
Created:
Posted in:
Brother,
unlike you, I have a life. I do not find excuses to run away. I have no reason to run away. But I do have a life. And to be perfectly frank - I enjoy my life. Even though it is pretty busy. I cannot spend all of my time on this forum. It is unrealistic to think that I am going to respond to every one of your childish responses. I find you a boor and offensive and a fake and a fraud. Honestly, I don't really want to give you air time to continue your charade.
I see your game as one who provokes and bullies until you get what you want. Perhaps this is the reason you are so spiteful towards a being you say you do not believe in. Because he refuses to play your game. My view about debating you has not changed at this time. And I will not debate you formally until you and I can agree on some of the terms of any such debate - including intellectual honesty.
As for running away - it is such a lame thing for you to continue to repeat. My name is not Marty McFly. I could care less for your dares or your challenges or your attempts to label me a coward. It simply is boorish. It strikes me that you know I have thrashed you - and you want a rematch. Perhaps I might give you that. Yet it will be on my terms - not on yours. We will agree to what they are - when I am satisfied you have some intellectual honesty. Unfortunately while you continue to masquerade in your current costume this is highly doubtful to occur any time soon.
I will post https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3557/post-links/199889 to this topic - in order for you to stop your lies about me running away. And also that as I have time I will address them. I think these are all the posts you believe I have not responded too - if there are others I am sure you will find them.
But we warned. I will not respond to rubbish. In other words, I will call rubbish rubbish and leave them in the bin. This also is the only place I will respond to you. I am not going to keep playing your bullish games. And once you have satisfied me - that you have any intellectual honesty, then perhaps we will once again consider whether or not to debate. But as I said above- I am not confident that you are likely to do that while hiding behind a fake persona.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Infants need their mothers. And while I certainly agree that infants do need their mothers - as a general principle. I also know that many infants in our world survive without their mothers so far as their are others who are willing to take on that role. And in the story of Noah - there are 8 people who are willing to take on that role. AND who would do well in the circumstances.What do you think an infant lion or leopard need their mothers FOR, exactly? Why would eight people who were not biologists or zoologists "do well" in taking on the role of, say, "Bear's Mom" AND "Chimp's Mom" when both have extremely different requirements? Where in the bible does it say they had the skills to sustain these animals, literally at least two of every kind on earth, so there must have been something like 700K beetles alone on board? Chances are the writers of this cribbed tale didn't have any idea how many animals there ARE on earth, right? Please explain "would do well." My guess is your answer likely has some element of magic in it that's undemonstrated and not in many of the bibles: "God gave them the knowledge" or "God removed those needs from the animals" or "God made magical food for them and it showed up every day in the food room".
I never suggested that any of the 8 people on board would be perfect in their mothering. I pretty much indicated that having a mother figure is better than not having one. I used the word "well" which is quite apt as a description and I do not see any particular reason by you to resile from that position. If the situation was that Noah and his family took infants on to the Ark, then the question of room for large animals and large quantities of food changes dramatically. This by the way would be the case if the animal was anywhere between new born and fully grown animals. Opponents of the Ark theory always exaggerate the number of animals and their size in order to mock the notion completely. For some reason, ridicule is the primary weapon that an anti-Ark person likes to use in their fight. They tend to leave reason and logic behind.
Also as you point out the bible does not mention every little about what occurred. I think it does this on purpose as its purpose was not to provide such fine detail but a story about what occurred. Of course Noah and his family did have significant knowledge, accumulated over a significant number of years. Were they zoologists? Obviously not since the concept is a very modern one. The same with a biologist. But people knew animals back then as well. They did not have to go uni to learn how to look after animals. But to suggest that they were ignorant of the general needs of either of these animals is grasping at straws not reason. Many people ridicule the notion of the Ark. The entire story of course is a picture of God's judgment and of his grace. I personally think that is the bigger point of contention. It is why most skeptics tend to suggest it is a picture of God murdering people rather than justly punishing people for being entirely evil in all that they do. People want to excuse their sin - and to blame God. Hence any form of judgment is ridiculous - and no need for salvation.
As for the notion that mothers need to be their to protect them - eh what? a new world with only animals from the ark - not a heck of a lot of other animals to protect them from - and ah what - the other animals are infants - so not too dangerous yet?How quick do you think a baby lion, without the nourishment required from mother's milk, would figure out to grab the weakest baby antelope, who can't run, because it hasn't eaten? They need protection from EACH OTHER.
Gee how do baby lions do it now without adults around? They practice and the learn and they practice. I agree that all the animals need protection. But here we are after the flood and with just the live animals left. Can lions eat rotting flesh? Would there have any around? Can they eat other food? I accept there must have been ways to survive because survive they did. That is the a typical magic sort of response the evolutionist gives isn't? Despite the ridiculously absurd odds of life beginning - and evolving - all by itself - the typical answer is "well we are here aren't we? " And since they would argue there is no god - then there is no alternative solution. But don't question it. Just believe it. Believe the most fantastical odds occurred over and over and over again. It would take me more faith to believe that evolution is true than that a lion cub survived without a mother.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
omg I can't wait to go to hell can't wait to play with fire and hang out with people I like!
Certainly that is the perspective many ignorant people would like to think Hell is going to be like.
Yet the Bible paints a completely different picture.
I think to understand Hell properly, you need to understand sin properly. But you also need to understand the holiness of an eternal just God properly as well.
We live in a world full of mortals. We understand life through the lens of beginning and end. We all are born and we are die. We are finite creatures in our worldviews.
Hence, when we think justice - we tend to think beginning and end. Not always, admittedly, but it is a tendency we seem to navigate towards. We also tend to think that justice by God must work in the same way. We do this without thinking thoroughly about the differences between God and humanity. Between the eternal and the finite.
We ignore for the most part that the God of the Bible is eternal and has no beginning or end. That by itself is enough for most of us to fade out. We find it difficult to think in terms of eternals or infinites. It stands to reason that since he is eternal that his justice is also eternal. This includes both his love and his wrath.
I take the view that God sees sin as pretty significant. He views it seriously, indeed as the primary issue in the world. Humans on the other hand, find this strange, even amusing. Some think it is demented even ridiculous. God's take on it however required him to become a man and to die. If there was another way, he would have done it.
I take the view that most humans tends to misunderstand this completely. They think if God is God then he could do anything - just find another way. The problem with that logic however is it is similar to asking absurd questions like "Can God make a rock so big he cannot lift it". God's omnipotence is not diminished because he won't perform the absurd. God is not a magician. God is God. HIs character is Holy. It also ignores the reality that this is the solution God knew was the only solution which would complete what it was purposed to do. To suggest that there are other alternatives is simply "begging the question".
On the basis of the above argument and reasoning, it would be patently absurd to think Hell is going to be a place to play with your friends. Jesus often described this place such that there will be much "weeping and gnashing of teeth". He described it as an awful place that people would wish that "they had never been born in the first place". He described it as a place that offers no hope or joy. A place you can never leave.
I really think there won't be any playing. Nor enjoying the company of your friends.
Since the wrath of God is everlasting. And the sin which he views as being the significant issue is one you won't repent of in this life. Then it is just and reasonable to hold you to account. And for you to be sentenced to everlasting punishment. The offence is eternal. Sin is eternal. The punishment is equal to the offence. It is not finite. And since you will refuse to repent even in the midst of eternal punishment, you will therefore be committed to remaining there for eternity.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
GREAT! If they are lies, then tell us why
Brother DT
I am not the one with the burden of proof. They were your lies. Your assertions - not proved. Simply asserted. Making a statement - then suggesting that random verses taken out of context have anything to do with what you are attaching to me - is nonsense. It is not an argument - nor proof of anything.
Perhaps if you were to go back and explain what your assertions are - then try and provide a reason for why you think I fit in with your assertion and then engage with my own denials of the same, then we might be able to find some common ground.
And honestly, you are boring. There is no originality in your statements. I actually cannot find a satisfactory reason to debate you. You are not being honest in your facade. You are not being honest in your assertions. You are not being honest in your responses. You are not being honest in your desire to have a serious debate. And for my part - I don't particularly care what you say about me. I have nothing to prove to you.
I like engaging in good and proper debates where the parties accept the intellectual honesty of the other party. I really just don't get that vibe from you. Even from the get go - you are an atheist who is bitter and twisted against God for whatever reason, and you come onto this site - to make a mockery out of Christianity and the God of the Bible, even taking on the pretense that you are the only real Christian. You distort and mangle the bible. You haven't got the foggiest notion of real Christianity. You, i concede have a working knowledge of the bible, yet from a completely distorted position which only has the power to preach to the already converted (Atheists) you refuse to acknowledge when you are wrong, and then you continue you demented and distorted charade into wanting to debate others. Honestly, why would anyone waste their time?
And to top this off: there are other atheists on this site who are embarrassed by you. Those who have asked you to stop engaging or responding with them.
Stop with the bitterness and the twisted distortions - reveal who you really are - so everyone knows exactly who the debate is between - perhaps then I might consider a debate. But whilst you continue your ridiculous position that you are a True Christian, when everyone knows you are a fraud - well I don't have anything to add - to your already ridiculous position
In other words, Brother DT, no one cares what words you say about me - because they all know you are a fake hiding behind a lie. I win because you start of losing. So why would I want to add to your misery? I would rather you repent of your sins - turn to Jesus and actually begin to be happy. Rather than living in the miserable existence you happen to live in now.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Without a doubt, my favorite of your Christian Comedy Skits thus far is the one where you actually had the audacity to say that "infant animals" could have been put upon the Ark instead of Adult Animals so they could fit better, whereas equaling 7000 "kinds, as you stated, X 8 pairs as per Genesis 7:2. Unfortunately for you, I easily shut down this laughable post of yours for the obvious reasons that I stated in said post!!!! It is no wonder why you haven't addressed this said post shown below, and that is, it is better for YOU to just RUN AWAY from it instead and accept your embarrassment once again! LOL
Yeah ok. You did not demonstrate that Noah did not put infants onto the ark. Your suggestion that you shut me down is laughable. As I recall - you somehow suggested that only the infant's mother could have looked after the infant. That was your basic argument. Infants need their mothers. And while I certainly agree that infants do need their mothers - as a general principle. I also know that many infants in our world survive without their mothers so far as their are others who are willing to take on that role. And in the story of Noah - there are 8 people who are willing to take on that role. AND who would do well in the circumstances.
As for the notion that mothers need to be their to protect them - eh what? a new world with only animals from the ark - not a heck of a lot of other animals to protect them from - and ah what - the other animals are infants - so not too dangerous yet? Your argument is baseless and you know it. It sucks doesn't when a creationist - although I am not one - beats you up with logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Otherwise people like you and me would not have come to it.But it wasn't scripture that brought me to my conclusions and neither was it you.So Mr Genuis,Where did I get the idea from if it was not the Bible?How would I know? That is what I am asking you to show me- genius. Did you miss the word "me" in the quote above. I was speaking for myself not you- genius.And you have failed AGAIN to provide the evidence that you so proudly brag that you always do provide.
Ok. So you don't know where you get this idea? So did it fall out of the sky? "henny penny the sky is falling". In my first post in this topic I listed a number of factors which had led me to that conclusion. I put those factors in question form. Those are considerations which I have considered. For me it is clear. Nevertheless, and despite the ridicule I know you will delight in pouring on me, I will add - it probably is not as clear to others as it is to me. So there you have it. Ridicule away - I know it will give you endless delight for a while.
I am going to assume you missed it. here you go>>#21Because I take the view that the evidence is there [in the bible] and it is clear.OK then let us see it. Lets us see what you say is evidence that Jesus was baptised Priest and king by John the baptist. I have highlighted what I believe are two indicators that maybe point to Jesus being a Priest King in my first response to you here #13. But I have not shown anywhere that John baptised/ anointed Jesus a king or priest as you are now suggestion was the reason for his baptism.So where is you "clear evidence" that the Baptist baptised Jesus a Priest and King?
Again I refer to my initial post in this topic. Yet, I also add, that for me this is clear evidence. Hence I did not lie. It may be that I was hasty in my conclusions. That is certainly a possibility. But also it would take more time to gather all of the evidence I have to suggest otherwise - and I simply can't be bothered at the moment do that. SO enjoy your win. Enjoy the pleasure you have at demonstrating that I could not find the evidence - that you too must have seen to make you come to the same conclusion.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
It is unbelievable in how many child-like LAME EXCUSES you can come with in having to RUN AWAY from debating me, and RUNNING AWAY from my other posts to you that are still SILENT within other threads at this time. LOL!
Come on BDT - name one child like lame excuse. Oh look I am here again. But don't let the FACTS get in the way of your lies.
You could have saved so much time with your dissertation of attorney gobbledygook, mish-mash, and psychobabble by just stating the obvious, and that is, YOU ARE TOO CHICKEN AND SCARED TO DEBATE ME because you know I will own you outright in front of the membership like I easily do in the forum! LOL!
As I said above - when you show some intellectual honesty, then I am happy to debate. It might be a while coming though. But we can pray.
In your blatant RUNNING AWAY from the Brother D, you continue to slap Jesus in the face by not defending the faith! Just who in the Hell do you think you are?
Hmm - I am TradeSecret. I am the one who has demonstrated many times that you are a liar and a fake and had bad breath - my children would call it "Arse breathe" but I disagreed with them - I said that is his own sweet perfume.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
It does seem to say more about the author than the Yahweh. I agree absolutely about the ending however. It is unsatisfactory that the answer is "don't question me when I torment you!"Of course it is not God doing the tormenting. It is Satan. But that point does not even register in this discussion. In fact God actually limits what Satan might have done because he loved JobOh for fs stop it! This is simple desperation of you trying to excuse the inexcusable. All the actions of Satan - who had once been sentenced to crawl on his belly eating dirt for all his days but now suddenly just walking around free as a bird - were sanctioned by god himself, no matter how you want to spin it. God stood by and watched all that Satan was allowed to do BY GOD himself and at the end god more or less told job to stop whining. And I suppose the commandment of "thou shalt no kill " didn't apply to Satan here either! Exodus 20:13 King James Version.
I am not going to stop just because you dislike it. I don't agree that God has done anything wrong here. I really don't. Satan is the one who has caused pain to Job. His curse in the Garden of Eden is irrelevant to this story. To suggest the actions were sanctioned by God is going to far. While it is true that God permitted Satan to do what Satan did, there is no indication that God condoned what he did. It is clear however that God and Satan disagreed with each other about Job.
"Thou shalt not kill" is a human law and applies only to humans. It does not apply to God nor to Satan nor to angels nor to demons. It is a human law. And just because you want to sniff your nose at this - I don't care. God and Satan - although he might be the father of murderers - are not killers. As it was the the coroners report would not say in this case that the children were killed by God or Satan. But rather from asphyxiation after a ceiling fell on them. Attributing murders and deaths to God or Satan is really a daft thing to do. And it makes no sense.
In the story of Job we do have a god that actually did know the out come. He did know that his most loyal and faithful servant wouldn't let him down and he did know he would remain faithful, but killed these ten children anyway. It was simply far beyond any and all mental torture for the hell of it.It is said the children were replaced by more children. Well this simply shows how cheap life is to the megalomaniac god , doesn't it.
So because God is omniscient he has to forget about the truth? Is that what you are saying? Are you suggesting that because God knows the future, that he should not let the future happen? And that because God knows the future - he is culpable? What a daft way of thinking. It really is a small minded way of dealing with the future. The truth is important in my opinion. Avoiding pain and suffering is ok - but sometimes pain and suffering are necessary. I also think your comment that God did it for "the hell of it" is intentionally provocative and deliberately misleading. It suggests that God is reckless and vindictive - yet you have no evidence for these misrepresentations from the text- rather it all flows from your own cultural experience of life.
I do not understand why God was ok with the killing of the 10 children nor do I actually think he was ok with it. I do not believe it God thought life was cheap. This goes against the rest of the Bible. I certainly see the lessons provided in this story. And I have to say that I still see God as the hero in this text. I see Satan as the bad dude. I see God as the one who vindicates. I see Job as the one who is vindicated. I see his friends as people who saw the world wrongly. I see Job's family as victims. But not victims of God, but of Satan.
And you haven't explained why a god would need to prove anything to anyone? A god, it appears that felt he had to prove something ( how great he was) to a literal lowlife belly crawling serpent that had been condemned years before to eat dirt for the rest of its life?
I am not sure that God has a need to prove anything to anyone. I think he did knew Job. And Job was vindicated. Satan wanted to find faults with God's logic. I don't think that this was about proving anything to Satan, - but you know what, I think the fact that you want to prove yourself right is something that is important to you. Yet, go figure. I think you are wrong. Very Wrong and that story of Job is a great example if God's love and compassion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I suppose the fact that God does not prevent any injustice calls into question his character as well.Only if he is capable of doing something and knows said injustices exist.
I don't agree with that assumption. Do you know how many people are starving in this world? Are you capable of doing anything? Yes. You could donate all of your time - and give away much more of your money than you do now. If you can do something but don't - does that make you culpable? And the answer is no.
Is that really what you are going to sit with?I am not proposing any particular scenario I'm just not convinced that you are correct can you demonstrate that the Yahweh was concerned for Job by any sensible definition? Because Yahwehs actions don't seem to bear this hypothesis out.
He expressed his pride in Job to Satan. He trusted Job's good faith and depth of character. He limited Satan's power over him. He answered him. He vindicated him.
These are all demonstrations of his concern and view of him. If he did not care or had no concern for him, why worry about limiting Satan's power? why bother answering him - if it was really just about a bet- then once he had won, what would be the point of talking to Noah, unless it was out of concern for him. Why would he bother vindicating him to the others? That just does not make sense.
There is nothing in this story which makes God culpable. True - he might have told Satan to F off. Yet that would not vindicate Job in the eyes of Satan
Why is that an issue? Is the Yahweh not omniscient? Did he need some test to determine Job's motivation? Why is Satan's opinion in this matter important in the least? Is god not the all powerful all knowing final arbiter of Job's destiny? It seems almost like the actions of a being who does not know everything. Perhaps the god described in the bible just isn't as powerful as I have been led to believe by Christians.
God vindicated Job because he cared for Job. Satan however is not omniscient - and neither are humans. None of this was for God's sake. Satan's opinion is important because many people in the world have the same opinion. And God used this to demonstrate that Satan's position and many people were also wrong. I think it reveals the actions of a GOD who has a much bigger picture in mind than just Job and Satan. And a God who has a plan. And brings it to pass. I am not sure why you think this reveals a lack of power.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Don't stress BDT - I can't be bothered. You have not nothing to refute anyway.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
If I do equally as many things as the theist when we both are working, and I am helping the needy when the theist is praying with seemingly no effect, why does he get to go to heaven and I don't?If Pascal's wager is a sound theory then God is a total jerk. No matter how much good I do to humanity, as long I trust myself to do everything, I go to hell. Isn't this just like Authoritarian Communism? Good things good done, but you criticize me and the punishment is equally as bad as the slacker on the hay.I can do good things and I can help more people on sundays than the average theist because they don't work on sundays. Having the mentality of helping everything is not bad, or is it?
Pascal was an intriguing fellow. For a Catholic he was very Presbyterian. At least in his views on election.
Yet, Pascal's wager, despite the insights it may provide is essentially an utilitarian framework. It relies on a view that God believes the ends justifies the means.
Typical game theory. Yet, God in the bible has far bigger things going on than simple ends. Ends is by the way a human concept - which arises naturally because we think in terms of beginning and ends. We are mortal. God is immortal. He has no beginning and no end. Hence why for him the ends do not justify the means.
The other thing you seem to be missing here is the definition of good works. OR good things. Christians don't get to heaven based on their good works. They get to heaven based on Jesus' good works. Not one Christian - will ever get to heaven because they are good or do good things. Don't misunderstand me. I think Christians and indeed atheists should do good things. This the right thing to do. Yet, it is not the reason to go to Heaven. Not at least according to the bible. It is true that every other religion sees good works as the reason for going to heaven or of ascending through the ranks of reincarnation or whatever. Yet Christians, believe good works by us have got nothing to do with whether we go to heaven or not.
This is one of the chief defining distinctions between every other religion and worldview and Christianity. Everyone else thinks that if they are good enough - God will let them in the door because they are good. But the Bible rejects that idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Otherwise people like you and me would not have come to it.But it wasn't scripture that brought me to my conclusions and neither was it you.
So Mr Genuis,
Where did I get the idea from if it was not the Bible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
It has left me confused.Well that isn't too hard to do. I have held the belief that Jesus was a priest king and heir to the throne of Jerusalem for well over 40 years. And nothing you have said influenced my belief in any way. Unfortunately there is no clear biblical evidence for my beliefs apart from the royal gifts said to have been presented at his birth and Pilate insisting on what should be written of the head board of the cross at the crucifixion.
Hello Stephen, I am trying very hard here not to throw barbs at you. My confusion was based however not in your wittiness but in your agreement with me. I found that troubling per se. I really hope that my influence has not helped you in your beliefs - I would not like to be cast as a cause of such nonsense. Yet, I disagree with you in respect of Jesus' ordination because I take the view that the evidence is there and it is clear. Otherwise people like you and me would not have come to it. That others miss it is neither here nor there. For any one to come to it is NOT accidental.
Yet, in relation to John the Baptist, he did indicate that his baptism was the remission of sins.Not just John . Stop being so sly and disingenuous. The bible makes it clear what baptism is all about. Or are you going to deny this:“And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16)“Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. “(Acts 2:38)“John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.” (Mark 1:4-5)“And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Luke 3:3)So you see. The bible is clear . It is all to do with cleansing of ones sins yet here we have the son of god himself insisting John baptise him. WHY!?
With respect, if you wish to dialogue with me, please stop accusing me of trying to be sly or lying or whatever. I seriously am not. I have no agendas or whatever. I really only want to know the truth - so your constant accusations really do more harm than good.
I certainly accept that baptism in the main is about repentance from sins. It is also about initiation into the church. Yet from my point of view baptism is in the main talking about God uniting himself with humanity - as it was demonstrated at Pentecost. This is why I am passionate about the mode- a pouring out from above and not a submersion. It is why I agree with infant baptism and not only an adult conversion. It is much broader than this. Yet and I think it is important because all of the gospel record it - John's baptism was nothing compared to Jesus' baptism.
I use the word hesitatingly, because as some will have observed I am not yet convinced that Jesus was not born with original sin.Yes you sound confused again. You see either he was sinless or he wasn't. Either way it makes a nonsense of the Christian belief that baptism is a ritual of "washing away sins",
LOL @ you. Baptism has a place for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus being ordained as king priest and prophet does not automatically mean that baptism in the ordinary sense in invalid. I am not confused about John's baptism. My confusion of which I have openly revealed is about whether Jesus had original sin or not. I know Jesus was sinless - so that is not the question in my mind. The bible clearly reveals he had no sin - indeed as does his resurrection. My question is about whether original sin. How it impacted Jesus is very much how it would impact us.
It may well have something to do with this - I honestly have not processed that thought yet.Yes its a bit of a stumper for the church isn't it. I have asked many Christians this simple question and is all I get is crickets.
I love how you take my confusion as a stumper. I admit a weakness and rather than seeing it as me being honest - you just try and stomp on me. Gee I am pleased I don't share your worldview. I personally don't think my own confusion is representative of the church as a whole so I would not in honesty be trying to take it there. My own views about Jesus and original sin are personal. I am a person who takes
But I do take the view that it was his ordination primarily -So do I , but the bible contradicts that view and gives no indication that this was the anointing of a king priest as I believe.
On the contrary. Hebrews clearly reveals otherwise as does Acts which talk of his kingship and Revelation of his prophetic nature.
so whether it had anything to do with washing away sin or not - symbolically, is a further discussion.But then you are going to ignore what the bible actually states concerning the ritual of baptism and why it is performed? I have shown you from your own scriptures what the bible states. Do you accept their explantation for this ritual or not?
Not at all. Why would you take such a view? Baptism has more than one purpose.
Sorry, I am not being more clear. Yet this is a serious question I am pursuing and I am not sure yet where it will take me.
I am not a know it all. As I indicated at the beginning of this topic - I agree he is sinless and that his baptism is for ordination. This does not however change the meaning for other people.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Either we can use logic and reason to understand the Yahweh and his characteristics or we cannot understand the Yahweh and his characteristics. I have no desire to debate an unknowable. I don't have any real desire to hear your arguments either if they depart from logic and reason. If it is the case that pur logic is useless in deciphering the character in the reference we have agreed upon then discussion of the character in regards to the subject material is not going to bear fruit.
We are not talking about God per se. I asked you originally where did God go wrong? You said with his creation. That is where we at. Not with God.
In any event, I am not talking about the unknowable. Recently you said you were happy to go with the hypothetical. Are you changing your mind now?
Hypothetically, let us go with what the original sources says - God is good. God created everything. Including humanity. What is the flaw?
Why are you trying to make this about logic? I am not opposed to logic, nor is God for that matter. But the logic issue is a distraction - a red herring for want of a better term - from what we were discussing.
Let us talk about the alleged flaw.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Jesus rising from the dead is not a miracle. It was always going to happen because he had not committed sinThen why did Jesus need to be baptised?Glad to see I inspire you. LOL!I will always give credit where its due. But get it right - it was the claim not the person.I say Jesus' baptism was an ordination of him as Priest, Prophet and King.Me too. So do you agree then that baptism has absolutely nothing to do with "washing away our sins"?
Well excuse me as I pick myself up from the floor. I really am not sure what to think of you agreeing with me. It has left me confused.
I will still take the credit - thanks.
That last question is a good one. Since I do believe Jesus did not sin, then in relation to him I would hesitatingly say it had nothing to do with washing away his sin. Yet, in relation to John the Baptist, he did indicate that his baptism was the remission of sins. I use the word hesitatingly, because as some will have observed I am not yet convinced that Jesus was not born with original sin. It may well have something to do with this - I honestly have not processed that thought yet.
But I do take the view that it was his ordination primarily - so whether it had anything to do with washing away sin or not - symbolically, is a further discussion. Sorry, I am not being more clear. Yet this is a serious question I am pursuing and I am not sure yet where it will take me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I indicated that God permitted the torment -That is enough to call his moral character into question in my opinion.
On what basis? I suppose the fact that God does not prevent any injustice calls into question his character as well. I think that is a weak position to hold. It certainly does not prove he had a duty of care, nor does it prove what his duty of care was, nor does it prove that he breached any such duty of care, and nor does it prove that such alleged breach demonstrates culpability. You are grasping at straws.
Why limit it at all if there was no concern for Job?Because he wanted to win the bet. Arbitrarily for no real reason. Budget cuts and cost overruns. His concern for Job is far from the only possible cause and also I would posit that anyone who really cared about Job would not allow him to be tormented in the first place so there is that.
Seriously. Is that really what you are going to sit with? He wanted to win a bet! It is not even a bet in the story. Satan was making a point and God disagreed with him. You conveniently forget that God has a much bigger view of history than you do. I suppose you can only deal with what you know - but why start with the assumption that God is evil? To me - it seems that our first point of call would be start with the assumption of good faith.
When we see people do things and their motivations it may well influence our picture of them. But here God is pictured in heaven when Satan comes to him. And Satan accuses Job of being shallow. Of being righteous only because God seems to be blessing him. God in this scenario actually vindicates Job and proves to Satan that Job has more depth than Satan wants to believe. And in the meanwhile God uses this vindication as a means of discussing suffering.
There is nothing in this story which makes God culpable. True - he might have told Satan to F off. Yet that would not vindicate Job in the eyes of Satan or those wanting to accuse God or Job of being shallow or of showing favoritism. In my view this is clearly a picture of God revealing the depths of Job's faith and true character and that his faith was not dependent upon him being blessed by God or of his circumstances.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
“In fact some estimates suggest that as few as 7000 kinds of animals were required to be on the ark. No need for fish as the bible indicates it was only land creatures on the boat and it might even have excluded insects.”In the mean time, lets say your hypothetical of 7000 "kinds" is valid, even though you are not telling us where this “in the air” quote is coming from, then that presupposes there were 126,000 “kinds” of animals (Genesis 7:2) upon the Ark in only being 510 feet long!
Where do you get 18 x the amount from? If all 7000 kinds were unclean animals then it would amount to 98000 animals. That works out as 7000 x 2 x 7. Which admittedly is a lot of animals. Yet how many of these were clean and unclean? Even a mix is still a large number, but not 126000.
Therefore, in part, Noah’s Ark housed these 6 animal “kinds” out of the 7000 “kinds,” which leaves 6994 “kinds” left that you have to account for, understood Bible fool?18 African Elephants weighing in at 14,000 pounds each, and being 13 feet in height (252,000 pounds total)18 Tyrannosaurus Rex dinosaurs at 20 feet in height and weighing 31,000 pounds each (518,000 pounds total)18 Argentinosaurus dinosaurs at the lenght of 100 feet average and weighing 220,000 pounds each (3,960,000 pounds total)18 Brown Bears weighing in at 2000 pounds each and standing 10 feet tall (20,000 pounds total)18 Giraffes at a height of 20 feet and weighing in at 3000 pounds each (54,000 pounds total)18 Blue Whales at the lenght of 100 feet and weighing in at 396,000 pounds each (7,128,000 pounds total)The above numbers of “kinds” shown above does not include the other LARGE dinosaurs of 98 “kinds left,” and the make up of those 6994 other “kinds” of animals that are left! HELLO?
Like I said above and other posts - there is no reason to assume the animals were full size adults. Infants would have been easier to look after, require less food to eat, take up less room, and probably be more likely to last the weather and survive in the new world. Certainly they would live longer then as well. Continuing to maintain the charade that these animals were big is unhelpful unless you can demonstrate they could not have been infants.
You said there is no need for fish?! Huh? Then how did fresh water fish reappear when they had to be in the oceans salty waters in their death subsequent to Jesus’ murdering Great Flood?
Yeah good point. Except where did all the water come from? For enough water to cover the earth would require not only the freshwater to fall from the skies - but for the fresh water springs to come up from under the earth. I don't accept that every bit of water would have become salt water.
You said insects were excluded? Then how do we have approximaltey 900,000 species of insects today if Noah didn’t include them within the Ark, because the salty waters of the oceans would have killed all of them?
Like I said, I am not convinced every part of water turned to salt. Given the story talks about the rain coming down from the heavens for 40 days and nights - I imagine that this water was not salt water. How the waters remain separate is a different question - perhaps it was diluted in some parts more than others. The world is a big place - and even in our oceans today - the water is saltier than in other places - and yet it remains separate somehow.
As for the insects - I am happy to accept they went into the ark.
“Yeah answered above. As for polar bears - answered that one. At the time of the flood the bible indicates that there was only one continent. Prior to continental drift. So the polar bear if it is a separate kind which incidentally I don't think it would have been would have just walked onto the boat.”How could Yahweh/Jesus’ chosen Jews know there was only one continent upon the earths FLAT SURFACE? Did they have "drones" to see that this was allegedly true? Since you state that the continents drifted apart, are you laughably using Genesis 10:25 to make this claim where it was 100 years subsequent to Jesus’ brutal murdering Great Flood? Remember Bible fool, you only have 6000 years from the origin of man to this day of 2020, UNDERSTOOD? Begin to explain this proposition, BEGIN:
I never said that they needed to know it was one continent. I only indicated that if it was one continent then they would not have trapse halfeway around the world to go to little known places to find animals. Besides God says in Genesis 7:8 that the animals came to Noah - I suppose God directed them to come to him - and that makes sense in the circumstances.
The story of Peleg is an interesting one. The story relates the earth divided in his time - well after the flood. Did the continents divide in a short time or a very long time say millions of years? Well I know what the evolutionists HAVE to say, because their brains could not compute anything less. Is this the dividing of the continents? IDK- but I find it a useful and interesting piece of information. Relied on by the way - for the theory of continental drift in the first place.
: “ So the polar bear if it is a separate kind which incidentally I don't think it would have been would have just walked onto the boat.”DEBATEART membership, need I say anything more about Tradesecrets Comedy expertise when he stated: “The polar bear would have just walked onto the boat! LOL! Mind you, Tradesecret is an alleged attorney, and to use this type of presentation in a trial, he would be barred. Priceless comedy at Tradesecrets expense!
I am not in a court of law. I am on a forum site where you asked some questions. The questions I find amusing - which is why I am answering you. So far my responses have not been refuted by you. You don't even realise this do you? That is why it is so amusing, Pouring scorn on my words is not refutation. Mocking me is not refutation. Conveniently ignoring my arguments is not refuting me. Genesis 7: 8- 9 indicates that the animals came to God. All I am doing is reading what the bible says. I am not trying to prove it - just reading it. In relation to the polar bear - you missed my point that I am not even sure that it is a kind of bear. Yes it is a bear and yes it is a species. But is it a "kind" as the bible defines? That is the question - another one you gloss over - i suspect because you don't understand it.
“And all flesh died that moved on [c]the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. All in whose nostrils was the breath [d]of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. ” (Genesis 7:21-23)
the bible uses the language of appearance not of science. Destroying all living things which were on the face of the ground - on the earth - clearly excludes fish. Creeping things and birds - as you quote appear to be part of the appearance - but not fish.
“Actually the bible indicates that there were not seven of each animal. 2 of unclean animals and 7 of the clean ones. Two of each animal entered the ark along with seven of each clean animal. The clean animals entered for purpose of sacrifice and for food for Noah and his family.”As usual, your lacking in simple math skills is embarrassingly at the forefront once again, along with your deceiving mish-mash attorney talk. “Actually,” Jesus’ inspired words state with specificity that 7 PAIRS of clean animals, which is 14 animals and not 7 animals as you erroniouosly state, plus 1 PAIR of unclean animal, which for the mentally challenged in math like you, equals 8 PAIRS equaling 16 ANIMALS of each "kind" that were to board the ark. Understood this time LIAR?"Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate," (Genesis 7:2)
I think your math is up the creek. 7 pairs of clean animals. and 2 pairs of unclear animal. I think that is even more than you say. Well at least when I went to school - 7 plus 2 equalled 9. but if you say it equals 8??? So 7 x 2 = 14 plus 2 x 2 = 4 14 and 4 = 18 not 16. But hey who is counting?
“Yeah, I already said I don't know how any of this worked and everything I am saying is speculation.”Tell the membership, how can one have TRUE faith on your pure speculation which is not vouchsafed within the scriptures but only by your “hearsay?” Listen up, you can use your same speculation on whether the serial murderer Jesus God existed or not, because outside of the Bible, the existence of Jesus ONLY exists in a truly embarrassing form, of which the first mention of Jesus outside of the Bible is 70 years subsequent to his alleged death upon the cross through the HEARSAY of Josephsus' Antiquities writings, H-E-L-L-O!
Yeah I know you find it hard to concede any errors - unfortunately for me I don't think I am God and I don't think I know everything and I don't pretend to. I have used the words speculation after clearly indicating to everyone that I don't know. You asked a question - I merely am speculating because the specific answers are not in the bible. All of your efforts to discredit the story are based on your own worldview which is purely speculative at best and unproveable at best.
“I notice you omitted the part I took from the bible. Hypocrite. It just proves you know you are wrong.”I excluded the Bible part to save your sorry ass from anymore embarrassment, Bible fool! READ! AGAIN, Noah was upon the waters for 371 days in a massive ocean, so how many days can a bird fly with its existing energy to “find the boat again” before it dies and plunges into the ocean? ANSWER THIS QUESTION!
Yes and you have done it again. LOL @ you.
“Well actually I never called mine story a fairy story. I called yours one.”HERE IS WHAT YOU SAID RELATING TO NOAH’S FLOOD, TO WIT: “You have your fairy story and I have mine.” blatantly indicating and including that you think the Noahs Ark narrative is a “Fair Story” AS WELL, PERIOD! Do I have to give you another English language lesson again in syntactical sentence structuring? Huh? No weaseling attorney talk can save you from what you actually said, in that you stated Noah’s Ark is a fairy tale! LOL. Nice try, NOT!
Read my words. I do not think that Noah's ark is a fairy story. Yet I do believe that the story of the big bang is.
“ Well thanks Brother for making me famous. Whenever you show my words - I am sure it will plant seeds into thinking brains. God works in mysterious ways.Your forgot to add the word "logical" to "thinking brains." Listen, I am getting emails where a lot of members would like you to come to these prestigious worldwide known forums to be basically bludgenoned to a non-existence in regards to your total biblical ignorance, Christian faith, and comedy act. Are you game? Huh? If so, I will message you. Don't wimp out, okay? Trust me, it will be quite an experience for you! LOL
Oh dear I am scared. The fact is - even if these so called members want to laugh at me - it worries me not - but I know that they will eat you up too. Your rhetorical and arguing skills are well below par. Which incidentally is why members of this site ask you not to respond to them.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Stephen, would you hire an attorney that explicitly stated that ALL dinosaurs were the size of chickens? Tradesecret quote: "Yeah I was wrong about the dinosaur being on average the size of a chicken. It was probably the size of a bison. My mistake for not checking.”Poor old Tradesecret digs his hole deeper with a backhoe because most dinosaurs are not even the size of a bison, as T-Rexs are 20 feet in height, and Argentinosaurus dinosaurs were 100 feet in lenght and weighing 220,000 pounds! Oh my. :(
You know Brother, I am still waiting for you to actually refute any of my explanation. This one you keep repeating is simply nonsense. I know you are not a scientist or even a mathematicians - but average man means average. It takes into account the total height of ALL dinosaurs and then averages them out. What is so difficult about that? Even in the event of T Rexs being 20 feet in height - it would not prevent the average size being the size of a bison. Arguing against this is just dumb. And the other thing you conveniently leave out is that I have said on numerous occasions that there is no significant reason why a infant T Rex could not have been included on the ark. It was not necessary to take adults. At least give your responses some dignity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
From what I understand the Yahweh allowed/commanded the torment so unless the Yahweh was somehow duped by the figure the bible refers to (not necessarily the Christian notion of satan by the way) then I remain unconvinced by the argument that he bears no culpability.
It was not a command. So on that there is no argument. I indicated that God permitted the torment - but I also noted that the pain and suffering that God permitted Satan to use was limited. Why limit it at all if there was no concern for Job? Secondly, Satan is identified in this passage - you still have not discussed whether he is culpable or not. Again you dodge the question. Again you direct your anger towards God. Curious?????
I do not see how culpability attached to God in this instance. I really don't. God had no intention of harming Job. God did not agree with Satan. God limited Satan's powers. God does not make it a habit of interfering in the ordinary things of life in relation to suffering. He does and has sometimes. But he is not obligated to do so. He is under no jurisdiction to do so. He is not up in heaven thinking "oh dear, I wonder if secularmerlin is watching, I had better do what he wants or else he might not believe in me".
Please explain what God's duty of care is in this situation and why. Then demonstrate how God breached it. Then explain how this breach makes him culpable. You say you remain unconvinced - well that is your prerogative - but it is my opinion that you have not actually thought it through. Prove me wrong.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Then any statements made about the Yahweh will by necessity be arguments from ignorance and there is no reason to continue this discussion. Anything that does not follow the law of logical necessity is by definition beyond pur epistemology.
LOL @ you.
don't squib out now, it is just getting interesting. My point was to direct you back to the alleged flaws in Adam and Eve's character. Yet you want to speculate about God. I don't see any reason why we don't just use the source material in respect of God and who he says he is and start with those as a given in our little hypothetical. Unless, of course there is some particular reason this does not assist your case.
Given that the source material says God is good. And it says that the humans he created were very good. It has been your position that since the humans fell into sin, that they were flawed. I cannot see the flaw and you have only vaguely tried to perhaps identify some, without committing to the same. I have maintained from the beginning of this discussion that Adam and Eve were mature adults who knew what they doing and despite knowing the implications - went ahead anyway. You disagreed, suggesting they were child like, innocent perhaps, but naïve at least. Is naivetee a flaw? And is it a flaw in the design?
Don't get distracted by the asides.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well, actually it does not matter whether you think it is better or notThen why ask my opinion?
I did not specifically ask the question on that one point. The question was in relation to entire post - specifically as to why despite the fact that it was Satan doing the tormenting -- as to why he does not even rate a mention or one that condemns his position. The minor point which was one small aspect of part of one of my reasons which you chose to address was not I was asking anyone's opinion about. Merely quoting Paul in relation to death.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Job's children died. Everyone dies. Did they go immediately into the presence of God, which is far better?I think in will just address this for now. No it is not better so far as I can tell.
Well, actually it does not matter whether you think it is better or not, for the people who died, in accordance with the story of the Bible, it is far better. That is the overrall picture of the Bible. Of course Job would not be thinking that - because he wants his children to be with him.
But in the context of the book and in the context of the entire bible - being in God's presence as a believer is far better than not. Of course if you are not a believer being in the presence of God would be Hell.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
that he eternally is.An eternal beings actions would be either caused (determinism) or uncaused (indistinguishable from random) or some mix of the two. If you can think of an alternative please present it.
I don't agree with your is /or logical argument here in respect of God. God is not subject to such things. For example - Jesus is FULLY GOD and FULLY MAN. God is Trinity - namely ONE but THREE. He intentionally does not limit himself to our ways of logic - so even on the basis of that alone, I don't accept it in relation to God. And respectfully, trying to find a way to place God within such limits is only going to provide you with satisfaction within yourself - but again it won't assist in furthering our discussion because whatever God you can place limitations on is not the GOD of the Bible.
In any event we were not looking at God - but at his creatures which you maintain were flawed despite the source material. You have yet to provide one that we both agree on. As I said above, I don't think the creature or design was flawed. And I don't think the environment was flawed. Perhaps it might be that the very perfection of the model was that it could make poor decisions. Is that a flaw?
you used the words intractable which I submit implies unable to reverse -which sounds pretty solid and is tantamount to ALWAYS.Yes my opinion about genocide is always that they are wrong. This is not however a natural law unless my opinion = natural law. Also the UN stance on genocide is completely incidental to my own. They could agree or disagree and my stance would remain unchanged.
" If it looks like a dog, and it barks like a dog, ..." what is the difference between Natural Law and your "genocide is always wrong"? What is so special about your own personal moral system that you can not only make an ALWAYS assertion on morality - (admitting it is a subjective moral position) and then furthermore make it objective that even a divine being must comply or be immoral? I hope you notice the absurdity of your statement. I think Atheism is always MORALLY wrong. Therefore you and all atheists are EVIL.
Yet this is a subjective statement that I think ALWAYS is the case. What does saying it achieve? Especially to those who are atheists?
Similarly, for you to say to me that GENOCIDE is ALWAYS immoral - just because you think it is - just tells me you have strong opinions - but does not provide me with the sense of whether something is immoral or not immoral. Just that you disagree with it - and you cannot even tell me why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It does seem to say more about the author than the Yahweh. I agree absolutely about the ending however. It is unsatisfactory that the answer is "don't question me when I torment you!"
Of course it is not God doing the tormenting. It is Satan. But that point does not even register in this discussion. In fact God actually limits what Satan might have done because he loved Job.
That God permits any of the suffering is the puzzling part - why does not he prevent it? And yet, when I think about it - why does not God prevent every bit of pain and suffering in the world?
Because at the end of the day - suffering occurs. And suffering is not always and ONLY a bad thing. Often it is the struggles of life that help us grow up and learn more about ourselves and about those about us.
Job's children died. Everyone dies. Did they go immediately into the presence of God, which is far better? Many people die from accidents or disasters. In this instance - it was not an act of God, but an act of Satan. Yet, forever reason, you guys just look at God and not Satan. In fact Satan does not get a bad review at all. Why is that? Is it because you are so focused on promoting the evils of God, that you forget what the actual story is about?
Job is a story that tells us that asking why is not going to resolve the issue - and even the one person who could tell you, is not obligated to tell you. In this story - it is therefore ironic that someone actually provides a reason why? And for many people such as yourselves - you will always blame God even when it is clear it was not God. And I think that is another aspect of this story which I like - because it reveals our hearts and what their real motivations are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I assume both John and the Essenes were drawing from the earlier tradition of the tvilah, but I can't know for sure.
That's an interesting interpretation I had never heard before, actually - I'm surprised I haven't. You seem to be basing much of your information about John on the Gospel of Luke, though, and Luke's stories about the infancy and heredity of John do not pass some important historical criteria for me, such as multiple attestation. Luke would, imo, have ample reason to make up these stories because they strengthen John's connection, significance, and subordination to Jesus, and the fact that no other independent sources reflect these narratives makes me approach them with caution. Furthermore, if your interpretation is correct, I'm rather surprised the Gospels - all of them - are not more explicit about it in their descriptions of Jesus's baptism, as they are elsewhere explicit about things which reinforce Jesus's legitimacy, especially in relationship to the OT.
Although I might note that I am not yet of the view to dismiss the fact that he might have been born with original sin. He was born of Mary - a human after all. Even if it is the case that he also conceived by the Holy Spirit. I am still considering my view about that thought. Yet it does not change my view about the fact that he JESUS was sinless whilst on earth - otherwise his resurrection would not taken place. It was only because of this truth that we have the resurrection.Heh. I take it that you do not hold to the Catholic view of immaculate conception, then.This reminds me of another interpretation I have encountered among Christians, which is that it was Jesus's human half that had to be baptized.But if he was born with original sin, then the implication is that he was not truly sinless until after his baptism. Could you ever see yourself accepting that? The Catholics couldn't.
I don't hold to the Catholic position of immaculate conception. I do take the view that Jesus was conceived by the Spirit of God. I don't think Jesus is half man and half God. I think he is fully God and fully man. And yes, I understand that is problematic for many people. As for Jesus being born with original sin or not, I have not yet formed a conclusion. I have traditionally believed he was not, taking the view that his Father somehow nullified original sin. Yet, I am becoming more aware of the fact that Jesus had to be able to identify in every way as a human in all of their temptations. Not having original sin, means he is off to an advantage that others do not have. Yet, on the other hand, Adam was also created without original sin - so the comparison might be adequate since it is the contrast between the first and the final Adam which is significant in the primary sense. Nevertheless, the secondary sense is also relevant which is where I sit at the moment.
This of course then raises the question in your last paragraph. If Jesus was born with original sin, the implication is that he was not truly sinless? I am not so convinced of that. Yes, I follow the logic because I would insist that people sin because they are sinners - not sinners because they sin. Yet in Christian circles we do distinguish between the sin and sins. I have had this discussion with Brother Thomas - although as I recall not once did he ever actually engage with the discussion. I think it went over his head as most of the stuff I write. Nevertheless - it is an important distinction. And one which I will have to explore more fully. Sin is the original sin. IT is the sin which I often label TREASON and is a generic covenantal sin of the entire human population. Sins on the other hand are our personal individual sins which we commit because we are sinners.
Is it possible that Jesus was able to have original sin - that is - be identified with all of humanity in the generic covenantal sin of the human population, and not commit personal sins? Well the bible clearly says he was without sin. And this is also further demonstrated in the fact that he rose from the dead. Yet the further question of whether or not being born into original sin - even if he did not commit any person sins - still makes him sinful per se? And at the moment I would have to say IDK. Hence I have not formed a conclusion in respect of whether he has original sin or not. On this matter I am still seeking wisdom. There are many forks in the road as it were. Many of which I have not traveled down so far. Yet, like any one who knows how to read a book properly, I am suspending my judgment until I have understood the arguments. Any person who reads a book and comes to a conclusion in the first chapter - has not properly read the book. And if they form a conclusion before they understand properly the arguments - I would say that they are insulting not only the author but themselves.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't concede it in relation to God.Then please suggest an alternative to caused uncaused or a mix of caused and uncaused. We will proceed from there
God says in the bible that he is whom he is. Not that he was caused by an external force or that he randomly appeared from somewhere all by himself - but that he eternally is. Since this is how he describes himself - as one outside of the systems of humanity, and outside of their jurisdiction, I am not sure how profitable it is to place the limitations on him that you would like to do so. (If we attempt to place such limitations on God in order to hypotheticize, it really is not going to add to either your or mine understanding of the God of the Bible) I accept that this makes it difficult to characterise God, but I think this is a miss step from our discussion in relation to "free will". It is not the free will of God that we are discussing, but rather that of a created being, Adam and Eve.
And it in relation to the perceived flaw you believe the creatures had leading them into sin which in turn persuades you that God made a mistake. I on the other hand do not see the flaw, and am not convinced that the sin is related to the design of the creature nor even to its environment. The other thing which seems to be implied by you is that should a person be caused or uncaused, that this somehow removes their personal responsibility. I don't agree with that logic, unless that person has no freedom whatsoever, but is merely an automaton, a robot, one without a conscience.
Take for instance your moral position that genocide is ALWAYS immoral.You are overstating my position. I said that I am of the intractable opinion that it is always wrong. I cannot imagine what would change my mind but it is my mind under discussion not the mind of the members of the United Nations.
If I am overstating your position - I apologize - but you used the words intractable which I submit implies unable to reverse -which sounds pretty solid and is tantamount to ALWAYS. Are you saying for instance that although you are convinced currently it is immoral, that this is because you as an individual are convinced of it - even without the UN deciding it is immoral? And if the UN decided that there was sometimes a good reason for genocide, that this still would not change your mind. I admit your reasoning seems a little fuzzy to me. It sounds like you are putting up some kind of NATURAL LAW argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Yes, I agree with you. Modern readers might well think that.
I take the view that we need to step back and consider John the Baptist for a moment without our 21st century eyes.
Here we have in the 1st century of Israel, a man, performing a water ceremony - calling for repentant of sins and preparing the way as it were for the Messiah who would come.
What is curious is whether John started a new type of ceremony without revelation from God. Or whether he intentionally borrowed from the sects around that time - such as the Essenes. Or whether in fact he was in fact following on from the true and tried traditions of the OT.
I say the latter.
What we need to recognize about John is that he was a Levite. His father had been the high priest - or if not the high priest - certainly the priest whom had been selected to enter the Holy of Holies on behalf of Israel. That was where he had been struck dumb for not believing God.
So we have not just a prophet - dressed in similar clothes to Elijah, but also a Levite priest, performing a water ceremony - and something to do with the sins of the people.
We also have Jesus, a Son of David, born in Bethlehem, at the age of 30 coming to John to be baptized. How old was David when he was coronated? How old were the OT priests when they were ordained? And interestingly, how many eldest sons of tribes not belonging to Levi were given to the Levites as priests?
What OT water ceremonies do we know about? And please don't think of submersion, think of other methods?
I suggest that for Jesus to be anointed as king - he needed to be anointed by a prophet.
To be anointed to be a priest - he needs to be anointed by a Levite priest.
To be anointed as a prophet - like Elijah to Elisha - the hands of a prophet were suitable.
Marry all of this with the fact that God the Father was present in voice - God the Holy Spirit ascended either as or like a dove - and we have the two fold - or three fold witness required of all of these events.
It was to fulfill all righteousness -
This is of course my opinion - and also the opinion of many others.
Baptists - tend to think it is about identification with humanity. And I note that this is probably the case as well.
What we do know is that Jesus was sinless. Although I might note that I am not yet of the view to dismiss the fact that he might have been born with original sin. He was born of Mary - a human after all. Even if it is the case that he also conceived by the Holy Spirit. I am still considering my view about that thought. Yet it does not change my view about the fact that he JESUS was sinless whilst on earth - otherwise his resurrection would not taken place. It was only because of this truth that we have the resurrection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Jesus rising from the dead is not a miracle. It was always going to happen because he had not committed sinThen why did Jesus need to be baptised?
Glad to see I inspire you. LOL!
I say Jesus' baptism was an ordination of him as Priest, Prophet and King.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
regardless of the system under discussion actions are either caused (determinism) or uncaused (indistinguishable from random) or some mix of the two. I don't see any other options. Can you suggest another option?
You sound a little like Mises - whom I quite like.
As for your statement, I tend to agree that in relation to humanity and or creation that this is quite likely. I don't concede it in relation to God.
That would be to put limitations upon God within a system. And honestly, I don't think God fits within any system. The biblical picture of God is one who creates systems but is not subject to the same. It is similar to the question of moral rights and wrongs. Do they exist somewhere as an absolute or not? I say no. I think that moral rights and wrong exist because God determines what they are. Take for instance your moral position that genocide is ALWAYS immoral. Why? Who determines that such a thing is wrong? Is it you? Or is it the UN? Or is it just some innate law in the absolutes of the universe that EVERYONE knows is immoral?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Either the Yahweh's actions are caused (determinism) or they are uncaused (indistinguishable from random) and omniscience =/= freewill. An omniscient being would by definition know the best course of action for accomplishing that beings goals. If the Yahweh is omniscient and if the Yahweh has a plan then the Yahweh knows the single best course of action to accomplish this goal. The "choices" then become take said action (not a choice if the being is trying genuinely to accomplish it's goals) or work counter to this plan (indistinguishable from random behavior).
Are we talking about a being in a linear timeframe or an eternal system?
Your characterization of an omniscient being seems two dimensional. An omniscient being is not necessarily led or ruled by knowledge of outcomes. The Bible for instance lists omniscience as one of God's characteristics - but not the only one and hardly I would add as the dominant or ruling one. I am pretty sure that the God of the Bible does not determine value by the ends. He is not utilitarian in that manner. Think about the situation where Jesus is being tempted by Satan in the wilderness. Satan said to Jesus - bow down to me and I will give you every person in this world. Now if Jesus was ends orientated, he would have taken the knee, and then the people and then destroyed Satan. He did not do this. His goal in coming to earth was not simply about the ends - of saving people and restoring them to himself. It was much more profound than this. It also included the manner or the process of how this would happen. Christianity rejects the maxim - that the ends justifies the means.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
i'll answer any questions you want. it seems to me you and ethan just like to play games because a lot of stuff in the bible doesn't make sense but you want to insist it's the word of God.
Let's try this without the negativity. It really is not helpful. I am sorry I accused you of playing games. Please give me the same curtesy.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Either our actions are caused (determinism) or they are uncaused (indistinguishable from random) neither is compatible with free will and no clever mix of the two magically generates free will.The same applies to any hypothetical god or spirit by the way.Either god's actions are caused (determinism) or they are uncaused (indistinguishable from random) neither is compatible with free will and no clever mix of the two magically generates free will.
Thanks for that. You remind me of my economics lecturer discussing the two and ONLY forms of economic organisation. The command system and the free market system. He indicated that theories arise justifying both of these systems but there is no theory justifying the mixing of the two. The fact is however - all over the world we have mixed systems. There is no theory underlining the basis of mixed systems - mostly, it simply pragmatic, and a cultural thing. Or perhaps he just was unable to come up with the theory. And most of his students never bothered questioning the authority of this man who produced significant reasons for his position.
Now for the record I don't know whether my lecturer was right or wrong in his reasoning. Yet I live in a economic system which is a mixed economy for want of a better term.
In relation to your argument above - you may be right in relation to humans or indeed any part of the creation. Yet I fail to see how it applies to God in the same manner. At least not the God I see in the Bible.
The God of the Bible causes all of his actions and thought and movements. But their determination is Himself. He does all things in accordance with his own character. I would accept that God does nothing randomly, but always purposely and intentionally. Yet not from without - but from within.
And if this is the case, then I don't see how this makes God impossible.
In relation to the creation - I certainly agree with you that every thing is in one sense determined and that would be with God being the ultimate first cause of all things. But not just first cause, also the one who makes sure all things come to pass. I don't for the record believe that randomness plays a part.
Yet the Bible also indicates that humanity is responsible for his own actions. You can let me know, but do you think people ought to be held accountable for crimes in our society? If so why? Either determinism as you put it or randomness as you put it - excuses intention. So if someone rapes someone else or enslaves someone - it is either because they have been determined to do - hence not their fault or it has happened randomly without any determinism - so still not their fault. but I am sure you will inform us of my misunderstanding.
This is why the Bible talks of second causes. God determines all things - making anything impossible without God. Zeno's paradoxes provide a wonderful example of why words cannot articulate everything - and yet also a picture of what God does. An arrow is either where it is or where it is not. For an arrow to fly across the room - it has to go from where it is - to where it is not. And it has to do this many many times. Of course - if an arrow is in a place where it is not, then it really cannot be there. How does it move?
But humanity is responsible for his own actions. The question is whether second causes are part of this picture or not. I don't think people do things randomly. People tend to do things for a reason and that reason may well be by the environment they are in, or by the desires they have inside of them. It may because of how they were nurtured or even because of their genetics. Yet I don't think - either their genetics or their environment excuses them.
Free will - I think is a label we have attached to the idea that people need to be responsible for their own actions. It is unacceptable I think that people can simply say - it's not my fault, or my parents taught me - this is their fault. Or I am poor - it is not my fault. Or it is because I have a mental illness, therefore I ought to be excused because I am not totally in control of my situation. Yet, as a criminal lawyer, I use these things not as excuse but more for an explanation of why? And this is in order to determine how we prevent them from doing it again in the future.
I think the Bible talks of free will in that sense. Not in the sense that people are not determined or in the sense that they randomly do things. I also take the view that humanity is pretty much free to do whatever they want - obviously within certain parameters. Yet now after the fall - this free will has been tainted - so that they now don't necessarily have the freedom to do what they ought to do. In other words, their human nature has come to the fore. As Adam Smith puts it - they are self interested. And even their altruism is based on their own self interest - to look good or not feel bad for not helping others.
Prior to the fall, their free will - in the sense of being responsible for their own actions - had the capacity of choosing to do things without being self interested.
I don't think it is a flaw to be responsible for your own actions. I would actually think it is ultimately a thing of beauty. For God to design and then create a being which is ultimately responsible for his own actions - is amazing. Definitely not a flaw. Some might take the view that the ultimate perfection is to create something which has no flaws and obviously therefore without the ability to take responsibility for itself. Others on the other, would suggest that is just another automaton.
Yet to create something which is without flaw - but yet has the capacity to make itself flawed and be ultimately responsible for that flaw is another thing altogether.
Sorry I am tired. I will come back to this in the morning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Christianity is still in its teenage years,That is more opinion and wishful thinking than fact.
It is based on the doctrines of the Bible. It is not just my opinion. Jesus says he will not return until his bride is ready. I think history reveals quite clearly that when the church draws close to God it increases and matures. When it departs from God, then it becomes stale and numbers decline. It is a fact that the church tends to grow exponentially in places where it is persecuted and in places like the West where it becomes part of the furniture it becomes stale. In the West we also have a society which has abandoned its base of authority and philosophy. We are no longer modernist but relativistic. This was an important factor for people losing faith in institutions. As was the corruption in such institutions, like the church and the state. The church also abdicated its role in relation to welfare, leaving the state to pick it up. There are many factors. All which reduce the influence it has in the world of the West. Yet Asia, Africa, South America, and China in particularly, are all places where the church is growing very fast.
I say the church has never really shown her true colors. I accept that many would disagree. Yet, although I don't have an issue with denominations per se - I think that many in the world outside of the church see it as a problem and it may be that a unity in the church might eventually see a growth again. I also see the church as having temper tantrums and exploring in various ways - and even to an extent trying to find itself. TO me these are all pointers of its adolescence. It certainly still retains its youthly strength, and for many its charm, but the bible teaches - that the Lord won't return until his bride is ready - and honestly I don't think it is close. I am quite prepared for this take 1000s of years more.
so any reduction in numbers today is not to be unexpected.Membership of the Christian church is in decline, no matter how much you want to play it down. It is serious enough situation to have many church leader extremely concerned.
I agreed with you - that the church in the West is declining. I am not minimising it. And it is serious - I never said it was not. But I also don't just keep my eyes on the West. I tend to take a global view. There are more Christians in China than people in Australia.
Yet, I also pointed out that Islam is too reducing in numbers.Not according to the evidence. But I would like to believe that you were correct. Every child born to Muslim parents is Muslim at birth. You can deny that as much as you want, the same cannot be said for Christianity.
Well the evidence is that familys in Europe and around the world that their numbers are dropping. Whereas it was even 50 years ago - the average family was having 10 kid. This has reduced to 7 or 8. This has an impact on the population. The book I referred to can be found on the internet. It is very interesting reading and it has the stats.
Marvelous how you keep missing this from the respected research center Pew.Why Muslims are the world’s fastest-growing religious group."In the next half century or so, Christianity’s long reign as the world’s largest religion may come to an end, according to a just-released report that builds on Pew Research Center’s original population growth projections for religious groups. Indeed, Muslims will grow more than twice as fast as the overall world population between 2015 and 2060 and, in the second half of this century, will likely surpass Christians as the world’s largest religious group......" https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/06/why-muslims-are-the-worlds-fastest-growing-religious-group/
Respectfully, I did not miss it. Nor did I deny this. It is the situation that the Muslim faith can be the fastest growing group in the world, yet still be reducing. These are not mutually exclusive. And just because they grow twice as fast as the world population still does not change this fact. The world's population is slowing down significantly for a whole myriad of reasons - it is almost the perfect storm. Yet these same factors which are slowing the world's population are also impacting upon the Muslim world. Whereas in most places in the world, population growth is in the negative - in Muslim nations it is in the positive. In Europe - the former soviet bloc in particular - population growth trends predict the end of Europe at its current trajectory.
Yet when we look at places which are experiencing growth - these are places which are like Israel and USA.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
you just assert things happen, that are impossible. the only way for the things in the opening post to happen, or to explain it.... is to say there was a miracle, it was all one big miracle. but when miracles happen, there's evidence for it. when someone's retina miraculously heals, there's evidence that the retina was damaged and beyond repair. you seem to think God has to hide evidence, and plants evidence that contradicts what we see. i give God more credit than that. you and i have different presumptions about how miracles work, and how God works. your beliefs are heretical, and sinful.
I take the view that to say things are impossible is also an assertion. It is just that then you try and put the BoP on the other person. I think that is a weak argument - type of argument by silence really.
Define miracle.
I for the record think miracles are not events of supernatural interventions into a natural life. In my understanding of a miracle - it is really God doing something differently to his other things that he does. It is no more supernatural than the other. In other words, I don't hold to the view that the Creation nor Noah's Ark was a miracle. And I would never attempt to hide behind such a term.
Jesus rising from the dead is not a miracle. It was always going to happen because he had not committed sin. Sin is what leads to death. And if there is no sin, then death has no power over you.
For God to do supernatural things would be to suggest that God is some type of superman. He is not. He is divine. Divine beings doing things which divine beings do - they are not miraculous per se. When we see birds fly, do we think miracle? When we see fish swim under the water for however long, do we think miracle? When we see the chameleon change color to adapt to its surrounds, do we think miracle? No, because these things are all things that these creatures do - normally. Of course for a human to do these things - we recognize it is abnormal. Perhaps we might even use the term supernatural. So why is it that people see or hear God doing something and call it a miracle? I think this is nonsense.
Noah's ark was not a miracle. Creation was not a miracle. God was just doing what God does. There is a significant difference in the way we process how this looks. I don't think God hides anything, especially evidence. I think the issue for most about Noah's ark is interpretation and pride. People want to see what they want to see. Mostly in relation to the story of Noah, the thing that most people want to hide is that the world of humanity was so evil that God had to destroy it. People want to think that the people were not that bad. People want to think that for God to destroy the whole world is nonsense because even he is not that bad. I take the view that the whole creation - science thing is a red herring - designed to distract and divert people from actually considering how evil humanity had got. I think it is amazing how people just omit this from their brains. They move onto an entirely different part of the story and forget how evil things were. When people start to put some serious consideration into this - I might be tempted to start addressing some of the other interesting aspects. But seriously, until you recognize the sheer evilness that existed on earth at that time, the rest of the story will never make sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@lady3keys
For you it may be nothing. For others, they will be prepared to die for its words.Oh it means a great deal to me. It isn't "nothing" to me at all. I think the Bible is critically important to our understanding, not just of history, but of who we are --- as individuals, as spouses, as towns and cities, as nations and as people of Earth. I think it shows the evolution of our thinking throughout time. I can see this fact in the movement away from an "angry" God (old testament) to a more forgiving and "loving" God (new testament). But to me, and just to me mind you, the Bible is more the "gathered writings" of many people who dug down deep into their souls to find the very best they could find (given their time periods and cultural beliefs). I would like to think we have progressed more toward science now than towards storytelling (and the fire and brimstone of judgement). But the worth of the earlier writers is never lost, just "seen in the light" of what we know today.when we go into court we don't put our hands on a Marvel Comic and swear to tell the truth. Religious books are such books that we do swear on. It is a book which has held significant authority in our Western Culture and indeed in other cultures as well. It has also has a significant influence on our legal systems, our constitutions, our social structures, and even on the way we conduct science and humanities, including the arts and music. And more than this - it still retains a highly authoritative aspect of billions of people around the world.Very true! Religion still holds sway. And as I said up above, it is critically important to who all of us are, here in America. And even though I no longer believe in religion per se, I was still raised Christian. Consequently, my moral compass still owes much of its earliest existence to the Bible. Still, I had to unlearn so very many entrenched ideas that hurt me, rather than helped me, in any way. I'm sure it is different for everyone.
Thank you for your thoughtful insights. I agree with you that the Bible reveals much that is important to us as a culture and a people of history and of other things as well.
That you see the Bible as one of "gathered writings" who have dug deep into their souls is helpful to understand where you are coming from. Thanks. I don't see personally any difference between the God of the OT and the NT. They both demonstrate love and mercy and holiness and justice. Personally I don't think science is anything to advance towards. Science is a tool. It is a helpful tool and quite useful in different ways. But I am not convinced that there is necessarily a trajectory between the Bible and Science. Fire and Brimstone are merely reflections of sanctions. We still have sanctions in our culture today - and honestly, sanctions will always exist. Personally, I think culture today has devolved - not progressed - which is one reason we should abolish capital punishment for one thing. I think I distrust our modern society and its so called progressive society more than ever. It has become selfish, demanding, over sensitive, dishonest, and mean. I cannot think of a culture or a generation that has morphed into such a horrible society as this one. I am embarrassed for every other generation before this one.
I have never believed in religion. Religion ought to be abolished from my point of view. Yet, the definition today of religion is unhelpful so this is unlikely to happen anytime soon. I understand what you mean by adapting and maturing into an adult. I left my atheistic days behind when I realised it had nothing to offer of lasting substance.
Again I thank you for your insights.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Can you see him in a trial setting in using the same comical skewed logic that he uses for Christianity to supposedly support why he is at trial in the first place!The Scopes Monkey Trial, leaps to mind.
Why? I wonder who won that case.
BrotherDThomas, wrote: , Trandesecret, Seriously, have you ever thought about going into “Christian Stand-up Comedy” relative to your spin doctoring and the rewriting of the Christian Bible and religion? All you would have to do is act naturally with your assumed knowledge about the Bible and the earthly entities outside of the Bible!And just pray that no one questions him on his substance or slaps him with a few facts
Whatever. I have conducted trials in Asia, Australia and USA - people keep like paying me. I must be really shoddy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
My point was - so what?
Christianity is still in its teenage years, so any reduction in numbers today is not to be unexpected. Yet, I also pointed out that Islam is too reducing in numbers.
I could have referred you to a book - Why Civilisations are dying. - but I mistakenly assumed that was known.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Is there a reason you just add short comments without explaining what you mean? It would be nice to know why you are not surprised? Or even why you think there was a contradiction? I make mistakes. I miss things. I like to learn. So I don't do it again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@lady3keys
A written document is evidence. Though not necessarily proof of anything.Hence a 2000 year old debate with no resolution.Thank you - it is evidence which is my point. I have said it is not necessarily proof - but evidence. I said that each person will put a certain amount of weight on each and every bit of evidence.Evidence - yes! It is evidence of history, not of truth. A million sci-fi comics are not evidence that the Avengers actually existed. But they are evidence of what people wanted to read about.
They are evidence that such Avengers existed in someone's brain. Yet, I think there is a distinct difference between the bible and comics. In the first place- quite different genre's. Quite different as to its intent. It is what is known as a revelation document and has authority per se. Obviously its authority is disputed by different people, yet, when we go into court we don't put our hands on a Marvel Comic and swear to tell the truth. Religious books are such books that we do swear on. It is a book which has held significant authority in our Western Culture and indeed in other cultures as well. It has also has a significant influence on our legal systems, our constitutions, our social structures, and even on the way we conduct science and humanities, including the arts and music. And more than this - it still retains a highly authoritative aspect of billions of people around the world. For you it may be nothing. For others, they will be prepared to die for its words.
That by itself demonstrates it is more than just another comic. Is it evidence of truth? I would say yes. Other would say no. Of course the question then must be What is truth? Who is the arbiter of truth? And who determines what truth is? Or whether trust exists or not.
Those are serious questions - and ought to be addressed properly and respectfully.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
There are three pages of detailed evidence herein this thread and from reliable sources including from Christian church leaders themselves, comical Ali 2. .
You keep telling me it is evidence, but what makes it evidence? People talking about stuff. Hearsay.
Their fear concerning the rapid decline in numbers in the Christian church seems very genuine to me, or will you will call them liars, like Comical Ali 1? You too will no doubt go into total denial mode as you always do. Christening are down by thousands in the west. Christian churches are being sold off or left to crumble by the thousand and are being burned to the ground.Church congregations are down by the thousands. All well documented and recorded and easily confirmed with a click of a mouse.
I never denied Christianity was reducing in numbers in the West. I deny it is the fact for the rest of the world. I don't normally call people liars. Admittedly, and to my shame, I have called you a liar on more than one occasion. I apologize for my behavior. I do take the view that we are still in the early days of the church - so I take a more optimistic point of view than Ethan.
I don't care what you accept or don't accept as evidence. That of course is entirely up to the reader and deniers like your self . I personally have absolutely no reason to disbelieve what these Christian church leaders have to say about the decline of the Christian church.
My position in respect of evidence in this post was brought on by what I considered to be your absurdity. You continued to deny I had presented evidence. You never really explained why - just called me a liar. I decided that since you are being unreasonable that I would join you. I tend to take everyone on face value. I also tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. If you want to have reasonable discussions stop with the abuse - I will endeavor to do the same. But please stop thinking I am trying rewrite history or biblical narratives. I am not. We don't have to agree on what the interpretations are - and to be honest I don't mind that you have a different view - although it would be nice if you provided your sources when you present widely different versions to what is normally acceptable.
When Comical Ali 1 found the evidence in this thread so overwhelming he spun this lie:Comical Ali 1-->@ethang5 wrote: ; Jesus told us that the number of Christians would dwindle to almost nothing before He returned.Of course , he didn't have a biblical verse to support this claim after many requests to do so. But do you notice anything in particularly contradictory about his lying quote?
I confess I don't see the contradiction here. Ethan indicates that Christianity is the number 1 religion in the world. but he also may well consider that Christian numbers may decrease or dwindle to almost nothing when Jesus returns. This is the amillenial position and the premillenial position. Both these positions take the view that Christian will remain strong unto close to the end of the world - and then there will be a falling away. I don't see it myself. But I don't think it is particularly contradictory. But please elaborate what you mean by all means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
A written document is evidence. Though not necessarily proof of anything.Hence a 2000 year old debate with no resolution.
Thank you - it is evidence which is my point. I have said it is not necessarily proof - but evidence. I said that each person will put a certain amount of weight on each and every bit of evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
There are lots of destestable cities nowadays. why shouldn't we nuke em or destroy them the old fashioned way, nowadays? why should the innocent people in those cities die?
Why? The bible does not suggest that at all. It was written to people in a particular time about a particular issue. My point above was only to show that it was not bat shit crazy in those times. And I guess your response only shows that you agree with me. LOL!
I don't think innocent people should be put to death. If you took the time to read my post - which evidently you did not, you would have noticed I said - it was conducted lawfully by the state after a proper review had been conducted. Funny how you avoid the truth and facts to diss on the god you say you believe in.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Are you bored?
GRASPING FOR STRAWS #1YOUR COMICAL FLUSTERING QUOTE RELATIVE TO THE SIZE OF THE ARK: “I said the Ark was a big boat. Assuming your dimensions are correct.”You never cease to amaze us in your outright biblical ignorance, and again, calling Jesus’ inspired words as LIES! What part of the following passage didn’t you understand: “This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high.” (Genesis 6:15). Now, to save you even more embarrassment, I will let you look up cubics to feet conversion table, which makes the Ark the overall size that I stated, understood, Bible fool?
I read my comment and then I read yours. I really don't see how this is grasping at straws. All I did was note that the Ark was a big boat, not quite as big as the Titanic, but bigger than most boats on the planet today.
At approximately 510 feet long, what compares to Noah’s Ark.
- The Ark was twice as long as an early Boeing 747-100B airliner.
- It would take nearly one and a half football fields to equal the Ark’s length.
- Sixty-two Smart Cars parked bumper to bumper would stretch from the Ark’s bow to stern.
- NASA could lay three space shuttles—nose to tail—upon the Ark’s deck.
- To float the Ark in an Olympic size swimming pool, you’d need to line up three of these large pools.
- The Ark would be well over one and a half times the length of a WWII Gato class submarine, or looked at another way, nearly half the length of a modern Nimitz class aircraft carrier!
- Noah’s Ark was a bit longer than twelve, forty-foot telephone poles laid end to end.
- Using the standard boxcar, it would require lining up ten of them to equal the Ark’s length.
My point only is that it is not small.
STRAWS #2YOUR QUIZZICAL QUOTE ON THE NUMBER OF SPECIES: “How do you come you come up with the number of species?”First off, Google can be your best information on this question. You see, you put “Google” up in your search engine, then you press “return” and it takes you to the Google home page. Then you type in “how many known species are there,” then you press “return” and then many websites are shown to address this question, do you understand? Oh, don’t let the term “Science” upset or scare you when searching said websites, okay? LOL
I indicated only that I did not know. There is no shame in that. I asked you to tell me how you cam to that number and you CONCEDED you just made up the number. Glad to see you did some homework. Perhaps there is some honesty in that life of yours?
In any event, I was totally wrong in stating 1.2 million species overall, and for that I am truly sorry in leading you astray because the total number should be 8.7 million species overall at this time. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110823180459.htm
If I was to respond in your manner - that would be sufficient to call you a big fat liar and then a back flipper. But thankfully I am not like you. Interesting that 1.2 are known - the rest is estimation based on a dubious estimation system and not yet discovered and probably never discovered. But even if it is not dubious - which it is - the numbers of species in Noah's time would be much less. And in fact- when I read the bible - it does not mention species - it mentions "kinds". So one again you misrepresent what the bible says in order to twist things. Now I know that kinds is not a scientific term - but given that the language of the bible used what linguists would term "appearance language" it changes the dynamics of the situation somewhat. This actually reduces the numbers even more. In fact some estimates suggest that as few as 7000 kinds of animals were required to be on the ark. No need for fish as the bible indicates it was only land creatures on the boat and it might even have excluded insects.
The biblical concept of created “kind” probably most closely corresponds to the family level in current taxonomy. A good rule of thumb is that if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind.
Addressing your grasping for straws quote to try once again to save what validity you have left within this forum: "We have seen 1000s of new species in the past 100 years." Granted, but you fail to realize that these "thousands of years" you mention can only go back approximately 6000 years from Adam, to Jesus, and to today in the year of 2020 as per the Bible. Remember, Genesis 2:7 states with specificity that there were 8 pairs of each specie upon the Ark x MILLIONS! Therefore this precludes that from the 8.7 million of known species today, and taking your grasping for straws notion of "1000's of species every 100 years," precludes that there would still be MILLIONS of different species upon the initial voyage of Noah's ark in using the 6000 year time period. GET IT? Can you do the simple math on this easy proposition, or do you need further help in front of the membership?!
Actually the bible indicates that there were not seven of each animal. 2 of unclean animals and 7 of the clean ones.
Two of each animal entered the ark along with seven of each clean animal. The clean animals entered for purpose of sacrifice and for food for Noah and his family.
With the said biblical axioms shown above, address the following biblical and earthly propositions:1. How do you propose the 510 foot long Ark housed MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of species that had to be upon Noahs Ark so they would be here today, and barring "variants" of said species which matter not because the starting point was 8.7 million today?2. How did Noah obtain MILLIONS of species around the world without having a large boat to begin with in their search?3. How did Noah, without a boat in the beginning, obtain Polar Bears from the frozen lands North of the Arctic Circle?4. You mentioned that there were 3 decks upon the Ark, as if this would make a difference in housing MILLIONS of species, therefore, cite biblical reference to your claim!Listen, I will stop at this point, because you have enough proverbial egg upon your face as it is! You can't thank me later, okay? Put your "Satanic Apologetic Spin Doctor Hat" on and address the 4 questions above.
Yeah answered above. As for polar bears - answered that one. At the time of the flood the bible indicates that there was only one continent. Prior to continental drift. So the polar bear if it is a separate kind which incidentally I don't think it would have been would have just walked onto the boat.
GRASPING FOR STRAWS #3YOUR CONTINUED OUTSIDE OF THE BIBLE IGNORANCE: “The average size of a dinosaur was about the size of a chicken. Most of the large ones were once small and probably came from eggs.”
Yeah I was wrong about the dinosaur being on average the size of a chicken. It was probably the size of a bison. My mistake for not checking. Yet this does not change my position so much. This does not discount great big dinosaurs nor little chicken sized ones. I said the average size. And I also noted that the bible does not say "you must put onto the ark ONLY FULL SIZE ADULT DINOSAURS". It does not say that.
YOUR GRASPING FOR STRAWS #4
YOUR GRASPING FOR STRAWS #5YOUR COMEDIC QUOTE ONCE AGAIN: “There has never been a worldwide flood since that occasion so we really don't know that there were not safe spots or less dangerous spots for either the salt or fresh water fish.”HELLO, BIBLE IGNORANT FOOL! Again, you show your complete ignorance of the scriptures because of the following inspired by Jesus passage relative to there not being “safe spots” for salt and fresh water fish, to wit: “And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered.” (Genesis 7:19)The fact that this verse is using the term “all, and whole earth” precludes that it was a universal flood to the tops of mountains, therefore including the Himalayas that are 23,000 feet in height, get it? Therefore, there was NO safe haven for any type of fish, Bible fool!
Not sure what your point is here. Fish live in water. Fish even live in flood waters. Animals would drown - but fish not likely. Nor would insects.
GRASPING FOR STRAWS #6YOU GRASPING FOR THE LAST PROVERBIAL STRAW REGARDING HOW NOAH KEPT 900,000 INSECTS ALIVE! : “Perhaps - they were all in larvae stage and stored under their beds. Who knows?”
Yeah I dont know about the insects - but very likely they did not need to be in the ark along with the fish. I am happy to live with that though. Since I have now addressed the other questions satisfactorily.
YOUR GRASPING FOR STRAWS #7ONE OF THE MOST COMICAL QUOTES YOU’VE EVER MADE!: “I also expect that if there was no land anywhere - that any self respecting bird is only going to keep flying until they found the boat again.”
Noah was upon the waters for 371 days in a massive ocean, so how many days can a bird fly with its existing energy to “find the boat again” before it dies and plunges into the ocean? Your finger nails must be bleeding profusely by now for continually grasping for those proverbial straws that aren't even there anymore for you! Priceless!
i notice you omitted the part I took from the bible. Hypocrite. It just proves you know you are wrong.
YOUR GRASPING FOR STRAWS #8
YOUR LAST RESORT QUOTE IN EVER SO TRYING NOT TO BE THE BIBLE AND EARTHLY FACTUAL FOOL!: “Yes - again which is more believable - a universe that all by itself happened v a God planned and made world. You have your fairy story and I have mine. Mine at least makes some sense - even if not everything. Yours - well it has nothing going for it - except people who wish to deny my story. They and you have nothing. Nothing at all.”
FIRST THING, you slipped on your Freudian again by you stating: “You have your fairy story and I have mine.” NEWSFLASH, here you ADMIT to everyone that the topic of the Noah Ark narrative is a complete a fairy tale! LOL. OMG, your knees along with your fingernails must be bleeding so much, because again, you slipped upon your Freudian! You make it too easy for us to show the membership in just how dumbfounded you are relative to the scriptures and actual earthly facts.
Well actually I never called mine story a fairy story. I called yours one. I intentionally did not label mine because I knew you would fall for the view that I had. Still - if you are happy with mine being a fairy story - then clearly you are happy with yours being one. I can't lose either way.
Tradesecret, you have provided some of the most comical pseudo-christian Satanic spin that we have ever seen relative to the Noah's ark narrative, and when doing so, many of my friends from very prestigious forums are viewing your laughable posts upon this topic, and sending links to this forum to show them. You will now be famous around the internet Religious Forums in being one of the best laughable Apologetic Spin Doctors for Satan that the internet has ever seen! Good for you, because your moniker on this website will be profusely talked about, but only in a laughable and degrading manner, congratulations!
Well thanks Brother for making me famous. Whenever you show my words - I am sure it will plant seeds into thinking brains. God works in mysterious ways.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't actually believe in freewill. I think I it is a logical impossibability. I am therefore willing to accept your preferred definition.
Fascinating.
So out of curiosity, why don't you believe in free will and what is the alternative? Surely you don't believe we are all automatons? Or that we don't have a certain amount of freedom?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Ah the old free will argument. Well you haven't actually demonstrated freewill either but assuming it for a moment I have to ask is there free will in heaven? Be careful how you answer because if he can make a truly perfect place with freewill then the work he did down here is unimpressive to me. And again I remind you that for me this is a hypothetical situation not an inconsistent level of credulity.
I think the term "free will" is flawed as a concept generally. I am trying to put into ordinary terms what it seems you are referring to as a flaw. You used the word naïve or gullibility - and nor did you demonstrate either.
I really don't want to dragged into a rabbit hole either. But to entertain your question about free will in heaven, I actually take the view that the Garden of Eden is or was heaven. So if what Adam and Eve had was what we might call free will, then yes, free will exists in heaven. But what is free will? That is the rub. Can total freedom of the will exist in a universe with a totally sovereign God? Capacity to choose however I don't think means freedom to do whatever you want. When our government lays down a law that says "do not speed", it is not saying "you have the freedom to go as fast as you want". Even if it puts a sanction into place like a fine. This does not mean the government is giving you permission to speed so far as you understand you will need to pay a fine. It is saying NO SPEEDING. It ineffect is denying you freedom to speed. IF you choose to break it - you can't put that on the government. You can't say "you gave me a choice".
For me to answer the question - we need to define free will first. Why don't you give it a go? After all, It seems to me that it is the only possible flaw that Adam and Eve might have had. And I am not convinced it is a flaw.
Created: