|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
 Posted - 12/12/2004 : 19:34:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
[purple]Killing children is wrong. If your god does it, then your god is an evil god. If you worship a god who commits evil acts, then you are evil.
God takes and gives life, Moakley, but is never a murderer. All life belongs to Him. How do you think death came about, Moakley? Who rules over death? Is it in man's hand when he will live or die. I think not. So when anyone dies, God allows it and in some cases, is the cause of it by His judgment. In every case, however, men brought about all the evil in the world with the help of Satan. God had nothing to do with all the sinful acts of man. All his murdering, maiming, beating, raping, pillaging,lying, stealing and so on. When God brings "pay back" to an evil group of people who have been pillaging and killing for centuries, you cry "foul!" You would make a horrible judge.
Either through intent or ignorance you missed my point. I said:
quote:
Clearly, if the Christian God commands the killing of children, then it is a good and righteous act. By this same standard, if you are a fine Christian woman and God tells you to kill your five children, then by killing your five children you would be performing a good and righteous act.
There is a woman in Texas who is being punsihed by men for acting upon God's instruction to her. But according to your definition this is a righteous act and shouldn't be judged by men. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
 |
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2004 : 20:09:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
On the contrary, "without faith, it is impossible to please God"
Actually, faith allow Gods to exist.
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Now some faith is necessary whenever you evaluate what someone says.
Initially, perhaps, but if it is important, and with time, it should be possible to verify or falsify what was said.
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
For example, when one reads a book in the Bible he assumes some faith in the author, in that he must believe that the author was truthful in what he wrote.
Not necessarily. I believe that the human authors were perhaps sincere in what they wrote, but that does not imply that what they wrote about was the truth, nor even original.
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
If you think is was just a bunch of liars, then why are you even here discussing this?
Irrational ideas in the public forum need to be exposed for what they are.
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Some faith is needed then to start, before you even evaluate what was said. This doesn't mean that our intellect is not needed, only that in and of itself is not enough. Point is, the Bible is useless to study to anyone who outright rejects it as having no merit. You must have some faith.
No. You read the bible in order to make an informed decision about its contents. The only time faith is required is when you accept the bible as some literal truth. Faith is a firm belief in an assertion without evedence.
Doomar, I apologize, but I will not have time to respond to any reply that you make for a couple of days. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2004 : 21:26:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
VerlchBut He gives us position on this planet, heirarchy and He loves each and every one of us that He would send His only begotten Son, that never sinned, to die for the billions of humans that lived on this planet. Had Jesus sinned once, He would have died a sinner and all of us would have died a sinner. There would have been no hope of salvation.
Well, then, maybe you could explain this? What's it called when you take something of someone else's without asking permission?
Luke 19, verses 29-36.
19:29 And it came to pass, when he was come nigh to Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount called the mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples,
19:30 Saying, Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither.
19:31 And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him.
19:32 And they that were sent went their way, and found even as he had said unto them.
19:33 And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt?
19:34 And they said, The Lord hath need of him.
19:35 And they brought him to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon.
19:36 And as he went, they spread their clothes in the way.
quote:
DoomarOver a few thousand years only a few incidents are mentioned in the Bible of God judging a people severely by killing even the children. "Behold the goodness and severity of God". A believer assumes that God had His reasons for these actions and His most severe judgments are reserved to severe cases of rebellion and evil. As I noted, only a few such cases are mentioned in the Bible which spans a period of perhaps 6,000 years. You and others don't understand the reasons, and I probably don't either, but we differ in that I believe God had His reasons and they were justified, because I believe He is ultimately fair and just, while you condemn His actions and condemn God himself to be less just than mortal men.
Herein is the evidence of men exalting themselves above God and stating how they are more righteous than He. This is extreme presumption and pride, both serious sins. It's no wonder that God must judge men to weed out the extreme wickedness and preserve goodness.
WTF? "presumption" "pride"? For wondering why someone has infants who weren't even capable of "choosing evil" yet, being killed?
Ok, so it seems that no matter what god does, xians will always find an excuse to rationilze his actions, even though when humans do the exact same actions, they go nuts.
Double standard, anyone?
What believers don't seem to get is: when they point out something that god did that people consider "good" and use that as an example of god's "goodness" they are also judging god by human standards!.
The only difference is that one judgement is positive, one is negative.
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2004 : 22:01:28 [Permalink]
|
It's completely pointless to continue this thread. Doomar just claims that anything god does is A-OK because it's god doing it. I think he fails to realize that he's contradicting himself even in the title of the thread. If, as Doomar claims, no action taken by god can (by definition) be unjust or unmerciful, why bother asking why "bad stuff" is attributed to god?
And what the fuck is wrong with you fundies and your inability to use basic grammar and some minimal punctuation? It's as if you can spot the fundies by the lack of sentence structure and lack of paragraph breaks.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2004 : 08:50:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
In the chat room Wednesday this subject, or one similar to it was being discussed. It related to our understanding of who or what God is and why he does some seemingly "bad" stuff to people if He is indeed "good". I'm sure there was more to the discussion but we can expand on it. Your thoughts, negative toward God or positive are welcome. Please, be respectful in your comments. Even if you hate religion and/or God this thread is about exploring the negative side that we see in the world and read about in the Bible. I am going to bring in a view point that is positive toward God from my own perspective and understanding. I am not afraid of looking at "the dark side". Many people stumble when looking at the dark side and reject any thing to do with God. "If God is so good and loving, why.....(fill in the blank)?" Of course, the darkness in this world remains and evil things happen, that is hard to overlook. There is also goodness and positive things happening all the time. Do I reject the idea of a "devil" when I see all the positive things? No, because most people think God's power trumps the devil's power. So they see God as "responsible" for "the mess", while forgetting about all the good things (black dot on the white screen syndrome). Then, of course, there is your responsibility and mine. We, as human beings, can have an impact on this world and people around us for good or ill. We like to blame someone else for the problems, while convieniently forgetting our responsibilty in the matter. Also, we like to take credit for many good things while blaming God for bad things, and, we fail to give thanks to God for many good things provided for and to us by no hand of our own.
So, that being said, let's begin with a point brought up by "the ignored": Why did God kill children according to the old testament? I need someone, preferrably, the ignored, to point out the book and passage of the Bible he is referring to. Then we can go from there.
Throughout the history of Christianity, practioners have wondered why do bad things happen to good people. And I believe the ignored is talking about the death of Egypt's first born (ensuring at least a significant portion will be young children and infants) before the exodus of the Hebrews under Moses. Christians have a belief that only good flows from God and everything else negative in the world flows from the actions of non-believers or hypocrites.
As I am not a Christian, my beliefs do explain why bad things happen to good people. And that is the actions of others. My theology indicate a rather hands-offish approach to physical manifestations and that the God and Goddess are there for spiritual and emotional growth. Karma is what we make it. If we put out bad, we get bad. If we put out good, we get good. As we do not live in a closed system where only our actions count, bad things will happen. Our karma will help lessen the blow or not dependant on what we have been doing.
As God(dess) cannot be blamed for bad physical manifestations, neither can they take credit for good physical manifestations. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 12/13/2004 08:54:50 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2004 : 11:36:52 [Permalink]
|
I think we missed some of the God slaughetering relatively innocent children quotes
God slaughters 42 children for calling Elisha baldy.
II Kings
2:23
And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24
And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
Have fun teaching your children how to be serial killers and raving psychotics.
|
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
tkster
Skeptic Friend
USA
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2004 : 11:40:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Tkster said, Now, to prove God in general changes
God does change according to men. He answer's men's prayers. In Ninevah, God intended to destroy the city, but gave them the opportunity to repent of their evil ways. The people responded to Jonah's preaching and humbled themselves, from the ruler to the beasts. God saw their reaction and changed His mind, deciding not to destroy them. This mercy is part of His unchanging nature. He responds to the humble soul.
That was your comeback? Please learn how to back statements up rather than throwing them out. Anyhow if you think the Bible is truth, then here it is from the Bible - God DOES change:
Again from medjai:
quote:
I am not going to respond to the ad hominems used by Frankie as a means to belittle me. Instead I will only ask that he stop using them, as this is intended to be a civil discussion, and I can only be pushed so far. Light humor is of course acceptable, but making blind accusations is rather immature.
------------------------------------------
I think it is very important that I put forth the meaning of the words "Relent", "Repent", and "Immutable" as to prevent confusion in regards to this discussion.
Relent: To become more lenient, compassionate, or forgiving.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=relent
Repent: To feel pain on account of; to remember with sorrow.
[Middle English repenten, from Old French repentir : re-, re- + pentir, to be sorry (from Vulgar Latin *paenitre, from Latin paenitre).] (Repent hasn't changed much in meaning at all).
*The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Immutable: Not subject or susceptible to change.
*The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Looking at relent, we can immediately conclude that an immutable being could not relent in that an immutable being is not subject to change, or even susceptible to it (can not be tempted). It is ironic that Frankie would support my side of the argument inadvertantly. By the way, if God is immutable, nothing can calm him down, not even himself.
Interestingly enough, to say that God repented is in actuality less incriminating than that of saying he relents himself. Read the definitions over again if you don't see why. Actually, I will explain it. Since relenting is to 'become more lenient, compassionate, or forgiving, it implies explicit change in God (immutable beings are unchangeable beings). Now, repenting shows grief or sorrow for having allowed or commited past actions/thoughts/events. Although this still implies change, it does so in a lesser degree than that of becoming 'softer', if you will.
------------------------------------------
Frankie has failed to address two of my other key points in regards to my argument.
1. God changes his mind.
2. God can be persuaded.
I will leave these alone until he does so.
------------------------------------------
Frankie has thus employed that those who have translated the most recent Bible's have done so without taking into consideration the modern context of language. He seems to feel that because I left something out that would have actually supported my argument, in fairness (so he would only have to address one of my arguments at a time), I am negligent in the studies of language.
Now its time to look back on the passages I provided.
My comments can be found in [ ] brackets, all content within these will in fact be a part of my argument.
Ezekial 24:14
I the LORD have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent; according to thy ways, and according to thy doings, shall they judge thee, saith the Lord GOD.
[Before Frankie brought in the semantic element to the argument, this passage could have been seen as a direct means of supporting the idea that God does not repent. Yet now, such a concept is not supported. Thus one can not say, based on this passage, that God does not repent unless they are able to show that it is implied, yet in reality, it isn't. God isn't saying he won't regret the things he does, he is simply saying he will act on all that he says he will do, no matter what. In all honesty though, I would say that 'repent' in the context provided does in fact hold to the modern contextualization of the word (he is saying that he won't regret or feel remorse for his actions/words/thoughts).]
Malachi 3:6
For I am the LORD, I change not...
[supports the idea that God is immutable.]
Numbers 23:19
God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of a man that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
[Here we see Frankie try and turn his own tactic around, in an effort to benefit himself. I would say that for him to be able to do this, gives me the right to do so as well. Yet, in context, I would say this usage of repent actually could mean 'relent'. If you look at the passage, it would make just as much sense either way, thus leaving room for opinion.]
James 1:17
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
[I must take the time to look at "neither a shadow of turning" as it is extremely relevant. Such a statement implies that God does not ever doubt his decisions, and that he never even considers changing his mind. Remember this, as it shows direct contradiction (in changing his mind) in the next passage.]
Exodus 32:14
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
[Frankie is either failing to understand the meaning of the above passage, or he is blatantly lying when he says that the above 'repented' actually falls under the meaning of the modern 'relented'. Frankie claims that the Lord was not 'convicted' of anything, yet it is rather obvious that he was. "the evil which he (the Lord) thought to do unto his people." It is clear that the Lord actually "thought to do" something to his people, but after his consolation with Moses, he changes his mind. The conviction was there, and as such, immutability is an impossibility from this alone. He was persuaded, which is contradictory to the idea of immutability. Obviously James 1:17 is in contradiction with this, so is Malachi 3:6, Numbers 23:19, and Ezekial 24:14.]
First Samuel 15:11
It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments.
[If you look at this in context, we see that God is in fact saddened (as you put it) but even more than this we see regret. When a parent gives a child a gift, and that child is ungrateful, parents are not only saddened, but they regret ever having given the child the gift (I am using the allusion to parenthood that you initiated). As such, it is most reasonable to conclude that 'repenteth' in the context at hand means something to the effect of, "brings regret upon me". So we could rephrase this passage to:
"First Samuel 15:11
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2004 : 19:38:33 [Permalink]
|
---------------------------------------------------
I don't see the God of the Bible as malevolent at all. The story very clearly states that God created man as perfect, blessed with the presence of God in our lives. God is the creator, the source of life, and in his presence, we had no physical frailty, no sickness, no death, and nothing to fear in the world. When man chose to disobey God and sin, we had to be separated from this presence. God is consistent in all of His actions, He cannot lie, and He cannot be unjust. Since He had punished the angels for their rebellion by banishing them from heaven and separating them from the presence of God, He did the same to man.
I do not believe this was an act of cruelty, it was an act of mercy. To have remained in the presence of God would have destroyed us, because the corrupt cannot exist in His presence. Thus He gave us a stay of execution by casting us out of paradise. Now, though He cast us from his presence, and thereby saved us from destruction, our physical bodies are now corrupt as well as our spirits. God delivered his judgement that all who were disobedient would suffer death.
Not only are our bodies doomed to death, but we are vulnerable now to all the trials and tribulations of the world. Yes, God can, and does, choose to intervene to save us from suffering at times. However, if He saved everyone from all suffering, it would negate his judgement and make our punishment to no effect. Without punishment, we would never learn the consequences of our rebellion, and this will do us greater harm than physical death. So, in this way, allowing us to suffer is another act of mercy, so that we may be driven to repentance and accept the will of God. Without that, we are doomed to spiritual death, and that is a much greater loss than the physical.
One can see His mercy even more in the grace He offers to us. God knew that, even if we realized our sinful nature, and repented, we would still owe God our lives as payment for our disobedience:
Romans 6:23 : For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
God could not reverse his judgement and remove the curse of death for sin; this would make God a liar and that is impossible. So He came to live as a man, free of sin and corruption, and therefore not owing the wages of sin. By His own free will, He chose to bear the burden of death for all of us, that our debts may be paid and we can be restored to eternal life. This is according to God's law that the legal heir can make restitution for the debts of his ancestors. As Christ was the legal heir, in direct descent, from Adam, and He was a perfect being, the only begotten son of God, God Himself in the flesh, it was His death and His death alone that could repay the debt of all mankind.
Now, if God were such a evil, petty, and vengeful being, why would He bother to suffer the tribulations of this world, even to the point of death, simply to redeem a violent, hateful, dishonest, unmerciful, ungrateful, irresponsible, unbelieving and unrepentant lot such as mankind?
---------------------------------------------- |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2004 : 19:57:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Now, if God were such a evil, petty, and vengeful being, why would He bother to suffer the tribulations of this world, even to the point of death, simply to redeem a violent, hateful, dishonest, unmerciful, ungrateful, irresponsible, unbelieving and unrepentant lot such as mankind?
Exactly!
An atheist argument in a nutshell.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2004 : 21:10:42 [Permalink]
|
i]Originally posted by verlch[/i]
---------------------------------------------------
I don't see the God of the Bible as malevolent at all. The story very clearly states that God created man as perfect, blessed with the presence of God in our lives. God is the creator, the source of life, and in his presence, we had no physical frailty, no sickness, no death, and nothing to fear in the world. When man chose to disobey God and sin, we had to be separated from this presence. God is consistent in all of His actions, He cannot lie, and He cannot be unjust. Since He had punished the angels for their rebellion by banishing them from heaven and separating them from the presence of God, He did the same to man.
I do not believe this was an act of cruelty, it was an act of mercy. To have remained in the presence of God would have destroyed us, because the corrupt cannot exist in His presence. Thus He gave us a stay of execution by casting us out of paradise. Now, though He cast us from his presence, and thereby saved us from destruction, our physical bodies are now corrupt as well as our spirits. God delivered his judgement that all who were disobedient would suffer death.
Not only are our bodies doomed to death, but we are vulnerable now to all the trials and tribulations of the world. Yes, God can, and does, choose to intervene to save us from suffering at times. However, if He saved everyone from all suffering, it would negate his judgement and make our punishment to no effect. Without punishment, we would never learn the consequences of our rebellion, and this will do us greater harm than physical death. So, in this way, allowing us to suffer is another act of mercy, so that we may be driven to repentance and accept the will of God. Without that, we are doomed to spiritual death, and that is a much greater loss than the physical.
One can see His mercy even more in the grace He offers to us. God knew that, even if we realized our sinful nature, and repented, we would still owe God our lives as payment for our disobedience:
Romans 6:23 : For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
God could not reverse his judgement and remove the curse of death for sin; this would make God a liar and that is impossible. So He came to live as a man, free of sin and corruption, and therefore not owing the wages of sin. By His own free will, He chose to bear the burden of death for all of us, that our debts may be paid and we can be restored to eternal life. This is according to God's law that the legal heir can make restitution for the debts of his ancestors. As Christ was the legal heir, in direct descent, from Adam, and He was a perfect being, the only begotten son of God, God Himself in the flesh, it was His death and His death alone that could repay the debt of all mankind.
Now, if God were such a evil, petty, and vengeful being, why would He bother to suffer the tribulations of this world, even to the point of death, simply to redeem a violent, hateful, dishonest, unmerciful, ungrateful, irresponsible, unbelieving and unrepentant lot such as mankind?
Yea, what he said! |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
| Edited by - Doomar on 12/13/2004 21:11:25 |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2004 : 21:14:40 [Permalink]
|
| Tkster, you are in the wrong thread fighting the wrong battle. God does change his mind about some things, but not His principles. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2004 : 21:26:39 [Permalink]
|
Moakley said,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, if the Christian God commands the killing of children, then it is a good and righteous act. By this same standard, if you are a fine Christian woman and God tells you to kill your five children, then by killing your five children you would be performing a good and righteous act.
Moakley, does one need to explain how not all killing is under the same circumstance and for the same reasons? Surely you understand that some killing is self-defense, some murder, some war, some judgment of God, some accidents. Killing in murder cannot be equated with killing in judgment. Do we put a stamp of approval on "killing of children" because God did it in the Bible? Of course not. This killing was a result of judgment on that entire nation of people with no exceptions. In other cases we see God condemning people who killed their children as sacrifices on an altar to some false image of a god. Obviously, killing of children is not an acceptable "normal" practice. Taking something out of context to prove a manevolent point agaist God is really pretty weak. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2004 : 21:31:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
I think we missed some of the God slaughetering relatively innocent children quotes
God slaughters 42 children for calling Elisha baldy.
II Kings
2:23
And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24
And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
Have fun teaching your children how to be serial killers and raving psychotics.
How you came to this conclusion for the meaning of that story is beyond me. I think we could more safely conclude that it is dangerous to mock bald people, especially when they are prophets of God.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
| Edited by - Doomar on 12/13/2004 21:32:42 |
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2004 : 21:33:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Now, if God were such a evil, petty, and vengeful being, why would He bother to suffer the tribulations of this world, even to the point of death, simply to redeem a violent, hateful, dishonest, unmerciful, ungrateful, irresponsible, unbelieving and unrepentant lot such as mankind?
Exactly!
An atheist argument in a nutshell.
Because He loves the human that much He allowed us redemption! A way back to find grace it Gods' eyes! |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
tkster
Skeptic Friend
USA
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2004 : 21:35:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Tkster, you are in the wrong thread fighting the wrong battle. God does change his mind about some things, but not His principles.
Ah yes, selective immutability; the ultimate cop-out. God changes his mind because he's not immutable.
tk |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
