Total posts: 3,520
-->
@disgusted
For example -
where does God command it. human sacrifice.
Please find it for me - I know the bible backwards - and frontwards - in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic - but I cannot find anywhere where God demands human sacrifice.
If you cannot produce a verse I will accept your concession.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
the Jewish religion was against human sacrifice - I would suggest that Jesus was a unique situationOf human sacrifice.What you have failed to show that the God of Israel ever promoted or sanctioned human sacrificebecause no where is it ever demanded by God in the first placeGod whom required it in the first place.Read your book your god commanded it and you admit he required it. Please get your story straight.
Disgusted, I am close to not responding to you. Why? because you lie so much. Not once have you ever quoted the bible in our conversations. Not once. I know my bible backwards. You state much but never give anything to back it up. you assert lots - but never give a reason, an argument or a simple verse which would help. just coz you state something is biblical does not make it so. Many people quote the bible - and get it wrong - but you just state the bible says stuff - and never even try and prove it. As I said, I am close not to replying to you. But this is the reason why. You only assert but never prove or argue.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
God is also our Father. We are his children. We have a relationship. This means talking to each other.
This is not intercessory prayer. This is conversation as described, which is entirely different and probably has some inherent theraputic value, not because god's there, but because we can gain a perspective from meditation on a subject. The difference between your children and you talking, and people and god talking, well, it's more than one, and all signficant. Two people can hear you say the same thing at the exact same moment, for example. Your one child might hear you say something to another child and both could verify what was said.
Fair point. Intercessory prayer is prayer on behalf of another. But prayer of any type is conversation. I just can't talk to someone and expect them to do what I ask. It requires a relationship. and sometimes what I ask is wrong. praying on behalf of someone else - does several things. Firstly it demonstrates that you care for them. Secondly, it demonstrates that God is the one who can do something about it. But it also acknowledges that you know that God is the one who can do something about it. We don't know what God will do - but we ask - and this enables us to grow in faith.
In the bible, God tells us to pray to him. He also tells us to ask him for things. There is a sense of comfort too when we do seek his advice - a knowledge that he knows that we have not forgotten to ask him. Prayer of course is the ultimate sense of dependency upon someone else
I know that he tells you to pray. Why, is the question, if he has a plan, would he encourage you to, I don't know, pray for your sick dad to recover if he knew his plan was to kill him anyway? Doesn't that seem cruel? And you nailed the part about dependency, I agree.
perhaps it is because we need faith and to grow in it. Perhaps we need to continue to realise that God is the master of the universe and we are dependant upon him. We ask him because he wants to us to tell him - what we want. I don't think that is cruel, even though I know he knows. Often God answers even when we don't ask him. but given that I love God and tell him anything - I don't have any reservations telling him again and again.
(Actually he did create a world without sin and where everyone did what was good, yet man's first decision - was to do evil)
Did he not know that was going to happen? Are you saying man invented something god didn't (evil)?
Of course God knew what humanity would do. it did not stop him because his plan included this - and in the end all of us will see why and simply marvel at his reasoning. man did not invent evil. Evil is not an invention. Evil is just disobedience.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
I would say try to understand what i mean before calling my fears "stupid." Bc from what you wrote, i can clearly see you don't understand what i mean and how i got to this conclusion. I didn't just wake up one day and say "heaven would be hell." Who would think of that? Also, i would be interested to see who else you've seen make this argument. From what i'm aware of, i'm really the only person that i know makes this argument. I'm sure there are others, i just haven't seen it in detail so it would be interesting if you know another so i can see their logic.
LOL!
That is a wonderful statement. Did I understand or not? and who else would I be able to show to you - given that obviously I don't understand - although - you are curious. liar. I understood - and refuted it. You don't like it. That is a different matter.
In regards to the only alternatives being hell or becoming worm food... i would encourage you to get a little more creative. Those are not the only alternatives by a long shot. There are spiritual platforms that would allow everyone to have their own paradise, etc.
Ok, then please inform me - I am also curious.
Also, i hate it when Christians tell me i can't understand something. Seriously, how do you know what i understand and what i've experienced? You can't. I have had out of body experiencing to which i have felt the feeling of becoming immortal or eternal... and it was not pleasant and is now one of my worst fears. Of course i can't just explain it to you and you'll get it... but, there are analogies i can use to help you understand it. Here is a movie analogy that illustrates what i mean, this can also be a music analogy but a movie is a little more like reality.
Blah blah blah - you do understand the concept of axiom, don't you? apparently not.
Imagine you have a favorite movie. This movie is the best movie you've ever seen and makes your hairs stand in how good it is. Now, imagine if i told you that you are only allowed to watch this one movie for the rest of your life. This could work right? Bc you will space it out and play video games instead, you will do other hobbies and watch it once a week, once a month, once a year. However, over the years... you will know every line, you will be able to imagine every face, etc. Also, it will likely stop making your hairs stand, and those other excitements you got the first time. But how long will it take for you to not find enjoyment in this movie anymore and just stop watching it all together? It may not even happen in this life time, but remember, you are eternal in heaven... how many years would it take? Now, this is a nicer version and not what i felt when i experienced it. Imagine now that your only entertainment in this life will be this movie. How long will it take for that movie, your favorite, to become torture? Again, it may never become torture in this life... but lets times that by infinite... I am quite confident it will become torture.
Do you remember that word I mentioned above "time". You are asking me to consider something in accordance with that word. Take time out of the picture . now imagine - in eternity - you watch that movie just once which goes for all of eternity - and every hair on your body stands up for eternity. and you enjoy it all at once always - plus an eternity of other things - that you want to experience all at once. A movie so good you never want it to end.
If you can imagine my analogy above, you will be able to understand why i am afraid of becoming eternal in any sense of the word. Not only do i understand the above analogy... i've felt it. That's why i find humanity to be so brilliant. That is why i think death is the most brilliant creation an infinite consciousness could create. And my suspicions seem to be correct since in this world death will always be there. Even if we become machines and populate the entire universe.. death will always be there. It's the off switch, it's the button that changes the movie. That's why i see it as something very beautiful and i'm glad i will one day die. For Christian's to tell me well guess what... you'll die and become infinite with god is literally my worst nightmare.
And this is where you don't understand Christians and eternity. It is not about repeating things. It is about a relationship. Heaven is not about enjoyment or even a loss of pain or anguish. It is about who I am with and whom I will spend it with.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Why do you have to take the simplistic approach that anyone disagreeing with you is being mindless? You do realise that sometimes - and indeed very often - people of various views have positions that are not always mutually exclusive and of extreme position.
just because I disagree with you - does not automatically mean that I am being brainless.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
your last question asks the question - I think - is eternal torture commensurate with sin - even not believing in Jesus. The very question in my mind reveals an ignorance that is astonishing and startling. Obviously if Jesus is a made up person or is not God then it makes sense to sort of ask this question. Yet, on the other hand, it amazes me that you could be such an ignorant person, given you seem reasonable at other times. it is like you have just shut you eyes, your brain is switched off and you are pretending to be a fool. You obviously have never even come close to grasping who the God of the bible is. your question discloses that. no offence meant - but seriously.
We are talking about a God who is able to speak a word and the heavens come into existence. Think about that just for a moment. on a physical level, every star you see in the sky and every star you cant see comes into existence just because he utters a word. I am not asking you to believe this happened. But this is the God who is described in the Bible. If the Bible is true, this God has enormous power. Not just enormous power - but really enormous and mighty power. The bible - and again I am not asking you to believe it - but the bible describes this God as one who knows how many hairs are on your head. Think about this for a moment - how many hairs do you lose every day? Now multiply that by every person in the world. This is enormous. what I am trying to get you to consider is - the magnitude of God as he describes himself as.
Now picture for a moment - this God with all of this power and knowledge - for whatever reason purposes to make humanity. He did not need to - but decided to. He puts this humanity onto a beautiful world - and actually puts this human in charge of the world. He did not want to make humanity his slave. He made him co-regent. Now I don't know about you - but this is sort of like Michael Jordan asking me to play on his basketball team- but on a much grander scale.
and then you have the audacity to ask the question about whether not believing this God exists deserves some kind of eternal punishment.
don't get me wrong - but you don't believe in god now. And you do believe in death obviously. What is death from your point of view? It is eternal nothingness. You cease to exist - blackness. Can you imagine saying to Michael Jordan - who?
Do you think God has no pride? Why? Do you think that God is a walkover coward? Why?
God is holy. Do you even know what the word holy means? what would happen if matter and anti-matter met? why?
I am sorry - but your question is incomprehensible.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
For me some things are no brainers. One, there is a God. Two life must have meaning. Three, justice must eventually occur. Four, if this does not occur during life - which obviously it does not, then it must occur after life. This implies - after life. what will that look like is another matter - for me - the Christian position makes the most sense so far. That may be because I was born in the West. It is not because I was born into this idea though- my ideas of afterlife are significantly different from my culture and from the family I was born into.I think I agree: the only way to start with these assertions is by turning off the part of your brain that says "Wait, why is that a must?" If you axiomatically begin with "There is a god," not only have you not justified that position with a why, but you specifically skip steps and move it to there must be THIS god you believe in. I made a topic on this and I'm not sure you participated. Beyond that, WHY must life have meaning? You assert it, there must be a reason you do so beyond "because otherwise I'd be really uncomfortable." WHY must justice eventually occur? What if it doesn't? Who defines it? Why must it occur after life? And would eternal torture as punishment be commensurate justice for a sin like not believing in Jesus because you grew up in Laos or Burkina Faso?You don't demonstrate any reason to follow any of these 'no brainers', and I bet you don't display a lot of curiosity in doing so yourself. You are indeed not using your brain.
hi ludofl3x,
thanks for your comments as delightful as they were.
I have no reason to justify my position to you particularly. But I reject your assertion that I have to turn off any part of my brain or that I have not used my brain. Your presumption that an axiomatic position in relation to God leads to skipping steps is just an assertion which seems to be motivated by your clear rejection of my position based on prejudice not facts or evidence or reasoning. Axioms are necessary in life. Take reasoning in the first instance - it is an axiom that requires that reasoning is correct in the first place. Most people - if not all people necessarily skip over many parts in logical reasoning in order to get to their own starting points. I don't particularly care about this because most people don't think through most things. Everyone has axioms - it is impossible not to have one. Everyone starts with their own prejudices and tries to think from that point on.
I do presume that God exists - but so what? I have not seen any evidence presented to persuade me otherwise. It goes without saying - although it needs to be said for unthinking people - that for people to persuade others that God does not exist requires people to go to the axiom in order to refute it. Most people on this site use their own experience or their intuition or their own reasoning to try and refute God - this is a mistake. Why? Because everyone looks through their own rose coloured glasses to see the world. Unless you can look through their glasses and see what they see - they will simply take whatever you say and twist it to suit themselves. Look at you. I can present arguments which I consider to be quite objective - but you simply twist them because you have a different axiom. It really is that simple. Hence I don't try and persuade - I just plant seeds or stones or pebbles - I don't have to win battles - whereas others are always looking for the knockout blow. You see everytime someone responds to me - thinking they have a brilliant answer - I take it as a win. If you were to ignore me, then I might have to change my tactics.
I do say life must have a purpose. Otherwise life is meaningless. Which would mean that our conversations and the point of this entire site is really a waste of time. Afterall, if there is no purpose or meaning - then who cares what you think or what I think - we would all let others think whatever that is - and let people do it without recourse or reaction. I think meaning exists is a no brainer - and the fact that you respond or react to that gives substance to what I am saying. Now it is also true that meaning can exist whether God exists or not. Evolutionists of course do have an problem with this position - I accept their difficulty but that is their problem. They are the ones who have to justify why they give a care about what others think and why they feel the need to change other person's minds. They obviously cannot think in terms of right or wrong - but only in terms of their subjective position - and that is fine - but that is still purpose and meaning. Even if it only a very subjective individualistic one.
I think people have an innate sense of what justice is. I don't think this is an accident. This is why people get upset when they see injustice. It is why they think a movie is bad or a book is bad when it ends wrongly. Justice is part of the human psyche. But and is important - we don't always see justice played out in life. Often the bad guys win and the good guy loses. Now, for people who don't believe in God, they just have to accept this is life and that is all there is. It probably explains why they are so cynical, why they have no hope for humanity, and why they think life has no meaning. It probably also gives some weight to why they get upset with religion and with any person who is a half full type of guy. They hate optimism. They hate hope. although I reckon they secretly lap it up at every chance they might get.
For me - however, the bible clearly talks about justice - sometimes occurring throughout life - but definitely on judgment day. For me this makes sense. Our justice system, which is a system I work in everyday, has many holes in it. It is imperfect even though politicians are trying to make it perfect - which is one reason justice gets delayed more and more. But there are so many allusions to it that spring from eternal justice it is difficult to ignore. I say God defines justice and will bring it in his time.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
For me some things are no brainers. One, there is a God. Two life must have meaning. Three, justice must eventually occur. Four, if this does not occur during life - which obviously it does not, then it must occur after life. This implies - after life.I thought 'no brainer' meant something so obvious even sarah palin would get it.but I don't agree they are 'no brainers' - i think they are false!
Yes, keith but you will have noticed I started my sentence with "for me", so whether you agree or not is irrelevant from my point of view. The fact that you think they are false is just your opinion and is not based upon any objective evidence. As for Sarah Palin, is she still alive?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
And that was my point about the Catholic Church - and I do not condone the Spanish Inquisition - which was against Protestants and the result of the same superstitious catholic church.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
I did not lie.
I was merely asking you to clarify what you meant by human sacrifice.
What you have failed to show that the God of Israel ever promoted or sanctioned human sacrifice - the same kind that we see on such a scale in religions that practise such.
the Jewish religion was against human sacrifice - I would suggest that Jesus was a unique situation - because no where is it ever demanded by God in the first place -secondly, its production was in the form of capital punishment by the Romans, not as human sacrifices are generally held, and thirdly because he did not stay dead and fourthly because the sacrifice was in fact the very one who - God whom required it in the first place.
In other words, my point to you was lets clarify what human sacrifice is - lets look at what happened with Jesus - and then lets see if the two are comparable.
I submit that what is generally seen as human sacrifice and what Jesus did are not at all identical - even if sometimes the words seem similar.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
That was a good pickup. When I wrote that - I wondered whether you would see it and drop in.
Cudos to you.
Of course - the context is quite telling.
And Jesus was human. And Jesus was God. And Jesus died. And Jesus rose from the dead. And Jesus lives today. And Jesus rules from his throne in heaven.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
The first words in the bible are "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." - Genesis then goes onto say that Moses wrote it. Obviously he did not write the entire book - and many people try and say Moses never existed - yet, the Jews believe it. Moses was before the Babylonians exile.
David refers to Genesis. David could not refer to a book that was written after he lived if it was written in the time of the Exile. Samuel and many others also refer to the book of Genesis. These authors lived after Genesis was written but historians place them before the exile of Babylon.
It may be the case that Deuteronomy and Chronicles was written during the Babylon exile. Jesus too refers to Genesis as at the beginning. Paul clearly does as well.
the internal evidence is clear I think to refute the notion that Genesis was written during the Babylonian captivity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You have not ONCE quoted the bible. I can think of nothing you have said that comes from the bible. Just cos you say it is - does not make it so. If you really were using the bible - then quote it.
Until you do, I don't believe you.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
If Orthodox Christianity would reject works as a means of salvation and stop praying / therefore worshiping dead saints, and stop idolatry then perhaps they might start to trust in Jesus as their Lord and their Saviour. Then perhaps we might be able to have some unity in worship.
We do not believe that works save, neither do we worship saints. We certainly do neither of these things. And we certainly do accept Jesus as our Lord and savior.
The Orthodox Church teaches like the Catholic church a version of free will that is incompatible with faith.
Prayer is an integral part of being a Christian, we certainly couldn't stop doing that. And these "dead" saints are alive in Christ, as you will be too if you depart in grace.
You say you don't worship Saints - but you treat them as though they were god. Two of the attributes that belong to God is that he alone is omniscient and omnipresent . Yet, you pray to the Saints, not just like they are alive in Christ, but as though they have the ability to hear your prayers at the same time as they hear the prayers of thousands of other Orthodox people at the same time. The Roman Catholics do the same with Mary.
but Mary like any of the saints has one pair of ears in their bodies. They have not become like God and can hear many people at once saying a multitude of things at the same time. And why would anyone want to pray to the Saints when they can go directly to our Father in heaven? It is such a con. We have one mediator - Jesus. Yet you and the Roman Catholics have oodles of mediators. Prayer is a form of worship. Praying to the saints is worshiping them and giving them the glory that belongs to God alone. Prayer is not just talking to God - it is demonstrating our total dependence upon God for all that we are and we do. By praying to the Saints, you demonstrate none of this towards God - but towards your favourite saint. Idolatry in its purest form. Where in the bible are we ever commanded to pray to the saints or to anyone but God? Nowhere, so you will refer to church tradition, how convenient?
I noted a while ago that an orthodox priest would come and have communion at our church. You twisted the story by saying that we would accept them as part of the church, yet the Orthodox church would not accept us. What you failed to comment on what that this priest accepted our communion as holy and worshiped with us. This is quite contrary to how you have explained in the past.
That Orthodox Priest would be in error. I would be surprised if the bishop would condone such a thing.
You are right, we do not practice open communion, and while we can do many other things with heterodox, the eucharist is not one of those things.
That may well be the case. But it occurred and he did not shrink from it. He never conveyed to me what his bishop thought of it. I think I will ask him.
I for example would never actually worship in a Roman Catholic church as I would not consider it true worship. Even though I would accept Catholics to come and worship with us. This is because the table that the Catholic church holds out is superstitious - not because there are not Christians within the church. But for your priest to come to my church - is an acknowledgement that our church is a true church.
The actions of one priest who is obviously in error does not represent The Church. If a church is not with us, it isn't the church.
When you say that the table that the Catholic Church holds out is superstitious, what do you mean?
Again I cannot disagree with you about the actions of one priest. I do not agree that our church is not the church, though. We are a church which upholds the name of Jesus as Lord and God and we will not resile from that just because you take the view that we are not Christians.
As for the Catholic Church, I hold that it is superstitious in its teaching that the bread and the wine ACTUALLY becomes the literal body of Christ. Not only is this absurdity in the least, but it promotes the idea that Jesus is crucified over and over again - which contradicts the Letter to the Hebrews and says that his death was not final in its time. It also contradicts the notion that Jesus is the only mediator with each of the priests becoming a mediator. Jesus died once for all - and has never been sacrificed again. The Catholic church is in error in this teaching. The Presbyterian church holds to the biblical view that the table is a covenantal meal with Christ and that the bread and the wine spiritually become Christ - so that his people can feed on him spiritually. In communion we are raised with Christ into heaven. Communion therefore has power both symbolically and spiritually. Yet it is not a superstitious re-enactment of Christ's crucifixion. This is in contrast to those churches who follow Zwingli's teaching that the table of the Lord is merely a reminder or a commemoration of Jesus' death where there is no power. Communion is a grace of God that communicates his grace to his believers. This as I said above is a covenantal meal.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
A change of story again, you claimed that I didn't get the story from the original source and now you are claiming that I did get the story from the original source. Lying is just so natural for you.
I am not lying. You have not produced one bible verse yet. You continue to assert - never argue and never prove.
So you admit that these humans were acting under the command of your god and didn't do of their own free will but did under threat from your god the most powerful thing in existence. That's your argument for godly innocence shot down in flames.
I have not said anything. since you never produced a verse or evidence - save you asserted something which you never proved - I made a comment about your speculation. go back and read it if you think I am lying. I said God never commanded his people to do the things you asserted. I also said even if he did - the people could have disobeyed (because they have free will - although they would need to consider the consequences) you have used the word threat - I use consequences which may or may not be the same thing. My argument has not been shot down. If you disagree how you walk us through the argument using direct quotes from our discussion.
Well I'm glad that you have finally admitted that in your morality (god's morality) infanticide and genocide are not immoral. You and your god set a very low bar for your morality. The free choice only includes disobeying your god if you are prepared to accept eternal damnation and torture, that isn't free will it is divine blackmail.
dont be deceptive - manipulation - magic - see you are the master of smoke and mirrors. I clearly have said that God makes the morals. but since you dont actually read my words - you obviously think that I believe that obedience or disobedience is what gets people saved. you are so blind. Go and read Romans 10. Righteousness is not found by obedience - it is given by faith. And it is given as a matter of grace which means it is not deserved. This is why your lie of blackmail or manipulation falls on deaf ears because it is not what we teach.
God did not command anyone to stone non-virgin wives to deathSo the word of your god lies again?
go and get the verses from the bible and show it to all of us. Or are you having trouble finding them?
come on wise guy - show me in the Bible where God says - on an unqualified basis - "to stone non-virgin wives" simply because they are non-virgin wives. Everywhere judgement is commanded by God it is in response to sinfulness. The very fact that God does not allow sinfulness to go unpunished is the essence of morality. The fact that you don't understand this is pathetic.
Come on wise guy, is the bible the word of god, did the Jewish laws constitute part of the covenant your god had with the Jews? The bible commands that non virgin brides be stoned to death and the bible is the word of god therefore god commands that non virgin brides be stoned to death.
Prove it - you cant because it is not there.
I assert nothing. I do however use your holy bible for all of my arguments and that's why you can't refute any of them without refuting your bible and your beliefs.
That is all you do - make assertions - I am still waiting for one argument - for one shred of evidence that you even know what the bible says.
I think you got it exactly wrong. I asked you to explain - which you could not even do.
WHEN WILL YOU PRODUCE one verse from the BIBLE to support what you say it says? At the moment you are sitting on exactly ZERO.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
LOL!Jesus is redundant without genesis the bedrock of your beliefs. Without the fiction of genesis, Jesus had no-one to save and nothing to save them from.
Jesus can never be redundant. Jesus is God. Genesis tells the story of the beginning of the world. Yet without the story, the nature of humans is still real. It does not disappear just because you don't understand Genesis. My relationship with God is built on Christ, not on the story of Genesis.
I am not dismissing Genesis by the way, simply not relegating it to the same height as you. I do believe in a historical Adam and Eve. I also believe that Adam fell from grace. Yet this does not mean that I need to take the view that the earth is 6000 years old. Nor does it mean that I cannot take the view that God made the world. I don't have to dismiss evolution - so far as God is the directing force of it.
Some Christians may well reject Christ if you can prove evolution. Or that the world is more than 6000 years of age. For me the age of the earth is not that important - but it is important that God made it.
For you - it seems that you think if you find a chink then you can prove God wrong and Christians foolish. Unfortunately for you, dismissing the story of Genesis is not going to be that chink. You seem to fail to realise that within the church which is very broad that these discussions have been going on for a very long time and it is not a reason for anyone to leave the faith or stop believing in God.
I have yet to see one argument on this entire site that has not already done the rounds within Christian circles. People are a lot more resilient than you give them credit for. you after all don't give up on your daft views despite repeatedly being shown how daft they are. Just take the example of morality - you cant give a half decent opinion about what you think it is and whether it exists absolutely or is a modern relative and subjective concept. Rather you avoid it - run away and attack hoping that no one will notice your omission. But guess what? Everyone sees your avoidance and laughs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
LOL! now that is funny coming from you. You never present evidence.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Why would you not believe a lawyer? Christians are not in principle superstitious - in fact we often go to great lengths to ensure people give up their superstitions.
We don't believe in magic or manipulation. Magic and deceit with smoke and daggers are the work and practise of the non-godly.
I never said one man attending our church makes its the real church. I said that one of Mopac's priests attended our church and participated within our service - hence declaring that he considered our church to be in communion with his and therefore part of the universal church of God - which is the true church.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Genesis was written well prior to the Babylonian context.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
No - you really do not understand my views at all. My bedrock is not Genesis - it is Jesus.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
Yes, it won't be.. by definition hell will be worse, but by definition heaven will eventually turn to hell. And that kind of slow mental torment might even be worse than physical pain. There is nothing you can say, other than change the definition of paradise, to make me not see it as an eventual hell. I don't care what "Orthodoxy" calls me... it's flawed humans trying to define me to which would make them feel good of themselves. I feel sorry for their weakness.
I read this argument from time to time and I must admit it puzzles me. For the record, I think anyone who is not a Christian would find Heaven a kind of Hell anyway. But to suggest that eternality is an eventual Hell per se is kind of stupid. After all, when you are a child you think as a child, but when you are an adult you think as an adult. In human terms we exist in this thing called time. Time is for all intents and purposes linear.
But eternality is not limited by perceptions of time as understood by mere humans.
Christians however exist to worship God. He is our meaning - and our identity. I suspect that those who do not love Jesus would not last for more than 5 seconds in heaven because heaven is not about making your eternity comfortable. Hell may well be preferable - although i suspect that once you are there - you will wish you were not. Although whether you wish you were in Heaven is a different matter - unless it is simply an escape from the eternal torture of Hell.
The picture of paradise we see on our television screens when considering eternity or eternal bliss is I think pathetic. It is impossible to imagine eternality with our time ridden brains and imaginations. It is one reason why the Bible does not go into details about heaven. It would be like to trying to explain the colour purple to a blind person - or the sound of a songbird singing to a deaf person. Or the weekly paycheck to a little baby. The best it can do is say it is perfect - that it is a return to delight and splendour in the Garden, that is a place without sin and a place to worship God for ever. Now some of those things will appeal to some people and not to others.
I said in another topic - that I take the view that seeking heaven is a little platoistic. the biblical understanding of the afterlife is a restoration of heaven and earth as one - with Christ being the centre - where there is no sin. Will that satisfy me? Well not really. But at the moment I don't have a better alternative. Dying and being put into a hole in the ground to be eaten by worms or being cremated is even less satisfying - but even so - I bet you wont let go of it. so it seems a little disingenuous to suggest that other ideas are somehow less than perfect.
For me some things are no brainers. One, there is a God. Two life must have meaning. Three, justice must eventually occur. Four, if this does not occur during life - which obviously it does not, then it must occur after life. This implies - after life. what will that look like is another matter - for me - the Christian position makes the most sense so far. That may be because I was born in the West. It is not because I was born into this idea though- my ideas of afterlife are significantly different from my culture and from the family I was born into.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Obviously from not primary sources. The bible which is the only source claiming the existence of your god is not a primary source. woohoo.
The Bible is a primary source for me. In ancient times, God spoke through the prophets, in the last days he spoke through his son.
I don't know wise guy? how about you tell us? As I said, if God does not exist, you are merely repeating human excuses and if God does exist, the human did not have to obey. Morality is what?
The humans should have disobeyed your god because his command was immoral? I agree. What about the Angels, should they have disobeyed for the same reason?
that is not what I said, don't twist my words. I said that humans did not have to obey him - if they thought God was asking them to do something immoral. Of course they would have to deal with the consequences of disobedience. God's command was not immoral because God is neither modernist nor post modern. Morality is not something that just exists out there. No angel nor anyone else should ever disobey God. But that does not mean that they cannot do so. Free choice is something that God gave humanity. Of course freedom also has consequences.
I am not saying you have - but can you legitimately put 21st century morals on a society before AD? I would say that was pretty dumb.
Can you legitimately transfer bronze age morality into the 21st century? I've already told you that I don't operate under 21st century morals, whatever they are.
You simply make your own morals up as you go along. Hence why everything you say makes no sense. I do not think we should transfer bronze age morality onto the 21st Century. I do think however that the substance of God's morality is eternal and timeless.
God did not command anyone to stone non-virgin wives to deathSo the word of your god lies again?
come on wise guy - show me in the Bible where God says - on an unqualified basis - "to stone non-virgin wives" simply because they are non-virgin wives. Everywhere judgement is commanded by God it is in response to sinfulness. The very fact that God does not allow sinfulness to go unpunished is the essence of morality. The fact that you don't understand this is pathetic.
And even if he did, so what?Here is the morality of this christian, evil beyond compare.
the point is - you keep asserting things - but you never ever provide any evidence to support your absurd statements. If you are just going to assert things - I will only just deny them. Prove me wrong.
I have not stayed away from any topicThe human sacrifice in question is the Jesus character who saved you from your god.
Jesus - human sacrifice - dying on a cross. Is that what you are getting at? Perhaps you could be so bold as to explain what human sacrifice is? You might also while you are at it - show anywhere in time or space or story or legend or myth where the one who is allegedly is being appeased is the very one who is doing the dying as a sacrifice. That might be very interesting. God demands satisfaction of justice because humanity has sinned against God. Yet humanity does not have the capacity to actually satisfy God - so God himself organises that he GOD truly represents humanity and dies as the satisfaction. That really is a strange kind of human sacrifice. It is at odds with any kind of human sacrifice in history or legend. If this really what it is.
There is no doubt that Jesus died.
There is also no doubt that he died as a representation of humanity. But what was his death about? It was as a covenantal head representing his people so that they could be reconciled back to God. It was not a sacrifice in the ordinary sense because he rose from the dead. But was it human sacrifice or something more than that? You know I don't know - but I do find it important to realise that God never demanded human sacrifice prior to this time unless you are talking about capital punishment.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Taking something seriously as opposed to avoiding something are two separate things. We don't want to become like the Pharisees who made the law so tight that people were not allowed to heal or show love on the sabbath. Avoiding things is close to that kind of attitude. Still each church ought to do that with considered views.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Martin Luther trained as a lawyer. Augustine worked in politics as a lawyer before becoming a priest.
If Orthodox Christianity would reject works as a means of salvation and stop praying / therefore worshiping dead saints, and stop idolatry then perhaps they might start to trust in Jesus as their Lord and their Saviour. Then perhaps we might be able to have some unity in worship.
I noted a while ago that an orthodox priest would come and have communion at our church. You twisted the story by saying that we would accept them as part of the church, yet the Orthodox church would not accept us. What you failed to comment on what that this priest accepted our communion as holy and worshiped with us. This is quite contrary to how you have explained in the past.
I for example would never actually worship in a Roman Catholic church as I would not consider it true worship. Even though I would accept Catholics to come and worship with us. This is because the table that the Catholic church holds out is superstitious - not because there are not Christians within the church. But for your priest to come to my church - is an acknowledgement that our church is a true church.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Thanks for that. I don't have a particular issue with that at all. It makes sense.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
It is my understanding that the people of Canaan were full of quite evil and repugnant people -
From whence comes this "understanding"?
The bible.
It is my opinion -
Have you rewritten the bible yet to include the extra biblical beliefs you profess?
I don't need too. kidnapping, putting children through fire, sacrificing and eating children were all common.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Ok that puts a different slant on it. How do you come to the conclusion that God has decided billions of people for that specific purpose?
The argument I've been making since the beginning is a different slant, oh dear, it must be your inability with the English language or is it that you read what you want to see because you've been taught how to respond to those arguments even if they are not there. Once again I'll give you a new slant that I have been writing since the beginning. Your god sees them in hell before he creates them there is no other purpose for their creation.
Sorry. I accept God sees them in Hell before he creates them. This is hidden will. His revealed will however clearly is that these people have free will and that they choose themselves to reject God, thereby ending up in Hell. I have talked before about first and second causes. You seem to find that a brain strain. Try and think of an author like Tolkien who wrote Lord of the Rings. The entire story is written and planned and executed by Tolkien. Millions of people die within its pages. Each individual in the novel has free will and yet each person is completely directed by Tolkien. Is Tolkien evil because any of his minions kills others? No he is not. The murderer in the novel is the evil one. True it is not a perfect analogy. Yet the same picture of first and second causes is in effect. Just as the author of a book is separate from the character in the novel so is God from his creation. I happen to take the view that all God does is to bring glory to his name. That is always his first and primary purpose. Remember God is not dependant upon humanity. He does not need humanity. That he deals graciously and mercifully with humanity is astonishing and yet it is perfectly consistent with his character.
I reject your reasoning. God created man with free will. the bible clearly puts there. All humans can call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. Romans 10. God shows no favouritism. The fact that God sees them in Hell before hand - is neither here nor there. Every person who ends up in Hell deserves to be there - and to be tortured forever. You have not refuted this yet. I say even the people in heaven deserve to be in Hell and tortured for ever. God takes no pleasure in the punishment or the judgment of any person.
You can reject it till the cows come home but you can't refute it, all of your attempted distractions come to naught.God sees you in hell before he creates you can your much vaunted free will change that and prove your god wrong? It's neither here nor there that your god creates billions of people for the sole purpose of torturing them for eternity. That is their purpose just as those who finish in heaven is their purpose because they don't deserve to be there, do they.
It seems you have a very high opinion of humanity. and that is probably a good thing. But you don't seem to have a very accurate picture of God at all. It is ironic how you are happy to selectively choose things about God and yet deny other attributes about him. In fact you even attribute things to him that he says are not true. In doing so the god you talk about is not the god of the bible. You are the one asserting that God has no other purpose - you have yet to prove this. Repeating the same statement is not proof. Perhaps that is how you prove things in your mind - but it wont hold water anywhere else. I asked you for proof texts - or a verse. Gee even an argument might be nice. I have at least provided alternative theories - including the one that everything God does is for his own glory. I honestly cannot refute an argument that has not been presented. I am waiting for that to occur.
That statement does not even make sense. Jesus came to this earth as an act of mercy.
Allegedly Jesus came to turn the other cheek and to reject the eye for an eye and tooth for tooth. Which as usual makes this next quote a lie.
He holds to the justice - of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth
Jesus never came to reject an eye for an eye. He rejected the prevailing view and interpretation at the time by the Jews which was quite different to its OT usage. Jesus is in agreement with the law of proportionality. He was opposed to people taking the law into their own hands which is what was happening in his time.
Of course it is the question. You don't like the question. It is not a given which is why we are having this discussion and why I asked you to back your claim - which you have just admitted you cant. Calling it a given is a copout which we both know. You need to demonstrate that it was God's sole intention - and I don't think it is possible. I have shown even on a very small scale that there are other scenarios. And given that God says what he does is good - I am prepared to start there and go forward. You on the other hand - need to slink around and try and find some reason to support your view. presently, your statements have no support and demonstrate a profound lack of depth.
Once again you are confused regarding the topic under discussion. We are discussing your god's evil nature as demonstrated by his creation of billions of souls just so he can torture them for eternity. Now I've supported my arguments with the bible and your beliefs, see what you can do.
what arguments from the bible? Are you blind or just plain lying? Repeat for me from the posts. This will be fun.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I never said there was five types of death but in order to make you feel better:
physical death
Spiritual death
covenantal death
the death of a reputation.
the death of a civilisation
the death of a species - extinction
The death of a theory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Perhaps. but where there is smoke, there is often fire. Stories and myths arise generally from events and incidents that have happened. Sure at times there are lots of embellishments. But this does not mean that the story themselves was not true.I think the story has a root in a day-dream that the world began as a pardise and camp-fire stories about what went wrong.
disgusted's day dream is not the one based in the paradise story - but in his assumptions that brings from his own Western world - and tries to put back into the ancient worlds of Paul and of Genesis. All I have tried to do is ask him to consider what these same stories might have looked like for those from that part of the world.
Death is part of our world. But not all death is the same. That is my point.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
I'd call that the 'ptolmaic' approach. To preserve their initil assumption (earth centred circular motion) ptolmaic astronomers had to invent cycles within cycles, epicycles, deferents,equants etc etc...To preserve their assumptions theologians invented 'total depravity', 'original sin', 'unconditional election' etc etc. Atheism is like copernicanism.
You might be interested to know that the most accurate astronomer of the day around Copernicus was Tyche Brahe. He took neither the Copernicus or the Galileo view, but a quite astounding third position. Yet, his results were far more accurate than either the other two including his student the great Keppler.
Assumptions - exist in any worldview, including atheism. There is no getting away with assumption. I don't understand these doctrines to have been invented so far as they were uncovered. Like the doctrine of gravity. It was already there - it did not suddenly arise because Newton invented it. He simply explained what everyone already seemed to understand intuitively - that what goes up - must come down. The same can't be said for Galileo. His theory was quite profound in that it was not intuitive. Today we follow Galileo because we are told too; not because it is intuitive. We still get up in the morning and watch the sun rise. We still watch the sun go from one side of the sky to the other. We watch the sun go down. We however are prepared to accept that the earth goes around the sun and that we as a planet ourselves spin, even though we don't get motion sickness or don't land in a different spot when we jump - despite the fact that we much be travelling very fast. It simply is not intuitive. It is because we take a blind trust in our scientists. And I say that for the most part because 99% of people on this planet don't have the capacity to test his theories even a little bit. a very small percentage of people - scientists (priests) can test - and tell us to believe. Imagine the ridicule if we disbelieved?
But this is quite different to the theologians and to Newton who uncovered or explained what we all knew. People follow their own nature, we see this. Etc. Etc.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
By theologians you mean John Calvin, who is a figure of the reformation in relation to the heretical Roman Catholic Church.These "theologians" you like to reference that debate these things are all protestants I would imagine.Over a thousand years before the reformation, these issues were ironed out by the church fathers and. ecumenical councils. The Church knows what it believes!The west is run by lawyers who have to codify everything. Interestingly enough, I am pretty sure John Calvin was a lawyer!
Yes, Calvin was a lawyer as was Martin Luther and as was Augustine. As was the Apostle Paul.
Tulip interestingly enough was the protestant document opposed to the Catholic church. It followed Augustine's position and took its lead from the early church father's wherein all of its position can be found. The Reformation - as its intent sounds - was to reform the Church closer to its original sense.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
> @keithprosserShe was being punished for her father's hastiness to make a vow. And no, it wasn't right. In a way, he was being punished for doing such a thing.And his daughter went down very bravely and with dignity.Christians are not really supposed to make vows, because all vows are like a vow to God. We have to keep them. In fact, we Orthodox don't even exchange vows when we get married! That said, we of course take marriage very seriously. The priest will pray a blessing, but we don't really do vows. It's not necessary to us.That said, presbyters might make vows when they take up that cross. I am not too sure. I could be wrong.
Mopac, you are incorrect. She was not punished. She was the victim, the innocent victim here. He made a foolish vow - and then went through with it.
You are correct in that Christians, indeed anyone should not make a rash vow. I don't agree that Christians ought not make vows. There are many occasions when a vow or an oath is quite acceptable. In court, at a wedding, ordination, baptism, when civil servants are swearing allegiance to the country and the people they represent.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
I don't think the Bible is punishing his daughter. I think Jephthah foolishly made a promise he ought never to have rashly made. I think it is him who was punished. His daughter was clearly a victim, but not of God, of Jephthah.
After all, did God demand that he sacrifice his daughter? Did God request it at all? And if Jephthah had not fulfilled his vow - would God have required it of him?
We do see innocents in the bible as it were being the victim. I don't think the bible condoned what Jephthah did. I have never heard any Christian person condone what he did. I don't recall anywhere in the bible where Jephthah is lifted up as some kind of model for his foolish actions here.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Every person who ends up in Hell deserves to be there - and to be tortured forever. You have not refuted this yet. I say even the people in heaven deserve to be in Hell and tortured for ever.
That's the theory of 'total depravity'.But it ignore the obvious fact that there are good people and bad people.Theologians trying to solve the problem of evil came up with the concept of total depravity and then to make total depravity work they invented original sin which has the required effect of turning even good people into sinners.I don't deny what you,Tradesecret, say makes a sort of logical sense in its own terms. But it is logic that applies to a fantasy world where there are omniscient gods and sin can be inherited from ancestors.
The question of good people and bad people is a subject all by itself. What makes a person good and what makes a person bad? After all, if God is good, how can an atheist be good if everything they do is resistant to God? I do not deny that atheists and others who are not Christians can do things which are good, but it is not our measure that counts surely? After all, if people want to go to heaven, then surely it has to be conceded that it is God's definition of good that matters? The Bible tells us that "all day God held out his hand for any to come to him, and no one not even one came." You and I both know that human nature is depraved. People might have the free will to do what they want - but do they have the free will to do what they ought? If a bank robber walked out of a bank and sees a cop standing there, what will he do? What ought he do? I suggest that what he ought to do is hand himself in. But what will he do? Run and try and escape. Why is that people slow down whenever they see a police officer? Why is it that Adam Smith - despite the fact that he was not a Christian, still note that it was people's self interest which was their ruling motivation? Smith, like the others - are depraved. Total depravity does not teach that people are as bad as they can possibly be - but rather that they are so tainted by sin that everything in their life is affected. Like a glass of water wherein someone drops a few drops of ink. Will we drink it? Hardly so, because these few drops have coloured the rest of the water. Yet it is not pure ink. Our depraved natures stop us from coming to God, we ought to get down on our knees and beg him for mercy. But our depravity refuses to do this. This is why sometimes I throw out the challenge to people to "become Christians all by themselves". I have never seen anyone do it - and I am prepared to stake my faith on it.
Still thanks for the feedback.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Describe death.Your god via the bible claims that death entered the world through one man, ergo death did not exist before that man. You and your god have nothing but lies.
You really do live in a dream world don't you?
Genesis tells us that God told Adam in the day that eat of the fruit you will surely die. Did Adam die physically on that day? No. So either God was a liar or he was telling the truth. If it was physical death then God was a liar. This makes no sense in the context of the Bible itself and nor does it make sense from a theological or soteriological sense.
So the question is: if Adam did die, how did he die? Some of my charismatic and evangelical friends would suggest that Adam died spiritually. I think this is foolish because it we spiritualise death, then why don't we spiritualise the rest of Genesis? They don't generally have an answer to that question.
I think it is quite true to say that Israel was involved covenantally with God over many centuries. Many of which are written down. Covenantal death is a real thing in the nation of Israel and in the church. Covenantal death is also something practiced in middle eastern countries - even you I am sure have heard fathers say to their sons when they betrayed the family "You are no longer my son, from now on you are dead to me". This obviously is not a physical death or a spiritual death. I suggest it is a covenantal death. Dead to the family and to the family inheritance. When Adam sinned, God cut him off from the family tree - literally, he could not eat from the tree of life which would give him immortality.
Romans tells us that from Adam death reigned. Now I don't have an issue with this including physical death - but it is not primarily physical death. Because the corollary statement says that from Christ - life reigned. Now I am sure you don't think this means that Christians teach that when people become Christians they don't die physically anymore. Because I certainly don't take that view and I don't know any Christians who would take that view. We do talk about sleeping. But we don't take the view that people don't die. We talk about being covenantally restored to the tree of life - becoming part of the family of God again - ingrafted back into the family tree.
Hence, when Adam died, he died covenantally and was put out of the family - along with all of his descendants. When people return back to Christ, they are received back into the family with life - through Jesus.
I think it is very likely that physical death of animals, tree life, insects occurred before Adam fell. I don't know about human life - I am not sure it really matters because I don't need to hold to a physical 6 day creation. Not that I reject it out of hand. But death I think must have happened otherwise when God said - you will die - would have not been a stick. Adam must have known what death was in order to be fearful about it.
I also am of the view that Adam was not created immortal. I think he was created mortal. If he was immortal and could not die - then there would be no point to a tree of life. If he had not eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, I think he would have eventually died unless he had access to the tree of life. This is not contradictory to anything I have read in either the OT or the NT. Perhaps you could enlighten me otherwise?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Total Depravity
For such low life despicable bastards you sure have an outlandishly high opinion of yourselves in the rest of it.
Hubris being the highest state you reach it would seem.
Do you teach your children that your god deliberately creates billions of people for the sole purpose of torturing them for eternity?
I don't teach my children the lies you have made up about God.
will be unable to resist his grace because grace is a gift that comes from God and is given without even the condition of receiving it.
Can you even imagine how asinine this is?
Grace is unmerited gift. It is given - like life is given to every person who exists. No one asks for life - it is given them and they cannot resist it in the first place - it is only after many years that they might gain a clue that they can kill themselves or that life is not forever. Eternal life is also given without the beneficiaries consent.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
you don't mention the story of Jephthah who sacrifices his daughter in exchange for victory over the Ammonites.Judges 1111 Jephthah the Gileadite was a mighty warrior.... And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door ... I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”32 Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the Lord gave them into his hands...34 When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh no, my daughter! You have brought me down and I am devastated. I have made a vow to the Lord that I cannot break.”39 ... and he did to her as he had vowed.
You are correct, I did not mention this story. But even though you have raised it - it would not change my mind. This is not an example of God ordering or condoning child sacrifice. It is a story of a foolish man making a vow he should have known better to make. God held him to it - but that is a separate issue to child sacrifice.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
I am not sure it was without provocation. Certainly, it was the promised land by God to the Israelites. By all accounts the people in Canaan were fighting with each other anyway and war was inevitable with or without the Jews attempting to settle.
Still, you might have a point. Although I am sure the people in Canaan were not going to simply let Israel settle in the land near them.
It is my understanding that the people of Canaan were full of quite evil and repugnant people - and were essentially nations that God had allowed mercifully to remain for an extra generation, until their time was done.
It is my opinion - that God would not have requested Israel to take over the land if the people were god fearing people who cared for the land and the other people. Still that is my view based upon a particular view I hold too.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Why is it evil? It is completely just. Why would torturing someone in Hell for eternity be evil? God is not bound to the Geneva Convention you realise.
hahahahahaha very funny. It's not the torturing for eternity that I'm claiming is evil (even though it is) it's your god's decision to create billions of people for that specific person, that is what makes him evil. He knows all. hahahahaha
Ok that puts a different slant on it. How do you come to the conclusion that God has decided billions of people for that specific purpose? Chapters and verses would be nice - so we know that you aren't just conjecturing the same based on false logic. The fact that God knows that billions of people will be tortured - and indeed even for the sake of the argument that he planned it - does not ipso facto follow that it was his specific purpose. I accept for the sake of the argument that it could mean this - but I certainly don't agree that it the case. I can see other events in history that are the fallout of what is the specific purpose. For instance - God's purpose in relation to Job was particular and specific - but the fallout to his children was the indirect result of his purpose with Job. I am not implying that God did not ordain or even plan for their death - but their death was not the particular purpose - Job was. So what I am saying is that I see no evidence in the Scripture or even from any reasoning that you have put forward that God has created billions of people to be tortured for eternity specifically to torture them. That is your conjecture. But I reject it as any part of what I have read or understood.
People who have rejected God choose to do so of their own free will. God is eternal - hence his mercy is eternal but so are his punishments. The fact that you - a mere mortal think that punishment of any kind ought to be short as possible - is not the measure of evil.
Your god creates people with no chance to do anything but reject him, he sees them in hell before he creates them and puts them there for his sadistic pleasure. The rest of your gibberish I'll assume is a result of your failure to comprehend the English language and your gross dishonesty in attributing to me what you think I think. You don't have a clue.
I reject your reasoning. God created man with free will. the bible clearly puts there. All humans can call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. Romans 10. God shows no favouritism. The fact that God sees them in Hell before hand - is neither here nor there. Every person who ends up in Hell deserves to be there - and to be tortured forever. You have not refuted this yet. I say even the people in heaven deserve to be in Hell and tortured for ever. God takes no pleasure in the punishment or the judgment of any person.
God is just and his judgments are fair and equitable. He holds to the justice - of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. In other words he holds to proportionality.
And yet he went out of his way allegedly to disavow that claim by allegedly coming all the way UP to earth. Because your god creates billions of souls for the express purpose of torturing them for eternity your claims concerning his "justice" are bald faced lies.
That statement does not even make sense. Jesus came to this earth as an act of mercy. People who receive mercy do so because they don't deserve it. Anyone who comes to God and is forgiven - does so on the basis that they don't deserve it. It is not fair that they receive God's mercy. But it is mercy and grace. Again you have no evidence to support your absurd claims.
The question then is whether or not - being tortured for ever is proportionate to sinning against God? If you can demonstrate that it is not proportionate - that your sin is not worthy of eternal punishment, then you may well have a point. But unless you can demonstrate it, then you have no right to call it evil. Your insinuation that God is evil is nothing less than spite.
The question is nothing like that, torturing someone for eternity is evil is a given. Creating someone for the sole purpose of torturing them for eternity is the very essence of evil.
I don't insinuate anything, I state categorically that the god you believe in is the absolute essence of evil and I use your beliefs and your holy book as evidence in support of my declaration and you can't refute a single word because they are your beliefs.
Of course it is the question. You don't like the question. It is not a given which is why we are having this discussion and why I asked you to back your claim - which you have just admitted you cant. Calling it a given is a copout which we both know. You need to demonstrate that it was God's sole intention - and I don't think it is possible. I have shown even on a very small scale that there are other scenarios. And given that God says what he does is good - I am prepared to start there and go forward. You on the other hand - need to slink around and try and find some reason to support your view. presently, your statements have no support and demonstrate a profound lack of depth.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
I love it when you guys try so desperately and ineffectually to justify your totally conflicted beliefs.
Gee I missed the part when I was trying to justify anything. I responded to your illogical and ill-informed logic.
Whatever God does is good. He is always holy and just. I don't consider that he committed infanticide, genocide, or human sacrifice. In every case you can cite, it is always the human who does any of these things.
Allegedly at your god's command. Ever heard of the Amalekites
You did read my post, didn't you? Obviously not. Idiot. Yes, I have heard of the Amalekites. I am surprised that you have. Obviously from not primary sources, though. Let me repeat it for you.
If you are correct and God does not exist, then it is simply humans attempting to blame God for commanding them to do so. If I am correct and God exists, then each of these humans still has free will not to do any of these things if it were considered to be immoral.
Which is more immoral, disobeying a command from god or infanticide?
I don't know wise guy? how about you tell us? As I said, if God does not exist, you are merely repeating human excuses and if God does exist, the human did not have to obey. Morality is what?
On the other hand, given that morality seems in human terms to be determined by the culture at any particular time,it might well be that people in those times did not have any moral concerns with these matters.Even though your god had set moral standards for them for decades. Which is more immoral disobeying your god's command or genocide?
Where did God ever command his people not to defend themselves when they were being attacked? When did the Hebrew people ever attack a nation without provocation? what is more immoral? Letting the Amakalites sacrificing their children or putting the parents to death? It sounds pretty evil to let them live when killing them could prevent evil against their children.
If that is the case, then you are being culturally insensitive and take the arrogant view that the 21st century is somehow more moral than these ones. This of course is a nonsense, isn't?
Perhaps not the 21st century's morals but mine certainly are, I've never committed genocide.
I am not saying you have - but can you legitimately put 21st century morals on a society before AD? I would say that was pretty dumb.
It is absurd to place 21st century morals on any culture prior to it, unless you believe that morals are self existent apart from one's own culture. Hence you take either the command divine view - which you don't or you believe that absolutes exist apart from time and culture. And if that is the case, I would love to see your theory to support such a thing.
So you still practice stoning non virgin wives to death as commanded by your god? Amazing how your contradictory beliefs always come back to destroy your contradictory beliefs.
How am I contradictory any of my beliefs? You don't even know what I believe. God did not command anyone to stone non-virgin wives to death per se. And even if he did, so what? I certainly do not hold to the view that what an ancient culture thinks was moral is what I think is moral. But if God did command non-virgin wives to be stoned for adultery, I would not have a particular issue with it. Why would I? Many people in our so called modern progressive society condone the murder of babies everyday. I hardly find that very moral. whereas you probably approve of it. Re-defining a human life as an embryo or a foetus is a word game - and ultimately immoral - to justify murder.
As for my views and science - if you took the time to read my post you would have observed that there are three views - divine command, modernist, and post modern. I linked science and absolutes with the modern view - not the divine command system. Idiot.And what makes you think those claims mean anything to anyone but you.You'll be running away and claiming victory shortly. You stayed resolutely away from the human sacrifice, any particular reason.LOL
I have not stayed away from any topic. I responded to what you talked about. Human sacrifice was not practised in accordance with the Hebrew bible. the episode of Abraham and Isaac is a very isolated incident - and one where the child was not even sacrificed. You can use it if you want but I don't find it an incident of child sacrifice. As for claiming victory, duh, what is the point of such a thing. I am not trying to score points. For me it is not a game. Even though for you it is.
modernism is an absolutism position. I note you are not even attempting to prove it. Post modernism which I actually think is what you do agree with - does not give you any legs to fight this debate which is why you avoided referring to it. To claim that the 21century morals is higher than those in the pre BC time is what you are saying - but the brutal truth is - you don't even agree with absolutes. I don't have to claim victory - your ignorance and your silence reveals to any who reads this - where your discussion leads to logically. But - what do you say " don't confuse me with logic. facts just get in the road". Idiot.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
But moral in the sense that he determines what is right and wrong. I take the view that morality is truly following God's morality.So you believe in divine command, if god does it it's moral like infanticide, genocide and human sacrifice.with absolutes - and scienceOh lordy lordy, you do get confused. There is nothing scientific in your beliefs or your morality.
Whatever God does is good. He is always holy and just. I don't consider that he committed infanticide, genocide, or human sacrifice. In every case you can cite, it is always the human who does any of these things. If you are correct and God does not exist, then it is simply humans attempting to blame God for commanding them to do so. If I am correct and God exists, then each of these humans still has free will not to do any of these things if it were considered to be immoral. On the other hand, given that morality seems in human terms to be determined by the culture at any particular time, it might well be that people in those times did not have any moral concerns with these matters. If that is the case, then you are being culturally insensitive and take the arrogant view that the 21st century is somehow more moral than these ones. This of course is a nonsense, isn't?
It is absurd to place 21st century morals on any culture prior to it, unless you believe that morals are self existent apart from one's own culture. Hence you take either the command divine view - which you don't or you believe that absolutes exist apart from time and culture. And if that is the case, I would love to see your theory to support such a thing.
As for my views and science - if you took the time to read my post you would have observed that there are three views - divine command, modernist, and post modern. I linked science and absolutes with the modern view - not the divine command system. Idiot.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Of Course God knows all things that he needs to know. and anything that can be known.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Why is it evil? It is completely just. Why would torturing someone in Hell for eternity be evil? God is not bound to the Geneva Convention you realise.
People who have rejected God choose to do so of their own free will. God is eternal - hence his mercy is eternal but so are his punishments. The fact that you - a mere mortal think that punishment of any kind ought to be short as possible - is not the measure of evil.
God is just and his judgments are fair and equitable. He holds to the justice - of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. In other words he holds to proportionality.
The question then is whether or not - being tortured for ever is proportionate to sinning against God? If you can demonstrate that it is not proportionate - that your sin is not worthy of eternal punishment, then you may well have a point. But unless you can demonstrate it, then you have no right to call it evil. Your insinuation that God is evil is nothing less than spite.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Sorry, it is not a lie.
Romans talks about human death into the world through sin.
And the kind of death is covenantal death.
since Adam - covenantal death has reigned - and this is the kind of death that Adam experienced by being thrown out of the garden.
It was separation from the tree of life - of excommunication. not able to eat at the table of the Lord.
You interpret in your own way if you like. I will use the Bible to interpret the Bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You don't understand.The Ultimate Reality is God.Every atheist argument is contingent on making God something other than this, so it is not meaningless. Quite the opposite.And another. thing, there is no "my ultimate reality". The words are not meaningless.Do you understand what ultimate reality means? There can only be ONE. It is what it is. Exactly what it means. How can words do it justice? That is what we recognize as being The One True God. The very God of Truth.The church fathers didn't teach Calvinism. It isn't what the church teaches.I don't normally link outside the site, but this article is first in a series that pretty well explains the issue specifically between what Orthodoxy teaches and Calvinsim.
It would be better to ask a Calvinist what they believe rather than the subjective interpretations and criticism of non-Calvinists.
I am a Calvinist. I am Presbyterian. I suggest that all true Christians are reformed in Doctrine.
A Calvinist is someone who simply holds the truths of the Scriptures as understood by the Apostles and taught by the church fathers. Augustine several hundred years later taught Calvinism years before Calvin came along.
The Core Essence of Calvinism is not predestination despite what anti-Calvinists say. In fact if you were to read Calvin's Institutes - four volume systematic theology - predestination hardly rates a mention. The core message of Calvinism, like the NT Scriptures is salvation by faith through grace. Trusting in the righteousness of Christ as Romans 10 clearly puts it. TULIP is an acronym that some use to describe Calvinism. I note it is primarily used today by non-Calvinists as a slander. But I like it and I teach it to my children in the following manner:
Total Depravity - I teach my children that this means all humanity has fallen into sin. That there is no one who is good. I don't teach like the link alludes to that humanity lost the image of God. That was a lie and a misrepresentation of what we believe. We hold the view that the image of God is in every human. Yet we also teach that all humans are sinful and that everyone because of this sin - deserves to go Hell.
Unconditional Election - I teach my children that this means that no one can earn their salvation. That in fact the only way to reconciliation with God is through Jesus. It means we don't have to meet conditions. We don't have to be a particular race, or colour, or sex, educational level, or political bent, or sexual orientation, or rich or poor, or even creed. We cant earn our way to heaven with money, or bribes, or importance, or intelligence, or by doing good works. Elections is entirely in God's hands.
Limited Atonement - despite some people's misrepresentation of what Calvinist's teach, this doctrine asserts primarily that not all people go to heaven. It is a doctrine of exclusivity. Yet it is a doctrine of assurance for believers. It teaches that those whom Jesus died for will be saved because their sins have definitely been atoned for. We would argue that unlimited atonement means that all people go to heaven because Jesus has paid the price for all people.
Irresistible Grace - We teach our children that those God has called and who recognise his voice - will be unable to resist his grace because grace is a gift that comes from God and is given without even the condition of receiving it.
Perseverance of the saints - We teach our children than those who are God's people will live lives in accordance with his will. Hence, though we don't believe good works saves any person, we take the view that all those who are saved will by virtue of their salvation want to and indeed be known for their good works. As James teaches - faith without works is dead.
Are we the only true church? No but we are part of the One True Church for we hold the truths of the apostles and the ecumenical creeds and we seek to live in accordance with the Spirit of God in his Word.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
I don't know - why don't you ask him? Perhaps he might answer you - one who is so mighty and clever with your words.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
How does omniscience make God evil? Omniscience is knowing all things that can be known. Of course we can argue that knowing means "intimacy" such as the Adam knew Eve and they had a child. This of course is the core meaning - not sex - but intimacy. God planned all things and brings all things to pass. This would include the freewill for people to commit heinous and evil acts. This is one of the reasons the church talks about first and second causes.
It is to clarify our position. We know nothing can occur without the foreknowledge and purpose of God. Sometimes we call this the hidden will of God. We also know that God is not responsible for sin. And we know that God has a revealed will - which we can read about in the bible which reveals his view on things he wishes for us to know.
We cannot understand his hidden will. We know his revealed will. We know that his hidden will always comes to pass. Yet, we are to comply with his revealed will.
Does this present problems for the church and Christianity? Absolutely. Does this make it wrong? Of course not. Does it make God evil? No. Just because God knows something evil is about to happen and could prevent it from happening but chooses not to, does not make God evil. How can we possibly know God's motivations for anything except what he has revealed? In any event, to say he could stop it from happening also in one sense denies that he is the one who brings all things to pass.
God could have created a world where everybody did not sin and did what was good. But he did not for his own reasons. (Actually he did create a world without sin and where everyone did what was good, yet man's first decision - was to do evil) I take the view that despite the fact that I cannot explain it - that his motivations were holy and in accordance with his own desires and interests. Given his obviously altogether higher wisdom and power than me - I am ok with this. There is little I could do about it anyway. Yet, I do not need to commence with the notion that somehow this makes him evil. I certainly don't have a higher opinion about myself than I need to.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
What is your point?
That is in complete agreement with what I said wrote.
Created: