PDA

View Full Version : The Return of the Divine Mother



Rose
03-18-2012, 12:40 PM
Of all life forms, humans alone are the only ones who restrict their own expression of experiencing life to its fullest. I encourage everyone watching this video to allow themselves to fully experience all that it means to be human.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wESwmgAc1o&feature=related

Timmy
04-07-2012, 07:54 PM
:sBo_reflection2:Hi Rose!:sBo_reflection2:

Greetings and salutations...respectfully.


We might not find our selfs on the same page concerning certain things...but we do share some things common in this thread ov life.

Thanks for the food for thought and here's one bakatcha and anyone who will look further than their four square walls, ceiling, and floor.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK6cx7-Odds&feature=related



Sincerely from somewhere outseid the box,

Little Barefooteded Timmy
(bahhhchu can call me Emir or Ouranos if it suits ya')


p.s. FYI: The vocal is Jon Anderson

Rose
04-07-2012, 08:33 PM
:sBo_reflection2:Hi Rose!:sBo_reflection2:

Greetings and salutations...respectfully.


We might not find our selfs on the same page concerning certain things...but we do share some things common in this thread ov life.

Thanks for the food for thought and here's one bakatcha and anyone who will look further than their four square walls, ceiling, and floor.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK6cx7-Odds&feature=related




Sincerely from somewhere outseid the box,

Little Barefooteded Timmy
(bahhhchu can call me Emir or Ouranos if it suits ya')


p.s. FYI: The vocal is Jon Anderson

Thanks for sharing a beautiful human experience...:signthankspin:

Rose

David M
04-08-2012, 06:11 AM
Of all life forms, humans alone are the only ones who restrict their own expression of experiencing life to its fullest. I encourage everyone watching this video to allow themselves to fully experience all that it means to be human.


Hello Rose
I loved the music and the images although I could not find myself agreeing with all the human sentiments.

God is more that "No-thing". God is more than only "Unconditional Love".

I just wish you had not lost sight of God as the loving Father who has lots of things in store for those who love and fear him. The ultimate gift of love open to you is eternal life upon this earth of which we cannot begin to imagine the beautiful pleasures that are in store. Anything you can ever imagine now, will not compare. At minumum, it will consist of all the beauty we see in nature, of which my lifetime, I have only seen a fraction of what God has created.

God is working for the benefit of believers in Him. He wants a relationship with all those who believe in Him. Whilst we cannot see God and while we are in our sinful state, He will not allow us to see Him in His full Glory. Nevertheless, in this life we are instructed to walk with God. For the present, we should walk through life calling on God as our heavenly Father, and trusting Him as we would do our natural Father when we were a child. God wants us to feel His prescene by our side, if we will let Him. It is more joyous walking through life being led by God than not being led at all. Our ultimate hope and joy is not in this life, but in the life to come. As Paul wrote; "if in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable". God is promising to put everything right in future. God is working out His purpose and we have to learn patience and wait. I do not tell God how to correct matters; I know He will, because he has given us plenty of assurance by the things we see happening. We have the assurance of eternal life in that He raised Jesus from the dead. I know you know these things, but you have lost the connection through faith.

All the injustice you see Rose with which I agree (except for where you lay the blame), God will put right. The requirement of God is simply this: Micah 6:8 He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? This is simplicity. These are the motives we must have. Jesus summed up all the law and what the prophets had said and gave us the two great commandments; the second of which is; "to love thy neighbor as thyself." If only everyone in the world had this regard for everyone else, the world would be a far different place and we would not be having our heated discussions on this forum. God has given us these simple rules to live by and it is man that cannot live by them and thus creates all the evil that we see around us and read of in the Bible.

I have to reconcile the goodness and the severity of God with blessings and cursings that come from God. As God has said, He has declared all this from the beginning, and declared it openly. We cannot say we have not been told. I must be humble before God, just as Jesus demonstrated perfect humility and is our ensample. God is all-knowing, and all-wise. It would not be humble of me to claim to know better than God. We have been discussing horrible events which have been written down for our learning. Unfortunately, you are not been seeing the lessons. Therefore, you are forgetting the ultimate love of God that He will show when He gives his faithful believers eternal life. Our battle should not be with God for what you see He has or has not done, when our battle is against the world, and the way humans have made the world the evil place that it is. Hence, the call for faithful believers to come out from the world and be separate. The two can never be reconciled. The world is enmity with God. A radical change has to take place and that will only come about when Christ returns. The plan of God is not changing, God will bring about His purpose and we all have an opportunity to share in it, if that is what we want. The promises of God have not changed from the day God made His first promise to Abraham. It is up to us to change; not God. We are all responsible for the choices we make. No one can make you unhappy; that is a state of mind you have control over. Don't blame anyone or anything for making you unhappy. The same goes for lots of other things we want to lay the blame for.

I agree that for most of the population they are not experiencing the joys of this life to the full. A lot of it is to do with the choices we make for ourselves. God has simply told us what is rquired of us; we do not have to carry a tome of the law around with us everywhere we go. With the right mind; that of Christ, we should not get involved with the world and bring its problems on ourselves. We only have problems with people who are not like-minded. Oh that we could all be like-minded for good.

Again Rose, I just wish you could get the real love of God into perspective, and leave God to deal with the disobedience of men. God is giving every generation a reason to believe Him and accept His gift of salvation, which is eternal life in the kingdom to come. I hope you are able to reconnect with this hope and see God for the goodness that continues to come from Him and not concentrate on the negatives that are building up in your mind. If you could only set your mind on the Promises of God and the wonderful kingdom to come, and the equal opportunity God has given to all without any bias.

Not only are you denying yourself the opportunity by your eagerness to stand correct with yor assertions, you are in danger of robbing young minds from their inheritance for taking them away from God. God will be true to His word and not be merciful to those who prevent young minds coming to Him. If you have one inkling that God does exist, even though you vehemently disagree with the reported things God has done, I hope you will think about the consequences of your actions. God does not want anyone to perish, but if that is what people want to happen to themelves, God will not stop them.


Till next time.


David

Richard Amiel McGough
04-09-2012, 11:52 AM
I just wish you had not lost sight of God as the loving Father who has lots of things in store for those who love and fear him.

God is working for the benefit of believers in Him. He wants a relationship with all those who believe in Him.

Therefore, you are forgetting the ultimate love of God that He will show when He gives his faithful believers eternal life.

Hi David,

Thank your for sharing your beliefs. There are many things you wrote that I would like to discuss, but I think it would be best if we focused on your central point, the idea that God has good plans for people who "believe" while the rest will be excluded.

I don't understand why God would use "belief" in a dogma as a criterion for anything. Most people throughout history never even had a chance to "believe" because they never heard, and of those that have heard, most have held contrary beliefs. For example, you deny that Jesus is God. Most Christians would say that is a damnable heresy and so class you amongst the unbelievers who will not inherit the kingdom of God. But if you are correct that Jesus is not God, then all the "orthodox" Christians would be damned because claiming a man to be God would be a blasphemous error.

And what about all the other versions of Christianity. Mormonism, JWs, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, etc.? What exactly must a person "believe" in order to be saved?

So this is my fundamental problem with Christianity. It says that God has made an arbitrary rule that few have heard and fewer have properly understood!

Why would God judge me according to my opinion about one religious dogma amongst all the dogmas in the world? Why would he judge me when I CANNOT believe because of valid intellectual problems with the Bible, such as the fact that it contains errors, contradictions, and moral abominations attributed to God? I CANNOT believe the book because it is demonstrably false on many points. Why would God condemn me for being honest?

Stated plainly, it seems insane to me. I can't imagine that the true God would set up such an irrational system of salvation.

All the best,

Richard

CWH
04-09-2012, 01:22 PM
Hi David,

Thank your for sharing your beliefs. There are many things you wrote that I would like to discuss, but I think it would be best if we focused on your central point, the idea that God has good plans for people who "believe" while the rest will be excluded.

I don't understand why God would use "belief" in a dogma as a criterion for anything. Most people throughout history never even had a chance to "believe" because they never heard, and of those that have heard, most have held contrary beliefs. For example, you deny that Jesus is God. Most Christians would say that is a damnable heresy and so class you amongst the unbelievers who will not inherit the kingdom of God. But if you are correct that Jesus is not God, then all the "orthodox" Christians would be damned because claiming a man to be God would be a blasphemous error.

And what about all the other versions of Christianity. Mormonism, JWs, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, etc.? What exactly must a person "believe" in order to be saved?

So this is my fundamental problem with Christianity. It says that God has made an arbitrary rule that few have heard and fewer have properly understood!

Why would God judge me according to my opinion about one religious dogma amongst all the dogmas in the world? Why would he judge me when I CANNOT believe because of valid intellectual problems with the Bible, such as the fact that it contains errors, contradictions, and moral abominations attributed to God? I CANNOT believe the book because it is demonstrably false on many points. Why would God condemn me for being honest?

Stated plainly, it seems insane to me. I can't imagine that the true God would set up such an irrational system of salvation.

All the best,

Richard
It doesn't matter if there are a million denominations and religions , just believe in 2 things.... Love God with all your heart, soul and might and love others as your self. Remember to do God's will. Do it and you are not fsr from the kingdom of heaven.

God Blessed in Jesus name. :pray:

David M
04-09-2012, 05:23 PM
Hello Richard


Hi David,

Thank your for sharing your beliefs. There are many things you wrote that I would like to discuss, but I think it would be best if we focused on your central point, the idea that God has good plans for people who "believe" while the rest will be excluded.
God has made it very clear about the type of people who will perish. It is not necessary to produce a quote to support this. Universal salvation is not taught in the Bible and I shudder to think of the consequences if it was. It is not my place to judge nor is it my place to limit God's mercy.


I don't understand why God would use "belief" in a dogma as a criterion for anything. Most people throughout history never even had a chance to "believe" because they never heard, and of those that have heard, most have held contrary beliefs. For example, you deny that Jesus is God. Most Christians would say that is a damnable heresy and so class you amongst the unbelievers who will not inherit the kingdom of God. But if you are correct that Jesus is not God, then all the "orthodox" Christians would be damned because claiming a man to be God would be a blasphemous error.
Those who have not received the law, are not under the condemnation of the law and therefore, I leave it to God to be just and show mercy on whom He will, if they are judged.
God is looking for obedience. Jesus demonstrated perfect obedience. Faith and belief is necessary;(Heb 11:6) But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
With others, I claim Jesus is not God. If I am wrong in my belief of his nature, I cannot be accused of diminishing the victory and the accomplishment of Jesus or of not holding him in the highest esteem. I praise God for providing Jesus and providing a way for us to be saved. I acknowledge God as the One and only true God and that His Only Begotten Son is living for evermore and has earned the highest position in Heaven next to God, and who is presently our mediator between man and God and eventually we shall see Jesus and be with Jesus in the kingdom. I shall leave it to God to decide if what I believe is blasphemous' otherwise it is the word of man against me. I hold God in the highest possible esteem and Jesus as His only begotten Son. The promises of God are to those who believe this (John3:16) I am confident that the Trinity was wrongly derived at, but this is not the thread to continue this subject.


And what about all the other versions of Christianity. Mormonism, JWs, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, etc.? What exactly must a person "believe" in order to be saved?
John 3:16 for starters and this means understanding the implication of what this verse means. Faith only comes by hearing and hearing, by the Word of God. As for those religions that have produced their own books by which to teach the followers, then they can be dead in their sins if they are not doing as God requires and has revealed in His inspired word. You accuse me at times of not accepting the words at face value and saying they are as plain as day and yet verses that are likewise clear as day, relating to the nature of Jesus, you cannot accept (as a lot of others). The thread on 'Jesus is not God' has come to a halt for the moment, it is time I think to produce as much evidence for and against and see which way the balance tips.


So this is my fundamental problem with Christianity. It says that God has made an arbitrary rule that few have heard and fewer have properly understood!
Once you have been told the Truth of God's Word, you cannot say you have not been told. You are expected to do your own due diligence and check what you hear and read with the word of God. Few people properly understand it because they do not take the time to find out what it means. It takes many hours to read the Bible. At first it helps to be guided in what to read to get to the fundamental truths more quickly. God has put on record so much in the Bible, it is a lifetime's study and a lifetime is not long enough to appreciate everything it is telling us. Reading the Bible over and over, brings new revelations each time. It is amazing how much can be brought to light by considering small passages of scripture. Unless, you have a desire to search out the truth, only a fraction of what God is teaching in His revealed word is appreciated. The more it is studied in depth, the more wonderful the divine authorship is seen. People who mock the Bible, are the ones who either have not read it fully, or have not tried to understand it. Hosea 6:4 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee,

Why should God save those who completely reject Him? Why should God save nations which have completely rejected Him? How can you say of nations that are Godless, and who practice idolatry that anyone of those people is guiltless or innocent? Babies are innocent but also of an age not to understand while it is horrible to read of, it is the parents who are at fault and guilty of bringing God's vengeance on themselves. Babies would grow up in an idolatrous and wicked culture and become adults equally rejecting God. What happens if you kill all the adults and spare the babies? Who looks after them? They would die if left alone.

God has shown patience tolerating the nations as long as He has. Look at the number of nations and people that have rejected Him. Man has shown he is incapable of ruling himself in ways that are right. For the last 2000 years God has left us with the teaching and the example of His Son and what has man done? The world is no better for letting man rule. The attrocities Rose is attributing to God, pale compared to the killing that has gone on in all the wars throughout the world. Have faith that God will deal justly with the innocent and do not limit His grace to be merciful on whom He will. In the meantime, teach the ways of the Lord are just. Hosea 14:9 Who is wise, and he shall understand these things? prudent, and he shall know them? for the ways of the LORD are right, and the just shall walk in them: but the transgressors shall fall therein.


Why would God judge me according to my opinion about one religious dogma amongst all the dogmas in the world? Why would he judge me when I CANNOT believe because of valid intellectual problems with the Bible, such as the fact that it contains errors, contradictions, and moral abominations attributed to God? I CANNOT believe the book because it is demonstrably false on many points. Why would God condemn me for being honest?
You are not condemned for being honest. I am not going to judge. God knows your heart and if your heart is right with God, that is all that counts. As I have said in another post to you, take out of the Bible, all that offends you and see what you have left. Can you believe in God with what you have left? Rose and you are highlighting what you consider are abominable things done by God. I suggest you list the ways that God has demonstrated His love and His patience and His longsuffering. Consider all the promises of God and the message of salvation and the eternal life that God is offering. Rightly balance the word of God so you get things into the right perspective. Others have, and others are countering your claims. I would worry if they could not. The fact is; your arguments are not water-tight. I do not express myself that well on occassions and use the wrong words, and I can understand the way you show the weakness in some of the statements made and how you point out the weakness of other's statements, which I would agree with you. I think you need to think about what others are saying instead of leaping to rubbish alternative explanations. As a bystander, I appreciate the arguments presented from both sides and I am more likely to see a middle way. All possible interpretations should be held in abeyance, until all the evidence is in, by which to make a balanced decision.


Stated plainly, it seems insane to me. I can't imagine that the true God would set up such an irrational system of salvation.
How is it irrational? God knows the end from the beginning. God has a plan and He has a stratedgy. This does not have to mean that every tactical move was planned by God, but God uses tactics at the time to bring about His pupose and keep His plan on course.
Right from the very beginning, the principle is; there can be no remission of sins without the shedding of blood. That principle was in force up to the time God gave His only begotten Son as the perfect one-off sacrifice. We do not enter the Kingdom of God by taking an exam at the end of our lives. We are judged by the person we are and what we have done with our lives and whether we have believed in God and His Son and tried to be obedient and do the will of God. By rights we have all sinned and therefore (with the exception of Jesus), no one deserves to be in the kingdom of God. I am thankful that God was so merciful to king David for the two offences he committed and for which he would have been put to death; God spared him. That gives me hope for all the wrong I have done, and yet I do not feel I match up to the stature of David, whereby God called David, "a man after His own heart". You criticize God for not putting David to death under the penalty of the law and ignore the fact that God was very merciful. If David had been put to death, we would not have so many Psalms written by him which teach us so much about David's character and his thoughts towards God. God knows our hearts and whatever we say by word of mouth or in print, God knows the intent of our hearts. How contrite are we? Do we recognize that we need forgiveness?

I can liken God selecting His people for the kingdom to be like gathering precious stones (gems). Gems are few and far between. Amongst the hundreds of tons of dirt you find one precious stone here and there. Do we consider oursleves as precious stones chosen by God making up His jewels? I think there will be a great multitude in the kingdom to come, but few by comparison to the billions that have ever lived. How many more will be saved during the millennium reign of Christ? We have no idea; it could be millions.

We must look to ourselves before we say how God should judge others or how He should bring about salvation.

All the best,

David

Richard Amiel McGough
04-10-2012, 11:22 AM
It doesn't matter if there are a million denominations and religions , just believe in 2 things.... Love God with all your heart, soul and might and love others as your self. Remember to do God's will. Do it and you are not fsr from the kingdom of heaven.

I can do the "love others" part.

But what do you mean by "love God?" I don't know of any God, so how am I supposed to love him/her/it?

Please tell me what "loving God" entails.

Richard Amiel McGough
04-10-2012, 01:13 PM
God has made it very clear about the type of people who will perish. It is not necessary to produce a quote to support this. Universal salvation is not taught in the Bible and I shudder to think of the consequences if it was. It is not my place to judge nor is it my place to limit God's mercy.

You "shudder" to think that the Almighty God of Perfect Love would be able to redeem all creation, as it is written?

2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

1 Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

God can't be "all in all" and have a hell full of billions of unreconciled sinners. Many early Christians were Universalists. This site says:
As late as A.D. 400, Jerome says "most people" (plerique), and Augustine "very many" (quam plurimi), believed in Universalism, notwithstanding that the tremendous influence of Augustine, and the mighty power of the semi-pagan secular arm were arrayed against it.

And there is a book (available online here (http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html)) that says Universalism was the prevailing Christian doctrine until the fifth century. You should research the history of Christianity before you make such judgments.




I don't understand why God would use "belief" in a dogma as a criterion for anything. Most people throughout history never even had a chance to "believe" because they never heard, and of those that have heard, most have held contrary beliefs. For example, you deny that Jesus is God. Most Christians would say that is a damnable heresy and so class you amongst the unbelievers who will not inherit the kingdom of God. But if you are correct that Jesus is not God, then all the "orthodox" Christians would be damned because claiming a man to be God would be a blasphemous error.
Those who have not received the law, are not under the condemnation of the law and therefore, I leave it to God to be just and show mercy on whom He will, if they are judged.
God is looking for obedience. Jesus demonstrated perfect obedience. Faith and belief is necessary;(Heb 11:6) But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
With others, I claim Jesus is not God. If I am wrong in my belief of his nature, I cannot be accused of diminishing the victory and the accomplishment of Jesus or of not holding him in the highest esteem. I praise God for providing Jesus and providing a way for us to be saved. I acknowledge God as the One and only true God and that His Only Begotten Son is living for evermore and has earned the highest position in Heaven next to God, and who is presently our mediator between man and God and eventually we shall see Jesus and be with Jesus in the kingdom. I shall leave it to God to decide if what I believe is blasphemous' otherwise it is the word of man against me. I hold God in the highest possible esteem and Jesus as His only begotten Son. The promises of God are to those who believe this (John3:16) I am confident that the Trinity was wrongly derived at, but this is not the thread to continue this subject.

You didn't answer my question. Why would God use the criterion of "belief" to determine the eternal fate of a person? That makes no sense at all. What does my opinion about which religious dogmas are true or false have to do with my eternal fate?

Why would God accept or reject a person depending only on if they assert the Jesus is or is not the Son of God? I don't understand.



John 3:16 for starters and this means understanding the implication of what this verse means. Faith only comes by hearing and hearing, by the Word of God. As for those religions that have produced their own books by which to teach the followers, then they can be dead in their sins if they are not doing as God requires and has revealed in His inspired word. You accuse me at times of not accepting the words at face value and saying they are as plain as day and yet verses that are likewise clear as day, relating to the nature of Jesus, you cannot accept (as a lot of others). The thread on 'Jesus is not God' has come to a halt for the moment, it is time I think to produce as much evidence for and against and see which way the balance tips.

Mormons believe John 3:16. Are they saved?

You say that I must "understand the implications of what this verse means." That's the problem. The devil is in the details. Everyone has different "interpretations" of what that verse means. Calvinists say the "whosoever" applies only to the Elect and that the idea that anyone can choose to believe is a heresy. And on it goes - why would anyone believe that God would determine our eternal fate based upon our half-informed fallible opinions about the meaning of an ancient book written in Greek? It makes no sense to me at all.



Once you have been told the Truth of God's Word, you cannot say you have not been told. You are expected to do your own due diligence and check what you hear and read with the word of God. Few people properly understand it because they do not take the time to find out what it means. It takes many hours to read the Bible. At first it helps to be guided in what to read to get to the fundamental truths more quickly. God has put on record so much in the Bible, it is a lifetime's study and a lifetime is not long enough to appreciate everything it is telling us. Reading the Bible over and over, brings new revelations each time. It is amazing how much can be brought to light by considering small passages of scripture. Unless, you have a desire to search out the truth, only a fraction of what God is teaching in His revealed word is appreciated. The more it is studied in depth, the more wonderful the divine authorship is seen. People who mock the Bible, are the ones who either have not read it fully, or have not tried to understand it. Hosea 6:4 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee,

Your answer only amplifies the problem. It's all a matter of highly disputable INTERPRETATIONS made by fallible and ignorant people. Everybody has different opinions and nobody can have any certainty that their opinions are correct. It would be insane for God to judge people by such a standard.



Why should God save those who completely reject Him?
Nobody is rejecting "God" - we are rejecting a demonstrably fallacious ancient book that makes false claims about God. There is a world of difference. And the true God would understand that it would be entirely irrational to condemn people to an eternal hell (or annihilation, or whatever) because of the opinion they held about such a book.



Why should God save nations which have completely rejected Him? How can you say of nations that are Godless, and who practice idolatry that anyone of those people is guiltless or innocent? Babies are innocent but also of an age not to understand while it is horrible to read of, it is the parents who are at fault and guilty of bringing God's vengeance on themselves. Babies would grow up in an idolatrous and wicked culture and become adults equally rejecting God. What happens if you kill all the adults and spare the babies? Who looks after them? They would die if left alone.

So you advocate killing babies because they would have no one to care for them? Why then did Moses kill everyone except the 32,000 virgins? Obviously, they had a "use" for those women. To hell with rest.

God could have driven those people out of the land any way he wanted to. He didn't have to order his people to become murderous genocidal maniacs. Have you no concept of what murdering thousands of women and children would do to your soul? It would totally brutalize you! Why would God freely choose to corrupt his people like that? He had no limit to the choices he could have made. He freely CHOSE violence. And oddly enough, it seems to be his "modus operandi." Why is God so enamored with VIOLENCE????



God has shown patience tolerating the nations as long as He has. Look at the number of nations and people that have rejected Him. Man has shown he is incapable of ruling himself in ways that are right. For the last 2000 years God has left us with the teaching and the example of His Son and what has man done? The world is no better for letting man rule. The attrocities Rose is attributing to God, pale compared to the killing that has gone on in all the wars throughout the world. Have faith that God will deal justly with the innocent and do not limit His grace to be merciful on whom He will. In the meantime, teach the ways of the Lord are just. Hosea 14:9 Who is wise, and he shall understand these things? prudent, and he shall know them? for the ways of the LORD are right, and the just shall walk in them: but the transgressors shall fall therein.

The world is infinitely better when humans rule with no religious dogmas. Just compare life under the medieval Roman Catholic Church or under the modern Taliban and you must admit this truth.

It is not Rose who attributes moral abominations to God. IT IS THE BIBLE that says those things about him.



You are not condemned for being honest. I am not going to judge. God knows your heart and if your heart is right with God, that is all that counts. As I have said in another post to you, take out of the Bible, all that offends you and see what you have left. Can you believe in God with what you have left? Rose and you are highlighting what you consider are abominable things done by God. I suggest you list the ways that God has demonstrated His love and His patience and His longsuffering. Consider all the promises of God and the message of salvation and the eternal life that God is offering. Rightly balance the word of God so you get things into the right perspective. Others have, and others are countering your claims. I would worry if they could not. The fact is; your arguments are not water-tight. I do not express myself that well on occassions and use the wrong words, and I can understand the way you show the weakness in some of the statements made and how you point out the weakness of other's statements, which I would agree with you. I think you need to think about what others are saying instead of leaping to rubbish alternative explanations. As a bystander, I appreciate the arguments presented from both sides and I am more likely to see a middle way. All possible interpretations should be held in abeyance, until all the evidence is in, by which to make a balanced decision.

That's a very good suggestion. I can see how you might think that we are "skewed" towards the problems in the Bible. But you must not forget that I spent over a decade proclaim the wonders of God's Word and the glory of the Gospel. So now I'm just balancing the record.

But let me follow your advice. You want me to consider "all the promises of God and the message of salvation and the eternal life that God is offering." That's the problem. His "promises" are all for the "sweet bye and bye" - an imaginary future. Is there any reason I should believe those promises? If God refuses to answer any prayer in this life why should I believe that he would hold good to those promises? It's all just fantasy - you believe it because it's in the book. You have not given me any reason I should think those promises are true. And worse, the whole concept of God presented in the Bible is obviously false because there is no "God" who goes about doing things or intervening in human affairs. The proof is obvious. Suppose I knew that the Haitian earthquake would kill 200,000 people and I had the ability to warn them but did not. I would be a MORAL MONSTER if I failed to warn them. Therefore, the God of the Bible is either a moral monster or he does not exist.




Stated plainly, it seems insane to me. I can't imagine that the true God would set up such an irrational system of salvation.
How is it irrational? God knows the end from the beginning. God has a plan and He has a stratedgy. This does not have to mean that every tactical move was planned by God, but God uses tactics at the time to bring about His pupose and keep His plan on course.
Right from the very beginning, the principle is; there can be no remission of sins without the shedding of blood. That principle was in force up to the time God gave His only begotten Son as the perfect one-off sacrifice. We do not enter the Kingdom of God by taking an exam at the end of our lives. We are judged by the person we are and what we have done with our lives and whether we have believed in God and His Son and tried to be obedient and do the will of God. By rights we have all sinned and therefore (with the exception of Jesus), no one deserves to be in the kingdom of God.

It is irrational because God would know that an intelligent and careful reading of the Bible gives any reasonable person good reason to reject it.

And worse, even if the Bible could be trusted, it would still be irrational to base a person's eternal fate upon their fallible intellectual opinion about a book.

You seem to be changing the rules. What determines a person's eternal fate? Is it belief in Jesus or following rules or being a good person or having my heart right with God? Or what?

As for the concept that there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood. That's what primitive people all over the planet have believed, long before Judaism or Christianity evolved. Primitive people have always been into bloody sacrifices. Most if not every doctrine in the NT can be found in the mystery religions that predated it. Read the book Mystery Religions by S. Angus for a good introduction to these facts.



I am thankful that God was so merciful to king David for the two offences he committed and for which he would have been put to death; God spared him. That gives me hope for all the wrong I have done, and yet I do not feel I match up to the stature of David, whereby God called David, "a man after His own heart". You criticize God for not putting David to death under the penalty of the law and ignore the fact that God was very merciful. If David had been put to death, we would not have so many Psalms written by him which teach us so much about David's character and his thoughts towards God. God knows our hearts and whatever we say by word of mouth or in print, God knows the intent of our hearts. How contrite are we? Do we recognize that we need forgiveness?

I did not "ignore" that God was "merciful" to David. The problem is that God was inconsistent and unjust. He was "merciful" to the guilty (David) and unjust to the innocent child he chose to slay to "punish" David. That seems like very bad morals to me. God set up a law with supposed "consequences" and then arbitrarily violates his own law and imposes a death penalty on an innocent child.



I can liken God selecting His people for the kingdom to be like gathering precious stones (gems). Gems are few and far between. Amongst the hundreds of tons of dirt you find one precious stone here and there. Do we consider oursleves as precious stones chosen by God making up His jewels? I think there will be a great multitude in the kingdom to come, but few by comparison to the billions that have ever lived. How many more will be saved during the millennium reign of Christ? We have no idea; it could be millions.

So only "good people" get saved, eh? Why then do they need salvation if they are already "gems" that God finds?

Again, your doctrine is contrary to the dominant teachings of historical Christianity.

Great chatting!

Richard

CWH
04-10-2012, 02:01 PM
I can do the "love others" part.

But what do you mean by "love God?" I don't know of any God, so how am I supposed to love him/her/it?

Please tell me what "loving God" entails.

I have said that before. Loving others is like saying "I love American people"; Loving God is like saying, "I love America". Both must go together i.e. Love God and love others as yourself. It makes no sense by saying, "I love Americans as myself but hate America or I love people but hate the world". God create everything on earth including people, therefore if you love people, you should love God who created the world and everything in it.

Mark 8:34 Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: 'Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 35 For whoever wants to save their life[b] will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36 What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? 37 Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? 38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.'

What Jesus mean in the bolded part of the passage is this:

Whoever wants to save his life for selfish reason will lose it but whoever lose his life for Jesus (because he love of God i.e. Jesus) and the gospel will gain it. What is the point if one gains everything (love, money, fame etc.) in the world but loses his life (because he does not love God and the gospel to the point of sacrifice)? If you are ashamed of Jesus (i.e. God) and his teachings (i.e. of Loving God with all your heart, soul and might and love others as yourself) in this sinful world, He will be ashamed of you in front of God the Father when He comes.

Are you ashamed of Jesus and His teachings?


Love God and love others as yourself. Amen.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
04-10-2012, 03:17 PM
I have said that before. Loving others is like saying "I love American people"; Loving God is like saying, "I love America". Both must go together i.e. Love God and love others as yourself. It makes no sense by saying, "I love Americans as myself but hate America or I love people but hate the world". God create everything on earth including people, therefore if you love people, you should love God who created the world and everything in it.

I understand your analogy, but I think it is a false analogy because I know America exists, so I can love it, but I don't know that the God of the Bible exists, so how can I love him?



Mark 8:34 Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: 'Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 35 For whoever wants to save their life[B] will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36 What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? 37 Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? 38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.'

What Jesus mean in the bolded part of the passage is this:

Whoever wants to save his life for selfish reason will lose it but whoever lose his life for Jesus (because he love of God i.e. Jesus) and the gospel will gain it. What is the point if one gains everything (love, money, fame etc.) in the world but loses his life (because he does not love God and the gospel to the point of sacrifice)? If you are ashamed of Jesus (i.e. God) and his teachings (i.e. of Loving God with all your heart, soul and might and love others as yourself) in this sinful world, He will be ashamed of you in front of God the Father when He comes.

Are you ashamed of Jesus and His teachings?

I'm not part of that first century "adulterous and sinful generation" to whom he spoke, so the question doesn't apply to me. This is confirmed by his statement that they would be ashamed when "he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels" which you highlighted bold. We know that must have happened in the first century because Jesus said there would be some standing there that would not die before it happened:
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

So that's a double confirmation that implies Jesus was talking to only his first century audience.

But more to your point - you asked if I am "ashamed" of Jesus and his teachings. My answer: There are many of his teachings that I like and would not be ashamed of, but there also are many things in the Bible that I would be ashamed of if I believed them. Unfortunately, it appears that Jesus believed many of those bad things, since he never spoke a word (directly) against the Old Testament. So in as much as Jesus accepted the bad teachings in the Bible and taught that they were of God, I am compelled to admit that I would be ashamed of him and those teachings.

CWH
04-10-2012, 09:50 PM
[QUOTE=RAM;43026]I understand your analogy, but I think it is a false analogy because I know America exists, so I can love it, but I don't know that the God of the Bible exists, so how can I love him?
Do you believe life existed in other planets in the universe? If you do, how did you know? You believe that life started by an accident in which lifeless protein molecules accidentally formed by a combination of oxygen and nitrogen through lightning and somehow becomes life. Have you seen it? If you have not seen it and no one has ever seen it, why do you believe? If no one have seen or recorded that Jesus came back in AD 70, why do full preterists believe He came back?

The answer if God exists lies in belief and possibility in the things that we see around us. Psalm 19:
1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
3 They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
4 Yet their voice[b] goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun.
5 It is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
like a champion rejoicing to run his course.
6 It rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other;
nothing is deprived of its warmth.

You are like the rich man in the parable of Lazarus, even if someone return from the dead to tell you, you will still not believe it.

Luke 16:19 'There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 'The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25 'But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27 'He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 'Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 '‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 'He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’'


I'm not part of that first century "adulterous and sinful generation" to whom he spoke, so the question doesn't apply to me. This is confirmed by his statement that they would be ashamed when "he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels" which you highlighted bold. We know that must have happened in the first century because Jesus said there would be some standing there that would not die before it happened:
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

So that's a double confirmation that implies Jesus was talking to only his first century audience.
The problem is that we are still living in this sinful and adulterous generation. There are still death, adultery, suffering, scams, rapes, robberies, killings, false prophets etc., that sinful and adulterous generation still exists. Did the apostles died, I don't think so, they are reigning now in heaven with Jesus. So that generation includes us , same as Jesus died for the sin of the world, not just for His contemporary world but for the future world as well.


But more to your point - you asked if I am "ashamed" of Jesus and his teachings. My answer: There are many of his teachings that I like and would not be ashamed of, but there also are many things in the Bible that I would be ashamed of if I believed them. Unfortunately, it appears that Jesus believed many of those bad things, since he never spoke a word (directly) against the Old Testament. So in as much as Jesus accepted the bad teachings in the Bible and taught that they were of God, I am compelled to admit that I would be ashamed of him and those teachings.
Then Jesus will also be ashamed of you in front of God the Father when He comes. You are in my prayers.:pray::pray: We should also be shameful of the many evils and atrocities that man have committed in this sinful and adulterous world when He comes.

God Blessed us in this sinful and adulterous generation. :pray:

David M
04-11-2012, 05:13 AM
Hello Richard


You "shudder" to think that the Almighty God of Perfect Love would be able to redeem all creation, as it is written?

2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

1 Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
I think we have to balance the verses quoted and the phrases used. God is reconciling the world and you cannot ignore the fact that many will not be saved. God will be "all and in all" and it will not include those who are not saved. God will be all and in all after Christ hands back the kingdom at the end of the millennium age.


God can't be "all in all" and have a hell full of billions of unreconciled sinners. Many early Christians were Universalists. This site says:
As late as A.D. 400, Jerome says "most people" (plerique), and Augustine "very many" (quam plurimi), believed in Universalism, notwithstanding that the tremendous influence of Augustine, and the mighty power of the semi-pagan secular arm were arrayed against it.

And there is a book (available online here (http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html)) that says Universalism was the prevailing Christian doctrine until the fifth century. You should research the history of Christianity before you make such judgments.
I don't have to research history of Christianity to find out the truth in the Bible. Works of men, while they can be true and instructional can be full of men's thoughts and can be fiction. I only compare men's statements with what the Bible says. I make allowance for errors introduced by incorrect translation and bias of the translators. Errors are not a barrier to understanding all that is true in the Bible. Errors can be seen for what they are.


You didn't answer my question. Why would God use the criterion of "belief" to determine the eternal fate of a person? That makes no sense at all. What does my opinion about which religious dogmas are true or false have to do with my eternal fate?
I did not miss your question. I gave you a quotation in which the words "must believe" were part of the quoted verse. Through God's word we come to know God. He asks us to believe the things we cannot see physically here and now. I have not received His reward of eternal life, so I have to believe I will recieve it from him later. If I do not believe this after God has told me, why would I believe anything God has told me? I express my belief in God by my actions and my thoughts. It is not purely belief (per se) that is the only criterion.


Why would God accept or reject a person depending only on if they assert the Jesus is or is not the Son of God? I don't understand.
I fail to see how you fail to understand the simple and plain teaching that comes from God. I think this is part of your problem. You have a great mind for study and reading other philosophies and theological studies and scientfic works and fail to understand the simplicity of what the Bible has to say and yet you take some things which you say are simple (that are in fact profound) and make a mockery of what the Bible teaches as a whole.
Jesus is the only begotten Son of God who was born of God to reveal God to us as a Father (as God was to His Son). You cannot say you believe in God and not believe in Jesus (the Christ). Reject one, and you reject both. God rejects those who reject one or the other.


Mormons believe John 3:16. Are they saved?
Mormons have their own book, so I do not hold with their teaching. I question their belief and their understanding of John 3:16 Belief is based on understanding. Who believes in baptism and commits their life to Christ? Who is the Son of God, if the Son is supposed to be God? Who believes Jesus was in the grave 3 full days and 3 full nights? The belief of John 3:16 implies you believe in God and His promises and you believe Jesus to be the Son of God (not God). People are confounding the truth and and asserting they have the truth; time will tell. Our understanding of some things is less important than following the example of the Lord Jesus, who said; I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Let us follow the teaching of Jesus the best we can and put his teaching into practice and let God be merciful to us all.


You say that I must "understand the implications of what this verse means." That's the problem. The devil is in the details. Everyone has different "interpretations" of what that verse means. Calvinists say the "whosoever" applies only to the Elect and that the idea that anyone can choose to believe is a heresy. And on it goes - why would anyone believe that God would determine our eternal fate based upon our half-informed fallible opinions about the meaning of an ancient book written in Greek? It makes no sense to me at all.
I have explained this already (in part) . You have to examine the motives of those who have brought about all the various translations with their bias and introduced errors. The truth remains with what the early Christian Church believed and what was taught by the apostles; not what men taught centuries later. Get back to properly understanding what the apostles taught and can be learned from their letters.


Your answer only amplifies the problem. It's all a matter of highly disputable INTERPRETATIONS made by fallible and ignorant people. Everybody has different opinions and nobody can have any certainty that their opinions are correct. It would be insane for God to judge people by such a standard.
I have said elsewhere, in responding to all your assertions and questions; there is enough truth in the Bible to be found, even if we allow for errors of translation and bias. Most doctrines are plain and simple; e.g. when you die you go to the grave the same as animals. Forget the rest about immortal souls; the Bible does not teach this. Once you have been told, you have no excuse for carrying on believing falsehoods. Examine the Bible and compare what people say and decide for yourself what is the truth. God will judge you on your sincerity to do this.


Nobody is rejecting "God" - we are rejecting a demonstrably fallacious ancient book that makes false claims about God. There is a world of difference. And the true God would understand that it would be entirely irrational to condemn people to an eternal hell (or annihilation, or whatever) because of the opinion they held about such a book.
You are rejecting God's word. Not part of it, but all of it. The Bible is only fallacious to you and you refuse to accept anyone else's explanation and accuse them of twisting the words. Your intellect is failing you. Jesus says; I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. It is about time you humbled yourself as Job had to do and admit you do not know and you are not rigtheous. You must look more intently for the obvious. As they say; you are not seeing the wood for the trees.


So you advocate killing babies because they would have no one to care for them? Why then did Moses kill everyone except the 32,000 virgins? Obviously, they had a "use" for those women. To hell with rest.
I do not advocate any such thing. I am not wise to order any such thing. I know that if God gave the instruction, there has to be a reason and I have given reasons and you reject them and the problem remains with you. I can see the justice of God in His punishment of reprobate people and I do not limit His power to save the innocent. You prove to me for example, that babies being brought up in a reprobate society will not follow the practice of that society when they are adults. Proof that by teaching people (which is what God has done by the way), those people will accept the teaching and change. If God's own chosen race did not obey His teaching, what chance is their of reprobates (people who have rejected God and practice child sacrifices for example) accepting the teaching? We have so much evil in the world and much evil has been done in the name of religion. You do not have to accuse God for all the evil that is of man's making.


God could have driven those people out of the land any way he wanted to. He didn't have to order his people to become murderous genocidal maniacs. Have you no concept of what murdering thousands of women and children would do to your soul? It would totally brutalize you! Why would God freely choose to corrupt his people like that? He had no limit to the choices he could have made. He freely CHOSE violence. And oddly enough, it seems to be his "modus operandi." Why is God so enamored with VIOLENCE????
And if God had driven them out what then? Do you expect God to have built a wall and say; stay out? It was in man's nature to dominate and subdue other nations. The people driven out would later come back like cancer. The Israelites failed to keep God instruction to the letter and that brought about serious consequences; the like of which we are discussing. In fact with the Israelites disobeying God, they proved that God would have been correct if they had carried out His instruction to the letter. Idolatry as it was practiced in those times was like a cancer. It infiltrated and it corrupted. There is nothing you and Rose can say, defending the indefensible, that makes your arguments stand up.


The world is infinitely better when humans rule with no religious dogmas. Just compare life under the medieval Roman Catholic Church or under the modern Taliban and you must admit this truth.
I must not admit anything like this; now I know you are crazy for suggesting it. I agree it would be better if we all lived by the one truth and we all lived by the commands which God has given us and summed up by Jesus. As I have said before, if everyone did this, the world would be a much better place. God would not have to do what He has promised to do in order to restore the earth to its former glory. God has told us beforehand what would happen and what to expect. We can see it happening all around us and yet you will not accept this as a proof of a prophecy being fulfilled.


It is not Rose who attributes moral abominations to God. IT IS THE BIBLE that says those things about him.
But you are not understanding any wisdom in what God does and merely citing a story without assigning who is to blame in the first case. We live by God's standards or else live by man's standards. In both cases there are consequences; take your pick.


That's a very good suggestion. I can see how you might think that we are "skewed" towards the problems in the Bible. But you must not forget that I spent over a decade proclaim the wonders of God's Word and the glory of the Gospel. So now I'm just balancing the record.
I do not think you are balancing the Book correctly now or that you ever did. You would not have believed in the Trinity had you reasoned it out correctly in the first place. Think for yourself in that regard. Your problem remains with you, until you balance scripture correctly.


But let me follow your advice. You want me to consider "all the promises of God and the message of salvation and the eternal life that God is offering." That's the problem. His "promises" are all for the "sweet bye and bye" - an imaginary future. Is there any reason I should believe those promises?
The future is imaginary in that it has not happened and can physically be seen; hence this is what hope is about. Rom 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
God's promises to Abraham have not failed, Abraham has yet to recieve his inheritance. I know Abraham will live in the future to recieve his inheritance. God has given lots of evidence to show that God has been true to His word. Unfortunately, you refute by your intellect, all the evidence and so there is no common ground on which to build. You should believe the promises for what else can your hopes be founded on? The disciples came to this conclusion;"whoelse can we follow, thou (Jesus) hast the words of eternal life".


If God refuses to answer any prayer in this life why should I believe that he would hold good to those promises? It's all just fantasy - you believe it because it's in the book. You have not given me any reason I should think those promises are true.
Sadly, your refute any evidence. You refute all the prophecies relating to the first coming of Jesus. It is impossible for you to accept what I or others put before you as evidence. You fail to reason properly and all the while and you think your reasoning is correct and you are not fallible. If you are fallible, I can only suggest you examine the evidence I and others have put before you until you can accept the other side of the argument and possibly build from there. This is the problem with most Christian religions. Your acceptance of the Trinity was one of them and that has serioulsly affected your not seeing the truth of the Bible. You had based your beliefs on something that was not true. The resaon for me starting on this forum was to expose the lies. You only see the evidence presented as statements to be intellectually challenged. I agree to being challenged, it does me good, but for you not to acknowledge the obvious becomes tedious. I would become insane sooner, if I keep going round in the same circles; so I have to stop at some point.


And worse, the whole concept of God presented in the Bible is obviously false because there is no "God" who goes about doing things or intervening in human affairs. The proof is obvious. Suppose I knew that the Haitian earthquake would kill 200,000 people and I had the ability to warn them but did not. I would be a MORAL MONSTER if I failed to warn them. Therefore, the God of the Bible is either a moral monster or he does not exist.
You are doing it again; you are asserting untruths. Only to you is it "obviously false".
You want to blame God for people living in places where man has known the regions to be unsafe. I would not worry about the innocent, who God has the power to save and even give a second chance to in the kingdom of God on the millennium reign of Christ. Do not limit God's power and mercy to do this. Start blaming those who knew and failed to alert the people who lived in ignorance. Blame the people who knew and yet failed to move and decided to take the risk. If you live in a flood plane, do not blame anyone else if it rains heavy and you get flooded. God brings rain on the rightheous and the unjust. We all live with time and chance. Just start blaming man more and stop blaming God.


It is irrational because God would know that an intelligent and careful reading of the Bible gives any reasonable person good reason to reject it.
God gives lots of evidence to accept it. There is nothing irrational about what God has done, only your irrational thinking. How is it, the wisest of people fail to understand the simplicity of God's message? You are in the class of ;"ever learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim 3:7)


And worse, even if the Bible could be trusted, it would still be irrational to base a person's eternal fate upon their fallible intellectual opinion about a book.
The Bible can be trusted. You have the problem. You are full of "fallible intellectual opinion" and missing the truth contained in the Bible. I would like to help you to see the truth, which is why I am keeping up this conversation. Your condemnation of the truth presented to you does not help your case in saying; "I am searching for truth". You throw the baby out with the bathwater and wonder where the the baby is.


You seem to be changing the rules. What determines a person's eternal fate? Is it belief in Jesus or following rules or being a good person or having my heart right with God? Or what?
I am not changing the rules. The quote from Micah was long before Jesus was in the earth demonstrating God's love to us. I can walk in spirit with Jesus the same as I can walk with God in the spirit. If your heart is right with God, rules do not need to be given. Correct behaviour should be automatic and if not, we still stand to be corrected by God. We accept correction from God as a child accepts correction from its Father. By Jesus only giving two commandments which we can easily keep in our heads, these two commandments should control everything we do. I leave it to God to know who are His.



As for the concept that there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood. That's what primitive people all over the planet have believed, long before Judaism or Christianity evolved. Primitive people have always been into bloody sacrifices. Most if not every doctrine in the NT can be found in the mystery religions that predated it. Read the book Mystery Religions by S. Angus for a good introduction to these facts.
I do not care for what other people ("primitives" is your definition) believed in this connection. It does not alter the message contained in God's word. You show your knowledge of other works, but have failed to understand the Bible. Until you begin to understand; your problem remains. If by our chatting you understand one little bit, my time might not have been wasted. It is not to gain any victory I say this; it is so you can begin to understand and find the truth that leads to life, which God has on offer.


I did not "ignore" that God was "merciful" to David. The problem is that God was inconsistent and unjust. He was "merciful" to the guilty (David) and unjust to the innocent child he chose to slay to "punish" David. That seems like very bad morals to me. God set up a law with supposed "consequences" and then arbitrarily violates his own law and imposes a death penalty on an innocent child.
On the surface, it does look hard and cruel, but you cannot say; God is not able to give that child another chance in the kingdom to come. We do not know what the future holds where God has not revealed a matter to us. God might well have it in His plan to raise that infant child and continue its nuture in the Kingdom of God during the millennium reign of Christ. Who can say, whether or not the spirit of that young child was not kept in the hands of God, just as Jesus commended his own spirit into the hands of God (his Father) when about to die on the tree. When I think of what God can do, I do not put up the obstacle of the death of one (innocent) child (or thousands) for not believing God is just and is merciful.


So only "good people" get saved, eh? Why then do they need salvation if they are already "gems" that God finds?
The gems are those who have proved themselves worthy of saving. Jesus came to save sinners. Everyone worth saving has to recognize that fact first of all. God does not save just "good" people. Many good people reject God. Why should God save those who reject him? It is not good for those who are saved to mix with people in the kingdom, who would carry on rejecting Him. It is a nonsensical ideal and will not happen. Hence the sorting of the sheep from the goats, and the wheat from the tares etc. There will be a separation at death or in the judgement to follow. Not everyone will make it to the Kingdom of God on earth.


Again, your doctrine is contrary to the dominant teachings of historical Christianity.
Good! Historical Christianity has been wrong for centuries, I know how John the Baptist felt when he replied; "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness"

I trust my answers have been helpful.

David

Richard Amiel McGough
04-11-2012, 11:37 AM
I think we have to balance the verses quoted and the phrases used. God is reconciling the world and you cannot ignore the fact that many will not be saved. God will be "all and in all" and it will not include those who are not saved. God will be all and in all after Christ hands back the kingdom at the end of the millennium age.

Good morning David, :yo:

I'm not really interested in debating Universalism. The simple fact is that many Bible-believing Christians have been Universalist, especially in the first five centuries (http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html) before the religion was taken over by corrupt leaders who wanted to use the threat of hell to control the masses. It's pointless for us to debate this side-issue since we have much bigger fish to fry, such as why any rational person would believe the Bible given that it contains errors, contradictions, and moral abominations attributed to God.



I don't have to research history of Christianity to find out the truth in the Bible. Works of men, while they can be true and instructional can be full of men's thoughts and can be fiction. I only compare men's statements with what the Bible says. I make allowance for errors introduced by incorrect translation and bias of the translators. Errors are not a barrier to understanding all that is true in the Bible. Errors can be seen for what they are.

You need to research the history of Christianity to understand how other Bible-believers have understood the Bible. If you don't do this, you may come to all sorts of conclusions that serious students of the Bible have shown to be erroneous. The fact that you adhere to a particular version of the religion (SDA) that was invented by humans many centuries after Christianity was founded indicates that you are not really following "what the Bible teaches" but rather what you have been told the Bible teaches.




You didn't answer my question. Why would God use the criterion of "belief" to determine the eternal fate of a person? That makes no sense at all. What does my opinion about which religious dogmas are true or false have to do with my eternal fate?
I did not miss your question. I gave you a quotation in which the words "must believe" were part of the quoted verse. Through God's word we come to know God. He asks us to believe the things we cannot see physically here and now. I have not received His reward of eternal life, so I have to believe I will recieve it from him later. If I do not believe this after God has told me, why would I believe anything God has told me? I express my belief in God by my actions and my thoughts. It is not purely belief (per se) that is the only criterion.

That's not an answer to my question. My question is "Why would God use belief as a criterion?" There is no logic to that criterion. Indeed, it is the same criterion that many false religions like Islam and Mormonism use. It seems to me to be fundamentally irrational to base a persons eternal fate upon such a criterion because there is no way for anyone to know which beliefs they are supposed to believe because by its very definition, there is no evidence for the things that we "cannot see."

Your assertion that "God has told" you something has no evidential support. It is your purely subjective opinion. God didn't tell you anything. Your religion is based on a human interpretation of a book produced by other humans. Where is God in all that? How is a person supposed to discern between all the false religions and the one that is supposedly from God? You have never answered this question. How can God hold anyone responsible for not believing something they can't know with any certainty? It seems insane to me. That's why I am trying to find out if you have any kind of answer to this question.

You say "Through God's word we come to know God." If that is true, then God has revealed himself to be an irrational moral monster. That's the only conclusion possible if one assumes that the Bible accurately represents God.




Why would God accept or reject a person depending only on if they assert the Jesus is or is not the Son of God? I don't understand.
I fail to see how you fail to understand the simple and plain teaching that comes from God. I think this is part of your problem. You have a great mind for study and reading other philosophies and theological studies and scientfic works and fail to understand the simplicity of what the Bible has to say and yet you take some things which you say are simple (that are in fact profound) and make a mockery of what the Bible teaches as a whole.
Jesus is the only begotten Son of God who was born of God to reveal God to us as a Father (as God was to His Son). You cannot say you believe in God and not believe in Jesus (the Christ). Reject one, and you reject both. God rejects those who reject one or the other.

You still don't get it. Your assertion depends upon the assumption that the Bible is an accurate record. But you have not established that in any way at all. Other religions, and other contrary versions of Christianity, make similar baseless assertions which you arbitrarily reject because they contradict your personal opinion. If there is no OBJECTIVE STANDARD to discern the truth of the Bible, then it is IRRATIONAL for God to use my opinion about the book as the criterion for my salvation.

There is no way for me to know that Jesus is truly the Son of God. That's just your opinion based on what the book says. But why do you believe the book? You have never given any reason why a reasonable person should believe it. You just assert it like it's a self-evident truth. But it is not. THIS IS WHY IT MAKES NO SENSE for God to use my OPINION about a human book as the criterion for my eternal salvation.

Most people who have lived in the history of the world had no knowledge of Jesus. What is there status? Does a person need to believe in Jesus or not? If yes, then what about the people who never heard? If no, then why should I care about it?




Mormons believe John 3:16. Are they saved?
Mormons have their own book, so I do not hold with their teaching. I question their belief and their understanding of John 3:16 Belief is based on understanding. Who believes in baptism and commits their life to Christ? Who is the Son of God, if the Son is supposed to be God? Who believes Jesus was in the grave 3 full days and 3 full nights? The belief of John 3:16 implies you believe in God and His promises and you believe Jesus to be the Son of God (not God). People are confounding the truth and and asserting they have the truth; time will tell. Our understanding of some things is less important than following the example of the Lord Jesus, who said; I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Let us follow the teaching of Jesus the best we can and put his teaching into practice and let God be merciful to us all.

So it all comes down to personal interpretation? There are no objective standards? If a Mormon follows your methodology, they will have no way to free themselves from their delusions. How then do you know that you are right and they are wrong?

By what standard do you reject the book of Mormon? Millions of people believe it is the revealed Word of God just like the Bible. What is the basis of your religion - personal opinion and private interpretation? Are there no objective standards by which to determine the truth of the Bible?

Again - all of your claims are based on the assumption that the Bible is the Word of God? How am I supposed to know that is true? And why would God base his judgment upon my opinion and interpretation of a book produced by humans that is so confused that no one can agree about what it even means? Just look at all the different religions that the Bible has spawned. You are a member of a minor Christian sect that sets itself up as the Final Authority over the interpretation of the Bible and rejects major doctrines that are considered essential by most Christians (such as the Trinity). If the world of religion is this confused, why would a rational God use my opinion about the Bible as a criterion for anything?




You say that I must "understand the implications of what this verse means." That's the problem. The devil is in the details. Everyone has different "interpretations" of what that verse means. Calvinists say the "whosoever" applies only to the Elect and that the idea that anyone can choose to believe is a heresy. And on it goes - why would anyone believe that God would determine our eternal fate based upon our half-informed fallible opinions about the meaning of an ancient book written in Greek? It makes no sense to me at all.
I have explained this already (in part) . You have to examine the motives of those who have brought about all the various translations with their bias and introduced errors. The truth remains with what the early Christian Church believed and what was taught by the apostles; not what men taught centuries later. Get back to properly understanding what the apostles taught and can be learned from their letters.

You seem very inconsistent. When I suggested that you must research history to learn what early Christians believed, you responded by saying:
"I don't have to research history of Christianity to find out the truth in the Bible."

And now you say:
"The truth remains with what the early Christian Church believed and what was taught by the apostles; not what men taught centuries later."

I would suggest you follow your second statement and research the fact that the early church taught Universalism. Read this online book Universalism: The Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church during it's first five hundred years (http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html).

If you are going to judge interpretations as true or false according to "motive" then you must judge your own interpretations by the same standard. Or what, do you set yourself up over all others as the only one with "pure" motives? What do you think motivated Bible-believing Christians to develop the doctrine of the Trinity? If you know anything about church history, then you know that it had absolutely NOTHING to do with pagan trinities - that is a false, unhistorical, and absurd assertion made by many anti-Trinitarian sects. Anyone who knows anything about the history of Christianity knows that the Trinity was an attempt to harmonize the teachings of the Bible.




Your answer only amplifies the problem. It's all a matter of highly disputable INTERPRETATIONS made by fallible and ignorant people. Everybody has different opinions and nobody can have any certainty that their opinions are correct. It would be insane for God to judge people by such a standard.
I have said elsewhere, in responding to all your assertions and questions; there is enough truth in the Bible to be found, even if we allow for errors of translation and bias. Most doctrines are plain and simple; e.g. when you die you go to the grave the same as animals. Forget the rest about immortal souls; the Bible does not teach this. Once you have been told, you have no excuse for carrying on believing falsehoods. Examine the Bible and compare what people say and decide for yourself what is the truth. God will judge you on your sincerity to do this.

What do you mean by "enough truth to be found?" How is a person supposed to know that any of it's religious assertions are true? And there is nothing but disputations even amongst those who believe, so why would God use my opinion about ambiguous dogmas as the criterion for my eternal destiny? Is there any way for anyone to have any confidence that salvation would come through believing these weird doctrines about blood sacrifice of the son of God? It makes no sense for God to set up an arbitrary rule that says there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood. That just looks like a typical idea from PRIMITIVE people who all went about sacrificing animals to appease their tribal war gods. How did that get in the Bible? Why would any rational person believe it?




Nobody is rejecting "God" - we are rejecting a demonstrably fallacious ancient book that makes false claims about God. There is a world of difference. And the true God would understand that it would be entirely irrational to condemn people to an eternal hell (or annihilation, or whatever) because of the opinion they held about such a book.
You are rejecting God's word. Not part of it, but all of it. The Bible is only fallacious to you and you refuse to accept anyone else's explanation and accuse them of twisting the words. Your intellect is failing you. Jesus says; I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. It is about time you humbled yourself as Job had to do and admit you do not know and you are not rigtheous. You must look more intently for the obvious. As they say; you are not seeing the wood for the trees.

I am not rejecting God's Word. I am rejecting YOUR ASSERTION that the Bible is God's Word. And I am rejecting it because of the incontrovertible evidence that it is not God's Word. Indeed, it is impossible that it could be God's Word because if we assume it is God's Word and God is not an idiot, then we must conclude that God designed it with errors, contradictions, and moral abominations to convince us that it is NOT his Word!

Christians make a mockery of their assertion that the Bible is God's Word when they go about to "fix" the Bible and deny what it plainly states. If it really is his word, then you must accept it as given. When you try to fix it with absurd and irrational arguments, you make God look like a moron.

Your assertion that my "intellect is failing" me is as absurd as your belief in a perfect Bible. If anything can be known with any certainty, it is that the Bible contains errors. Your denial of this fact makes you look extremely foolish.

If my intellect had truly failed you would easily have shown me the error. But no, you merely make the empty assertion that your interpretation is the self-evident truth and anyone who fails to agree has had the truth "hidden" from them by God. That's NOT an "argument!" That is empty mindless assertion that ignores the mountain of evidence you have not been able to answer.

I think it is time that you humbled yourself and quit thinking that your opinions are the very "Word of God." Try using reason for a change. Mere assertions that begin by assuming the truth of every word of the Bible are ridiculous in the extreme.




So you advocate killing babies because they would have no one to care for them? Why then did Moses kill everyone except the 32,000 virgins? Obviously, they had a "use" for those women. To hell with rest.
I do not advocate any such thing. I am not wise to order any such thing. I know that if God gave the instruction, there has to be a reason and I have given reasons and you reject them and the problem remains with you. I can see the justice of God in His punishment of reprobate people and I do not limit His power to save the innocent. You prove to me for example, that babies being brought up in a reprobate society will not follow the practice of that society when they are adults. Proof that by teaching people (which is what God has done by the way), those people will accept the teaching and change. If God's own chosen race did not obey His teaching, what chance is their of reprobates (people who have rejected God and practice child sacrifices for example) accepting the teaching? We have so much evil in the world and much evil has been done in the name of religion. You do not have to accuse God for all the evil that is of man's making.

There is no such thing as a "reprobate society." That's a fundamental error propagated by the Bible which has God going about punishing whole nations because of the actions of a few. For example, God inflicted all Israel with a three year famine because of something the FORMER king Saul did! That's INSANE and that is what the Bible says God did.

If we use the Bible to discern the character of God, we have no choice but to conclude that he chose to act like a Bronze age tribal war god. If you disagree, then you better "check your motives" because it is obvious that you are contradicting your belief that the Bible is the Word of God.

Think about this. God is God! He chose to act like he was an irrational, brutal, Bronze age tribal war god. Why did he do that when he knew that he was giving intelligent people no option but to reject him as the standard of morality or goodness?

And again, you are falsely representing what I have written. I have NEVER "accused God for all the evil that is of man's making." Please stop repeating that falsehood. It's getting tedious. You know I never said that. Everything I have written has focused on the moral problems with God's own free choices.




God could have driven those people out of the land any way he wanted to. He didn't have to order his people to become murderous genocidal maniacs. Have you no concept of what murdering thousands of women and children would do to your soul? It would totally brutalize you! Why would God freely choose to corrupt his people like that? He had no limit to the choices he could have made. He freely CHOSE violence. And oddly enough, it seems to be his "modus operandi." Why is God so enamored with VIOLENCE????
And if God had driven them out what then? Do you expect God to have built a wall and say; stay out? It was in man's nature to dominate and subdue other nations. The people driven out would later come back like cancer. The Israelites failed to keep God instruction to the letter and that brought about serious consequences; the like of which we are discussing. In fact with the Israelites disobeying God, they proved that God would have been correct if they had carried out His instruction to the letter. Idolatry as it was practiced in those times was like a cancer. It infiltrated and it corrupted. There is nothing you and Rose can say, defending the indefensible, that makes your arguments stand up.

Ha! You are exactly right. It was in MAN'S NATURE to dominate and subdue other nations. That's why the Bible's portrayal of God makes him look like a typical brutal Bronze age tribal war god. He went about ordering genocide left and right.

That fact that you can't imagine that God had any choice but to order his people to become genocidal murders demonstrates how your religious dogmas have shut down your mind. There are ten thousand alternatives, but you can't think of one because if you did, then it would show that the actions of God were not nearly as good as they could have been.




The world is infinitely better when humans rule with no religious dogmas. Just compare life under the medieval Roman Catholic Church or under the modern Taliban and you must admit this truth.
I must not admit anything like this; now I know you are crazy for suggesting it. I agree it would be better if we all lived by the one truth and we all lived by the commands which God has given us and summed up by Jesus. As I have said before, if everyone did this, the world would be a much better place. God would not have to do what He has promised to do in order to restore the earth to its former glory. God has told us beforehand what would happen and what to expect. We can see it happening all around us and yet you will not accept this as a proof of a prophecy being fulfilled.

Well, in this case you see black where I see white. If you can't see and admit the blatantly obvious fact that life now in the USA is infinitely better than life anywhere just a hundred years ago, then you are blind and I have no hope of opening your eyes. That's something you need to choose to do yourself.

And as for "fulfilling prophecy" - what a joke! Christians have always believed that they lived in the worst of times and have taken that as proof that the end was nigh. Martin Luther thought it was the end because of the evils of the Roman Catholic Church ... five hundred years ago! :lmbo:

You really crack me up man.

Well, this post is too long, so I'll continue my answers in a second post.

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
04-11-2012, 11:38 AM
It is not Rose who attributes moral abominations to God. IT IS THE BIBLE that says those things about him.
But you are not understanding any wisdom in what God does and merely citing a story without assigning who is to blame in the first case. We live by God's standards or else live by man's standards. In both cases there are consequences; take your pick.

Sorry, but that does not justify the Omnipotent God freely choosing to command his people to chop up mothers and babies.




That's a very good suggestion. I can see how you might think that we are "skewed" towards the problems in the Bible. But you must not forget that I spent over a decade proclaim the wonders of God's Word and the glory of the Gospel. So now I'm just balancing the record.
I do not think you are balancing the Book correctly now or that you ever did. You would not have believed in the Trinity had you reasoned it out correctly in the first place. Think for yourself in that regard. Your problem remains with you, until you balance scripture correctly.

Ha! That's truly hilarious. You are lifting up your own minor sect and judging all Trinitarian Christians as if they all failed to "reason correctly" about anything in the Bible! What a joke.




But let me follow your advice. You want me to consider "all the promises of God and the message of salvation and the eternal life that God is offering." That's the problem. His "promises" are all for the "sweet bye and bye" - an imaginary future. Is there any reason I should believe those promises?
The future is imaginary in that it has not happened and can physically be seen; hence this is what hope is about. Rom 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
God's promises to Abraham have not failed, Abraham has yet to recieve his inheritance. I know Abraham will live in the future to recieve his inheritance. God has given lots of evidence to show that God has been true to His word. Unfortunately, you refute by your intellect, all the evidence and so there is no common ground on which to build. You should believe the promises for what else can your hopes be founded on? The disciples came to this conclusion;"whoelse can we follow, thou (Jesus) hast the words of eternal life".

You display your ignorance of the Bible which explicitly states that all the promises given to Abraham were fulfilled:
Joshua 21:43 And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. 44 And the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand. 45 There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.

You say I "refute with my intellect" - I'm glad you noticed that! I wish you would try to follow suit rather than merely rejecting things because they contradict your religious dogmas. Try using your intellect.

But you missed my point. The "promises" are all illusory. They are mere words. You have never given me one reason I should believe they are true.



If God refuses to answer any prayer in this life why should I believe that he would hold good to those promises? It's all just fantasy - you believe it because it's in the book. You have not given me any reason I should think those promises are true.
Sadly, your refute any evidence. You refute all the prophecies relating to the first coming of Jesus. It is impossible for you to accept what I or others put before you as evidence. You fail to reason properly and all the while and you think your reasoning is correct and you are not fallible. If you are fallible, I can only suggest you examine the evidence I and others have put before you until you can accept the other side of the argument and possibly build from there. This is the problem with most Christian religions. Your acceptance of the Trinity was one of them and that has serioulsly affected your not seeing the truth of the Bible. You had based your beliefs on something that was not true. The resaon for me starting on this forum was to expose the lies. You only see the evidence presented as statements to be intellectually challenged. I agree to being challenged, it does me good, but for you not to acknowledge the obvious becomes tedious. I would become insane sooner, if I keep going round in the same circles; so I have to stop at some point.

The word "refute" means to "prove something false." So I agree, I have refuted all the "evidence" you have presented. But really, you have not presented any evidence concerning the so-called "first coming" of Christ so I don't know why you made that comment.

Yes, it is impossible for me to receive the baseless assertions that you call "evidence" because baseless assertions are NOT evidence! Go figure ...

Name one thing that was "obvious" that I failed to acknowledge.

We are not going in circles. I have successfully REFUTED your arguments. If you think we are going in circles it is because you FAILED to refute my refutations.

If you don't want to go in circles, then we should choose one point and dig down to resolution. Like we did with the Babylon prophecy. Though we did not come to agreement about whether or not it was a failed prophecy, we did come to see that it is too ambiguous to be used as proof of the Bible. I think that's very significant progress. And the fact remains that you have not even attempted to present any other evidence of fulfilled prophecy, yet you asserted that I had "refuted all the prophecies of the first coming of Jesus." That doesn't make any sense at all.

I think you are just frustrated by the fact that you cannot answer the questions I have posed.




And worse, the whole concept of God presented in the Bible is obviously false because there is no "God" who goes about doing things or intervening in human affairs. The proof is obvious. Suppose I knew that the Haitian earthquake would kill 200,000 people and I had the ability to warn them but did not. I would be a MORAL MONSTER if I failed to warn them. Therefore, the God of the Bible is either a moral monster or he does not exist.
You are doing it again; you are asserting untruths. Only to you is it "obviously false".
You want to blame God for people living in places where man has known the regions to be unsafe. I would not worry about the innocent, who God has the power to save and even give a second chance to in the kingdom of God on the millennium reign of Christ. Do not limit God's power and mercy to do this. Start blaming those who knew and failed to alert the people who lived in ignorance. Blame the people who knew and yet failed to move and decided to take the risk. If you live in a flood plane, do not blame anyone else if it rains heavy and you get flooded. God brings rain on the rightheous and the unjust. We all live with time and chance. Just start blaming man more and stop blaming God.

Your response is a non sequitur. Do you dispute my assertion that if I had knowledge of an earthquake or flood and failed to alert the residents, I would be a moral monster for failing to warn them? If not, then why doesn't God warn people just like an GOOD HUMAN would do? Why does God act as if he doesn't care? This is why Theism is obviously false. If you attribute human characteristics like love and caring to God, then you must explain why he shows no love or care.

You would "blame" humans if they acted like God and let people needlessly suffer and die when you could have saved them. So why the double standard? Why are humans better than God?




It is irrational because God would know that an intelligent and careful reading of the Bible gives any reasonable person good reason to reject it.
God gives lots of evidence to accept it. There is nothing irrational about what God has done, only your irrational thinking. How is it, the wisest of people fail to understand the simplicity of God's message? You are in the class of ;"ever learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim 3:7)

Ha! More EMPTY ASSERTION! If God gave evidence, why can't you present it to me?

This is what blows my mind. You have utterly failed to present any verifiable evidence supporting your assertions, yet you feel justified in slandering me by applying that verse to me.

You Christians really need to learn how to use your MINDS and to learn about real MORALITY. It is a SIN, both intellectually and spiritually, for you to accuse me using that verse.




And worse, even if the Bible could be trusted, it would still be irrational to base a person's eternal fate upon their fallible intellectual opinion about a book.
The Bible can be trusted. You have the problem. You are full of "fallible intellectual opinion" and missing the truth contained in the Bible. I would like to help you to see the truth, which is why I am keeping up this conversation. Your condemnation of the truth presented to you does not help your case in saying; "I am searching for truth". You throw the baby out with the bathwater and wonder where the the baby is.

Have you presented any EVIDENCE that the Bible can be trusted? Nope. Just more empty assertions. :doh:

I am glad you are continuing in the conversation. But I am mystified by your apparent inability to understand what it means to "present evidence." You have not been presenting any evidence in this long long long post. You merely presented one unsupported assertion after another.



I do not care for what other people ("primitives" is your definition) believed in this connection. It does not alter the message contained in God's word. You show your knowledge of other works, but have failed to understand the Bible. Until you begin to understand; your problem remains. If by our chatting you understand one little bit, my time might not have been wasted. It is not to gain any victory I say this; it is so you can begin to understand and find the truth that leads to life, which God has on offer.

You should care, because you are believing the religion of those primitives.

I think I am seeing the problem. You seem to think that you are presenting "evidence" when in fact you are just presenting your own opinions.



On the surface, it does look hard and cruel, but you cannot say; God is not able to give that child another chance in the kingdom to come. We do not know what the future holds where God has not revealed a matter to us. God might well have it in His plan to raise that infant child and continue its nuture in the Kingdom of God during the millennium reign of Christ. Who can say, whether or not the spirit of that young child was not kept in the hands of God, just as Jesus commended his own spirit into the hands of God (his Father) when about to die on the tree. When I think of what God can do, I do not put up the obstacle of the death of one (innocent) child (or thousands) for not believing God is just and is merciful.

The problem is not so much that it was "hard and cruel" - the problem is that it was UNJUST and WRONG. It was wrong on multiple counts, according to the very standards taught in the Bible itself.

Is appears that a person must reject all rationality and morality to believe the Bible. You can't admit the wickedness of things like genocide and bashing babies heads open and passing wives around like party treats and distributing 32,000 virgins to the soldiers that slaughtered their families. To me, that proves that fundamentalist religion corrupts both the minds and the morals of anyone who adheres to it.



Good! Historical Christianity has been wrong for centuries, I know how John the Baptist felt when he replied; "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness"

SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE MORMON! :lmbo:



I trust my answers have been helpful.

David
Yes, they have been very helpful. You have confirmed my conclusion that Christianity is utterly indefensible and false and should be rejected by all rational people.

I hope the conversation continues.

Great chatting!

Richard

David M
04-12-2012, 02:31 AM
Good morning Richard

We have gone right off the topic of this thread.

I do not intend to respond to every question and assertion you have made in your reply to my earlier post otherwise we shall fill up cyberspace and still end up being diametrically opposed on practically everything to do with the message of the Bible. I might pick up on some of the questions you have asked in your last post to me, but I want to break the cycle we have got into.

I want to get back to the reason I began to contribute on this forum, which is to put forward my understanding of what God is saying to us through His inspired word. It does not matter that you disagree with the premise I have just stated. I am not going to get into repeated arguments dealing with matters we have already discussed and have disagreed on. I am not going to get involved with discussions on Evolution or trying to prove God exists. I am not going to get involved with the history and the development of Christianity or any other religion, as it does not help get to the truth of the Bible message. The message revealed to the prophets which became the ancient scriptures will not have changed. It is from the ancient scriptures we should begin, but with the earliest of documents not available to us, we have to deal with the Bible as it has been handed down and we have to deal with errors introduced and any bias of the translators. It is important the errors are seen for what they are and taken into account in any discussions before deriving the best coherent message of the Bible.

I agree with your comments that we all think we have the correct interpretation and think everyone else wrong. The aim for me is to get all the pieces of the Bible correctly fitted together. If that is the aim of others, then we can help one another get to a complete and true understanding of God’s message.

We can use the analogy of a jigsaw puzzle. The final picture is complete when all the pieces are correctly placed. Until then, only part of the picture emerges as the pieces fit together. If pieces are incorrectly positioned they can form a small picture which is not intended. The final picture will never be complete as long as there are pieces out of place. Only when all the pieces are in their correct place, will the picture (message) be complete and coherent. Any time a piece is put in the wrong place the coherency of the jigsaw is lost. The coherency of the Bible is important. Without coherency, truth cannot be established. The more pieces we have correctly placed, the more coherence we have. If a piece fits and the picture it forms is not correct, then it has to be removed and repositioned until the correct place for the piece is found.

It does not matter whether it is a prophecy or a promise or a doctrine, we can all misplace pieces that make up those parts of the complete picture. The more pieces that are placed correctly, the easier it becomes to fit the remaining pieces that we have struggled to find a place for. We begin a jigsaw believing we have all the pieces in the box to complete the puzzle. When all the pieces have been correctly placed, we shall know if we are missing any piece.

I shall say no more at this point for fear that anything else I say will get challenged and refuted and that is not the purpose of this message. I have tried to stay on topic in other threads and although it is very easy to go down side trails, I shall try harder in future to prevent this happening.
If you want to find the coherent message in God’s word, I look forward to putting the pieces of the puzzle together with you. However, If you argue about the validity of each piece in the box belonging to the puzzle, there is no basis on which to piece the puzzle together.

I look forward to piecing the puzzle together with anyone who wants to help.


David

Richard Amiel McGough
04-12-2012, 11:38 AM
Good morning Richard

We have gone right off the topic of this thread.

I do not intend to respond to every question and assertion you have made in your reply to my earlier post otherwise we shall fill up cyberspace and still end up being diametrically opposed on practically everything to do with the message of the Bible. I might pick up on some of the questions you have asked in your last post to me, but I want to break the cycle we have got into.

I want to get back to the reason I began to contribute on this forum, which is to put forward my understanding of what God is saying to us through His inspired word. It does not matter that you disagree with the premise I have just stated. I am not going to get into repeated arguments dealing with matters we have already discussed and have disagreed on. I am not going to get involved with discussions on Evolution or trying to prove God exists. I am not going to get involved with the history and the development of Christianity or any other religion, as it does not help get to the truth of the Bible message. The message revealed to the prophets which became the ancient scriptures will not have changed. It is from the ancient scriptures we should begin, but with the earliest of documents not available to us, we have to deal with the Bible as it has been handed down and we have to deal with errors introduced and any bias of the translators. It is important the errors are seen for what they are and taken into account in any discussions before deriving the best coherent message of the Bible.

I agree with your comments that we all think we have the correct interpretation and think everyone else wrong. The aim for me is to get all the pieces of the Bible correctly fitted together. If that is the aim of others, then we can help one another get to a complete and true understanding of God’s message.

We can use the analogy of a jigsaw puzzle. The final picture is complete when all the pieces are correctly placed. Until then, only part of the picture emerges as the pieces fit together. If pieces are incorrectly positioned they can form a small picture which is not intended. The final picture will never be complete as long as there are pieces out of place. Only when all the pieces are in their correct place, will the picture (message) be complete and coherent. Any time a piece is put in the wrong place the coherency of the jigsaw is lost. The coherency of the Bible is important. Without coherency, truth cannot be established. The more pieces we have correctly placed, the more coherence we have. If a piece fits and the picture it forms is not correct, then it has to be removed and repositioned until the correct place for the piece is found.

It does not matter whether it is a prophecy or a promise or a doctrine, we can all misplace pieces that make up those parts of the complete picture. The more pieces that are placed correctly, the easier it becomes to fit the remaining pieces that we have struggled to find a place for. We begin a jigsaw believing we have all the pieces in the box to complete the puzzle. When all the pieces have been correctly placed, we shall know if we are missing any piece.

I shall say no more at this point for fear that anything else I say will get challenged and refuted and that is not the purpose of this message. I have tried to stay on topic in other threads and although it is very easy to go down side trails, I shall try harder in future to prevent this happening.
If you want to find the coherent message in God’s word, I look forward to putting the pieces of the puzzle together with you. However, If you argue about the validity of each piece in the box belonging to the puzzle, there is no basis on which to piece the puzzle together.

I look forward to piecing the puzzle together with anyone who wants to help.


David
Hey there David,

Yes, we digressed quite a bit from the original topic of this thread. But that's OK - we learned a lot about each other's positions on many things.

I agree that the Bible is rather like a jigsaw puzzle and that the "more pieces that are placed correctly, the easier it becomes to fit the remaining pieces that we have struggled to find a place for." Indeed, it is the Futurist rejection of the main and plain parts that fit together with strong mutual confirmation to form a coherent "Big Picture" that creates most of the confusion about the Bible. I've laid out the elements of the Big Picture many times on this forum, but Futurists always reject what the Bible plainly states. I think it would be very interesting if you wanted to pursue this topic. Here is my overview from this thread (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?1800-Comparing-the-Biblical-Foundations-of-Futurism-amp-Preterism&p=24101#post24101). You can follow it up there if you are so inclined. It begins with the main and plain things that all Christians agree upon. It proves that Preterism is Biblical and Futurism is not.
1) Jesus Christ is the Messiah prophesied in the OT

2) John the Baptist was the forerunner of Christ prophesied in Malachi 3 & 4. He fulfilled the prophecies of the "Elijah" who was to come as a forerunner of Christ and herald of the great and terrible Day of the Lord. The first century immanence of the great Day of the Lord is confirmed by Peter in Acts 2.

3) John the Baptist warned the apostates of Israel of the wrath to come upon them. He called them a "generation of vipers." He emphasized that the wrath would happen very soon, saying the "axe is laid to the root."

4) Christ also called them a "generation of vipers" when he warned them that they would be accountable for all the blood shed upon the earth/land. He said the judgment would happen in "this generation" meaning the generation alive at the time he spoke. History confirms his prophecies, which also are tied in with Daniel's prophecies that spoke of both the coming of Christ and the destruction of the Temple in the same context.

5) Paul confirmed that the "wrath to come" was upon the Jews of the first century and spoke of them killing the prophets and "filling up" their sins just as Christ had spoken in Matt 23.

6) The plain and literal meaning of all the time texts fit perfectly with all the mutually confirming verses above. Furthermore, there are many different kinds of times texts, and they all agree with this interpretation. I'm talking about "events which must shortly come to pass" and "for the time is at hand" and "this generation will not pass till all is fulfilled" and "I am coming quickly" and "The judge is at the door" and "it is the last hour" and so on and so forth. This means that merely explaining away each individual time text (as if they were independent of each other) by suggesting "possible alternatives" is insufficient. You need to show that there is a massive complex of mutually confirming verses that support your alternate (non-literal) interpretation of the time texts and that also form a Big Picture of equal or greater clarity than the "Big Picture" we see in the Preterist interpretation.

7) The elements of Revelation naturally cohere with everything stated above. The time texts fit perfectly - they are confirmed by all the other time texts of the NT and so are extremely compelling. The sequence of the Seals follows and confirms the sequence of events in the Olivet Discourse. The prophecy against Jerusalem in Matt 23 (blood of the prophets) is perfectly fulfilled in the prophecy against Mystery Babylon in Rev 18:24.

And on it goes. This is the "Big Picture" formed by many mutually confirming verses.


If you want to pursue the Big Picture of what the Bible REALLY teaches, you could respond to the post I just quoted (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?1800-Comparing-the-Biblical-Foundations-of-Futurism-amp-Preterism&p=24101#post24101) or we could start a new thread.

All the best,

Richard

Rose
04-12-2012, 07:22 PM
I agree with your comments that we all think we have the correct interpretation and think everyone else wrong. The aim for me is to get all the pieces of the Bible correctly fitted together. If that is the aim of others, then we can help one another get to a complete and true understanding of God’s message.

Hi David,

Trying to get all the pieces of the Bible to fit together and make sense is precisely how I got to where I am today. I began an intense study of Revelation which lead me into the Old Testament for understanding, which then opened up a can of worms trying to reconcile all the errors, contradictions and male bias I found.


We can use the analogy of a jigsaw puzzle. The final picture is complete when all the pieces are correctly placed. Until then, only part of the picture emerges as the pieces fit together. If pieces are incorrectly positioned they can form a small picture which is not intended. The final picture will never be complete as long as there are pieces out of place. Only when all the pieces are in their correct place, will the picture (message) be complete and coherent. Any time a piece is put in the wrong place the coherency of the jigsaw is lost. The coherency of the Bible is important. Without coherency, truth cannot be established. The more pieces we have correctly placed, the more coherence we have. If a piece fits and the picture it forms is not correct, then it has to be removed and repositioned until the correct place for the piece is found.

It does not matter whether it is a prophecy or a promise or a doctrine, we can all misplace pieces that make up those parts of the complete picture. The more pieces that are placed correctly, the easier it becomes to fit the remaining pieces that we have struggled to find a place for. We begin a jigsaw believing we have all the pieces in the box to complete the puzzle. When all the pieces have been correctly placed, we shall know if we are missing any piece.

The coherency of the Bible is extremely important and it is something that is sorely lacking, the more I tried to make the pieces fit the more the validity of the Bible fell apart ultimately coming to the point where I could no longer reconcile the god it promoted with my sense of goodness.



I shall say no more at this point for fear that anything else I say will get challenged and refuted and that is not the purpose of this message. I have tried to stay on topic in other threads and although it is very easy to go down side trails, I shall try harder in future to prevent this happening.
If you want to find the coherent message in God’s word, I look forward to putting the pieces of the puzzle together with you. However, If you argue about the validity of each piece in the box belonging to the puzzle, there is no basis on which to piece the puzzle together.

I look forward to piecing the puzzle together with anyone who wants to help.


David

One can never come to the truth by merely accepting on faith what the Bible says. Each piece must be deemed valid or else the conclusion one comes to will not hold up.

All the best,
Rose

David M
04-12-2012, 11:38 PM
Hey there David,

If you want to pursue the Big Picture of what the Bible REALLY teaches, you could respond to the post I just quoted (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?1800-Comparing-the-Biblical-Foundations-of-Futurism-amp-Preterism&p=24101#post24101) or we could start a new thread.

All the best,

Richard

Good morning Richard

Thanks for the links, I have read your post and some of the replies.

I think we have much to carry on discussing and we can look at fulfilment of prophecies which fall into 4 periods;

1. From Creation to the first coming of Jesus
2. Between Jesus’s birth and AD70
3. Post AD70 to now
4. From now until when Jesus hands back the restored kingdom to God

Maybe we identify all the prophecies that fall into those four time periods. We should end up having a more meaningful discussion displaying less antagonism.

I have read your article and the discussion you were having at that time and that is the type of discussion we need to get back. I do not propose we continue discussing these things in this thread and maybe there are threads that can be continued.

Here are some of the subjects we can think about.

1. Promises to Abraham which are not complete.
2. When is the fulfilment of God’s promise; 'But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD'?
3. When will the Jews recognize Christ and the veil removed?
4. When is the 'time of the Gentiles' fulfilled?
5. When is the period of 'Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth' to take place?
6. When will Gog and Magog come to war against Israel?
7. When will the Mount of Olives split in two?
8. When is the fulfilment of Zechariah chapter 14?
9. When was the fulfilment of Ezekiel chapter 38?
10. When is the fulfilment of Revelation chapter 21?

The list above is not extensive and is the first 10 subjects to come straight from my head as I write. All 10 items listed must fall into one of the 4 time periods.

I think there is enough here to continue discussions for a while.

All the best.

David

David M
04-13-2012, 01:06 AM
Hi David,

Trying to get all the pieces of the Bible to fit together and make sense is precisely how I got to where I am today. I began an intense study of Revelation which lead me into the Old Testament for understanding, which then opened up a can of worms trying to reconcile all the errors, contradictions and male bias I found.

The coherency of the Bible is extremely important and it is something that is sorely lacking, the more I tried to make the pieces fit the more the validity of the Bible fell apart ultimately coming to the point where I could no longer reconcile the god it promoted with my sense of goodness.

One can never come to the truth by merely accepting on faith what the Bible says. Each piece must be deemed valid or else the conclusion one comes to will not hold up.

All the best,
Rose

Hello Rose

Starting with the Book of Revelation is not the best place to begin to understand the Bible. Revelation is not for beginners and while I do not consider myself a beginner, I do not claim to know all about the fulfilment of the prophecies and symbolism in Revelation. I am still working at it. I have faith that the symbolism used means something and that it is God's truth. My belief in this has come from understanding the parts of the Bible, I have seen come to pass and accept as true.

If you see the Bible lacking coherency that is a problem you have to resolve. Just because you have not been able to reslove this up to now, does not mean that the Bible does not have a coherent message. I have found a lot of coherency and that is a contributory factor to why I believe the whole of the Bible. There are parts I do not fully understand. I do not let this negate everything else I understand to be true. This is why, I look for coherency in the difficult passages to understand. The Bible has enough coherency to assure me that this is a divinely inspired book; the coherent message penned over thousands of years could not have been the work of fiction by men.

The story that is in the Bible has an ending. I see this ending as when Christ hands back a restored kingdom/earth to God. Beyond that time, we have no idea what God has in store, the Bible does not tell us. The period after the Bible record has finished is of eternal life in the kingdom which is upon this earth. This is God's promise and unless you can prove God is a liar (His Word to me proves true) this is a message of hope to mankind. Without God, we have no sure foundation for hope. If you believe in Evolution in which there is no God, what hope have you for yourself in the future. The hope of eternal life and the assurance of eternal life is based on the firm foundation that Jesus was raised from the dead. Without this belief, then any hope of a future life is wishful thinking by man. A person can have no hope of a future life and that is OK; hope is a personal matter.

If God can lie (and He has no reason to lie and it is not in His nature) then I would not trust God. I have to disbelieve some of the myths created by man's interpretation of God's word because they make God to be a liar and that is not the case. It behoves us to search out truth, and if we cannot find it straightaway, we should hold things in abeyance until we can. Putting all the terrible acts of war to one side, can you not attribute one good thing towards God? If you can find one, this is reason to find another and build from there. Jesus said; it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.. It is not God's good pleasure to punish men for their evil ways, but God has to be true to His word and will punish in accordance with what He has said He would do. If God did not punish evil people in this world, and it the evil people are not separated out before God's kingdom is established, I would be very worried for the future that God is promising. Evil does not feature in the kingdom that will exist after Christ hands over his kingdom. God has punished people in the past and we read the recorded accounts of the times He did. At present (and man blames God for not intervening) God is longsuffering and not punishing man. The day is coming when God will punish man again and God will punish man in a big way. The day is also coming when He will save those who want to be saved. It is a matter of whose side you want to be on when that happens.

The big picture is that God will restore the earth to as it was before the fall of Adam and Eve. Life (eternal) will continue on this earth. The new age will have none of the evil of this present world. In that time to come, there will no cause to consider God anything other than good, of whom Jesus said; "there is only One who is good" Therefore, the severity of God as seen in the punishement brought about by God must be got into perspective. These horrible events serve as a lessons. More good can come from people learning the lessons of other people. If people choose not to learn the lesson and continue in their evil ways, it is not God who is to blame. You can only blame God for giving men and women free choice. Thank God for your "free choice". God has given you the choice to reject Him. God is big enough to take rejection. God has control.

If you know someone who practices their religion which involves offering young children as sacrifices, is this something you condone? If you do not condone their actions, what do you do? Do you ask them to stop? What if they do not listen to you and continue? What if by their practice of child sacrifice, they bring others to do the same, what do you think of that? Not only do you want that person to stop, you now have others to whom you want to say "stop". What can you do, to stop these other people sacrificing children? What is your solution to this problem? What if you have explained to them why it is wrong and evil to do this and they still continue? You have taught them it is wrong, you have pleaded with them to stop and they will not change their ways, what can you do? Is it right that you let them continue to convert more people to do the same thing and therefore kill more children? What can you do to stop them? God has instructed you not to kill, but you feel like killing all these people for the evil they are committing and you are powerless to kill them all on your own. If you cannot stop them, who can? If you know that God is there and He can do it, would you not ask God to kill them? God can kill and that takes the onus off you and you are thereby obeying the instruction "do not to kill". Whereas you are powerless to do this on your own, you might consider getting a bunch of like-minded people together and saying; "let us kill these evil people and put a stop to this". But you would all be guilty of disobeying God's instruction not to kill. What then if God says to you; "on this occassion, I permit you to kill these people and you will be guiltless, because I have instructed you to do this in order that you can have your heart's desire to put an end to this child-killing practice", would you then do as God has allowed you?

Please Rose, take the above paragraph and take time to respond to each and every question. I want to know your answers.

All the best.

David

Rose
04-13-2012, 09:17 AM
Hello Rose

Starting with the Book of Revelation is not the best place to begin to understand the Bible. Revelation is not for beginners and while I do not consider myself a beginner, I do not claim to know all about the fulfilment of the prophecies and symbolism in Revelation. I am still working at it. I have faith that the symbolism used means something and that it is God's truth. My belief in this has come from understanding the parts of the Bible, I have seen come to pass and accept as true.

If you see the Bible lacking coherency that is a problem you have to resolve. Just because you have not been able to reslove this up to now, does not mean that the Bible does not have a coherent message. I have found a lot of coherency and that is a contributory factor to why I believe the whole of the Bible. There are parts I do not fully understand. I do not let this negate everything else I understand to be true. This is why, I look for coherency in the difficult passages to understand. The Bible has enough coherency to assure me that this is a divinely inspired book; the coherent message penned over thousands of years could not have been the work of fiction by men.

I'm sorry David, but making an incoherent book coherent is not my job...all I would be doing is creating one more personal religion. My job is to search out the truth and use my intelligence to discern facts from fiction.


The story that is in the Bible has an ending. I see this ending as when Christ hands back a restored kingdom/earth to God. Beyond that time, we have no idea what God has in store, the Bible does not tell us. The period after the Bible record has finished is of eternal life in the kingdom which is upon this earth. This is God's promise and unless you can prove God is a liar (His Word to me proves true) this is a message of hope to mankind. Without God, we have no sure foundation for hope. If you believe in Evolution in which there is no God, what hope have you for yourself in the future. The hope of eternal life and the assurance of eternal life is based on the firm foundation that Jesus was raised from the dead. Without this belief, then any hope of a future life is wishful thinking by man. A person can have no hope of a future life and that is OK; hope is a personal matter.

If God can lie (and He has no reason to lie and it is not in His nature) then I would not trust God. I have to disbelieve some of the myths created by man's interpretation of God's word because they make God to be a liar and that is not the case. It behooves us to search out truth, and if we cannot find it straightaway, we should hold things in abeyance until we can. Putting all the terrible acts of war to one side, can you not attribute one good thing towards God? If you can find one, this is reason to find another and build from there. Jesus said; it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.. It is not God's good pleasure to punish men for their evil ways, but God has to be true to His word and will punish in accordance with what He has said He would do. If God did not punish evil people in this world, and it the evil people are not separated out before God's kingdom is established, I would be very worried for the future that God is promising. Evil does not feature in the kingdom that will exist after Christ hands over his kingdom. God has punished people in the past and we read the recorded accounts of the times He did. At present (and man blames God for not intervening) God is longsuffering and not punishing man. The day is coming when God will punish man again and God will punish man in a big way. The day is also coming when He will save those who want to be saved. It is a matter of whose side you want to be on when that happens.

I don't need to prove God is a liar, because I have shown that the Bible is a book written from the minds of Bronze Age men, so instead of being a liar God is a myth. The Bible is so full of male-bias, errors and contradictions, and is such a perfect reflection of the beliefs and customs of ancient man that it leaves no doubt in my mind where the ideas it portrays came from.


The big picture is that God will restore the earth to as it was before the fall of Adam and Eve. Life (eternal) will continue on this earth. The new age will have none of the evil of this present world. In that time to come, there will no cause to consider God anything other than good, of whom Jesus said; "there is only One who is good" Therefore, the severity of God as seen in the punishement brought about by God must be got into perspective. These horrible events serve as a lessons. More good can come from people learning the lessons of other people. If people choose not to learn the lesson and continue in their evil ways, it is not God who is to blame. You can only blame God for giving men and women free choice. Thank God for your "free choice". God has given you the choice to reject Him. God is big enough to take rejection. God has control.

If you know someone who practices their religion which involves offering young children as sacrifices, is this something you condone? If you do not condone their actions, what do you do? Do you ask them to stop? What if they do not listen to you and continue? What if by their practice of child sacrifice, they bring others to do the same, what do you think of that? Not only do you want that person to stop, you now have others to whom you want to say "stop". What can you do, to stop these other people sacrificing children? What is your solution to this problem? What if you have explained to them why it is wrong and evil to do this and they still continue? You have taught them it is wrong, you have pleaded with them to stop and they will not change their ways, what can you do? Is it right that you let them continue to convert more people to do the same thing and therefore kill more children? What can you do to stop them? God has instructed you not to kill, but you feel like killing all these people for the evil they are committing and you are powerless to kill them all on your own. If you cannot stop them, who can? If you know that God is there and He can do it, would you not ask God to kill them? God can kill and that takes the onus off you and you are thereby obeying the instruction "do not to kill". Whereas you are powerless to do this on your own, you might consider getting a bunch of like-minded people together and saying; "let us kill these evil people and put a stop to this". But you would all be guilty of disobeying God's instruction not to kill. What then if God says to you; "on this occassion, I permit you to kill these people and you will be guiltless, because I have instructed you to do this in order that you can have your heart's desire to put an end to this child-killing practice", would you then do as God has allowed you?

Please Rose, take the above paragraph and take time to respond to each and every question. I want to know your answers.

All the best.

David

I know for sure David, that if I knew of a religion who offered their children as sacrifices I WOULD NOT in turn slaughter all the men, women and CHILDREN like Yahweh did! How barbaric is that? If there is a god and he wants to take care of the problem of the sinful people he created, then he should do his own dirty work and not ask his creations to do the killing. On one hand the Ten Commandments decree there is to be no killing, and on the other hand Yahweh commands his people to go and slaughter men, women and children for nothing more than worshiping another god, that sounds like a pretty mixed up message to me.

Speaking of human sacrifice, the very foundation of Christianity started with human sacrifice. Couldn't the so called creator of the universe come up with a better solution than copying the rituals of pagan human sacrifice?

Take care,
Rose

CWH
04-13-2012, 11:49 AM
I'm sorry David, but making an incoherent book coherent is not my job...all I would be doing is creating one more personal religion. My job is to search out the truth and use my intelligence to discern facts from fiction.

I don't need to prove God is a liar, because I have shown that the Bible is a book written from the minds of Bronze Age men, so instead of being a liar God is a myth. The Bible is so full of male-bias, errors and contradictions, and is such a perfect reflection of the beliefs and customs of ancient man that it leaves no doubt in my mind where the ideas it portrays came from.

I know for sure David, that if I knew of a religion who offered their children as sacrifices I WOULD NOT in turn slaughter all the men, women and CHILDREN like Yahweh did! How barbaric is that? If there is a god and he wants to take care of the problem of the sinful people he created, then he should do his own dirty work and not ask his creations to do the killing. On one hand the Ten Commandments decree there is to be no killing, and on the other hand Yahweh commands his people to go and slaughter men, women and children for nothing more than worshiping another god, that sounds like a pretty mixed up message to me.

Speaking of human sacrifice, the very foundation of Christianity started with human sacrifice. Couldn't the so called creator of the universe come up with a better solution than copying the rituals of pagan human sacrifice?

Take care,
Rose

It's the same with human laws isn't? On one hand human law says that it is a heinous crime to murder and manslaughter and destroy (men, women, children, civilians, soldiers, animals, properties, vegetation), on the other hand it is ok to do so in wars especially against the enemy. As long as the law allows, it is not a crime.

Then someone asked, why can't the US government do it itself by sending nuclear missiles instead of sending men to die in those wars (Vietnam war, Korean war, Iraqi war, Afghan war etc.)?

Think of these two issues:
1. It is not a crime to kill if human law allows it thus it is not a sin if God allows killing.
2. Why not the US government do it itself by sending nuclear missiles instead of sending men to fight and die there? Sending nuclear missiles would destroy everything(men, women, children, soldiers, animals, civilians, properties, vegetations, land) including good and evil men. It would also endanger friendly nations and the environment and caused international protests. Would that encourage nuclear weapons proliferation worldwide? Thus sending men to fight selectively and conventionally is a better choice.

Yet after the war, comes peace and the warring parties become friends again e.g. US and Japan and Germany after WW2, US and Vietnam. Did those men who fought those wars suffered or died in vain?....sounds insane isn't it?

Now come let's reason together as your motto says.


May God Bless our understandings. :pray:

David M
04-13-2012, 01:12 PM
.


If you know someone who practices their religion which involves offering young children as sacrifices, is this something you condone? If you do not condone their actions, what do you do? Do you ask them to stop? What if they do not listen to you and continue? What if by their practice of child sacrifice, they bring others to do the same, what do you think of that? Not only do you want that person to stop, you now have others to whom you want to say "stop". What can you do, to stop these other people sacrificing children? What is your solution to this problem? What if you have explained to them why it is wrong and evil to do this and they still continue? You have taught them it is wrong, you have pleaded with them to stop and they will not change their ways, what can you do? Is it right that you let them continue to convert more people to do the same thing and therefore kill more children? What can you do to stop them? God has instructed you not to kill, but you feel like killing all these people for the evil they are committing and you are powerless to kill them all on your own. If you cannot stop them, who can? If you know that God is there and He can do it, would you not ask God to kill them? God can kill and that takes the onus off you and you are thereby obeying the instruction "do not to kill". Whereas you are powerless to do this on your own, you might consider getting a bunch of like-minded people together and saying; "let us kill these evil people and put a stop to this". But you would all be guilty of disobeying God's instruction not to kill. What then if God says to you; "on this occassion, I permit you to kill these people and you will be guiltless, because I have instructed you to do this in order that you can have your heart's desire to put an end to this child-killing practice", would you then do as God has allowed you?

I know for sure David, that if I knew of a religion who offered their children as sacrifices I WOULD NOT in turn slaughter all the men, women and CHILDREN like Yahweh did! How barbaric is that? If there is a god and he wants to take care of the problem of the sinful people he created, then he should do his own dirty work and not ask his creations to do the killing. On one hand the Ten Commandments decree there is to be no killing, and on the other hand Yahweh commands his people to go and slaughter men, women and children for nothing more than worshiping another god, that sounds like a pretty mixed up message to me.

Take care,
Rose

Hello Rose

Please forget about what God has done or not done in the past or how you think God should act in the future. I would like to know your answers to the simple plain questions given in the paragraph quoted. I am not looking for deep answers. I just want simple honest answers that do not require any thought and will take up one or two minutes at the most. in most cases a "yes" or no "answer" is all that is required.

Regards

David

Richard Amiel McGough
04-13-2012, 01:44 PM
Good morning Richard

Thanks for the links, I have read your post and some of the replies.

I think we have much to carry on discussing and we can look at fulfilment of prophecies which fall into 4 periods;

1. From Creation to the first coming of Jesus
2. Between Jesus’s birth and AD70
3. Post AD70 to now
4. From now until when Jesus hands back the restored kingdom to God

Maybe we identify all the prophecies that fall into those four time periods. We should end up having a more meaningful discussion displaying less antagonism.

I have read your article and the discussion you were having at that time and that is the type of discussion we need to get back. I do not propose we continue discussing these things in this thread and maybe there are threads that can be continued.

Here are some of the subjects we can think about.

1. Promises to Abraham which are not complete.
2. When is the fulfilment of God’s promise; 'But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD'?
3. When will the Jews recognize Christ and the veil removed?
4. When is the 'time of the Gentiles' fulfilled?
5. When is the period of 'Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth' to take place?
6. When will Gog and Magog come to war against Israel?
7. When will the Mount of Olives split in two?
8. When is the fulfilment of Zechariah chapter 14?
9. When was the fulfilment of Ezekiel chapter 38?
10. When is the fulfilment of Revelation chapter 21?

The list above is not extensive and is the first 10 subjects to come straight from my head as I write. All 10 items listed must fall into one of the 4 time periods.

I think there is enough here to continue discussions for a while.

All the best.

David
Hi David,

Yes, I think we have much to talk about. I think it would be very good to start with the "main and plain" things - the BIG PICTURE. It's like the jigsaw you were talking about. The list of questions you posed have no answers until we establish the "Big Picuture." They are like the pieces of blue sky with wisps of clouds - we'd never finish the puzzle if we started with them. The Big Picutre is super plain and obvious. John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecies about the Elijah who was to come before Messiah AND the great and notable day of the Lord. There are no "two comings of Elijah"! Peter plainly stated that Pentecost fulfilled Joel's prophecy and he connected it to the "day of the Lord" which happened in 70 AD. This is confirmed again by Christ who predicted the destruction of the Temple saying it would happen in the first century (and history confirms). This is the Big Picture of the Bible - the coming of Christ and the judgment of Jerusalem.

Do you see the difference with the bits and pieces that you present? They are notable for their ambiguity. They do not have clear and unambiguous verses confirming them, whereas the Preterist position is confirmed my hundreds of mutually confirming verses interpreted in their plain and obvious sense.

But I will answer your questions here so you have an idea where I am coming from. Then we can choose a title and topic for the new thread where we can explore these issues.

1. Promises to Abraham which are not complete.
The Bible plainly states that ALL the prophecies given to Abraham have been fulfilled.

2. When is the fulfilment of God’s promise; 'But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD'?
That's open to debate.

3. When will the Jews recognize Christ and the veil removed?
Many Jews recognized Christ as Messiah in the first century. Indeed, all the Apostles were Jews. There is no promise that the nation as a whole would ever believe in Jesus.

4. When is the 'time of the Gentiles' fulfilled?
That term is not well defined. It's only used once in the Bible, so it would be foolish to use it in the foundation of any esachatological theory. We must begin with the main and plain things and interpret the obscure things in light of them.

5. When is the period of 'Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth' to take place?
That phrase is from a prayer. It is not a prophecy that there would be a time on this physical earth when it would be manifested.

6. When will Gog and Magog come to war against Israel?
That prophecy is extremely problematic. The Bible does not give enough information to determine its meaning with any certainty.

7. When will the Mount of Olives split in two?
That's probably figurative, like all of Zec 14.

8. When is the fulfilment of Zechariah chapter 14?
We know it can't be literal because it speaks of "all they that sacrifice" (Zec 14:21) and there is no way that God will be re-instituting OT style animal sacrifices.

9. When was the fulfilment of Ezekiel chapter 38?
That's a repeat of question #6 above.

10. When is the fulfilment of Revelation chapter 21?
It already happened. The New Jerusalem is the Church, as it is written:
Hebrews 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.


I hope that helps you understand where I am coming from. Let me know what you think would be a good title and topic for the new thread and I will start it (or you could start it yourself).

Great chatting!

Richard

Rose
04-13-2012, 02:02 PM
Hello Rose


http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Rose http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=43106#post43106)

.


If you know someone who practices their religion which involves offering young children as sacrifices, is this something you condone? If you do not condone their actions, what do you do? Do you ask them to stop? What if they do not listen to you and continue? What if by their practice of child sacrifice, they bring others to do the same, what do you think of that? Not only do you want that person to stop, you now have others to whom you want to say "stop". What can you do, to stop these other people sacrificing children? What is your solution to this problem? What if you have explained to them why it is wrong and evil to do this and they still continue? You have taught them it is wrong, you have pleaded with them to stop and they will not change their ways, what can you do? Is it right that you let them continue to convert more people to do the same thing and therefore kill more children? What can you do to stop them? God has instructed you not to kill, but you feel like killing all these people for the evil they are committing and you are powerless to kill them all on your own. If you cannot stop them, who can? If you know that God is there and He can do it, would you not ask God to kill them? God can kill and that takes the onus off you and you are thereby obeying the instruction "do not to kill". Whereas you are powerless to do this on your own, you might consider getting a bunch of like-minded people together and saying; "let us kill these evil people and put a stop to this". But you would all be guilty of disobeying God's instruction not to kill. What then if God says to you; "on this occassion, I permit you to kill these people and you will be guiltless, because I have instructed you to do this in order that you can have your heart's desire to put an end to this child-killing practice", would you then do as God has allowed you?


I know for sure David, that if I knew of a religion who offered their children as sacrifices I WOULD NOT in turn slaughter all the men, women and CHILDREN like Yahweh did! How barbaric is that? If there is a god and he wants to take care of the problem of the sinful people he created, then he should do his own dirty work and not ask his creations to do the killing. On one hand the Ten Commandments decree there is to be no killing, and on the other hand Yahweh commands his people to go and slaughter men, women and children for nothing more than worshiping another god, that sounds like a pretty mixed up message to me.

Take care,
Rose



Please forget about what God has done or not done in the past or how you think God should act in the future. I would like to know your answers to the simple plain questions given in the paragraph quoted. I am not looking for deep answers. I just want simple honest answers that do not require any thought and will take up one or two minutes at the most. in most cases a "yes" or no "answer" is all that is required.

Regards

David

Hi David,

I pretty much summed up all your questions into my one answer, but I can go over it again. If I had the power that is attributed to God and I knew there were people sacrificing their children, I would first take the men who were responsible for propagating the belief that a god named Molech, requires human sacrifice and teach them that their beliefs are wrong. I most certainly WOULD NOT command other people to go and slaughter all the men, women and children as a solution!

The pathetic thing is that with all the killing that Yahweh ordered in the Bible, nothing changed! People still continued to worship other gods and people still continued to do bad things. Also, why was God ordering people to do stuff he should have been taking care of himself, if you believe God created humans then he should have taken the responsibility instead of commanding other humans to do his corrective work. And why didn't God learn from the fact that even when he wiped out all humans with a flood, nothing changed. Killing people is a barbaric, primitive way to solve problems, which is why it is so obvious that the god of the Bible is a primitive tribal war god made up from the minds of men.

All the best,
Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
04-13-2012, 04:46 PM
Hello Rose

Trying to get all the pieces of the Bible to fit together and make sense is precisely how I got to where I am today. I began an intense study of Revelation which lead me into the Old Testament for understanding, which then opened up a can of worms trying to reconcile all the errors, contradictions and male bias I found.
Starting with the Book of Revelation is not the best place to begin to understand the Bible. Revelation is not for beginners and while I do not consider myself a beginner, I do not claim to know all about the fulfilment of the prophecies and symbolism in Revelation. I am still working at it. I have faith that the symbolism used means something and that it is God's truth. My belief in this has come from understanding the parts of the Bible, I have seen come to pass and accept as true.

I think it is important to note that Rose was a Christian for 30 years and had read the Bible thoroughly before she began her intense study of Revelation in particular. She was not in any way a "beginner."

I interacted with her every day over a two year period as she analyzed the book, comparing Scripture with Scripture and believing that the Bible was perfectly coherent and only needed to be studied to be understood. She made a trememdous amount of progress and discovered many connections (especially with the OT and Christ's prophecies in the Olivet Discourse) that confirmed her understanding. But the study was so intense, that she could not deny she also began seeing inconsistencies that proved the Bible was not perfectly coherent. Her last big project was an attempt to harmonize the accounts of the anointing of Christ at Bethany. She worked intensely and refused to give up looking for harmony until it became apparent there was none.

It would be a fascinating study to compare how we agree and differ as to what constitutes evidence of the Bible. When I was a Christian, I was convinced that the strongest of all proofs (by far) was the prophetic flow from the OT to the NT and the fulfillment of the integrated prophetic complex of Daniel, Revelation, and the Olivet Discourse in 70 AD. Ironically, the vast majority of Chistians reject those prophecies as fulfilled because that would contradict the Futurist eschatalogy in which they were indoctrinated. Ironically, it is usually the atheists that deny the fulfillment of prophecies!



If you see the Bible lacking coherency that is a problem you have to resolve. Just because you have not been able to reslove this up to now, does not mean that the Bible does not have a coherent message. I have found a lot of coherency and that is a contributory factor to why I believe the whole of the Bible. There are parts I do not fully understand. I do not let this negate everything else I understand to be true. This is why, I look for coherency in the difficult passages to understand. The Bible has enough coherency to assure me that this is a divinely inspired book; the coherent message penned over thousands of years could not have been the work of fiction by men.

There is an error in your method. How would you ever find out if the Koran had an error if you used your method? Every argument made against it could be countered by saying "If you see the Koran lacking coherency that is a problem you have to resolve. Just because you have not been able to reslove this up to now, does not mean that the Koran does not have a coherent message. I have found a lot of coherency and that is a contributory factor to why I believe the whole of the Koran. There are parts I do not fully understand. I do not let this negate everything else I understand to be true. This is why, I look for coherency in the difficult passages to understand. The Koran has enough coherency to assure me that this is a divinely inspired book; the coherent message penned over thousands of years could not have been the work of fiction by men."

It seems to me that you are using a double-standard to protect your dogma that the Bible is trustworthy. Double-standards are the arch-enemy of truth and should be avoided at all costs. They make it impossible to discover the truth.

David M
04-14-2012, 02:11 AM
I think it is important to note that Rose was a Christian for 30 years and had read the Bible thoroughly before she began her intense study of Revelation in particular. She was not in any way a "beginner."

I interacted with her every day over a two year period as she analyzed the book, comparing Scripture with Scripture and believing that the Bible was perfectly coherent and only needed to be studied to be understood. She made a trememdous amount of progress and discovered many connections (especially with the OT and Christ's prophecies in the Olivet Discourse) that confirmed her understanding. But the study was so intense, that she could not deny she also began seeing inconsistencies that proved the Bible was not perfectly coherent. Her last big project was an attempt to harmonize the accounts of the anointing of Christ at Bethany. She worked intensely and refused to give up looking for harmony until it became apparent there was none.

It would be a fascinating study to compare how we agree and differ as to what constitutes evidence of the Bible. When I was a Christian, I was convinced that the strongest of all proofs (by far) was the prophetic flow from the OT to the NT and the fulfillment of the integrated prophetic complex of Daniel, Revelation, and the Olivet Discourse in 70 AD. Ironically, the vast majority of Chistians reject those prophecies as fulfilled because that would contradict the Futurist eschatalogy in which they were indoctrinated. Ironically, it is usually the atheists that deny the fulfillment of prophecies!


There is an error in your method. How would you ever find out if the Koran had an error if you used your method? Every argument made against it could be countered by saying "If you see the Koran lacking coherency that is a problem you have to resolve. Just because you have not been able to reslove this up to now, does not mean that the Koran does not have a coherent message. I have found a lot of coherency and that is a contributory factor to why I believe the whole of the Koran. There are parts I do not fully understand. I do not let this negate everything else I understand to be true. This is why, I look for coherency in the difficult passages to understand. The Koran has enough coherency to assure me that this is a divinely inspired book; the coherent message penned over thousands of years could not have been the work of fiction by men."

It seems to me that you are using a double-standard to protect your dogma that the Bible is trustworthy. Double-standards are the arch-enemy of truth and should be avoided at all costs. They make it impossible to discover the truth.

Thanks for explaining the history of Rose's faith. How easily we misconstrue what the writer intends us to understand. This is our common problem which is why we are reasoning together to understand one another's beliefs.

I would not throw out all the consistencies of the Bible, just because there are some inconsistences to be resolved. If there is enough consistency in the Bible to believe it to be true, that must override the apparent inconsistencies by which one is prepared to reject the whole of the Bible and reject God in the process. Thanks for sharing your history which gives me a clearer understanding of your stance on these issues.

You are right to reject many of the doctrines taught by Christianity, but to me you appear to be holding on to some of the false doctrines you were taught. Why support the Trinity when the Bible teaches God is ONE? If you claim to have rejected Christianity, you should reject the Christian doctrine of the Trinity which was introduced centuries after the Bible was written. I expect you to use your own intellect and reason and not follow the false reasoning of others that lead you to believe it. It is difficult for you to shake that false reasoning off. I suggest you start off with a fresh approach and take on board the thoughts I have presented and at least consider them as a possibility till you have fully reasoned the matter out starting all over again without any preconceptions.

That would be a lengthy study to compare relative amounts of consistency and inconsistency in the Bible and with the relative amounts of consistency and inconsistency in the Koran. If such an exercise proved the Bible is more consistent of the two, is this reason enough to take the Bible as the more authorative book?
While I have not found enough inconsistency to make me give up believing, I shall continue to believe what I do until I am shown strong irrefutable evidence to make me change my mind. None so far has been forthcoming. Merely asserting one's evidence is irrefutable does not add anything to the real argument. While we refute each other's evidence, we hold our ground and our beliefs.

Let's carry on reasoning.


David

David M
04-14-2012, 02:31 AM
Hi David,

I pretty much summed up all your questions into my one answer, but I can go over it again. If I had the power that is attributed to God and I knew there were people sacrificing their children, I would first take the men who were responsible for propagating the belief that a god named Molech, requires human sacrifice and teach them that their beliefs are wrong. I most certainly WOULD NOT command other people to go and slaughter all the men, women and children as a solution!

The pathetic thing is that with all the killing that Yahweh ordered in the Bible, nothing changed! People still continued to worship other gods and people still continued to do bad things. Also, why was God ordering people to do stuff he should have been taking care of himself, if you believe God created humans then he should have taken the responsibility instead of commanding other humans to do his corrective work. And why didn't God learn from the fact that even when he wiped out all humans with a flood, nothing changed. Killing people is a barbaric, primitive way to solve problems, which is why it is so obvious that the god of the Bible is a primitive tribal war god made up from the minds of men.

All the best,
Rose

Hello Rose
How do you manage the quotes within quotes to so many levels? I am not sure what the multiquote button does, it does not make any difference in my IE8 browser which does strange things of late with my wireless router.

That aside, I do not want your summary. You are avoiding answering my questions. Please go through them and answer them one by one. There is the question of what do you do if you teaching is rejected. You think you can teach and people will readily accept what you say. This forum should tell you that you are on to a non-starter; it is not going to happen.

Here is the paragraph again with my questions.

If you know someone who practices their religion which involves offering young children as sacrifices, is this something you condone? If you do not condone their actions, what do you do? Do you ask them to stop? What if they do not listen to you and continue? What if by their practice of child sacrifice, they bring others to do the same, what do you think of that? Not only do you want that person to stop, you now have others to whom you want to say "stop". What can you do, to stop these other people sacrificing children? What is your solution to this problem? What if you have explained to them why it is wrong and evil to do this and they still continue? You have taught them it is wrong, you have pleaded with them to stop and they will not change their ways, what can you do? Is it right that you let them continue to convert more people to do the same thing and therefore kill more children? What can you do to stop them? God has instructed you not to kill, but you feel like killing all these people for the evil they are committing and you are powerless to kill them all on your own. If you cannot stop them, who can? If you know that God is there and He can do it, would you not ask God to kill them? God can kill and that takes the onus off you and you are thereby obeying the instruction "do not to kill". Whereas you are powerless to do this on your own, you might consider getting a bunch of like-minded people together and saying; "let us kill these evil people and put a stop to this". But you would all be guilty of disobeying God's instruction not to kill. What then if God says to you; "on this occassion, I permit you to kill these people and you will be guiltless, because I have instructed you to do this in order that you can have your heart's desire to put an end to this child-killing practice", would you then do as God has allowed you?

I look forward to each and every answer to the questions.


All the best.

David

David M
04-14-2012, 02:45 AM
Hello Richard

Hi David,

Yes, I think we have much to talk about. I think it would be very good to start with the "main and plain" things - the BIG PICTURE. It's like the jigsaw you were talking about. The list of questions you posed have no answers until we establish the "Big Picuture." They are like the pieces of blue sky with wisps of clouds - we'd never finish the puzzle if we started with them. The Big Picutre is super plain and obvious. John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecies about the Elijah who was to come before Messiah AND the great and notable day of the Lord. There are no "two comings of Elijah"! Peter plainly stated that Pentecost fulfilled Joel's prophecy and he connected it to the "day of the Lord" which happened in 70 AD. This is confirmed again by Christ who predicted the destruction of the Temple saying it would happen in the first century (and history confirms). This is the Big Picture of the Bible - the coming of Christ and the judgment of Jerusalem.

Do you see the difference with the bits and pieces that you present? They are notable for their ambiguity. They do not have clear and unambiguous verses confirming them, whereas the Preterist position is confirmed my hundreds of mutually confirming verses interpreted in their plain and obvious sense.

But I will answer your questions here so you have an idea where I am coming from. Then we can choose a title and topic for the new thread where we can explore these issues.

1. Promises to Abraham which are not complete.
The Bible plainly states that ALL the prophecies given to Abraham have been fulfilled.

2. When is the fulfilment of God’s promise; 'But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD'?
That's open to debate.

3. When will the Jews recognize Christ and the veil removed?
Many Jews recognized Christ as Messiah in the first century. Indeed, all the Apostles were Jews. There is no promise that the nation as a whole would ever believe in Jesus.

4. When is the 'time of the Gentiles' fulfilled?
That term is not well defined. It's only used once in the Bible, so it would be foolish to use it in the foundation of any esachatological theory. We must begin with the main and plain things and interpret the obscure things in light of them.

5. When is the period of 'Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth' to take place?
That phrase is from a prayer. It is not a prophecy that there would be a time on this physical earth when it would be manifested.

6. When will Gog and Magog come to war against Israel?
That prophecy is extremely problematic. The Bible does not give enough information to determine its meaning with any certainty.

7. When will the Mount of Olives split in two?
That's probably figurative, like all of Zec 14.

8. When is the fulfilment of Zechariah chapter 14?
We know it can't be literal because it speaks of "all they that sacrifice" (Zec 14:21) and there is no way that God will be re-instituting OT style animal sacrifices.

9. When was the fulfilment of Ezekiel chapter 38?
That's a repeat of question #6 above.

10. When is the fulfilment of Revelation chapter 21?
It already happened. The New Jerusalem is the Church, as it is written:
Hebrews 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.


I hope that helps you understand where I am coming from. Let me know what you think would be a good title and topic for the new thread and I will start it (or you could start it yourself).

Great chatting!

Richard

Hello Richard
In your usual style, you have responded to everything I have listed and as I said it was not the purpose to use that list in this thread. I will gladly take each one as a separate subject in a separate thread. You have given me an indication from where you are starting with each item in the list and I thank you for that.

You must stop this habit of saying the Bible plainly states. I will try to prevent myself saying anything similar.


1. Promises to Abraham which are not complete.
The Bible plainly states that ALL the prophecies given to Abraham have been fulfilled.
This is why I want each of the items in the list, and any other items added, to be reasoned together before making any assertions such as you have stated. Abraham has not received his inheritance, so it is clear to me that the promise has not been totally fulfilled. I am not continuing this discussion here.

Since we will be talking about the "Big Picture", the promises to Abraham are essential to understand first of all and is therefore the best place to start. The fulfillment of the promise concerning Abraham's inheritance remains future; as I understand. The time period the promises to Abraham are in force includes most of the time period from Creation to the time when Christ hands back a restored kingdom to God. That is the Big Picture I see; from The Fall to The Restored Kingdom of God here on earth. As it is, your Big Picture which you have explained above is a subset of my Bigger Picture.

Let's keep chatting in the threads


David

CWH
04-14-2012, 06:24 AM
[
QUOTE=RAM;43127]I think it is important to note that Rose was a Christian for 30 years and had read the Bible thoroughly before she began her intense study of Revelation in particular. She was not in any way a "beginner."

I interacted with her every day over a two year period as she analyzed the book, comparing Scripture with Scripture and believing that the Bible was perfectly coherent and only needed to be studied to be understood. She made a trememdous amount of progress and discovered many connections (especially with the OT and Christ's prophecies in the Olivet Discourse) that confirmed her understanding. But the study was so intense, that she could not deny she also began seeing inconsistencies that proved the Bible was not perfectly coherent. Her last big project was an attempt to harmonize the accounts of the anointing of Christ at Bethany. She worked intensely and refused to give up looking for harmony until it became apparent there was none.
So am I and with many Christians here are old-timers with years of intense Bible study and we knew about the atrocities and inconsistencies of the Bible and yet we don't "evolve" into the non-theist state and the pathetic God-bashing that and Rose and you are currently in. Don't you realize that Rose and you have degrading from Futurism to Preterism to non-theism and the next step is Atheism. I would be comforted if Rose and you were to remain even as Preterists so that at least you all have some hope to look forward to. I see being non-theists or atheists is like lost souls floating aimlessly around with nothing to look forward to after death. Of course, they have lots of freedom to do whatever they think and freedom from religious dogmas but these are false freedom. The true freedom is what Jesus sad, "Seek the truth and the truth will set you free".

John 8: Jesus said, 'If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.'
33 They answered him, 'We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?'

34 Jesus replied, 'Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.


It would be a fascinating study to compare how we agree and differ as to what constitutes evidence of the Bible. When I was a Christian, I was convinced that the strongest of all proofs (by far) was the prophetic flow from the OT to the NT and the fulfillment of the integrated prophetic complex of Daniel, Revelation, and the Olivet Discourse in 70 AD. Ironically, the vast majority of Chistians reject those prophecies as fulfilled because that would contradict the Futurist eschatalogy in which they were indoctrinated. Ironically, it is usually the atheists that deny the fulfillment of prophecies! I thought you said you are no more a Christian and yet you still believe in the Preterist's doctrine. You don't trust the Bible anymore but yet ironically still quoted from the Bible as if like a staunch Christian. What are you? I am saying out of concern.



There is an error in your method. How would you ever find out if the Koran had an error if you used your method? Every argument made against it could be countered by saying "If you see the Koran lacking coherency that is a problem you have to resolve. Just because you have not been able to reslove this up to now, does not mean that the Koran does not have a coherent message. I have found a lot of coherency and that is a contributory factor to why I believe the whole of the Koran. There are parts I do not fully understand. I do not let this negate everything else I understand to be true. This is why, I look for coherency in the difficult passages to understand. The Koran has enough coherency to assure me that this is a divinely inspired book; the coherent message penned over thousands of years could not have been the work of fiction by men."
If the Koran is so good and so coherent, why are you not a Muslim? I would be comforted if you are a Muslim rather than a lost non-theist floating around aimlessly with nothing to look forward to. I am not sure about your belief but to us believing Christians death carries a hope of salvation. I may sounds harsh but I am more concern about yours and Rose's souls as a concerned brother in Christ.:pray:


It seems to me that you are using a double-standard to protect your dogma that the Bible is trustworthy. Double-standards are the arch-enemy of truth and should be avoided at all costs. They make it impossible to discover the truth.
If the Bible is not trustworthy, what more about words from fallible men? Double standards are not necessary the arch enemy of the truth; it depends on situation. Killing is a heinous crime but it is not if done during war against the enemy.


May God Blessed us with the Truth.:pray:

Rose
04-14-2012, 08:26 AM
Hello Rose
How do you manage the quotes within quotes to so many levels? I am not sure what the multiquote button does, it does not make any difference in my IE8 browser which does strange things of late with my wireless router.

That aside, I do not want your summary. You are avoiding answering my questions. Please go through them and answer them one by one. There is the question of what do you do if you teaching is rejected. You think you can teach and people will readily accept what you say. This forum should tell you that you are on to a non-starter; it is not going to happen.
Good morning David, :yo:
The way I get quotes within quotes is just to "copy and paste" and then add the quote brackets around each individual section.


Here is the paragraph again with my questions.

If you know someone who practices their religion which involves offering young children as sacrifices, is this something you condone? If you do not condone their actions, what do you do? Do you ask them to stop? What if they do not listen to you and continue? What if by their practice of child sacrifice, they bring others to do the same, what do you think of that? Not only do you want that person to stop, you now have others to whom you want to say "stop". What can you do, to stop these other people sacrificing children? What is your solution to this problem? What if you have explained to them why it is wrong and evil to do this and they still continue? You have taught them it is wrong, you have pleaded with them to stop and they will not change their ways, what can you do? Is it right that you let them continue to convert more people to do the same thing and therefore kill more children? What can you do to stop them? God has instructed you not to kill, but you feel like killing all these people for the evil they are committing and you are powerless to kill them all on your own. If you cannot stop them, who can? If you know that God is there and He can do it, would you not ask God to kill them? God can kill and that takes the onus off you and you are thereby obeying the instruction "do not to kill". Whereas you are powerless to do this on your own, you might consider getting a bunch of like-minded people together and saying; "let us kill these evil people and put a stop to this". But you would all be guilty of disobeying God's instruction not to kill. What then if God says to you; "on this occasion, I permit you to kill these people and you will be guiltless, because I have instructed you to do this in order that you can have your heart's desire to put an end to this child-killing practice", would you then do as God has allowed you?

I look forward to each and every answer to the questions.


All the best.

David

The problem with your questions is you are asking me to answer what I would do as a limited human, whereas the Bible is speaking of what an all powerful creator god did. I already told you that if I had the power to stop people from sacrificing their children I would focus on the religious leaders who are making the rules and stop them by showing them that the god they are sacrificing to is not real. If the religious leaders refused to listen then they would be removed from their positions of leadership.

All your questions are beside the real point which is what the Bible says. The Hebrews wouldn't have given a flip about what other pagan cultures around them were doing, except that Yahweh told them to go and slaughter all the pagan for various reasons. Some of those reasons were for nothing other than needing wives...how sick is that!

All the best,
Rose

David M
04-14-2012, 02:24 PM
Good morning David, :yo:
The way I get quotes within quotes is just to "copy and paste" and then add the quote brackets around each individual section.
Thank you Rose. That is the way I am doing it but gets confusing more than two levels deep.



The problem with your questions is you are asking me to answer what I would do as a limited human, whereas the Bible is speaking of what an all powerful creator god did. I already told you that if I had the power to stop people from sacrificing their children I would focus on the religious leaders who are making the rules and stop them by showing them that the god they are sacrificing to is not real. If the religious leaders refused to listen then they would be removed from their positions of leadership.
For the third time of asking, you have not answered my simple questions. We are limited humans with limited minds. How can you know better than God? You are now a humanist without a solution to the problem. You admit you do not have the power; you do not have the influence. You think you can stop religious leaders and in my question I preempt the outcome by saying, the religious leaders you want to stop, will not. What is the point of removing religious leaders when you have thousands of practicing individuals. How are you going to stop them? These people have rejected God even though they would have heard of Him. It is obvious you do not have a solution to the problem. Child sacrifice is so heinous, don't you think it MUST be stopped?
If it has to be stopped and you do not have the power to stop it and removing religious leaders is not going to stop the practice, what is your next move? You must have a next move, please tell me what is your next move to stop the practice of child sacrifice? What about punishment of the people who have sacrificed children? I did not ask you that question. Are you going to let these people off for free without any punishement? What is your take on punishing child-killers in our society?


All your questions are beside the real point which is what the Bible says. The Hebrews wouldn't have given a flip about what other pagan cultures around them were doing, except that Yahweh told them to go and slaughter all the pagan for various reasons. Some of those reasons were for nothing other than needing wives...how sick is that!

You are ducking and diving. My questions are not beside the point; they are fundamental to exercising justice. You are partly right about the Hebrews, because they failed to obey God's instruction to the letter. When they were at Mount Sinai, we see how quickly they reverted to idolatry by making the Golden Calf the moment Moses delayed in return. The Hebrews were no different to other people. God knew His chosen people would be influenced by the pagan nations around them and in the land they were to settle.

How sick was that (of God)? Not very, it is your perception of events. It is far more sick for people to kill children as a sacrifice to some stone god. Try for yourself judging these child-murders and exercising judgement and justice. Consider how you would react if you heard a child-killer in your own community was given a slap on the hand and told not to do it again and was not punished.

You have lead me to ask more questions. I hope you will give me your answers.

All the best,
David

Rose
04-15-2012, 09:19 AM
For the third time of asking, you have not answered my simple questions. We are limited humans with limited minds. How can you know better than God? You are now a humanist without a solution to the problem. You admit you do not have the power; you do not have the influence. You think you can stop religious leaders and in my question I preempt the outcome by saying, the religious leaders you want to stop, will not. What is the point of removing religious leaders when you have thousands of practicing individuals. How are you going to stop them? These people have rejected God even though they would have heard of Him. It is obvious you do not have a solution to the problem. Child sacrifice is so heinous, don't you think it MUST be stopped?
If it has to be stopped and you do not have the power to stop it and removing religious leaders is not going to stop the practice, what is your next move? You must have a next move, please tell me what is your next move to stop the practice of child sacrifice? What about punishment of the people who have sacrificed children? I did not ask you that question. Are you going to let these people off for free without any punishement? What is your take on punishing child-killers in our society?


Hello David,
It seems I do know better than the God of the Bible, because his solution to everything is KILL, Kill, kill...whether it be picking up sticks on the Sabbath or not worshiping him properly, God's solution is to kill you. Not only does God command that the guilty party be punished, but also the innocent men, women, and children of future generations.

Yes, child sacrifice is a heinous violation of human rights, but God's solution to this problem was to have his people go in and kill all the men, women, CHILDREN, and BABIES. Yahweh turned the Hebrews into baby killers just like the pagans!


You are ducking and diving. My questions are not beside the point; they are fundamental to exercising justice. You are partly right about the Hebrews, because they failed to obey God's instruction to the letter. When they were at Mount Sinai, we see how quickly they reverted to idolatry by making the Golden Calf the moment Moses delayed in return. The Hebrews were no different to other people. God knew His chosen people would be influenced by the pagan nations around them and in the land they were to settle.

How sick was that (of God)? Not very, it is your perception of events. It is far more sick for people to kill children as a sacrifice to some stone god. Try for yourself judging these child-murders and exercising judgement and justice. Consider how you would react if you heard a child-killer in your own community was given a slap on the hand and told not to do it again and was not punished.

You have lead me to ask more questions. I hope you will give me your answers.

All the best,
David

So, what you call justice is killing innocent children for the crimes of their parents?

I agree it's sick to sacrifice children to a stone god, but it's equally as sick for Yahweh to command that all the people including the children and babies be killed, because some of the pagans are sacrificing children. The sad thing is that all the killing commanded by Yahweh change nothing...people still continue to do wicked things.

All the best,
Rose

CWH
04-15-2012, 03:25 PM
Hello David,
It seems I do know better than the God of the Bible, because his solution to everything is KILL, Kill, kill...whether it be picking up sticks on the Sabbath or not worshiping him properly, God's solution is to kill you. Not only does God command that the guilty party be punished, but also the innocent men, women, and children of future generations.

Yes, child sacrifice is a heinous violation of human rights, but God's solution to this problem was to have his people go in and kill all the men, women, CHILDREN, and BABIES. Yahweh turned the Hebrews into baby killers just like the pagans!



So, what you call justice is killing innocent children for the crimes of their parents?

I agree it's sick to sacrifice children to a stone god, but it's equally as sick for Yahweh to command that all the people including the children and babies be killed, because some of the pagans are sacrificing children. The sad thing is that all the killing commanded by Yahweh change nothing...people still continue to do wicked things.

All the best,
Rose

God Kill, Kill, Kill! but also Resurrect, Resurrect, Resurrect!

And what's your solution? Save, Save, Save! and We all will finally Die, Die, Die! from overpopulated evil and wickedness!

God Blessed.:pray:

Rose
04-15-2012, 04:30 PM
God Kill, Kill, Kill! but also Resurrect, Resurrect, Resurrect!

And what's your solution? Save, Save, Save! and We all will finally Die, Die, Die! from overpopulated evil and wickedness!

God Blessed.:pray:

Sorry Cheow, but your post makes no sense. :confused:

Rose

David M
04-16-2012, 12:58 AM
Hello David,
It seems I do know better than the God of the Bible
Good morning Rose.
Be careful Rose, Richard has banned Lotus Feet for delusional thinking and now you claim to know better than God who is Creator of the Universe. Your form of wisdom and your inability to balance the word of God is obvious to everyone reading this thread.
Again you have not answered my questions seriously. You duck the real issue by asking another question.


, because his solution to everything is KILL, Kill, kill...
You have become fixated on this accusation against God. You have not yet answered my question and given a satisfactory solution to the problem. Your one solution would not work and you fail to come up with another. You refuse to answer my questions which lead you to the obvious conclusion which you cannot bear to admit.


whether it be picking up sticks on the Sabbath or not worshiping him properly, God's solution is to kill you.
Did Jesus break the Sabbath; he did work on the Sabbath? Are you one of his accussers? Jesus was still under the law before the new covenant replaced the old law. God knows the intent of all our hearts (something I suppose you know better than God). Why did not God kill Jesus for breaking the Sabbath? God has more sense than you are showing at the moment.


Not only does God command that the guilty party be punished, but also the innocent men, women, and children of future generations.
You cannot say with any certainty that God has not saved the innocent in order to be looked after and given a further chance in the millennium age to come. I cannot prove this and you cannot disprove it, therefore, you should keep an open mind and give God some credit.


Yes, child sacrifice is a heinous violation of human rights, but God's solution to this problem was to have his people go in and kill all the men, women, CHILDREN, and BABIES. Yahweh turned the Hebrews into baby killers just like the pagans!
You mean, if you slap your child for misbehaviour you have turned in to a child-beater? Beware everyone, we have all turned into monsters of one sort of another.


So, what you call justice is killing innocent children for the crimes of their parents? !
I can answer your questions Rose, how is it you will not answer mine and keep throwing up questions to divert from finding the solution to the problem. [/QUOTE]
We can leave God to use His unlimited power and have mercy on the babies and give them another chance in a different environement in a different age to come. Now get on with punishing the parents, who could have easily given up their child as a child-sacrifice. What punishment are you going to serve to the parents? Remember, like cancer, you have to remove the whole cancer. Unless you are to treat the cancer such that it withers away, cancer which is so invasive that any other form of treatment does not remove it, the only drastic action remaining is to extract it completely. If a whole organ of the body is lost in the process of removing cancer, so be it, it has to be that way. Now give me your solution to stopping people practicing child sacrifice. The solution you give must be guaranteed (without fail) to stop it.


I agree it's sick to sacrifice children to a stone god, but it's equally as sick for Yahweh to command that all the people including the children and babies be killed, because some of the pagans are sacrificing children. The sad thing is that all the killing commanded by Yahweh change nothing...people still continue to do wicked things.

It is not "equally as sick"(as you say) of God. God takes no pleasure in having to deal our firm justice. When God is merciful you accuse God of not administering punishement and say He has double-standards. It would be better for the sick condition of the world not to arise in the first place. Except for your accusation against God here, I agree with what you say. Humans are free to invent whatever religion they want, and so you cannot stop humans doing evil. You can limit the effects of one religion by harsh punishment as God was seen to administer. Unless you can be successful in converting people and stopping them from doing evil, you have an increasing problem, which exponentially gets worse over time. Think back to the reason for God wiping out civilization before the Great Flood. People at that time, did not have any moral framework to live by. They did that which was right in their own eyes and eventually the earth was so corrupt, that with the exception of Noah (and his family) everyone was corrupt and they did evil continually. It is by God's intervention that evil has been stemmed (not totally stopped). The evil in the world gradually gets worse and worse and is happening again in the world today. God's punishement on the whole world is coming once more. However, God has given you and me a warning and a way of escape. You cannot accuse God for the punishment that is coming, when one way or another, people have heard his warning, but have closed their minds.

Kill, kill, kill, might seem like a lot of death but remember this, the earth's population has been continually increasing. Despite all the deaths caused by war and reducing the population at that time, there have always been more births than deaths. Unfortunately, more births result in more evil. Until such time humans are not only taught but are made to live righteously, we live in and increasingly wicked world. Only Christ will transform the world when he comes back to rule. Then you will see that Christ is able to what you would like to see happen. Christ will be starting from a point where the earth's population will have been greatly diminished and the technology as we know it now will be destroyed. The wold will go back to as it was millennia ago. Only God's rule, through Jesus on earth will prove to be the only lasting solution. The final enemy is sin and death. How else are you going to be able to get everyone living not to commit sin? This is such a great problem to overcome in the world today, it is not possible for humans to do it on their own. Humans have had six thousand years and proved they cannot do it. This conclusion was told us by Jeremiah millenia ago; "it is not in man to direct his steps". As much as you and I would love to see the world at peace and think we could help bring this about, it will not happen without God. God will do what He has to do, it is a shame you are failing to comprehend the ways of God as being just. Nevermind, while there is time, there is hope.

All the best.

David

Rose
04-16-2012, 09:54 AM
Good morning Rose.
Be careful Rose, Richard has banned Lotus Feet for delusional thinking and now you claim to know better than God who is Creator of the Universe. Your form of wisdom and your inability to balance the word of God is obvious to everyone reading this thread.
Again you have not answered my questions seriously. You duck the real issue by asking another question.

Good morning David,

Of course I have answered your questions, at least three times...you just don't like my answers.


You have become fixated on this accusation against God. You have not yet answered my question and given a satisfactory solution to the problem. Your one solution would not work and you fail to come up with another. You refuse to answer my questions which lead you to the obvious conclusion which you cannot bear to admit.
Now you say that I've answered your question, but just not satisfactorily, or to your liking. How do you know my solution wouldn't work, God didn't try it? We know for sure that God's solution of KILL, Kill, kill for sure didn't work, because all through the Old Testament all one reads about is killing, and the world is still full of wickedness.



Did Jesus break the Sabbath; he did work on the Sabbath? Are you one of his accussers? Jesus was still under the law before the new covenant replaced the old law. God knows the intent of all our hearts (something I suppose you know better than God). Why did not God kill Jesus for breaking the Sabbath? God has more sense than you are showing at the moment.


You cannot say with any certainty that God has not saved the innocent in order to be looked after and given a further chance in the millennium age to come. I cannot prove this and you cannot disprove it, therefore, you should keep an open mind and give God some credit.
The place I get all my information about the nature of Yahweh is from the Bible, that is why I can no longer believe in such a god. The Bible speaks of God saving the innocent, and it also speaks of God killing the innocent. Yahweh's face changes so many times in the Old and New Testaments that it makes my head spin. :dizzy:


You mean, if you slap your child for misbehavior you have turned in to a child-beater? Beware everyone, we have all turned into monsters of one sort of another.


I can answer your questions Rose, how is it you will not answer mine and keep throwing up questions to divert from finding the solution to the problem.
How did God killing innocent babies for the crimes of their parents turn into slapping children for misbehaving, or are you equating God killing babies to parents disciplining their children?


We can leave God to use His unlimited power and have mercy on the babies and give them another chance in a different environment in a different age to come. Now get on with punishing the parents, who could have easily given up their child as a child-sacrifice. What punishment are you going to serve to the parents? Remember, like cancer, you have to remove the whole cancer. Unless you are to treat the cancer such that it withers away, cancer which is so invasive that any other form of treatment does not remove it, the only drastic action remaining is to extract it completely. If a whole organ of the body is lost in the process of removing cancer, so be it, it has to be that way. Now give me your solution to stopping people practicing child sacrifice. The solution you give must be guaranteed (without fail) to stop it.
Why does my solution have to be fail proof when from the Biblical account we know that Yahweh's solution didn't work, and he's suppose to have unlimited power! God could have done something as simple as closing up all the pagan wombs, so there would not be one baby born to sacrifice.



It is not "equally as sick"(as you say) of God. God takes no pleasure in having to deal our firm justice. When God is merciful you accuse God of not administering punishement and say He has double-standards. It would be better for the sick condition of the world not to arise in the first place. Except for your accusation against God here, I agree with what you say. Humans are free to invent whatever religion they want, and so you cannot stop humans doing evil. You can limit the effects of one religion by harsh punishment as God was seen to administer. Unless you can be successful in converting people and stopping them from doing evil, you have an increasing problem, which exponentially gets worse over time. Think back to the reason for God wiping out civilization before the Great Flood. People at that time, did not have any moral framework to live by. They did that which was right in their own eyes and eventually the earth was so corrupt, that with the exception of Noah (and his family) everyone was corrupt and they did evil continually. It is by God's intervention that evil has been stemmed (not totally stopped). The evil in the world gradually gets worse and worse and is happening again in the world today. God's punishement on the whole world is coming once more. However, God has given you and me a warning and a way of escape. You cannot accuse God for the punishment that is coming, when one way or another, people have heard his warning, but have closed their minds.
The biblical reason for Yahweh wiping out all the people on the planet, because they were so evil didn't work...did it? I'm not really blaming God though, because as I've said many times, I don't believe the god of the Bible exists...he's just one of the many thousands of gods made up in the minds of men.


Kill, kill, kill, might seem like a lot of death but remember this, the earth's population has been continually increasing. Despite all the deaths caused by war and reducing the population at that time, there have always been more births than deaths. Unfortunately, more births result in more evil. Until such time humans are not only taught but are made to live righteously, we live in and increasingly wicked world. Only Christ will transform the world when he comes back to rule. Then you will see that Christ is able to what you would like to see happen. Christ will be starting from a point where the earth's population will have been greatly diminished and the technology as we know it now will be destroyed. The wold will go back to as it was millennia ago. Only God's rule, through Jesus on earth will prove to be the only lasting solution. The final enemy is sin and death. How else are you going to be able to get everyone living not to commit sin? This is such a great problem to overcome in the world today, it is not possible for humans to do it on their own. Humans have had six thousand years and proved they cannot do it. This conclusion was told us by Jeremiah millenia ago; "it is not in man to direct his steps". As much as you and I would love to see the world at peace and think we could help bring this about, it will not happen without God. God will do what He has to do, it is a shame you are failing to comprehend the ways of God as being just. Nevermind, while there is time, there is hope.

All the best.

David
You say that peace will not happen without God, well in the four thousand years since Yahweh first spoke to Abraham we still don't have world peace, but we are getting closer than back in the Old Testament days when Yahweh was busy taking peace from the pagan nations by having the Hebrews slaughter them.

Take care,
Rose

CWH
04-16-2012, 07:27 PM
Originally Posted by CWH
God Kill, Kill, Kill! but also Resurrect, Resurrect, Resurrect!

And what's your solution? Save, Save, Save! and We all will finally Die, Die, Die! from overpopulated evil and wickedness!

God Blessed.
Sorry Cheow, but your post makes no sense.

Rose

You said God Kill, Kill, Kill did not solved the problem of evil in the world, do you think your solution of Save, Save, Save will solve the problem of evil in this world? Obviously, it will not and will make the problem of evil even worse by allowing evil to continue to flourish with unrepentent evil men. The best and brilliant solution in which it will solve the problem of evil in the world (if one capable of resurrecting the dead) is to Kill, Kill, Kill all evil men and then resurrect them if they truly repented. Imagine President Obama set a law, "Kill all evil men and criminals in the United States and resurrect them if they truly repent after 1000 years", I am sure United States will not have evil and crimes for the next 1000 years. This is what God will be doing during Judgement Day.

Save Save, Save all men including evil people will only worsened the evilness in this world. Try saving 1000 Hitlers and see what evil these 1000 Hitlers will do to the world....mass massacres, wars, destructions, rapes etc. You can't talk sense to them, it is thus better to Kill them off before they create mass disasters. And to save all people including evil greedy men will only over-populate the world leading to starvation, pollution, global warming, fighting for resources and land, diseases etc. and all of us would have died disastrously from the Save, Save, Save solution. The brilliant solution is to Kill and Resurrect, Kill and Resurrect, Kill and Resurrect the truly repentents.

Thank You Merciful God.:pray:

Rose
04-16-2012, 09:39 PM
You said God Kill, Kill, Kill did not solved the problem of evil in the world, do you think your solution of Save, Save, Save will solve the problem of evil in this world? Obviously, it will not and will make the problem of evil even worse by allowing evil to continue to flourish with unrepentent evil men. The best and brilliant solution in which it will solve the problem of evil in the world (if one capable of resurrecting the dead) is to Kill, Kill, Kill all evil men and then resurrect them if they truly repented. Imagine President Obama set a law, "Kill all evil men and criminals in the United States and resurrect them if they truly repent after 1000 years", I am sure United States will not have evil and crimes for the next 1000 years. This is what God will be doing during Judgement Day.

Save Save, Save all men including evil people will only worsened the evilness in this world. Try saving 1000 Hitlers and see what evil these 1000 Hitlers will do to the world....mass massacres, wars, destructions, rapes etc. You can't talk sense to them, it is thus better to Kill them off before they create mass disasters. And to save all people including evil greedy men will only over-populate the world leading to starvation, pollution, global warming, fighting for resources and land, diseases etc. and all of us would have died disastrously from the Save, Save, Save solution. The brilliant solution is to Kill and Resurrect, Kill and Resurrect, Kill and Resurrect the truly repentents.

Thank You Merciful God.:pray:

What do you mean? Your religion is all about saving wicked people who confess their sins before they die. If Hitler had confessed his sins he would have gotten saved according to your religion.

Rose

David M
04-17-2012, 02:34 AM
Good morning David,

Of course I have answered your questions, at least three times...you just don't like my answers.

Good morning Rose

You will be pleased to know that I am not going to continue with this thread. This is my last reply.

I am leaving you with this one question.

"Can you honestly say you have answered each and everyone of my questions in the way that I asked you to?"

All the best.

David

Rose
04-17-2012, 07:54 AM
Good morning Rose

You will be pleased to know that I am not going to continue with this thread. This is my last reply.

I am leaving you with this one question.

"Can you honestly say you have answered each and everyone of my questions in the way that I asked you to?"

All the best.

David

Yes, David I did answer you questions, even though they were meant to distract from the real issue of God's immoral behavior.

Thanks for chatting,
Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
04-17-2012, 10:50 AM
If you know someone who practices their religion which involves offering young children as sacrifices, is this something you condone? If you do not condone their actions, what do you do? Do you ask them to stop? What if they do not listen to you and continue? What if by their practice of child sacrifice, they bring others to do the same, what do you think of that? Not only do you want that person to stop, you now have others to whom you want to say "stop". What can you do, to stop these other people sacrificing children? What is your solution to this problem? What if you have explained to them why it is wrong and evil to do this and they still continue? You have taught them it is wrong, you have pleaded with them to stop and they will not change their ways, what can you do? Is it right that you let them continue to convert more people to do the same thing and therefore kill more children? What can you do to stop them? God has instructed you not to kill, but you feel like killing all these people for the evil they are committing and you are powerless to kill them all on your own. If you cannot stop them, who can? If you know that God is there and He can do it, would you not ask God to kill them? God can kill and that takes the onus off you and you are thereby obeying the instruction "do not to kill". Whereas you are powerless to do this on your own, you might consider getting a bunch of like-minded people together and saying; "let us kill these evil people and put a stop to this". But you would all be guilty of disobeying God's instruction not to kill. What then if God says to you; "on this occassion, I permit you to kill these people and you will be guiltless, because I have instructed you to do this in order that you can have your heart's desire to put an end to this child-killing practice", would you then do as God has allowed you?

Please Rose, take the above paragraph and take time to respond to each and every question. I want to know your answers.

All the best.

David
The answer is trivial. If God didn't want Canaanites in the promised land, he could has simply closed their wombs. They would be gone in one generation.

The fact that you did not think of this possibility shows that you are looking for excuses rather than truth. Your own DOCTRINE says that God opens and closes the wombs of women. But you could not remember this because you were so busy trying to justify what the Bible says about God. I've seen this in your answers many times. You often write as if God were impotent rather than omnipotent. I find this outrageously ironic. Your dogma about the perfection of the Bible has destroyed your ability to even think consistently about the God it describes.

Now since you have been trying to divert the conversation with your "questions" I will answer them one by one:

If you know someone who practices their religion which involves offering young children as sacrifices, is this something you condone? No. If you do not condone their actions, what do you do? That would depend on the situation, and the power that I had. But murdering every man, woman, and child would not enter my mind. My morals are infinitely higher than that. Do you ask them to stop? Sure. That's a good place to start. What if they do not listen to you and continue? That would depend on what kind of power I had. If I were God, I would simply stop giving them children to kill! Doh! This isn't rocket science, you know. What if by their practice of child sacrifice, they bring others to do the same, what do you think of that? That's very bad. But not as bad as genocide that murders the very children I was supposedly concerned about! Not only do you want that person to stop, you now have others to whom you want to say "stop". What can you do, to stop these other people sacrificing children? Stop giving them children to sacrifice! God is the source of life. Why did he keep blessing them with children? Is he stupid or what? What is your solution to this problem? Stop giving them children. What if you have explained to them why it is wrong and evil to do this and they still continue? I'd use my omniscience to come up with a solution that didn't make me look like a brutal Bronze age tribal war god! You have taught them it is wrong, you have pleaded with them to stop and they will not change their ways, what can you do? The fundamental flaw of your questions is that you don't realize that the Canaanites were no more wicked than the Israelites. Have you never heard that "all have sinned." God could have dealt with the Canaanites just like he did with the Jews. But no .... he specifically said that he gave his law to the JEWS and not to the Canaanites. Your argument reminds me of the song ... "Another one bites the dust." Is it right that you let them continue to convert more people to do the same thing and therefore kill more children? Was it right for God to continue giving them children? What can you do to stop them? Stop giving them children. God has instructed you not to kill, but you feel like killing all these people for the evil they are committing and you are powerless to kill them all on your own. If you cannot stop them, who can? Take a look at modern secular society. Do we allow child sacrificing cults? Nope. We have found a way to stop them without God. How can you be ignorant of this fact? If you know that God is there and He can do it, would you not ask God to kill them? Nope. If I were a believer, I'd ask him to open the minds of sinners, just like he did with every soul that ever got saved. God can kill and that takes the onus off you and you are thereby obeying the instruction "do not to kill". Whereas you are powerless to do this on your own, you might consider getting a bunch of like-minded people together and saying; "let us kill these evil people and put a stop to this". But you would all be guilty of disobeying God's instruction not to kill. What then if God says to you; "on this occassion, I permit you to kill these people and you will be guiltless, because I have instructed you to do this in order that you can have your heart's desire to put an end to this child-killing practice", would you then do as God has allowed you? Absolutely not, since I would know that that "god" was just the sick and twisted and immoral thoughts in a man's mind.

Now that you've had every question answered, will you deal with the answers given?

CWH
04-19-2012, 08:20 PM
The answer is trivial. If God didn't want Canaanites in the promised land, he could has simply closed their wombs. They would be gone in one generation.

The fact that you did not think of this possibility shows that you are looking for excuses rather than truth. Your own DOCTRINE says that God opens and closes the wombs of women. But you could not remember this because you were so busy trying to justify what the Bible says about God. I've seen this in your answers many times. You often write as if God were impotent rather than omnipotent. I find this outrageously ironic. Your dogma about the perfection of the Bible has destroyed your ability to even think consistently about the God it describes.

Now since you have been trying to divert the conversation with your "questions" I will answer them one by one:

If you know someone who practices their religion which involves offering young children as sacrifices, is this something you condone? No. If you do not condone their actions, what do you do? That would depend on the situation, and the power that I had. But murdering every man, woman, and child would not enter my mind. My morals are infinitely higher than that. Do you ask them to stop? Sure. That's a good place to start. What if they do not listen to you and continue? That would depend on what kind of power I had. If I were God, I would simply stop giving them children to kill! Doh! This isn't rocket science, you know. What if by their practice of child sacrifice, they bring others to do the same, what do you think of that? That's very bad. But not as bad as genocide that murders the very children I was supposedly concerned about! Not only do you want that person to stop, you now have others to whom you want to say "stop". What can you do, to stop these other people sacrificing children? Stop giving them children to sacrifice! God is the source of life. Why did he keep blessing them with children? Is he stupid or what? What is your solution to this problem? Stop giving them children. What if you have explained to them why it is wrong and evil to do this and they still continue? I'd use my omniscience to come up with a solution that didn't make me look like a brutal Bronze age tribal war god! You have taught them it is wrong, you have pleaded with them to stop and they will not change their ways, what can you do? The fundamental flaw of your questions is that you don't realize that the Canaanites were no more wicked than the Israelites. Have you never heard that "all have sinned." God could have dealt with the Canaanites just like he did with the Jews. But no .... he specifically said that he gave his law to the JEWS and not to the Canaanites. Your argument reminds me of the song ... "Another one bites the dust." Is it right that you let them continue to convert more people to do the same thing and therefore kill more children? Was it right for God to continue giving them children? What can you do to stop them? Stop giving them children. God has instructed you not to kill, but you feel like killing all these people for the evil they are committing and you are powerless to kill them all on your own. If you cannot stop them, who can? Take a look at modern secular society. Do we allow child sacrificing cults? Nope. We have found a way to stop them without God. How can you be ignorant of this fact? If you know that God is there and He can do it, would you not ask God to kill them? Nope. If I were a believer, I'd ask him to open the minds of sinners, just like he did with every soul that ever got saved. God can kill and that takes the onus off you and you are thereby obeying the instruction "do not to kill". Whereas you are powerless to do this on your own, you might consider getting a bunch of like-minded people together and saying; "let us kill these evil people and put a stop to this". But you would all be guilty of disobeying God's instruction not to kill. What then if God says to you; "on this occassion, I permit you to kill these people and you will be guiltless, because I have instructed you to do this in order that you can have your heart's desire to put an end to this child-killing practice", would you then do as God has allowed you? Absolutely not, since I would know that that "god" was just the sick and twisted and immoral thoughts in a man's mind.

Now that you've had every question answered, will you deal with the answers given?

It is not as simple as that by stopping birth. If God stopped birth, I am afraid, you and I and many of us here will not be here today. The reason why God wanted humans to multiply is so that there would be many good and evil people to "fish". The earth is a farmland for righteous souls just like fishermen catching fishes and separating the good and bad fishes that he caught. I have set up a new thread call what is the kingdom of heaven for discussion.

The Kingdom of Heaven is like a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every Kind: which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, cast out the bad away. So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

God Blessed the good fishes. :pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
04-19-2012, 08:35 PM
It is not as simple as that by stopping birth. If God stopped birth, I am afraid, you and I and many of us here will not be here today.

You missed the point. I did not say that God should stop all births. I was talking specifically about the Canaanites that he commanded his people to murder. If God simply closed their wombs he would not have had to command genocide.



The reason why God wanted humans to multiply is so that there would be many good and evil people to "fish". The earth is a farmland for righteous souls just like fishermen catching fishes and separating the good and bad fishes that he caught. I have set up a new thread call what is the kingdom of heaven for discussion.

The Kingdom of Heaven is like a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every Kind: which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, cast out the bad away. So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

God Blessed the good fishes. :pray:
That's all fine until God tells the "good fishes" to become murderous madmen who go about killing thousands of men, women and children.

David M
04-20-2012, 03:55 AM
Hello Richard

Thank you for answering the questions on behalf of Rose. It is a pity Rose did not answer these questions herself as she assured me she had (otherwise you would not be answering on her behalf now). Is Satan's kingdom divided? I will give my reply as follows.



Now since you have been trying to divert the conversation with your "questions" I will answer them one by one:
The questions were never a diversion when they were first made (to Rose). You like to keep accusing me of diverting the subject when you appear guilty of doing the same in some of my other posts. Now to add comment to your replies


If you know someone who practices their religion which involves offering young children as sacrifices, is this something you condone? No.
Good! That is what I hope everyone would say.


If you do not condone their actions, what do you do? That would depend on the situation, and the power that I had. But murdering every man, woman, and child would not enter my mind. My morals are infinitely higher than that.
Before you added the the "but", you had better explain what you mean by "that will depend." Sounds like a lot of "if"s to me. What number of dependancies can you think of? God takes everything into account before He acts. That is why He is far wiser than any of us.
Thanks for giving us your opinion of your morals. It is a very biassed opinion of course. I won't get involved with arguing your morals. I know we are all liars to a greater or lesser degree and that we have all sinned (regardless of whether we believe in the true God or not); anyone denying this is a liar (1 John 1) and the word of God is not in them. I know His word is not in your "heart" at this present time. His words are in your head as facts; remembered without truly understanding the meaning God wants you to understand.


Do you ask them to stop? Sure. That's a good place to start.
I thought so too, but I know it would not happen that way. Who are we to tell RAM to stop his wild assertions? Would RAM listen and take heed to anyone?


What if they do not listen to you and continue? That would depend on what kind of power I had. If I were God, I would simply stop giving them children to kill! Doh! This isn't rocket science, you know.
I agree that this could have been one possibility. However, the difficulty we have is knowing whether it would have been the best solution. I accept God's justice ito be fair and in accordance with His laws. As I am not as wise as God, but can recognize His wisdom, I accept His justice as the best solution for that time. I can only comment on what I think of your solution. If a plague had come upon the people making them infertile, who is to say that the hand of God would have been recognized? People cannot see the hand of God at work today or at anytime in the past. If the Bible had recorded God stopping up the womb's and done it your way, you would still be arguing on this forum that God was immoral and you could have done in better.
The people were guilty of killing children (as part of their religion) and you do not want the punishment to fit the crime. Closing up the women's wombs is taking away women's rights and you would be blaming God once again. Rose should be blaming you for suggesting women's rights are taken away. If your suggestion was carried out, the surrounding nations and God's people would not have learnt any lesson of how serious it is to go against God's will (hence another reason I would like you to review and prepare a commentary on the first eleven verses of Jude).


What if by their practice of child sacrifice, they bring others to do the same, what do you think of that? That's very bad. But not as bad as genocide that murders the very children I was supposedly concerned about!
It is very bad; I agree. We also have to consider the long term implications. You have provided one solution which we could spend hours debating and might never be able to resolve whether that would have been the best long-term solution. Shutting up the women's wombs does not get around the fact that these same people would have not tolerated God's people living in their land (as they thought it belonged to them and it was not God's land).
You make a moral judgement that is purely your opinion and you think that your way is "not so bad". Shutting up wombs would eventually kill off a nation, but it does not stop the people continuing their evil practices and does not solve the matter quickly. God demonstrated his authority and that His ways are to be kept. Are we blind to the lessons God has put on record?
Why worry about the innocent being killed when it is in God's power to save the innocent? You are unable to disprove this, and I have to go on the assurance that God has got the power to do it and has given us examples of where the innocent were saved.


Not only do you want that person to stop, you now have others to whom you want to say "stop". What can you do, to stop these other people sacrificing children? Stop giving them children to sacrifice! God is the source of life. Why did he keep blessing them with children? Is he stupid or what?
Some people attribute everything received from God as a blessing, including children. There is nothing wrong with that. Having children can be seen by some as no different to God causing the rain to fall on the wicked as well as on the righteous. In that case, having childen is not necessarily considered a blessing. Where is the blessing when some of those babies born will be killed as a child sacrifice? Those babies not sacrificed would be brought up in an evil society and taught to practice the evils of that society? Stopping up the wombs will not prevent that situation from continuing for some time afterwards. The change would not come soon.

Your solution does not prevent further deaths of children. Hey they could go an steal babies from the Israelites. You still have the added problem that the people we are discussing, would not have voluntarily given up their land and their homes and moved out. It is impossible for man direct his ways that are in accordance with God's ways. There is not one shread of evidence to say that man's evil has diminished in the last 6,000 years from the time before or after the Great Flood. When it is not in man to direct his steps, he has to be directed. You have your opinion as to the solution, but it contains a lot of ifs and buts and has no degree of certainty to be the best solution. In the long-term, allowing men and women to continue their evil practices and also for those nations to impose their will on other people, instead of accepting God and His will, is just as immoral (for you) to let the situation continue longer than necessary.


What is your solution to this problem? Stop giving them children.
What if you have explained to them why it is wrong and evil to do this and they still continue? I'd use my omniscience to come up with a solution that didn't make me look like a brutal Bronze age tribal war god!
Again, you are merely expressing your opinion which has no value to the argument. In making wild assertions, you appear to make yourself look not wise; but that is just my opinion (readers do not take my opinion into consideration when studying the facts).


You have taught them it is wrong, you have pleaded with them to stop and they will not change their ways, what can you do? The fundamental flaw of your questions is that you don't realize that the Canaanites were no more wicked than the Israelites. Have you never heard that "all have sinned." God could have dealt with the Canaanites just like he did with the Jews. But no .... he specifically said that he gave his law to the JEWS and not to the Canaanites. Your argument reminds me of the song ... "Another one bites the dust."
There is not a "fundamental flaw" in my question. I am just asking a straight-forward question. Why do you make it out to be what it is not? You just need to answer the question. I know the Jews were fickle, God does not hide that fact, and He does not hide it for a reason. You are blind because of the darkness in your heart and cannot see any light. I am trying to help you over this problem. Maybe your sight will return as it did with Paul, who was blinded by the light when Jesus revealed himself to him. The Canaanites would have known of God, they were free to enquire of the Jews and to find out about their God. This is what God wanted. His chosen race to be examples by following His laws. Alas, they failed; so what, it is human nature that God is teaching us about. Instead the Canaanites were selfish and their hearts were hardened to their ways. As you know when a person refuses to listen, no amount of evidence will shift their thinking; don't you think God knows the situation. Why did Pharaoh harden his heart towards God?

God did deal with the Jews and punished them. We have records of his punishments. Why did they go into slavery in Babylon? Why following that, have they been scattered abroad again from AD70? Why were the people destroyed in the Wilderness after deliverance from Egypt (a clue to the Jude passage you are avoiding answering)? You do not know "what I fail to realize". I could easily same the same of you. You are failing to reason out Jude. Until you can begin to reconcile God's word, which you have failed to do while you were a Bible believer, you are unable to realize anything in God's word at this present time. Don't rewrite the Bible, but please state (if any) what parts of the Bible you accept. For you, it has become a contest of intellect. The meaning behind God's word will remain hidden to you as long as you remain in your own pride. You are the same as the Jews who are blind to the facts and claim Jesus is not the Son of God. God will remove that veil in the time to come when He reveals Jesus for a second time. Will you believe then? Perhaps you did not demonstrate the patient waiting that is required while being a Bible believer. Instead of working to reconcile the word you are intent at looking for objections.


Is it right that you let them continue to convert more people to do the same thing and therefore kill more children? Was it right for God to continue giving them children?
You have avoided the question by asking me a question. Talk about me avoiding questions, here you are avoiding answering the simple question. Anyway, to rebut your commnent; that is the point; God stopped them giving birth to more children to grow up and practice the same evils. He stopped them in the way He demonstrated, which is not the way you would do it (we know).


What can you do to stop them? Stop giving them children.
OK, you keep repeating your one and only solution which cannot be proved to be the best solution and is not the best solution for some of the reasons I have already explained.


God has instructed you not to kill, but you feel like killing all these people for the evil they are committing and you are powerless to kill them all on your own. If you cannot stop them, who can? Take a look at modern secular society. Do we allow child sacrificing cults? Nope. We have found a way to stop them without God. How can you be ignorant of this fact?
This country might not allow these things in law, but the practice still goes on behind closed doors. It has not been stopped completely, merely shifted from one place to another. You have to admit, the evils of man can be very sick and deserve justice to be exercised and punishment given out. There is no sense of punishment fitting the crime with your solution. I am not "ignorant of the fact"; everytime you make a comment like this about me, look in a mirror.


If you know that God is there and He can do it, would you not ask God to kill them? Nope. If I were a believer, I'd ask him to open the minds of sinners, just like he did with every soul that ever got saved.
You are not a believer and you do not think God ever answers prayers. You are presenting your hypothetical situation that you assume is the only solution to the problem. Your hypothesis is flawed; it is by no means perfect. I can ask God in prayer to open your mind, but because I doubt that might happen, I have already got doubt in my mind. As I already have doubt, why should God answer my prayer? If we do not ask in prayer believing that our prayers will be answered, they will not. And in any case, God hardly ever answers prayer in the way the person expects; God is much wiser and knows what our real needs are. That is why so many people see God answering their prayers long after they asked. God's answer is not always immediate, because He has to plan in advance and cause other things to happen first. We are limiting God by our own intellect. We should open up our minds to His word and increase our knowledge and wisdom of Him.


God can kill and that takes the onus off you and you are thereby obeying the instruction "do not to kill". Whereas you are powerless to do this on your own, you might consider getting a bunch of like-minded people together and saying; "let us kill these evil people and put a stop to this". But you would all be guilty of disobeying God's instruction not to kill. What then if God says to you; "on this occassion, I permit you to kill these people and you will be guiltless, because I have instructed you to do this in order that you can have your heart's desire to put an end to this child-killing practice", would you then do as God has allowed you? Absolutely not, since I would know that that "god" was just the sick and twisted and immoral thoughts in a man's mind.
I do not think the people of the period we are discussing would have thought like you. You are imposing the thoughts of a modern-day intellectual on to your Bronze Age society. All you are doing by your answser (and probably that of Rose) is you are showing your preconceived and fixed opinion instead of rational thought. You are giving the answer I would expect from you and this is what I wanted to expose. Thank you.



Now that you've had every question answered, will you deal with the answers given?
I have dealt with your answers and if you continue to reply, it would be good if you would base your arguments on the Bible (expounding verses instead of just quoting). I had hoped we could have more meaningful discussions based on reasoning from the Bible. There is no point continuing to look at prophecies until we get down to sound reasoning based on the Bible.

Before we attempt that, I have said, I am regarding Jude as a watershed. Until you are prepared to put up you commentary on the first eleven verses of Jude (and I will do the same) and we agree not to comment on each others commentary, but just let them stand for others to judge the plausibility of our reasoning, then on that basis, we can continue to reason from the Bible and look at the prophecies to be fulfilled.

All the best,

David

Richard Amiel McGough
04-21-2012, 08:46 AM
Hello Rose
How do you manage the quotes within quotes to so many levels? I am not sure what the multiquote button does, it does not make any difference in my IE8 browser which does strange things of late with my wireless router.
Hi David,

Just a quick note to let you know that I explain how to put quotes within quotes in the post called How to quote posts in replies (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2599-How-to-quote-posts-in-replies.).

Hope that helps. Don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions, since if there is something you don't understand we can be pretty sure that others would benefit by my answer.

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
04-21-2012, 11:21 AM
Hello Richard

Thank you for answering the questions on behalf of Rose. It is a pity Rose did not answer these questions herself as she assured me she had (otherwise you would not be answering on her behalf now). Is Satan's kingdom divided? I will give my reply as follows.

Hi David,

You assertion that Rose has not answered your questions is false. In a previous post you told Rose "You have not yet answered my question and given a satisfactory solution to the problem." Your statement is self-contradictory. Rose could not have failed to give a "satisfactory solution" if she had not answered.

The problem is that you are compelled to reject any answer because you are in bondage to your dogma that anything the Bible says about God must be true and good no matter how bad it really is. That's why it is a waste of time to answer your long list of tedious and repetitive questions. It's all a foregone conclusion. We both know that you will make up whatever excuses are necessary to reject anything that contradicts your preconceived dogma. Your unfounded rejection of everything I wrote proves this in spades.

So why play such games? Why not be honest and simply declare "Nothing you say will change my mind?" Your behavior is particularly ironic in that you assert that I am the one who has a "preconceived and fixed opinion instead of rational thought." I have no "preconceived and fixed opinion." I have REASONS for my opinions, whereas your opinions were given to you in a book and are utterly fixed and locked down by your dogma.




If you do not condone their actions, what do you do? That would depend on the situation, and the power that I had. But murdering every man, woman, and child would not enter my mind. My morals are infinitely higher than that.
Before you added the the "but", you had better explain what you mean by "that will depend." Sounds like a lot of "if"s to me. What number of dependancies can you think of? God takes everything into account before He acts. That is why He is far wiser than any of us.
Thanks for giving us your opinion of your morals. It is a very biassed opinion of course. I won't get involved with arguing your morals. I know we are all liars to a greater or lesser degree and that we have all sinned (regardless of whether we believe in the true God or not); anyone denying this is a liar (1 John 1) and the word of God is not in them. I know His word is not in your "heart" at this present time. His words are in your head as facts; remembered without truly understanding the meaning God wants you to understand.

I don't need to explain "that would depend" because neither you nor I have all the facts. But that does not open the door to justify genocide commanded by God. You have never dealt with the fact that God's command to kill every man, woman, and child was not only evil to the innocent children, but it also BRUTALIZED the Israelites beyond anything you can imagine. Have you never taken a moment to consider what it would have been like to be an Israeli soldier? You go out to destroy the Canaanites. You see a tent and rip it open to find a 17 year old mother with an infant at her breast and a toddler at her side. She falls at your feet begging for mercy but you have no mercy. You raise your sword and slice her toddler in half and splatter the blood and guts of her firstborn all over her face. She shrieks in terror and grief, and begs for mercy! Mercy! But you have no mercy. You are on a mission from your God. So you lift your sword again and slaughter the mother and child in one fell swoop. Then you move on to the next tent and do it all again. And the next, and the next, until you have covered yourself in the blood and guts of countless mothers and their children. And the reason for all of this HORROR is because God wants to destroy the Canaanites so "his people" could steal their land, houses, and vineyards!
Deuteronomy 6:10 "So it shall be, when the LORD your God brings you into the land of which He swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give you large and beautiful cities which you did not build, 11 "houses full of all good things, which you did not fill, hewn-out wells which you did not dig, vineyards and olive trees which you did not plant -- when you have eaten and are full ... Deuteronomy 7:2 "and when the LORD your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them.

Why would a God who prohibited murder and theft command his people to invade a land that was not theirs, murder its inhabitants, and steal their possessions? How do these commands differ from those of any brutal Bronze age tribal war god?

This is why I say that fundamentalist religion corrupts both the minds and the morals of all who adhere to it. You have to declare, against all reason and morality, that the slaughter of innocents is not only "good" but the "best possible solution" because the Bible says God commanded it.

How is it possible that you don't understand why these commands appear so evil to those who do not share your presuppositions? If your mind were open to truth, you would understand perfectly why rational and moral people find this aspect of the Bible to be abominable. You would understand that this is a real problem. You would not invent facile "explanations" that convince only those already committed to your dogmas.




Do you ask them to stop? Sure. That's a good place to start.
I thought so too, but I know it would not happen that way. Who are we to tell RAM to stop his wild assertions? Would RAM listen and take heed to anyone?

You "know" no such thing. You merely assert that nothing but genocide would solve the problem because that is the position required to protect your dogma.

And what "wild assertions" have I made? I am speaking nothing but universally agreed upon morality. That's why the genocides are such a problem for Christians who normally like to talk about how evil "killing babies" is, but now must declare the opposite because they are trapped by their dogma and so must declare evil to be good. It's like the debate I watched the other day (see this thread (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3002-Hector-Avalos-debates-Keith-Darrel-Is-the-Bible-a-Moral-Code-for-Today)) - the Christian argued that the Bible is the only source of Absolute Morality. Then the atheist asked if Infanticide and Genocide were "absolutely wrong." The Christian, of course, said no. How's that for irony? The Atheist said yes, and the Christian said no!

I just noticed that you voted for Keith Darrell in the poll on that thread (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3002-Hector-Avalos-debates-Keith-Darrel-Is-the-Bible-a-Moral-Code-for-Today) about their debate. Did you actually watch it, or did you just vote for the Christian out of principle? I can't imagine how you could believe he won if you actually watched it.




What if they do not listen to you and continue? That would depend on what kind of power I had. If I were God, I would simply stop giving them children to kill! Doh! This isn't rocket science, you know.
I agree that this could have been one possibility. However, the difficulty we have is knowing whether it would have been the best solution. I accept God's justice ito be fair and in accordance with His laws. As I am not as wise as God, but can recognize His wisdom, I accept His justice as the best solution for that time. I can only comment on what I think of your solution. If a plague had come upon the people making them infertile, who is to say that the hand of God would have been recognized? People cannot see the hand of God at work today or at anytime in the past. If the Bible had recorded God stopping up the womb's and done it your way, you would still be arguing on this forum that God was immoral and you could have done in better.
The people were guilty of killing children (as part of their religion) and you do not want the punishment to fit the crime. Closing up the women's wombs is taking away women's rights and you would be blaming God once again. Rose should be blaming you for suggesting women's rights are taken away. If your suggestion was carried out, the surrounding nations and God's people would not have learnt any lesson of how serious it is to go against God's will (hence another reason I would like you to review and prepare a commentary on the first eleven verses of Jude).

I'm glad you accept it as a possibility. I didn't say it would be the "best" solution. I merely said it would be better than giving them children who would then be slaughtered by the Israelites.

I understand that you "accept God's justice to be fair and in accordance with His laws" - that's your dogma. You have no choice. Your mind is trapped.

You say you can "recognize his wisdom." That's another delusion. You accept whatever the Bible says, regardless of how horrible and insane it may appear. For example, God inflicted a three year famine on all Israel without even telling them why! And then when David finally got around to asking, God said it was because of something done by the previous king Saul who was long dead. And God wouldn't lift the famine until seven sons of Saul were murdered and "hung up before the Lord" for months. You call that wisdom? It's not even rational! It's simply insane. What rational ruler would act that way?

You say you "accept his justice"? What justice did those innocent babies receive? If God's actions were so good, why are modern people so horrified by them? And what are the implications of God's behavior if he is supposed to be our moral standard?

You gave no reason to reject my solution of God closing the wombs. It was a common belief at that time that God was responsible for the opening and closing of wombs. And besides, God could have sent them a prophet so they would know. But it doesn't if they knew anyway, since the point was to get rid of them, not to explain anything. Your rejection of my solution has absolutely no foundation in fact. My explanation stands.

And no, I would not "still be arguing on this forum that God was immoral and I could have done it better." There would be no genocide to discuss if God had followed my solution.

Your assertion that "Closing up the women's wombs is taking away women's rights" is ludicrous in the extreme. As if MURDERING THEM didn't "take away their rights." :doh:

Your assertion that the "people were guilty of killing children (as part of their religion) and you do not want the punishment to fit the crime" makes no sense at all. How does commanding Israel to murder all Canaanite babies "fit the crime"???? You don't see the insanity of that? You say that the Canaanites were SO BAD because they killed some of their children so God sent in the Israelites to kill them all! Brilliant!

Your assertion that "the surrounding nations and God's people would not have learnt any lesson of how serious it is to go against God's will" has no foundation in fact. If God closed up all their wombs and sent a prophet to tell them, they could not deny the truth of that prophet. As it is, all the Canaanites saw was a marauding tribe of genocidal maniacs who invaded their land, killed them all (except 32,000 sexy virgins) and stole all their property. And you think that teaches them a "lesson" about "how serious it is to go against God's will?"




What if by their practice of child sacrifice, they bring others to do the same, what do you think of that? That's very bad. But not as bad as genocide that murders the very children I was supposedly concerned about!
It is very bad; I agree. We also have to consider the long term implications. You have provided one solution which we could spend hours debating and might never be able to resolve whether that would have been the best long-term solution. Shutting up the women's wombs does not get around the fact that these same people would have not tolerated God's people living in their land (as they thought it belonged to them and it was not God's land).
You make a moral judgement that is purely your opinion and you think that your way is "not so bad". Shutting up wombs would eventually kill off a nation, but it does not stop the people continuing their evil practices and does not solve the matter quickly. God demonstrated his authority and that His ways are to be kept. Are we blind to the lessons God has put on record?
Why worry about the innocent being killed when it is in God's power to save the innocent? You are unable to disprove this, and I have to go on the assurance that God has got the power to do it and has given us examples of where the innocent were saved.

Of course we could "spend hours debating" - and we both know it wouldn't matter what answer I gave. Your mind is closed. You have already rejected any possible answer because you are utterly and totally trapped in your dogma of Biblical perfection. You cannot entertain any other possibility.

Your assertion that "Shutting up the women's wombs does not get around the fact that these same people would have not tolerated God's people living in their land" is false. They would have been gone in one generation, as you yourself noted when you said it would "kill off a nation." That's the WHOLE POINT DUDE! God wanted those nations dead. He could have done it himself with no bloodshed. But he chose rather to impersonate a Bronze age tribal war god who commands his people to murder everyone (except the sexy virgins).

You complaint that infertility does not do it "quickly" enough is no argument at all. God could have begun closing the wombs earlier if he wanted the results earlier.

God did not demonstrate ANYTHING AT ALL because there he was not involved in any visible way. All the Canaanites saw was just another marauding band of murderous madmen invading their land, stealing their women and homes.

You have not yet successful refuted my solution in any way at all.




Not only do you want that person to stop, you now have others to whom you want to say "stop". What can you do, to stop these other people sacrificing children? Stop giving them children to sacrifice! God is the source of life. Why did he keep blessing them with children? Is he stupid or what?
Some people attribute everything received from God as a blessing, including children. There is nothing wrong with that. Having children can be seen by some as no different to God causing the rain to fall on the wicked as well as on the righteous. In that case, having childen is not necessarily considered a blessing. Where is the blessing when some of those babies born will be killed as a child sacrifice? Those babies not sacrificed would be brought up in an evil society and taught to practice the evils of that society? Stopping up the wombs will not prevent that situation from continuing for some time afterwards. The change would not come soon.

Your solution does not prevent further deaths of children. Hey they could go an steal babies from the Israelites. You still have the added problem that the people we are discussing, would not have voluntarily given up their land and their homes and moved out. It is impossible for man direct his ways that are in accordance with God's ways. There is not one shread of evidence to say that man's evil has diminished in the last 6,000 years from the time before or after the Great Flood. When it is not in man to direct his steps, he has to be directed. You have your opinion as to the solution, but it contains a lot of ifs and buts and has no degree of certainty to be the best solution. In the long-term, allowing men and women to continue their evil practices and also for those nations to impose their will on other people, instead of accepting God and His will, is just as immoral (for you) to let the situation continue longer than necessary.

Wrong again. My solution would have prevented the death of all the children because they would not have been born. And it doesn't matter if it didn't solve the problem instantly since neither did God's solution solve the problem instantly. You are inconsistent in your reasoning. You are not looking for truth, you are merely making up excuses to protect your dogma. This demonstrates the futility of your "questions" - you will not accept any answer that contradicts your dogma. Simple as that.

And there is no "added problem" that people "would not have voluntarily given up their land and their homes and moved out" because they would have died out before the Israelites got there if God started his plan in a timely fashion.

Your assertion that "There is not one shread of evidence to say that man's evil has diminished in the last 6,000 years" is patently false. I live in peace with millions of people. There has never been a time like this in the history of the world. People are much better morally now than then. Or if not, then your assertion that they were so evil is false because we are not practicing the kind of evils that were common back then.

Your assertion that my solution "contains a lot of ifs and buts" is entirely false and unfounded.

Your assertion that is "has no degree of certainty to be the best solution" is irrelevant because I didn't say it was best. I explicitly said it was BETTER than genocide. And that should be obvious to anyone with a good human heart.




What is your solution to this problem? Stop giving them children.
What if you have explained to them why it is wrong and evil to do this and they still continue? I'd use my omniscience to come up with a solution that didn't make me look like a brutal Bronze age tribal war god!
Again, you are merely expressing your opinion which has no value to the argument. In making wild assertions, you appear to make yourself look not wise; but that is just my opinion (readers do not take my opinion into consideration when studying the facts).

We all are just expressing our opinions. But the difference between your opinions and mine is that mine are based on logic and facts, whereas yours are based on dogma that cannot be questioned.




You have taught them it is wrong, you have pleaded with them to stop and they will not change their ways, what can you do? The fundamental flaw of your questions is that you don't realize that the Canaanites were no more wicked than the Israelites. Have you never heard that "all have sinned." God could have dealt with the Canaanites just like he did with the Jews. But no .... he specifically said that he gave his law to the JEWS and not to the Canaanites. Your argument reminds me of the song ... "Another one bites the dust."
There is not a "fundamental flaw" in my question. I am just asking a straight-forward question. Why do you make it out to be what it is not? You just need to answer the question. I know the Jews were fickle, God does not hide that fact, and He does not hide it for a reason. You are blind because of the darkness in your heart and cannot see any light. I am trying to help you over this problem. Maybe your sight will return as it did with Paul, who was blinded by the light when Jesus revealed himself to him. The Canaanites would have known of God, they were free to enquire of the Jews and to find out about their God. This is what God wanted. His chosen race to be examples by following His laws. Alas, they failed; so what, it is human nature that God is teaching us about. Instead the Canaanites were selfish and their hearts were hardened to their ways. As you know when a person refuses to listen, no amount of evidence will shift their thinking; don't you think God knows the situation. Why did Pharaoh harden his heart towards God?

God did deal with the Jews and punished them. We have records of his punishments. Why did they go into slavery in Babylon? Why following that, have they been scattered abroad again from AD70? Why were the people destroyed in the Wilderness after deliverance from Egypt (a clue to the Jude passage you are avoiding answering)? You do not know "what I fail to realize". I could easily same the same of you. You are failing to reason out Jude. Until you can begin to reconcile God's word, which you have failed to do while you were a Bible believer, you are unable to realize anything in God's word at this present time. Don't rewrite the Bible, but please state (if any) what parts of the Bible you accept. For you, it has become a contest of intellect. The meaning behind God's word will remain hidden to you as long as you remain in your own pride. You are the same as the Jews who are blind to the facts and claim Jesus is not the Son of God. God will remove that veil in the time to come when He reveals Jesus for a second time. Will you believe then? Perhaps you did not demonstrate the patient waiting that is required while being a Bible believer. Instead of working to reconcile the word you are intent at looking for objections.

I did answer your question. I said "God could have dealt with the Canaanites just like he did with the Jews."

Your assertion "You are blind because of the darkness in your heart and cannot see any light" is quite ironic coming from a dogmatist who has had his opinion given to him in a book. You are the one who is blind. So blind, in fact, that you call evil good because that's what the book says!

There is no evidence that God wanted the Canaanites to inquire of the Jews to learn of God. On the contrary, he commanded the Jews to kill them all!

The Canaanites were just humans. They were no different than the Israelites. Your assertion that "the Canaanites were selfish and their hearts were hardened to their ways" could be said about anyone, including the Jews. It is irrelevant to this discussion.

Your assertion that I need to "reconcile God's word" is absurd because when people do that, they all come to different conclusions. Take yourself as a prime example. The way you have "reconciled God's word" has put outside the faith of almost all Christians who have ever lived!

This is not a "contest of intellects." It is a contest of truth.




Is it right that you let them continue to convert more people to do the same thing and therefore kill more children? Was it right for God to continue giving them children?
You have avoided the question by asking me a question. Talk about me avoiding questions, here you are avoiding answering the simple question. Anyway, to rebut your commnent; that is the point; God stopped them giving birth to more children to grow up and practice the same evils. He stopped them in the way He demonstrated, which is not the way you would do it (we know).

I avoided nothing. The question would serve as an answer if you answered it. You have not shown any flaw in the answer I have given. It may not be the best (who knows? there could be better answers) but it certainly is better than genocide.




What can you do to stop them? Stop giving them children.
OK, you keep repeating your one and only solution which cannot be proved to be the best solution and is not the best solution for some of the reasons I have already explained.

I repeated the answer because you repeated the question! :doh:

And I don't need to prove it is the "best" answer - that's just a diversionary trick. I had only to prove that it was better than turning the Israelites into genocidal maniacs, and it seems pretty clear that I've done that.



This country might not allow these things in law, but the practice still goes on behind closed doors. It has not been stopped completely, merely shifted from one place to another. You have to admit, the evils of man can be very sick and deserve justice to be exercised and punishment given out. There is no sense of punishment fitting the crime with your solution. I am not "ignorant of the fact"; everytime you make a comment like this about me, look in a mirror.

Then God didn't solve any problems by ordering the genocide, since they continue to this day (according to you). So by your argument, God failed. Nice work!



You are not a believer and you do not think God ever answers prayers. You are presenting your hypothetical situation that you assume is the only solution to the problem. Your hypothesis is flawed; it is by no means perfect.

Again, I never said it was "best." That's you trick to avoid the obvious truth that it is better than genocide.

And I never once said it was the "only" solution. Why are you making up things like that?

You have not shown any flaw in my solution. You have not shown that genocide was better.

And again, you err when you say "it is by no means perfect." I never said it was "perfect." You just made that up because you know that arguments about "perfection" can never be resolved because no one has perfect knowledge.



I can ask God in prayer to open your mind, but because I doubt that might happen, I have already got doubt in my mind. As I already have doubt, why should God answer my prayer? If we do not ask in prayer believing that our prayers will be answered, they will not. And in any case, God hardly ever answers prayer in the way the person expects; God is much wiser and knows what our real needs are. That is why so many people see God answering their prayers long after they asked. God's answer is not always immediate, because He has to plan in advance and cause other things to happen first. We are limiting God by our own intellect. We should open up our minds to His word and increase our knowledge and wisdom of Him.

You would get the same results if you prayed to a milk jug (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI).



I do not think the people of the period we are discussing would have thought like you. You are imposing the thoughts of a modern-day intellectual on to your Bronze Age society. All you are doing by your answser (and probably that of Rose) is you are showing your preconceived and fixed opinion instead of rational thought. You are giving the answer I would expect from you and this is what I wanted to expose. Thank you.

:lmbo: :hysterical: :lmbo:




Now that you've had every question answered, will you deal with the answers given?

I have dealt with your answers and if you continue to reply, it would be good if you would base your arguments on the Bible (expounding verses instead of just quoting). I had hoped we could have more meaningful discussions based on reasoning from the Bible. There is no point continuing to look at prophecies until we get down to sound reasoning based on the Bible.

Yes, you "dealt with my answers" but your dealings utterly failed to refute them.



Before we attempt that, I have said, I am regarding Jude as a watershed. Until you are prepared to put up you commentary on the first eleven verses of Jude (and I will do the same) and we agree not to comment on each others commentary, but just let them stand for others to judge the plausibility of our reasoning, then on that basis, we can continue to reason from the Bible and look at the prophecies to be fulfilled.

Your obsession with the obscure and ambiguous elements in the book of Jude is typical of people who make up their own doctrines. It is no "watershed" - or if it is, it is a watershed that proves how pagan mythology was imported into the Bible. But you won't even LOOK at the data, let alone attempt to refute it, because it contradicts your dogmas. And besides, you have already a FIXED DOGMA about the meaning of Jude, so nothing I say would make any difference to you, no matter how true it is. And that's a true pity, especially since Christianity has no claim to anything if not truth. That's the ultimate irony of Christian fundamentalism. It claims to be based on truth, but those who adhere to it have the least familiarity with truth out of all the humans I have ever encountered.

Despite our many differences, I still appreciate your participation. It's actually very enlightening.

All the best,

Richard

David M
04-21-2012, 01:21 PM
Hi David,

Just a quick note to let you know that I explain how to put quotes within quotes in the post called How to quote posts in replies (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2599-How-to-quote-posts-in-replies.).

Hope that helps. Don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions, since if there is something you don't understand we can be pretty sure that others would benefit by my answer.

All the best,

Richard

Hello Richard
Thanks for the link but is this the correct link? I have gone to that thread and even read through all the posts to see if I missed anything and I cannot find any mention of quotes within quotes. I know how to manually do this using the quote tags and copying and pasting from the posts. The button in the bottom right hand corner has a popup which says "Multi-Quote this message"and this does not appear to do anything when I click it. I click the button and then end up clicking the normal 'reply with quotes' button. Maybe you can explain again or else direct me to another post. In the meantime I can keep playing till I find how it works. I get frustrated with my browser at times which is slow to respond as I type. I find typos are not corrected even after I know I have made a correction. By the time the post is submitted and shows on the screen, I find the correction has not been made. I can live with it, but it is frustrating when dealing with lots of quotes.

If I use an HTML editor and copy the HTML across, will the tags be recognized? I might find that easier to use than typing in my browser window. I have downloaded and installed a spell-checker program for Internet Explorer today and I have just tried it with this post. It works! With any luck, you will not see so many typos from me. I have now hopefully fixed the problem of spell checking before I submit posts.

David

Richard Amiel McGough
04-21-2012, 01:49 PM
Hello Richard
Thanks for the link but is this the correct link? I have gone to that thread and even read through all the posts to see if I missed anything and I cannot find any mention of quotes within quotes. I know how to manually do this using the quote tags and copying and pasting from the posts. The button in the bottom right hand corner has a popup which says "Multi-Quote this message"and this does not appear to do anything when I click it. I click the button and then end up clicking the normal 'reply with quotes' button. Maybe you can explain again or else direct me to another post. In the meantime I can keep playing till I find how it works. I get frustrated with my browser at times which is slow to respond as I type. I find typos are not corrected even after I know I have made a correction. By the time the post is submitted and shows on the screen, I find the correction has not been made. I can live with it, but it is frustrating when dealing with lots of quotes.

If I use an HTML editor and copy the HTML across, will the tags be recognized? I might find that easier to use than typing in my browser window. I have downloaded and installed a spell-checker program for Internet Explorer today and I have just tried it with this post. It works! With any luck, you will not see so many typos from me. I have now hopefully fixed the problem of spell checking before I submit posts.

David
Hi David,

Yes, that was the correct link, but I forgot it only talked about one quote, not multiple quotes. I updated it so it explains quotes within quotes. Don't hesitate to respond to that thread if you still have questions.

That's very strange about the problem with the typos. It may be because of your browser. I usually use Firefox. But I haven't seen the problem with editing even when using IE9. But I'll keep any eye out for it.

The Multi-Quote button allows you to quote more than one post at a time. If you click it on two posts, both posts will be seen in quotes in the edit box.

Many HTML tags are recognized in the edit box, but it can be a little dicey. Just give it a shot and see what happens. There's nothing to worry about.

The thing I like about Firefox is that the spell checker works as you type, just like in any word processor. The spell checker for IE has to be invoked by a command. It's a bother.

Good luck with all this computer stuff.

Richard

David M
04-21-2012, 06:01 PM
Hi David,

Just a quick note to let you know that I explain how to put quotes within quotes in the post called How to quote posts in replies (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2599-How-to-quote-posts-in-replies.).

Hope that helps. Don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions, since if there is something you don't understand we can be pretty sure that others would benefit by my answer.

All the best,

Richard

Thank you Richard. I have clicked on the button and the green tick has changed to a + sign. I will see if this makes a difference.

I know what I asked and I know how Rose responded and she did not answer each individual question on the forum in the way that you have, and I thank you for picking up the gauntlet in her place. I will finish with this, and have pasted a copy of my last post and Rose's answer. I know Rose did not answer in the way that you have and that was all I was asking Rose to do. You picked it up because you could see the questions were waiting to be answered.


Hi David,

You assertion that Rose has not answered your questions is false. In a previous post you told Rose "You have not yet answered my question and given a satisfactory solution to the problem." Your statement is self-contradictory. Rose could not have failed to give a "satisfactory solution" if she had not answered.


Originally Posted by David M
Good morning Rose

You will be pleased to know that I am not going to continue with this thread. This is my last reply.

I am leaving you with this one question.

"Can you honestly say you have answered each and everyone of my questions in the way that I asked you to?"

All the best.

David

Yes, David I did answer you questions, even though they were meant to distract from the real issue of God's immoral behavior.

Thanks for chatting,
Rose [/QUOTE]

This matter is now ended


********************************


The problem is that you are compelled to reject any answer because you are in bondage to your dogma that anything the Bible says about God must be true and good no matter how bad it really is. That's why it is a waste of time to answer your long list of tedious and repetitive questions. It's all a foregone conclusion. We both know that you will make up whatever excuses are necessary to reject anything that contradicts your preconceived dogma. Your unfounded rejection of everything I wrote proves this in spades.
To you and your supporters it will. However, you cannot see your own narrowly focused thoughts. The fact that you have to repeat ad nauseam your assertions goes to prove it to those who disagree with you. This subject should be dropped altogether between us, as we shall continue to aggravate one another and not get around to discussing anything else.



So why play such games? Why not be honest and simply declare "Nothing you say will change my mind?" Your behavior is particularly ironic in that you assert that I am the one who has a "preconceived and fixed opinion instead of rational thought." I have no "preconceived and fixed opinion." I have REASONS for my opinions, whereas your opinions were given to you in a book and are utterly fixed and locked down by your dogma.
I have never said nothing will ever change my mind on all subjects. You have yet to find a subject where I can believe what you say. Show me some truth in the Bible that I have not seen or which I am struggling with and then I might agree with you. I am not giving in to that which I know not to be true. Saying I have a closed mind is far from the truth, but then you do not have the truth as I see it. That is the point of these discussions. We should put up and shut up instead of aggravating one another. That way, we should say what be believe and understand and the other side either accepts that or point out the possible error without adding derogatory remarks, then we might get somewhere. I thought we had agreed not to do what is happening again in this post and will continue as long as the cycle is not broken and a set of rules need to be aboded by.


I don't need to explain "that would depend" because neither you nor I have all the facts. But that does not open the door to justify genocide commanded by God. You have never dealt with the fact that God's command to kill every man, woman, and child was not only evil to the innocent children, but it also BRUTALIZED the Israelites beyond anything you can imagine. Have you never taken a moment to consider what it would have been like to be an Israeli soldier? You go out to destroy the Canaanites. You see a tent and rip it open to find a 17 year old mother with an infant at her breast and a toddler at her side. She falls at your feet begging for mercy but you have no mercy. You raise your sword and slice her toddler in half and splatter the blood and guts of her firstborn all over her face. She shrieks in terror and grief, and begs for mercy! Mercy! But you have no mercy. You are on a mission from your God. So you lift your sword again and slaughter the mother and child in one fell swoop. Then you move on to the next tent and do it all again. And the next, and the next, until you have covered yourself in the blood and guts of countless mothers and their children. And the reason for all of this HORROR is because God wants to destroy the Canaanites so "his people" could steal their land, houses, and vineyards!
Deuteronomy 6:10 "So it shall be, when the LORD your God brings you into the land of which He swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give you large and beautiful cities which you did not build, 11 "houses full of all good things, which you did not fill, hewn-out wells which you did not dig, vineyards and olive trees which you did not plant -- when you have eaten and are full ... Deuteronomy 7:2 "and when the LORD your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them.

Why would a God who prohibited murder and theft command his people to invade a land that was not theirs, murder its inhabitants, and steal their possessions? How do these commands differ from those of any brutal Bronze age tribal war god?
It was God's land; why don't you realize that? It was promised to Abraham, because it was God's to give. They differ because God is not as you assert. I have stated enough why this assertion is untrue, you can discern that from my replies.


This is why I say that fundamentalist religion corrupts both the minds and the morals of all who adhere to it. You have to declare, against all reason and morality, that the slaughter of innocents is not only "good" but the "best possible solution" because the Bible says God commanded it.
Well until you can really prove you have the best solution, I will go with God's judgment. I am not blind to the nastiness of killing. I take it you must be a vegetarian or else you like killing animals? I am not a vegetarian though I do not like the thought of killing animals. I expect I would kill animals if my survival depended on it and of God instructed me to. He has not instructed me to kill or not kill animals. God knows animals are used for food as part of the food chain. As long as I do not go against God's will, I am free to do what I ever I want. I have more freedom in God than you think you have in the society you live in strapped by the laws it makes for itself.


How is it possible that you don't understand why these commands appear so evil to those who do not share your presuppositions? If your mind were open to truth, you would understand perfectly why rational and moral people find this aspect of the Bible to be abominable. You would understand that this is a real problem. You would not invent facile "explanations" that convince only those already committed to your dogmas.
And you would not keep ducking the issue of the punishment fitting the crime. Take it one individual at a time. What punishment are you going to give to a child killer in any society by today's standards?



You "know" no such thing. You merely assert that nothing but genocide would solve the problem because that is the position required to protect your dogma.
No more so than you are claiming to be correct. I defend that which I believe to be true. You have to put up an infallible argument, before I abandon my years of getting to understand God's word. Why would I jeopardize my salvation to agree with you, when you have not proved yourself worthy of believing?


And what "wild assertions" have I made? I am speaking nothing but universally agreed upon morality. That's why the genocides are such a problem for Christians who normally like to talk about how evil "killing babies" is, but now must declare the opposite because they are trapped by their dogma and so must declare evil to be good. It's like the debate I watched the other day (see this thread (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3002-Hector-Avalos-debates-Keith-Darrel-Is-the-Bible-a-Moral-Code-for-Today)) - the Christian argued that the Bible is the only source of Absolute Morality. Then the atheist asked if Infanticide and Genocide were "absolutely wrong." The Christian, of course, said no. How's that for irony? The Atheist said yes, and the Christian said no!
Your universally agreed morality does not include me, so how can it be universal? You have not demonstrated any morality; only humanism. It does not matter if one atheist disagrees with one Christian, a case is not built on the difference between two people who could both be wrong.


I just noticed that you voted for Keith Darrell in the poll on that thread (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3002-Hector-Avalos-debates-Keith-Darrel-Is-the-Bible-a-Moral-Code-for-Today) about their debate. Did you actually watch it, or did you just vote for the Christian out of principle? I can't imagine how you could believe he won if you actually watched it.
Yes I did, and wasted over an hour of my time. I agree with Darrel that Avalos had the better presentation material, but a debate is not won on style alone but by valid argument.


I'm glad you accept it as a possibility. I didn't say it would be the "best" solution. I merely said it would be better than giving them children who would then be slaughtered by the Israelites.
I shall consider any other possibility you might like to put forward, but any solution you put forward is not likely to end up punishing the guilty for killing children. Stop pushing the blame on God and say what fitting punishment should be given to a child killer in the Canaanite society.


I understand that you "accept God's justice to be fair and in accordance with His laws" - that's your dogma. You have no choice. Your mind is trapped.
So you keep saying. How trapped are you? Your are like a gramophone needle that has got stuck in the groove and you cannot say anything else. Snap out of the groove.


You say you can "recognize his wisdom." That's another delusion. You accept whatever the Bible says, regardless of how horrible and insane it may appear. For example, God inflicted a three year famine on all Israel without even telling them why! And then when David finally got around to asking, God said it was because of something done by the previous king Saul who was long dead. And God wouldn't lift the famine until seven sons of Saul were murdered and "hung up before the Lord" for months. You call that wisdom? It's not even rational! It's simply insane. What rational ruler would act that way?
You are introducing other incidents that I have given an answer to in an earlier thread. You are changing the subject under discussion and diverting away form the argument here. As to the other incidents, the rationality of them can be discussed in another thread at a different time. This post is long enough as it is.


You say you "accept his justice"? What justice did those innocent babies receive? If God's actions were so good, why are modern people so horrified by them? And what are the implications of God's behavior if he is supposed to be our moral standard?
You are concentrating on the babies and refuse to accept that God has the power to save them and let them grow up in the millennial age to come. There is no evidence to say this will definitely happen, but you cannot rule out that God has the power to do it. Why don't you argue from the point I made, instead of pushing forward your irrational thoughts.


You gave no reason to reject my solution of God closing the wombs. It was a common belief at that time that God was responsible for the opening and closing of wombs. And besides, God could have sent them a prophet so they would know. But it doesn't if they knew anyway, since the point was to get rid of them, not to explain anything. Your rejection of my solution has absolutely no foundation in fact. My explanation stands.
I gave you at least one reason, but you fail to notice it and just keep making assertions which aggravate me and do not add any sense to this discussion.


And no, I would not "still be arguing on this forum that God was immoral and I could have done it better." There would be no genocide to discuss if God had followed my solution.
We will never really know how bad the world would have turned out by letting off murderers to go on doing their evil works.


Your assertion that "Closing up the women's wombs is taking away women's rights" is ludicrous in the extreme. As if MURDERING THEM didn't "take away their rights." :doh:
Killing them meant they could not exercise rights, because they were not alive to exercise any rights. The punishment of the judicial system today is to lock people up and take away their right to freedom. What rights are you proposing to take way from a child killer? It is arguable that they should have no rights at all. You have to admit that your solution has taken away women's rights and leaves them alive unable to have those rights.


Your assertion that the "people were guilty of killing children (as part of their religion) and you do not want the punishment to fit the crime" makes no sense at all. How does commanding Israel to murder all Canaanite babies "fit the crime"???? You don't see the insanity of that? You say that the Canaanites were SO BAD because they killed some of their children so God sent in the Israelites to kill them all! Brilliant!
The punishment was on the parents. There was no-one to look after the babies once the parents had been killed. They babies if not killed would have died of starvation. You are not answering the question; what punishment should be given to a child killer by our judicial system? I have yet to see the sanity in what you are saying.


Your assertion that "the surrounding nations and God's people would not have learned any lesson of how serious it is to go against God's will" has no foundation in fact. If God closed up all their wombs and sent a prophet to tell them, they could not deny the truth of that prophet. As it is, all the Canaanites saw was a marauding tribe of genocidal maniacs who invaded their land, killed them all (except 32,000 sexy virgins) and stole all their property. And you think that teaches them a "lesson" about "how serious it is to go against God's will?"
To go against God's will can have serious repercussions. It all depends on how serious the going against His will is. Perhaps God can say like you; "it depends".



Of course we could "spend hours debating" - and we both know it wouldn't matter what answer I gave. Your mind is closed. You have already rejected any possible answer because you are utterly and totally trapped in your dogma of Biblical perfection. You cannot entertain any other possibility.
I can entertain sound reasoning. Your ideas are nothing more than that; ideas.


Your assertion that "Shutting up the women's wombs does not get around the fact that these same people would have not tolerated God's people living in their land" is false. They would have been gone in one generation, as you yourself noted when you said it would "kill off a nation." That's the WHOLE POINT DUDE! God wanted those nations dead. He could have done it himself with no bloodshed. But he chose rather to impersonate a Bronze age tribal war god who commands his people to murder everyone (except the sexy virgins).
It would take 40 to 70 years and that allows them to do a lot more evil. The land would not be given up without a fight and do you think the Canaanites would have been any less sever? What do you say about Iran if they could do to Israel as they would like? They would not spare one man, woman or child. Whose side are you on? On the side of reprobates it appears.


You complaint that infertility does not do it "quickly" enough is no argument at all. God could have begun closing the wombs earlier if he wanted the results earlier.
God could have done everything and that would have left the Israelites with nothing to do whereby in the process, their own obedience was tested, and then they failed as we know. You are making excuses more for the Canaanites than I am making for God or the Israelites. What is your direct punishment for child-killers in today's society in America? Apply the the same punishment to the Canaanites. Or do you want to give them a slap on the wrist and say; don't do it again. What is a child-killer's punishment?



To be continued in the next half

David M
04-21-2012, 06:04 PM
2nd half (continued from 1st half)




God did not demonstrate ANYTHING AT ALL because there he was not involved in any visible way. All the Canaanites saw was just another marauding band of murderous madmen invading their land, stealing their women and homes.
I think the Canaanites were less blind and deaf as you appear to be.


You have not yet successful refuted my solution in any way at all.
I have but you have failed to read what I have said. I might not have refuted it as completely as I could, one or two reasons that I have given is sufficient.



Wrong again. My solution would have prevented the death of all the children because they would not have been born. And it doesn't matter if it didn't solve the problem instantly since neither did God's solution solve the problem instantly. You are inconsistent in your reasoning. You are not looking for truth, you are merely making up eithoxcuses to protect your dogma. This demonstrates the futility of your "questions" - you will not accept any answer that contradicts your dogma. Simple as that.
It is simple that I will not accept your arguments; I am not against accepting arguments that make sense. I fail to see the sense in your one suggestion. It might be argued that God is doing what you want here and now and is not giving out punishment like He did in the past. You are not a futurist, and as far as I can tell you don't believe that God's punishment is coming on all the nations that will be gathered around Israel in future. Who knows, you might be alive to witness it and when it happens what will you think?
I reject anything that is not accordance with God's word and that is what we have to get to the bottom of. As you say; the Bible "clearly states" and so why should I not stick to what the Bible clearly states. The fact that you have changed your mind goes to show how unstable your are. God's word does not change, though you cannot discern that.


And there is no "added problem" that people "would not have voluntarily given up their land and their homes and moved out" because they would have died out before the Israelites got there if God started his plan in a timely fashion.
Maybe you should have suggested before now and shown us how that would work.


Your assertion that "There is not one shread of evidence to say that man's evil has diminished in the last 6,000 years" is patently false. I live in peace with millions of people. There has never been a time like this in the history of the world. People are much better morally now than then. Or if not, then your assertion that they were so evil is false because we are not practicing the kind of evils that were common back then.
Have you counted the hundreds of wars taking place in the world at this point in time. The earth's population is now around the 3 or 4 billion mark; a far greater number than was alive 2 or 3 thousand years ago. If many had not died in wars who knows what the population would be now. Look at the terrible crimes of the state that is taking place in Syria. This is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. When you make rubbish comparisons, you do yourself no credit. I do not know millions of people. Living in peace with several hundred maybe. Then again, I do not know the true colors of people I meet. There are many wolves in sheep's clothing. There is good and bad in every generation and there is no proof that the world on a whole is any less evil than it was.


Your assertion that my solution "contains a lot of ifs and buts" is entirely false and unfounded.
Prove it then!! You have already said; "it depends..". Your dependancies are just a load of "if"s.


Your assertion that is "has no degree of certainty to be the best solution" is irrelevant because I didn't say it was best. I explicitly said it was BETTER than genocide. And that should be obvious to anyone with a good human heart.
You are a humanist and having a good heart toward your fellow man means nothing when it is more important to have a good heart toward God. Having the the latter will automatically make a person have a good heart toward their neighbor. Humanist thinking is flawed, because (as we agree) we are imperfect.



We all are just expressing our opinions. But the difference between your opinions and mine is that mine are based on logic and facts, whereas yours are based on dogma that cannot be questioned.
My opinions are based on reasoning from the Bible and reconciling the word instead of believing the myths about fallen Holy Angels of God and the like. While you promote such beliefs it is hardly surprising that I do not consider your opinions are based on fact and logic; far from it.



I did answer your question. I said "God could have dealt with the Canaanites just like he did with the Jews."
The seriousness of the Canaanites was more serious than the Jews at that time and God did what was best at the time. God had to make corrections later on because the Israelites did not obey His instructions to the letter. Once again, you blame God and not man. It is man that brings evil on himself because he commits evil in the first place. Stop that cycle and things might improve.


Your assertion "You are blind because of the darkness in your heart and cannot see any light" is quite ironic coming from a dogmatist who has had his opinion given to him in a book. You are the one who is blind. So blind, in fact, that you call evil good because that's what the book says!
Your reading of other works of fiction does not make you any wiser in the word of God. In this you are blind. If I have convinced myself of certain matters as a result of God's word, you cannot say I am blind. You have to remove the beam in your own eye before you can make accusations about my blindness due to a small moat in my eye. We should get down to sound argument instead of these trivial assertions. You are turning a blind eye to giving out punishment to suit the crime. You have not answered my question as to what punishment you would administer to child-killers in our present judicial system.


There is no evidence that God wanted the Canaanites to inquire of the Jews to learn of God. On the contrary, he commanded the Jews to kill them all!
There does not have to be evidence to know that this is what God wanted. He expected them to once they became aware that God was on the side or the Israelites. Rahab had heard the fame of the Israelites and their God. Rahab was saved. It just goes to show that God will save those who acknowledge him and do as Rahab did; not forgetting that Rahab was a harlot and she was not condemned by God. God knows the heart of everyone and knows if they are innately good or bad. Only God can judge correctly, which is why your judgment cannot compete.


The Canaanites were just humans. They were no different than the Israelites. Your assertion that "the Canaanites were selfish and their hearts were hardened to their ways" could be said about anyone, including the Jews. It is irrelevant to this discussion.
It is a factor that comes into the equation. Some peoples hearts are hardened more than others and therefore God knows who to give up on. Of course it can be said of the Jews. Because the Jews were given God's laws and they happened to be Abraham's descendants, did not make them individually any different to anyone else. The fact that they were given God's law gave them an advantage and they were supposed to be examples, but they failed. They were examples, but not always in a good way and they showed how fickle they were as a people, following the leadership of good and bad kings.


Your assertion that I need to "reconcile God's word" is absurd because when people do that, they all come to different conclusions. Take yourself as a prime example. The way you have "reconciled God's word" has put outside the faith of almost all Christians who have ever lived!
If you cannot reconcile the word of God, you can never have the truth. Everything to you remains unreconciled and you do not know what to believe. You have the greater problem. Because I am reconciling the word and reaching my conclusion, you then accuse me of being dogmatic. I never claim to be dogmatic about everything, but there are some basics that everyone should be able to understand and accept and not have need to change. The fact that those basics are also rejected just goes to show that it is futile talking to some people. Time is better spent helping those who are seriously looking to understand.


This is not a "contest of intellects." It is a contest of truth.
I am glad it is not a contest of intellects. I will give you that honor if it was. Theorizing does not get anyone to understand God's truth. It is not a contest of truth, it is a contest of who believes the least number of lies. The truth is, and if we do not recognize the truth correctly, we do not have the truth. Who knows which one of us knows the truth more; this is for God to judge. After all, God has revealed His word to us and He will be the final arbiter to decide.


I avoided nothing. The question would serve as an answer if you answered it. You have not shown any flaw in the answer I have given. It may not be the best (who knows? there could be better answers) but it certainly is better than genocide.
You do not know that it is better than genocide in ridding the land evil practices that would come back to bite God's people. They failed to keep God's instruction and it did come back to bite them and that is why God also punished the Israelites. You should accuse God of partiality, but then you will as Rose has already been doing so.


I repeated the answer because you repeated the question! :doh:
In that case I will not repeat the answer as I cannot see the question in this post to respond to. At least this endless circle is broken here.


And I don't need to prove it is the "best" answer - that's just a diversionary trick. I had only to prove that it was better than turning the Israelites into genocidal maniacs, and it seems pretty clear that I've done that.
They were not turned into "genocidal maniacs"; that is another of your wild assertions. You can say anything you like and leave it to God-fearing people to argue against you. You are not putting forward any evidence to support your wild assertion. It is plain as day what you are doing.



Then God didn't solve any problems by ordering the genocide, since they continue to this day (according to you). So by your argument, God failed. Nice work!
The Israelites failed to carry out the command and so God's strategy was compromised. Genocide of those nations living in the Promised Land was not going to solve the long-term problem; I never said it would. We know the Israelites were fickle, that is why the temptation to them had to be eliminated and so was done quickly. Temptations would have ultimately come from nations further afield. God did not fail, the Israelites failed God.



Again, I never said it was "best." That's you trick to avoid the obvious truth that it is better than genocide.
You mean it was probably your worst solution? I agree with that! Genocide is a hard punishment to fit the crime, but it was not only the crimes they had committed but the crimes they would continue to commit if nothing was done. Considering their was not 10 people worth saving in Sodom and Gomorrah, and God would have spared those cities if there had been. Based on the mercy God would have shown to Sodom and Gomorrah, it must say something about the people he destroyed in Canaan. Again, God spared Nineveh when they repented. Once God has judged people to be reprobates, they are beyond saving. God has many more men and women being born who have the opportunity to respond and who he can select. If you put yourself outside of God's protection, you have no-one to blame but yourself. You cannot blame God for not taking up the opportunity that he has extended to you.


And I never once said it was the "only" solution. Why are you making up things like that?
I am not making things up, I said it because you did not offer any other solution and did not say you had another solution to offer. If you have a better solution then please let us know what it is.



You have not shown any flaw in my solution. You have not shown that genocide was better.
I have stated it was better, but you have once again not identified what I have said. I said that I could only comment on your solution. I said God's solution was more immediate. Your solution would not have reduced the problem quickly. With Israel's failing to carry out God's instruction, we cannot say that God's solution would not have been more effective than it was. God was only dealing with a handfuls of nations and this problem is world wide. God's plan was to get his chosen race settle in the Promised Land. To do so also put the onus on Israel to carry out the instruction and to the nasty work that it was but I suggest it was less nasty to the culture of that period. Modern day war is equally horrendous. What do you do when a murder threatens your own life? If you do not believe in God or follow his instructions, I would not expect you to turn the other cheek, but instead I would expect you to defend yourself and retaliate. You still did not answer my question about what punishment you would give out to child-killers.


And again, you err when you say "it is by no means perfect." I never said it was "perfect." You just made that up because you know that arguments about "perfection" can never be resolved because no one has perfect knowledge.
I bow to God's greater knowledge and wisdom. If you cannot then so be it. Man is imperfect and so we are both imperfect and have to accept that as a given.



You would get the same results if you prayed to a milk jug (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI).

I have seen this so many times, it becomes tedious. I appreciate that you are replying to so many people and OK this is the first time you have put this in your reply to me. It is not very helpful. Prayer is something we shall not agree on, we have made our statements so I shall try to not say any more on this in posts to you.




Yes, you "dealt with my answers" but your dealings utterly failed to refute them.
I don't think I "utterly failed to refute them", there is only so many hours in the day I can spend refuting all your wild assertions, so it is to be expected I can only give one or two reasons to sufficiently reply, which I have done. 'what I am saying is not registering with you.


Your obsession with the obscure and ambiguous elements in the book of Jude is typical of people who make up their own doctrines. It is no "watershed" - or if it is, it is a watershed that proves how pagan mythology was imported into the Bible. But you won't even LOOK at the data, let alone attempt to refute it, because it contradicts your dogmas. And besides, you have already a FIXED DOGMA about the meaning of Jude, so nothing I say would make any difference to you, no matter how true it is. And that's a true pity, especially since Christianity has no claim to anything if not truth. That's the ultimate irony of Christian fundamentalism. It claims to be based on truth, but those who adhere to it have the least familiarity with truth out of all the humans I have ever encountered.
I am not making up doctrine, I have reasoned Jude v6 for myself and I am asking you to do the same. It is a watershed because unless you show me some reason and examine each verse of Jude and get the whole context in place, you are not studying the Bible. It does matter what you say, because it can show to others how your have reasoned. I can only guess you are repeating what you have learned from text books without applying yourself to the text. I am the one in the minority on this forum and I expect that my reasoning will be rejected by most, but I am prepared to show how I derive who the angels are that Jude refers to. He is not referring back to Enoch in verse 6 and as I have explained to you in another post and I know you have rejected the Book of Enoch yourself, which is why I am surprised you even bring it in as evidence to support your claim. Apart from the mention of Enoch in Jude, there is no evidence that Jude is referring to the Book of Enoch. This is yet another false assumption you have learned from others.
If I am fixed in my dogma, it is because the truth does not change. You have changed from calling yourself a Christian to becoming an atheist or agnostic. The truth could never have been in you from the start if you have now renounced God's word as truth.



Despite our many differences, I still appreciate your participation. It's actually very enlightening.
If you are enlightened in anyway that is something. I hope to enlighten you some more and maybe we will both get closer to the truth that we are both missing.


All the best,

Richard

Likewise

David

David M
04-21-2012, 07:04 PM
Hi David,

Yes, that was the correct link, but I forgot it only talked about one quote, not multiple quotes. I updated it so it explains quotes within quotes. Don't hesitate to respond to that thread if you still have questions.

That's very strange about the problem with the typos. It may be because of your browser. I usually use Firefox. But I haven't seen the problem with editing even when using IE9. But I'll keep any eye out for it.

The Multi-Quote button allows you to quote more than one post at a time. If you click it on two posts, both posts will be seen in quotes in the edit box.

Many HTML tags are recognized in the edit box, but it can be a little dicey. Just give it a shot and see what happens. There's nothing to worry about.

The thing I like about Firefox is that the spell checker works as you type, just like in any word processor. The spell checker for IE has to be invoked by a command. It's a bother.

Good luck with all this computer stuff.

Richard

Thanks Richard
we ought to be having this conversation in your help section. My computer, browser and wireless router does crazy things at time. I was using Firefox until my computer would not download the attachments on the forum so I have switched back to IE and see how that goes for a while. I am gradually adding extras to IE that I had with Firefox. They all have their pros and cons.
I think from what you say, I see the idea of multi quotes. It is not or doing quotes within quotes but as you say bringing in quotes from different posts. I shall play around and see what happens.

I have tried copying a pasting to my HTML and it was not successful, the color tags do not work. Spell check in IE is working OK. Now I can lessen the number or edits I make as every time I come back to a post I keep finding new typos. One or two is OK but hey in the last post I did in reply to you, there were plenty to correct. Having a slow response in the browser does not help and I expect when it auto saves the screen might freeze a little. I do not know, it might be because the compute has had too many windows open and too many caches need emptying.

For now it is not too bad, I think having a very long post does not help.

All the best

David

Rose
04-21-2012, 07:47 PM
God could have done everything and that would have left the Israelites with nothing to do whereby in the process their own obedience was tested and then they failed as we know. You are making excuses more for the Canaanites that I am making or God or the Israelites. What is your direct punishment for child-killers in today's society in America? Apply the the same punishment to the Canaanites. Or do you want to give them a slap on the wrist and say; don't do it again. What is a child-killer's punishment?



To be continued in the next half

Hi David,

Yes, if God had done his own dirty work, he wouldn't have turned the Hebrews into baby killers and rapists, and since God already knew the Canaanites were going to sacrifice their babies and he still allowed them to become a race of people then all the blame lies on his doorstep.

I think whatever punishment is determined suitable for child-killers, should not only be applied to the Canaanites but also to God. When all the figures are counted, God is responsible for a lot more infant and children's deaths then the Canaanites did thousands of times over.

All the best,
Rose

David M
04-22-2012, 04:23 AM
Hi David,

Yes, if God had done his own dirty work, he wouldn't have turned the Hebrews into baby killers and rapists, and since God already knew the Canaanites were going to sacrifice their babies and he still allowed them to become a race of people then all the blame lies on his doorstep.

I think whatever punishment is determined suitable for child-killers, should not only be applied to the Canaanites but also to God. When all the figures are counted, God is responsible for a lot more infant and children's deaths then the Canaanites did thousands of times over.

All the best,
Rose

Good morning Rose

This subject will go on and on and on and on.............

You stil have not answered the question and divert answering by sidetracking.

If you agree that the child-killer should be killed and the same punishment applied to God, you are saying that we should kill God. I know you have killed Him in your heart.

If you kill God, you deny thousands and milions of being given salvation come the resurrection. How can God do this if we kill him off?

By your irrational thinking you are denying all the promises and good things to come from God and throw all that away because you cannot reconcile His justice and punishment to fit the crime.

You are under the same penalty of death, as we all are and whereas God has given us hope and assurance, and (some) wisdom to understand, that death is not the end but is an arbiter, you want to throw all of God's mercy and love and His gift of eternal life down the pan. No right thinking person having come to that knowledge and belief based on the evidence they have to support that belief is going to change their mind, which you want them to do. Because they will not change their mind, you accuse them of holding on to their dogma. Your arguments are weak and futile, and it is a wonder anyone stays on this forum to keep hearing the same message from you in differently guised threads. I think you should post in a completely different section titled "God Bashing" so everyone can ignore you posts.

I know this reply is a total waste of time, I hope others reading this, have seen through your weak arguments and come to the same conclusion as I have.


Anyway, all the best for your recovery.

David

CWH
04-22-2012, 07:39 AM
Hi David,

Yes, if God had done his own dirty work, he wouldn't have turned the Hebrews into baby killers and rapists, and since God already knew the Canaanites were going to sacrifice their babies and he still allowed them to become a race of people then all the blame lies on his doorstep.

I think whatever punishment is determined suitable for child-killers, should not only be applied to the Canaanites but also to God. When all the figures are counted, God is responsible for a lot more infant and children's deaths then the Canaanites did thousands of times over.

All the best,
Rose

If God is punished for being child-killers so are millions of teenagers and adults for aborting their babies! Do you want God to do that? Should the US government be punished for sending young men to be killed or be women and child and men killers in the Vietnam wars, Iraq wars, Afghan war? Why can't the US government nuclear bombed those countries instead of sending young men to be killed or be killers there?

Let's be fair to God and answer those questions.


May God shows us Mercy and Love.:pray:

Rose
04-22-2012, 09:01 AM
Good morning Rose

This subject will go on and on and on and on.............

You stil have not answered the question and divert answering by sidetracking.

If you agree that the child-killer should be killed and the same punishment applied to God, you are saying that we should kill God. I know you have killed Him in your heart.

If you kill God, you deny thousands and milions of being given salvation come the resurrection. How can God do this if we kill him off?

By your irrational thinking you are denying all the promises and good things to come from God and throw all that away because you cannot reconcile His justice and punishment to fit the crime.

You are under the same penalty of death, as we all are and whereas God has given us hope and assurance, and (some) wisdom to understand, that death is not the end but is an arbiter, you want to throw all of God's mercy and love and His gift of eternal life down the pan. No right thinking person having come to that knowledge and belief based on the evidence they have to support that belief is going to change their mind, which you want them to do. Because they will not change their mind, you accuse them of holding on to their dogma. Your arguments are weak and futile, and it is a wonder anyone stays on this forum to keep hearing the same message from you in differently guised threads. I think you should post in a completely different section titled "God Bashing" so everyone can ignore you posts.

I know this reply is a total waste of time, I hope others reading this, have seen through your weak arguments and come to the same conclusion as I have.


Anyway, all the best for your recovery.

David

Hi David, :yo:

I'm sorry you're getting so frustrated with my speaking the truth...:winking0071: But the fact of the matter is that if one is going to call the Canaanites child-killers, then one must also call God a child-killer...even though I know you don't like the sound of it. :mad:

Yes, I have said Yahweh is child-killer and rapist every way I can possibly think of in hopes that maybe the message will get through, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears and hardened hearts. Of course I understand that a person who believes that Yahweh is the creator of morality, could not believe that Yahweh would commit immoral acts himself, but that is exactly what we read in the pages of Scripture...over, and over again children and babies are killed and women raped...all done in the name of God!

You know, maybe with all of Yahweh's so called foreknowledge he would have come up with a better design for humans. Obviously there is a major flaw in our design, because no matter how many times Yahweh has killed off evil humans they just seem to become evil all over again! Another huge flaw is in the way Yahweh set up his hierarchical order...would anyone in their right mind set up a system where flawed humans have the rule over other humans? It's sort of like giving your male children rule over your female children, how crazy is that? A perfect god should know better.

Nice chatting, :D
Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
04-22-2012, 10:40 AM
Why would a God who prohibited murder and theft command his people to invade a land that was not theirs, murder its inhabitants, and steal their possessions? How do these commands differ from those of any brutal Bronze age tribal war god?
It was God's land; why don't you realize that? It was promised to Abraham, because it was God's to give. They differ because God is not as you assert. I have stated enough why this assertion is untrue, you can discern that from my replies.

First, you didn't answer my questions.

Second, the fact that God owns everything does not mean that it makes sense for him to command his people to murder and steal, contrary to his commandments.

This is the problem with Christian morality. It is entirely inconsistent. Case in point: Keith Darrell claimed that there could be no "absolute morality" without God, and then refused to say that Infanticide, Slavery, and Genocide were absolutely immoral. This proves that the Christian claim of "absolute morality" is meaningless - it has nothing to do with morality as normally understood. What they really mean when they say "absolute morality" is "whatever God commands in the Bible" regardless if it is moral or not.




This is why I say that fundamentalist religion corrupts both the minds and the morals of all who adhere to it. You have to declare, against all reason and morality, that the slaughter of innocents is not only "good" but the "best possible solution" because the Bible says God commanded it.
Well until you can really prove you have the best solution, I will go with God's judgment. I am not blind to the nastiness of killing. I take it you must be a vegetarian or else you like killing animals? I am not a vegetarian though I do not like the thought of killing animals. I expect I would kill animals if my survival depended on it and of God instructed me to. He has not instructed me to kill or not kill animals. God knows animals are used for food as part of the food chain. As long as I do not go against God's will, I am free to do what I ever I want. I have more freedom in God than you think you have in the society you live in strapped by the laws it makes for itself.

You are repeating the same error. I don't need to show that closing the wombs is the "best" solution. I only need to show that it is better than genocide. Your response only proves, yet again, that the Christian claim to morality is baseless. It gives no foundation at all because God himself commands his people to violate the morality he says they are supposed to obey. The Bible is simply incoherent on this point.

As for vegetarianism - I eat meat and have no moral problem with the slaughter of animals for that purpose. But people are not mere animals that can be enslaved and slaughtered.




How is it possible that you don't understand why these commands appear so evil to those who do not share your presuppositions? If your mind were open to truth, you would understand perfectly why rational and moral people find this aspect of the Bible to be abominable. You would understand that this is a real problem. You would not invent facile "explanations" that convince only those already committed to your dogmas.
And you would not keep ducking the issue of the punishment fitting the crime. Take it one individual at a time. What punishment are you going to give to a child killer in any society by today's standards?

You are now ducking and dodging by inventing a patently false condition. God no longer judges wickedness in this world by commanding genocide, so obviously he is not imposing any punishment that fits the crime. Why is he so inconsistent?

This kind of "tit-for-tat" interaction is not leading to any kind of resolution. We need to find something we agree upon and build from there. Otherwise we'll just keep repeating ourselves.




You "know" no such thing. You merely assert that nothing but genocide would solve the problem because that is the position required to protect your dogma.
No more so than you are claiming to be correct. I defend that which I believe to be true. You have to put up an infallible argument, before I abandon my years of getting to understand God's word. Why would I jeopardize my salvation to agree with you, when you have not proved yourself worthy of believing?

There is a world of difference between our assertions. Genocide involves gross immorality, whereas God closing the wombs does not violate any moral principles.

The only reason you believe that genocide was the best solution is because that is what your dogma demands. How do you feel about Islam being spread by the sword? Were they morally justified to kill the unbelievers? Why is genocide OK in the Bible but not when anyone else doe it?

I'm not asking you to believe me, as if it were an act of blind faith like believing the Bible. On the contrary, I am encouraging you to think for yourself and make righteous judgments. Any man that cannot assert that Infanticide, Genocide, and Slavery are morally wrong has lost his soul.




And what "wild assertions" have I made? I am speaking nothing but universally agreed upon morality. That's why the genocides are such a problem for Christians who normally like to talk about how evil "killing babies" is, but now must declare the opposite because they are trapped by their dogma and so must declare evil to be good. It's like the debate I watched the other day (see this thread (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3002-Hector-Avalos-debates-Keith-Darrel-Is-the-Bible-a-Moral-Code-for-Today)) - the Christian argued that the Bible is the only source of Absolute Morality. Then the atheist asked if Infanticide and Genocide were "absolutely wrong." The Christian, of course, said no. How's that for irony? The Atheist said yes, and the Christian said no!
Your universally agreed morality does not include me, so how can it be universal? You have not demonstrated any morality; only humanism. It does not matter if one atheist disagrees with one Christian, a case is not built on the difference between two people who could both be wrong.

You are correct that my statement about universal morality does not include you. But that's because I was using the phrase "universal morality" in the same way as "universal laws of mathematics." The fact that someone rejects universal laws of mathematics does not mean there are no such laws. It is my contention that you, and all Christians who justify the immorality attributed to God in the Bible, are violating universal morality.

The example I gave was meant as an illustration of the problem. Christians make abstract convoluted metaphysical arguments to prove that absolute morality requires God, but then cannot reject Infanticide, Genocide, and Slavery as immoral. Have you ever seen such irony?




I just noticed that you voted for Keith Darrell in the poll on that thread (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3002-Hector-Avalos-debates-Keith-Darrel-Is-the-Bible-a-Moral-Code-for-Today) about their debate. Did you actually watch it, or did you just vote for the Christian out of principle? I can't imagine how you could believe he won if you actually watched it.
Yes I did, and wasted over an hour of my time. I agree with Darrel that Avalos had the better presentation material, but a debate is not won on style alone but by valid argument.

Why was it a "waste" if the Christian won? You comment makes no sense. You should have been delighted by the Christian victory.

But there was no Christian victory. On the contrary, the video demonstrates the vanity of the Christian claim that the God of the Bible is the source of morality when he could not reject Infanticide, Genocide, and Slavery as immoral.




I'm glad you accept it as a possibility. I didn't say it would be the "best" solution. I merely said it would be better than giving them children who would then be slaughtered by the Israelites.
I shall consider any other possibility you might like to put forward, but any solution you put forward is not likely to end up punishing the guilty for killing children. Stop pushing the blame on God and say what fitting punishment should be given to a child killer in the Canaanite society.

God does not, as a general rule, give any "fitting punishment" in this life to people who violate his commands, so there is no reason for you to demand that my solution should do that.

And besides, the children were innocent. They didn't deserve any punishment.

And besides that, God frequently ignores his own laws when it suits him. Case in point: David was an adulterer and murderer, but God did not give him any "fitting punishment." On the contrary, God chose rather to kill the innocent child that came from David's union with Bathsheba. That's another immorality attributed to God. He was merciful to the guilty and cruel to the innocent.




I understand that you "accept God's justice to be fair and in accordance with His laws" - that's your dogma. You have no choice. Your mind is trapped.
So you keep saying. How trapped are you? Your are like a gramophone needle that has got stuck in the groove and you cannot say anything else. Snap out of the groove.

I will repeat myself until you respond to what I am saying. You are trapped by your dogma. You have no choice, no freedom, to declare the truth of what the Bible says if it contradicts your dogma. For you to throw this back in my face makes me feel like I'm in kindergarten. I am rubber, you are glue. Your words bounce off me and stick to you!

You seem to forget that I am absolutely free to deal with reality because I have no dogma to uphold. You have no such freedom. If you were a Muslim, you would be making the same style arguments. This alone should make you pause and ask yourself what foundation you have for your beliefs.




You say you "accept his justice"? What justice did those innocent babies receive? If God's actions were so good, why are modern people so horrified by them? And what are the implications of God's behavior if he is supposed to be our moral standard?
You are concentrating on the babies and refuse to accept that God has the power to save them and let them grow up in the millennial age to come. There is no evidence to say this will definitely happen, but you cannot rule out that God has the power to do it. Why don't you argue from the point I made, instead of pushing forward your irrational thoughts.

First, there has never been any agreement amongst Christians about the reality of a "millennial age to come." The concept is not well founded in Scripture. There are millions of Christians who reject that doctrine.

Second, your point is entirely speculative. The Bible says nothing about God raising up Canaanite babies to live in the millennium.

Third, you are the one who failed to respond to the questions I asked. If God's actions were so good, why are modern people so horrified by them? And what are the implications of God's behavior if he is supposed to be our moral standard? Why didn't you answer these questions?




You gave no reason to reject my solution of God closing the wombs. It was a common belief at that time that God was responsible for the opening and closing of wombs. And besides, God could have sent them a prophet so they would know. But it doesn't if they knew anyway, since the point was to get rid of them, not to explain anything. Your rejection of my solution has absolutely no foundation in fact. My explanation stands.
I gave you at least one reason, but you fail to notice it and just keep making assertions which aggravate me and do not add any sense to this discussion.

I should have said "you gave no valid reason to reject my solution" since I immediately refuted it in the following sentences. My explanation stands.

I do not "just keep making assertions" - I make assertions based on logic and facts. The reason you are aggravated is because you cannot refute them.




And no, I would not "still be arguing on this forum that God was immoral and I could have done it better." There would be no genocide to discuss if God had followed my solution.
We will never really know how bad the world would have turned out by letting off murderers to go on doing their evil works.

You are grossly misrepresenting our discussion. I never suggested "letting off murderers to go on doing their evil works." But now that you bring it up, I must note that is exactly what God has done. He doesn't go about commanding the genocide of bad people anymore. He has allowed murders and all sinners to freely commit their sins for thousands of years. Do you have a problem with that? If not, then why do you present it as a challenge to my solution?




Your assertion that "Closing up the women's wombs is taking away women's rights" is ludicrous in the extreme. As if MURDERING THEM didn't "take away their rights." :doh:
Killing them meant they could not exercise rights, because they were not alive to exercise any rights. The punishment of the judicial system today is to lock people up and take away their right to freedom. What rights are you proposing to take way from a child killer? It is arguable that they should have no rights at all. You have to admit that your solution has taken away women's rights and leaves them alive unable to have those rights.

What rights do I propose to take way from a child killer? Put them in jail! Or if you are talking about Canaanite killing their children and you think it such a HEINOUS CRIME to deserve slaughtering the offenders (who also happen to be living in the land you want to steal from them), then kill the offenders NOT THE INNOCENT CHILDREN. We know that the Israelites were happy to take 32,000 sexy virgins, so there is no reason they could not have taken all the children and raised them up in the good, wholesome Jewish household. This is certainly better than killing them all.

It's really funny to see the kinds of arguments Christians invent to justify the murder of babies. One of our friends here on the forum (heb13-13) thinks they had to be killed because they were demon possessed! Of course, that would only be necessary if God were incapable of exorcising the demons. So we see a double absurdity in this explanation. First, there is no evidence of any kind that demon possession was the reason for the slaughter of the babies, and second, it denies that GOD IS GOD! And that is the sine qua non of all Christian apologetics. Ultimately the only thing they prove is that God is as impotent and ignorant as the people who are trying to defend him. When you say that the Almighty Omniscient God could think of no solution better than genocide, you are conceding a much more important argument, namely, that the God of the Bible is neither omnipotent or omniscient.




Your assertion that the "people were guilty of killing children (as part of their religion) and you do not want the punishment to fit the crime" makes no sense at all. How does commanding Israel to murder all Canaanite babies "fit the crime"???? You don't see the insanity of that? You say that the Canaanites were SO BAD because they killed some of their children so God sent in the Israelites to kill them all! Brilliant!
The punishment was on the parents. There was no-one to look after the babies once the parents had been killed. They babies if not killed would have died of starvation. You are not answering the question; what punishment should be given to a child killer by our judicial system? I have yet to see the sanity in what you are saying.

The Israelites could have cared for the babies and raised them in the True Moral ReligionTM. Just think - the population of the God-fearing people in Canaan would have grown by leaps and bounds. The babies would be raised to know the true God. But no, this solution can't be possible because the God of the Bible didn't think of it. So you will invent more reasons to reject it. And that will demonstrate yet again that you are using your intellect not to determine truth, but rather to protect your dogma.



To go against God's will can have serious repercussions. It all depends on how serious the going against His will is. Perhaps God can say like you; "it depends".

What repercussions? God routinely lets sinners do their thing with no repercussions in this life.




You complaint that infertility does not do it "quickly" enough is no argument at all. God could have begun closing the wombs earlier if he wanted the results earlier.
God could have done everything and that would have left the Israelites with nothing to do whereby in the process, their own obedience was tested, and then they failed as we know. You are making excuses more for the Canaanites than I am making for God or the Israelites. What is your direct punishment for child-killers in today's society in America? Apply the the same punishment to the Canaanites. Or do you want to give them a slap on the wrist and say; don't do it again. What is a child-killer's punishment?

The set of options is not limited to "God doing everything" vs. "God commanding Israel to become genocidal maniacs." Your logic is fallacious.

I have not made any "excuses" for the Canaanites. What are you talking about?

Why do you ask about child-killers in America? We both know the answer to that.

If you want to ask questions about modern law that relate to the commands of God in the Bible, try asking yourself what the UN thinks of Genocide and Slavery!

Richard Amiel McGough
04-22-2012, 10:49 AM
If God is punished for being child-killers so are millions of teenagers and adults for aborting their babies!

What makes you think killing babies is bad? God commanded it so it must be OK.

And that's what famous Christian apologist say - they say that God did no wrong to the babies because babies automatically go to heaven. Woohoo! That means that Abortionists are the greatest saints, because they got people into heaven who never would have made it if there were allowed to grow up to be unrepentant sinners.

CWH
04-22-2012, 08:33 PM
Isn't it ironic that on one hand we say that killing innocent babies is bad and on another hand it's ok to abort. Try saving those innocent millions of babies who were pending abortions due to the "mistakes" done by the parents and you would incur wrath as aborting the babies were their decision so as not to be reminded of those "mistakes". So where is that morality that you claimed? Shouldn't they be punished?

Same with killing of men, women and children in war. It is bad killing men, women and children during peacetime but it is ok to kill men, women and children of the enemy during wartime. Where is that morality that you claimed? Shouldn't they be punished?

In the Bible, it says, "Do not commit adultery" but in modern days and in modern western law, it's ok to commit adultery. And even Jesus said that looking at somebody with lust in their hearts have already committed adultery and remarrying a divorced man or woman except for unfaithfulness is also considered adultery. Where is that morality that you claimed? Shouldn't they be punished?

God Blessings to all.

Richard Amiel McGough
04-22-2012, 08:57 PM
Isn't it ironic that on one hand we say that killing innocent babies is bad and on another hand it's ok to abort. Try saving those innocent millions of babies who were pending abortions due to the "mistakes" done by the parents and you would incur wrath as aborting the babies were their decision so as not to be reminded of those "mistakes". So where is that morality that you claimed? Shouldn't they be punished?

Hey there CWH, :yo:

The true irony is that Christians go about saying how bad abortion is yet defend baby killing if it is commanded by God.

Abortion is entirely different because it is the choice of the mother. And we have no certain knowledge about the status of the unborn. It's pretty hard to think of a fertilized egg as fully human. Nobody goes about mourning all the miscarriages that result from one in four pregnancies (http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm).



Same with killing of men, women and children in war. It is bad killing men, women and children during peacetime but it is ok to kill men, women and children of the enemy during wartime. Where is that morality that you claimed? Shouldn't they be punished?

It's not "OK to kill men" during war, it's a necessary evil to accomplish a greater good. It is absurd to suggest that they should be "punished" for trying to protect their country from aggression.



In the Bible, it says, "Do not commit adultery" but in modern days and in modern western law, it's ok to commit adultery. And even Jesus said that looking at somebody with lust in their hearts have already committed adultery and remarrying a divorced man or woman except for unfaithfulness is also considered adultery. Where is that morality that you claimed? Shouldn't they be punished?

The morality if adultery is not something that people should be punished for. It is a personal thing between them and their spouses. It's not for society to punish people for things like that.

David M
04-23-2012, 06:17 AM
Hello Richard
If I have not answered any questions that you perhaps have not interpreted my statements as answers, I will respond to anything with a question mark directed at me in the post I am replying to. I shall try not to provoke you to respond further and ask you any questions as these post have got too long again and my browser slows up and gets very jerky when typing.


First, you didn't answer my questions.

You are now ducking and dodging by inventing a patently false condition. God no longer judges wickedness in this world by commanding genocide, so obviously he is not imposing any punishment that fits the crime. Why is he so inconsistent?
God is not inconsistent. God does what he says. His word is the rule He lives by. God can change His mind and extend His mercy whenever He chooses to. God spared Nineveh. God spares people and that should be balanced against those situations when He did not. This does not exclude the fact that God did punish His people severely when they made the Golden Calf for example. Moses feared that God would make a full end of Israel. God has promised He will never make a full end of Israel even though He has scattered them abroad as a later punishment. That is why He is regathering Israel after the dispersion in AD70- 73 and has formed the Nation of Israel again (1948). God will be true to the promise He made to Abraham.


The only reason you believe that genocide was the best solution is because that is what your dogma demands. How do you feel about Islam being spread by the sword? Were they morally justified to kill the unbelievers? Why is genocide OK in the Bible but not when anyone else doe it?
That is the point and I think we should carry on with the fundamental argument on the morals by which we live, in Rose's new thread. God does not have to live by man's rules. God has set the rules. God has set the standard. We all fail to reach that standard, therefore God is entitled to reject us all. God has proved his rules can be lived by, His only begotten Son has demonstrated this. You cannot say it is impossible for man to live up to God's rules after Jesus has set the standard and shown it can be done. God has now extended His mercy again to us that whereby we have all failed to reach the standard, He will accept belief in Him and His son for righteousness whereby He will save us. He will not save those who do not believe. You say that is immoral, but they are God's rules. "The soul that sinneth shall die" is a rule God keeps. The other rule that overrides this is that those who believe will be saved (from eternal death). Herein we do not know everyone who God saves, because that power to know is not ours. We have God's assurance that He will save those who believe in Him and His Son. That should be sufficient. Those who die, God knows whether they are acceptable material for His Kingdom. God looks into everyone's heart and knows; unfortunately that is not a judgment we can make. The choice we have is to make is whose rules are the best to follow and obey.


The example I gave was meant as an illustration of the problem. Christians make abstract convoluted metaphysical arguments to prove that absolute morality requires God, but then cannot reject Infanticide, Genocide, and Slavery as immoral. Have you ever seen such irony?
Where I do agree with you is that "Christians" are widely differing in their understanding of God's word. I disagree with many of the false ideas Christians make and that is why I would not want their label attached to me even though I am a follower of Jesus. That is why we have so many Christian church names, because we identify ourselves with the beliefs of the church we associate with.
In bringing up evidence to support your claims against Christian arguments, I find you bringing up some of the same false ideas claimed by Christians and it is my aim to expose these errors (angels mentioned in Jude v6 remain as contentious issue between us for this reason until we resolve who the angels are). For reasons stated in Rose's new threads, our morality is based on the rules we choose to live by. Humans have their own rules, which are not God's rules, hence, we have two different moral standards and therein lies a problem for humans.


Why was it a "waste" if the Christian won? You comment makes no sense. You should have been delighted by the Christian victory.
It was a waste of time, because I learned hardly anything new; most of it is what I have heard before. It might not have been a total waste of time. I said; "I wasted over an hour". I might not have wasted every minute by watching the video; I saw how a slick presentation might win the debate but does not win the agument (yet again, I knew that already).



And besides that, God frequently ignores his own laws when it suits him. Case in point: David was an adulterer and murderer, but God did not give him any "fitting punishment." On the contrary, God chose rather to kill the innocent child that came from David's union with Bathsheba. That's another immorality attributed to God. He was merciful to the guilty and cruel to the innocent.
Killing babies does sound cruel, but then, man can be more cruel and the Egyptians killed the babies of the Hebrews to keep their population down. Now we can argue to eternity who is the more cruel God or man, but let' not go there now. I do not want to pursue the argument here. Very young infants (babies) are not fully formed persons until the age whereby they can reason or understand. Babies have no understanding of what is going on in the world. It could be reasoned that babies are no different to insects when so young; they are simply basic life forms. Babies have lots of potential to develop and grow to be good people but so often they do not, especially in a culture that teaches them to do the same evil practices (by God's standard). I won't develop this theme any further, enough said for the moment.
Once the Canaanite babies were of an age to understand, they would have been taught the same evil practices as there parents. Of course, every person has the right to choose but I doubt there would have been many that chose to separate away from the tradition of their parents. Those who did and believed God like Rahab did, would have been saved. The cycle of like father like son has to be broken, but we see that in different cultures the sons and daughters continue in the same culture. The call to the believer in God is to come out of the world and be separate and holy to God. That is why it is said of those who do that, they are "strangers and pilgrims".
Hebrews 11
13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God:

The following extract from Ezekiel 18 might also be helpful to understand the goodness and severity of God concerning the righteous and the ungodly sinners:

18 As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, spoiled his brother by violence, and did that which is not good among his people, lo, even he shall die in his iniquity.
19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.
20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.
23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.
25 Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?
26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.
27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.
28 Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
29 Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal?
30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.



Third, you are the one who failed to respond to the questions I asked. If God's actions were so good, why are modern people so horrified by them? And what are the implications of God's behavior if he is supposed to be our moral standard? Why didn't you answer these questions?
I shall answer them again more directly since you have asked the question on more time.
As a horrified person you can best answer that. Many modern people are not horrified. I am not horrified. I am not horrified by what will happen in future when after a long period without God's intervention God will at last judge all the nations and bring punishment on them. The one reason I can think of why modern people are horrified is that do not know the requirements of God and have not reconciled the evil of mens action with the punishment they receive. Our moral standard is against the rules God has laid down for humans to follow. They are not the same rules that God has to follow. If you cannot reconcile God's goodness or mercy with the severity of God's punishment on evil doers, then that is your problem to overcome.



He has allowed murders and all sinners to freely commit their sins for thousands of years. Do you have a problem with that? If not, then why do you present it as a challenge to my solution?
I do not have a problem with God allowing men to have their rule and for God not to have intervened for centuries. History without God's intervention shows that mans rule has not been for the better. Man has performed lots of genocide and killings. God's judgment is coming. The world cannot say it has not been warned.
I have said that I cannot see your solution working, I gave my reasons. One was that it would take a long time to kill off the Canaanites and would not stop them killing children if that is what their culture practiced.



What rights do I propose to take way from a child killer? Put them in jail! Or if you are talking about Canaanite killing their children and you think it such a HEINOUS CRIME to deserve slaughtering the offenders (who also happen to be living in the land you want to steal from them), then kill the offenders NOT THE INNOCENT CHILDREN. We know that the Israelites were happy to take 32,000 sexy virgins, so there is no reason they could not have taken all the children and raised them up in the good, wholesome Jewish household. This is certainly better than killing them all.
Locking up child killers is not a fitting punishment. Killing the offenders is what I expect you to say. You then have the problem of the babies who would survive? I could raise a whole load more questions for you to answer, but I want to conclude this discussion and move on. I expect it will come back in another thread.




What repercussions? God routinely lets sinners do their thing with no repercussions in this life.
Going against God's will has lots of repercussions. Moses, when water was produced from the rock, had failed to do as he was properly instructed and hence he was not allowed to enter the promised land. The Israelites failed to clear the Promised Land as they were instructed, the repercussions of that came back to make them fall for the idolatrous practices of the people they should have destroyed. Repercussions for failing to do God's will are too numerous to list here.
The ultimate repercussion for everyone is at death.



I have not made any "excuses" for the Canaanites. What are you talking about?
One excuse it that you do not think they knew about God and that He should teach them. I said that they had heard of the Israelites and that God was with them. They did not enquire of God that they might change their ways. You want to impose your moral standards on God and you yet you fail to live up to every the law the country you live in subjects you to. You should be accusing the Canaanites for having very low moral standards. The fact is they did not have a good moral code, and they suffered the consequences. Had they had a better moral code along the lines laid down by God, He would not have punished that them in the Way He did and he would have spared them.



Why do you ask about child-killers in America? We both know the answer to that.
Because you had not answered the question up to this point. If you say the present judicial system should kill child killers, then why do some states locking them up for life; this is not doing what you say should be done. If you say child killer should be killed, that is what God did. You then have the problem of the innocent babies who would be left alive.

That is it for this thread. I have answered your questions and I am moving on. If you want to reply to anything I have said, I shall not be replying. I want to move on to other threads and topics.


All the best.

David

CWH
04-23-2012, 07:51 PM
Hey there CWH, :yo:


The true irony is that Christians go about saying how bad abortion is yet defend baby killing if it is commanded by God.

Abortion is entirely different because it is the choice of the mother. And we have no certain knowledge about the status of the unborn. It's pretty hard to think of a fertilized egg as fully human. Nobody goes about mourning all the miscarriages that result from one in four pregnancies (http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm).
Why should abortion be different? as long as something is living, it is a life. There were debates that unless the soul enters the fetus, it is not consider as life or unless the baby is born, it is not consider a living human. I personally believe that as long as there is blood, there is life for "the life is in the blood". There are certainly parents who mourn for a miscarriage.


It's not "OK to kill men" during war, it's a necessary evil to accomplish a greater good. It is absurd to suggest that they should be "punished" for trying to protect their country from aggression.
If it is not Ok to kill men during war, then what would you do? save the enemy and be court-martialed? If you don't kill the enemy, the enemy will kill you, then what do you do? To me this is self defense and as such it is ok to kill the enemy if their intention is to kill you. There is a purpose for that law which seems to say that is is not ok to murder unless for self-defense. The intention of the enemies of God was to kill God's people, including children, should God did likewise in self-defense for His own people?

The morality if adultery is not something that people should be punished for. It is a personal thing between them and their spouses. It's not for society to punish people for things like that. There is a purpose for the law against adultery, just think, if everybody committed adultery, will there be trust between husband and wife? it's a mockery against marriage and then there will not be love anymore and there will be broken marriages and uncared children. The whole society will be turn topsy turvy as couple suspects one another, love and marriages meaniningless and family love and values abolished. Children will become anti-social as evident in broken families.

May God Blessed His love and Mercy on us.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
04-23-2012, 07:56 PM
There is a purpose for the law against adultery, just think, if everybody committed adultery, will there be trust between husband and wife? it's a mockery against marriage and then there will not be love anymore and there will be broken marriages and uncared children. The whole society will be turn topsy turvy as couple suspects one another, love and marriages meaniningless and family love and values abolished. Children will become anti-social as evident in broken families.

I agree that adultery is bad because it breaks trust and destroys families, but that doesn't mean the government should get involved by making laws against it.

Overeating is bad for you. Do you want the government to make laws against that too?

Richard Amiel McGough
04-23-2012, 08:19 PM
It could be reasoned that babies are no different to insects when so young; they are simply basic life forms.
Wow - that's a keeper!

The abortionists will be glad to know that they've been doing nothing worse than squishing bugs.

CWH
04-23-2012, 08:34 PM
I agree that adultery is bad because it breaks trust and destroys families, but that doesn't mean the government should get involved by making laws against it.

Overeating is bad for you. Do you want the government to make laws against that too?

Thanks for the agreement. This shows the Kind and Merciful God who do not punish people straightaway unlike some humans laws, He always give chances so that people can sincerely repent and ask for forgiveness and become good righteous people. But if people continues with their evil doings be it, adultery, over-eating and others then expect something bad to occur in the future.

There is a parable against over-eating and complacency in life:

Luke 12:16-22.
And He spoke a parable to them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to store my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull dow, my barns, and build greater; and there will I store all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have much goods laid up for many years; take your ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said to him, You fool, this night, your soul shall be required of you: then whose shall those things be, which you have provided? So is he that lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God. And He said to His disciples, Therefore I say to you, Take no thought for your life, what you shall eat; neither for the body, what you shall put on.

Thanks God for His Kindness and Mercy. :pray:

David M
04-24-2012, 03:16 AM
Wow - that's a keeper!

The abortionists will be glad to know that they've been doing nothing worse than squishing bugs.

I guessed you would pick up on this one point; I was not wrong. Just another fact that we have to put in the mix when we are discussing the root subject of morals. I think that thread will be very long and attract a lot of visitors.

Maybe the moral dilemmas we are facing are unsolvable by humans. This is why I am content to leave it to God to decide. Where I see God has made a judgment, I can try to find a reason why God made that judgment. We can learn from God's wisdom.

In the thread to do with morals, you said something on the lines of; morals = LOVE. Yes, that should be the motivating force in everyone's life. The sad reality is; LOVE is not the motivating force in everyone's life. How do you instill in people this motivating force if they do not have it? What do you do, when people rebel and do evil acts (as they want to) against their neighbors ? You do not want to have rules to guide your morality, so what are you going to provide in place of rules?


David

Richard Amiel McGough
04-24-2012, 12:31 PM
I guessed you would pick up on this one point; I was not wrong. Just another fact that we have to put in the mix when we are discussing the root subject of morals. I think that thread will be very long and attract a lot of visitors.

Maybe the moral dilemmas we are facing are unsolvable by humans. This is why I am content to leave it to God to decide. Where I see God has made a judgment, I can try to find a reason why God made that judgment. We can learn from God's wisdom.

In the thread to do with morals, you said something on the lines of; morals = LOVE. Yes, that should be the motivating force in everyone's life. The sad reality is; LOVE is not the motivating force in everyone's life. How do you instill in people this motivating force if they do not have it? What do you do, when people rebel and do evil acts (as they want to) against their neighbors ? You do not want to have rules to guide your morality, so what are you going to provide in place of rules?


David
You have misunderstood my argument. It is not that love "should be the motivating force" - my argument is that love is the ROOT of our moral intuitions. If we had no love, then we would have no morality.

You think morals are mere arbitrary rules declared by God. I say "arbitrary" because you assume that there would be no morality if God didn't declare something moral. This means that there is nothing that is actually good or evil by it's own nature, but is only good or evil because God said so. I think that directly contradicts our moral intuitions which recognize things are good or evil depending how they affect others. It has nothing to do with any "rules" - morality is based entirely on the effect something has on another person.

And you haven't dealt with the real issue. You have no moral rules at all except one, which is "We must do whatever God commands" regardless of how immoral that command might be in any other context. The proof of this is very obvious - you cannot say that Genocide is immoral because God commanded it.

And yes, there is a LOT of interest in the question of morality and how it relates to God. This is largely because some Christian apologists like William Lane Craig and Keith Darrel have been promoting the idea of "objective morality" and the "moral argument for God." But I think that argument fails for the reasons given above.