- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ July 04 2008,23:21) Quote (TimothyVI @ July 05 2008,05:22) Quote (kejonn @ July 03 2008,01:40) What is the last commandment?
[1] Do not covet your neighbor's house
[2] Do not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor
[3] You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk
[4] none of the above
Hi stu,It depends. If you are referring to the 10 commandments that everyone thinks about when talking about God’s commandments it is;
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife. So number 2 could be correct.
However if you are referring to the other 603 commandments that He supposedly gave to Moses, then the last one was;
Not to retain a captive woman for servitude after having sexual relations with her Deut. 21:14
So number 4 would be correct.
Tim
On the garage door of the church across the road from my workplace is written:XI. Thou shalt not park
Stuart
Your are grabbing at straws
Just like the dogs of wars
Any excuse just to be on top of the pile.Lineon.
How many were slayed on the orders of the merciful LORD after they danced around Aaron's golden calf?
[1] 3
[2] 30
[3] 300
[4] 3000Stuart
Quote (Stu @ July 06 2008,18:31) How many were slayed on the orders of the merciful LORD after they danced around Aaron's golden calf? [1] 3
[2] 30
[3] 300
[4] 3000Stuart
Greetings Stu…..I would guess 3,333 were slain to demonstrate that God is not to be mocked….Worldly people have a difficult time understanding that God is the giver of life and it is his perogative to take it as he sees fit….This does not make him a vengefull God,but one who is not a respecter of men….That is why he is God and we are not..
In closing it is wise man who fears God,and thanks him for his existance along with the blessings that come with it…Quote (theodorej @ July 07 2008,02:35) Quote (Stu @ July 06 2008,18:31) How many were slayed on the orders of the merciful LORD after they danced around Aaron's golden calf? [1] 3
[2] 30
[3] 300
[4] 3000Stuart
Greetings Stu…..I would guess 3,333 were slain to demonstrate that God is not to be mocked….Worldly people have a difficult time understanding that God is the giver of life and it is his perogative to take it as he sees fit….This does not make him a vengefull God,but one who is not a respecter of men….That is why he is God and we are not..
In closing it is wise man who fears God,and thanks him for his existance along with the blessings that come with it…
Theodorej if only you had followed the options given.Perhaps god is not to be trifled with but you would think that if 'he' was omnipotent, rather than putting large groups of his creation to death he could find more prouctive ways to seek attention. What is the purpose of a petulant child throwing his toys out of the cot to spite himself? Does this god have a problem controlling his anger or taking responsibility?
It is not easy mocking something that does not exist. Cut me some slack!
anyway, well done you get 12 points for nearly getting the right answer “[about] 3000”.
What a loving LORD.
Stuart
Who were the parents of the newborn child killed by merciful god?
[1] David and Bathsheba
[2] Uriah and Bathsheba
[3] Nathan and Bathsheba
[4] Cain and his unknown wifeStuart
Quote (Stu @ July 07 2008,05:40) Who were the parents of the newborn child killed by merciful god? [1] David and Bathsheba
[2] Uriah and Bathsheba
[3] Nathan and Bathsheba
[4] Cain and his unknown wifeStuart
[1] since this is bible trivia. Nevermind that it was just a superstitious explanation for the high infant mortality rate of ancient mankind.Quote (kejonn @ July 09 2008,12:48) Quote (Stu @ July 07 2008,05:40) Who were the parents of the newborn child killed by merciful god? [1] David and Bathsheba
[2] Uriah and Bathsheba
[3] Nathan and Bathsheba
[4] Cain and his unknown wifeStuart
[1] since this is bible trivia. Nevermind that it was just a superstitious explanation for the high infant mortality rate of ancient mankind.
Hi kejonnYes you are right. 23 points for your knowledge of the OT god's use of infanticide to bring justice to his creation.
Stuart
Which single divine smiting event in the bible resulted in the largest number of deaths?
[1] Killing of the Egyptian army
[2] Slaughter of the Ethiopians
[3] The delivering of the Bashanites into the hands of Moses
[4] The Midianite massacreStuart
Quote (Stu @ July 09 2008,13:41) Quote (kejonn @ July 09 2008,12:48) Quote (Stu @ July 07 2008,05:40) Who were the parents of the newborn child killed by merciful god? [1] David and Bathsheba
[2] Uriah and Bathsheba
[3] Nathan and Bathsheba
[4] Cain and his unknown wifeStuart
[1] since this is bible trivia. Nevermind that it was just a superstitious explanation for the high infant mortality rate of ancient mankind.
Hi kejonnYes you are right. 23 points for your knowledge of the OT god's use of infanticide to bring justice to his creation.
Stuart
No fair.
That was not one of the options.
Deduct 23 points plus 15 more as a penalty
for making up an answer.Tim
Quote (TimothyVI @ July 09 2008,23:33) Quote (Stu @ July 09 2008,13:41) Quote (kejonn @ July 09 2008,12:48) Quote (Stu @ July 07 2008,05:40) Who were the parents of the newborn child killed by merciful god? [1] David and Bathsheba
[2] Uriah and Bathsheba
[3] Nathan and Bathsheba
[4] Cain and his unknown wifeStuart
[1] since this is bible trivia. Nevermind that it was just a superstitious explanation for the high infant mortality rate of ancient mankind.
Hi kejonnYes you are right. 23 points for your knowledge of the OT god's use of infanticide to bring justice to his creation.
Stuart
No fair.
That was not one of the options.
Deduct 23 points plus 15 more as a penalty
for making up an answer.Tim
Good point. What would god do to adjudicate in this situation? I don't think the outcome would be very pleasant for kejonn given god's apparent love of smiting.Stuart
From above:
Which single divine smiting event in the bible resulted in the largest number of deaths?[1] Killing of the Egyptian army
[2] Slaughter of the Ethiopians
[3] The delivering of the Bashanites into the hands of Moses
[4] The Midianite massacreNext:
Who may not approach to offer the bread of his God?[1] The blind
[2] The lame
[3] People with flat noses
[4] Dwarves
[5] Men with broken testicles
[6] All of the above and moreStuart
Quote (Stu @ July 07 2008,22:20) Quote (theodorej @ July 07 2008,02:35) Quote (Stu @ July 06 2008,18:31) How many were slayed on the orders of the merciful LORD after they danced around Aaron's golden calf? [1] 3
[2] 30
[3] 300
[4] 3000Stuart
Greetings Stu…..I would guess 3,333 were slain to demonstrate that God is not to be mocked….Worldly people have a difficult time understanding that God is the giver of life and it is his perogative to take it as he sees fit….This does not make him a vengefull God,but one who is not a respecter of men….That is why he is God and we are not..
In closing it is wise man who fears God,and thanks him for his existance along with the blessings that come with it…
Theodorej if only you had followed the options given.Perhaps god is not to be trifled with but you would think that if 'he' was omnipotent, rather than putting large groups of his creation to death he could find more prouctive ways to seek attention. What is the purpose of a petulant child throwing his toys out of the cot to spite himself? Does this god have a problem controlling his anger or taking responsibility?
It is not easy mocking something that does not exist. Cut me some slack!
anyway, well done you get 12 points for nearly getting the right answer “[about] 3000”.
What a loving LORD.
Stuart
How long will you whine about what God does Stu? What do you think this whining will serve to accomplish? I don't care if you like what God does or not. God does not need your permission to do what He does. We don't need to apologize for what God has done. Is that what you are looking for? An apology? What exactly are you hoping to accomplish by complaining about the same things over and over again? Things like “Your God is a blood thirsty God” and… “if He was omnipotent surely He could have accomplished what He wanted some other way” and “hey what about the problem of evil”…. etc etc etc… But don't you get it? God does not have to lower Himself to your standards. YOU are not THE standard for how things should be done. You do not sit at the bar of judgment over God, dictating to Him what He should or shouldn't do.OTOH, if you were simply trying to understand what it is that Christians believe, well that would be different. Thats not a matter of thinking that you need to give us your permission for us to believe what we want to believe, or that our beliefs somehow have to satisfy you and if they do not, they are not rational. You will have to get over yourself in this regard. We do not need your permission or approval. But if you are simply wanting to ask questions… “why do you believe that God sent the Son?” “or “why do you think the Scriptures are inerrant and infallible?” “how do think there can be one God yet you say that there are 3… how can that be?” etc etc and if you can for the most part keep to your self your personal subjective feelings and value statements concerning whether or not you personally would hold those beliefs for the reasons given, then cool… no problem… ask away. As it is you sound more like a person who needs to be in therapy. You live your life vicariously, like a parasite, living off Christians, seeking to destroy the belief systems of others through ridicule, as if you have no life of your own you can be busy going on living on its own terms.
In any case, we do not have to satisfy you or your criteria for what amounts to rationality in regard to our beliefs You do not set the standards for rationality, as much as you might like to think you do. Your calls for “proof”, typically, coming from materialistic atheists, this means “empirical” proof, and in regard to metaphysical beliefs, this is simply sloppy thinking. It is the logical informal fallacy Category Confusion. Metaphysical beliefs do not and cannot meet the same criteria for proof that is demanded in the physical sciences. “Proof” itself is a very slippery term. What may satisfy one person as proof won't satisfy another. So this means we cannot go through life only holding to beliefs that every one agrees on in regard to sufficient proof being offered for said belief. We would reduce to nihilism and skepticism and absurdity. So you can ask for all the proof you like, but when you do, at the same time you need to be aware that what serves as proof for one person won't satisfy you AND that is just going to have to be Ok, you will just have to get over it. Secondly, you have to ask for proof that is consistent with the type of propositions you are discussing. One cannot offer physical proof for non-physical/metaphysical propositions. And if you think this somehow serves as evidence against the position you show that you do not yet understand the concept of proof, you continue to committ the fallacy of Category Confusion, you continue to try and bully others by thinking that YOU are the one who's standard everyone must meet in order to be considered intelligent and rational, and lastly, you continue to hold on to a self referentially false belief system/worldview, for the standard which you insist that must be met in regard to proof, does not, itself, meet those criteria for proof. Empiricism as a sole arbiter of proof and truth simply cannot stand as a worldview test. The Logical Positivists found this out a long time, its time you caught up..
We have the same reasons for believing in God as we do for believing in other minds. And we believe all sorts of things that we do not test empirically every time, its absurd to think we must go through life testing everything empirically first before we would believe its true. Secondly the application of the empirical proof as criteria for truth is itself self referentially false, because this test is not itself empirically verifiable!!! So empiricists are inconsistent and arbitrary in the application of this standard, as a standard for truth.
blessings,
Kenhi epistomaiac
Quote How long will you whine about what God does Stu? What do you think this whining will serve to accomplish? I don't care if you like what God does or not. God does not need your permission to do what He does. We don't need to apologize for what God has done. Is that what you are looking for? An apology? What exactly are you hoping to accomplish by complaining about the same things over and over again? Things like “Your God is a blood thirsty God” and… “if He was omnipotent surely He could have accomplished what He wanted some other way” and “hey what about the problem of evil”…. etc etc etc… But don't you get it? God does not have to lower Himself to your standards. YOU are not THE standard for how things should be done. You do not sit at the bar of judgment over God, dictating to Him what He should or shouldn't do. OTOH, if you were simply trying to understand what it is that Christians believe, well that would be different. Thats not a matter of thinking that you need to give us your permission for us to believe what we want to believe, or that our beliefs somehow have to satisfy you and if they do not, they are not rational. You will have to get over yourself in this regard. We do not need your permission or approval. But if you are simply wanting to ask questions… “why do you believe that God sent the Son?” “or “why do you think the Scriptures are inerrant and infallible?” “how do think there can be one God yet you say that there are 3… how can that be?” etc etc and if you can for the most part keep to your self your personal subjective feelings and value statements concerning whether or not you personally would hold those beliefs for the reasons given, then cool… no problem… ask away. As it is you sound more like a person who needs to be in therapy. You live your life vicariously, like a parasite, living off Christians, seeking to destroy the belief systems of others through ridicule, as if you have no life of your own you can be busy going on living on its own terms. In any case, we do not have to satisfy you or your criteria for what amounts to rationality in regard to our beliefs You do not set the standards for rationality, as much as you might like to think you do. Your calls for “proof”, typically, coming from materialistic atheists, this means “empirical” proof, and in regard to metaphysical beliefs, this is simply sloppy thinking. It is the logical informal fallacy Category Confusion. Metaphysical beliefs do not and cannot meet the same criteria for proof that is demanded in the physical sciences. “Proof” itself is a very slippery term. What may satisfy one person as proof won't satisfy another. So this means we cannot go through life only holding to beliefs that every one agrees on in regard to sufficient proof being offered for said belief. We would reduce to nihilism and skepticism and absurdity. So you can ask for all the proof you like, but when you do, at the same time you need to be aware that what serves as proof for one person won't satisfy you AND that is just going to have to be Ok, you will just have to get over it. Secondly, you have to ask for proof that is consistent with the type of propositions you are discussing. One cannot offer physical proof for non-physical/metaphysical propositions. And if you think this somehow serves as evidence against the position you show that you do not yet understand the concept of proof, you continue to committ the fallacy of Category Confusion, you continue to try and bully others by thinking that YOU are the one who's standard everyone must meet in order to be considered intelligent and rational, and lastly, you continue to hold on to a self referentially false belief system/worldview, for the standard which you insist that must be met in regard to proof, does not, itself, meet those criteria for proof. Empiricism as a sole arbiter of proof and truth simply cannot stand as a worldview test. The Logical Positivists found this out a long time, its time you caught up..We have the same reasons for believing in God as we do for believing in other minds. And we believe all sorts of things that we do not test empirically every time, its absurd to think we must go through life testing everything empirically first before we would believe its true. Secondly the application of the empirical proof as criteria for truth is itself self referentially false, because this test is not itself empirically verifiable!!! So empiricists are inconsistent and arbitrary in the application of this standard, as a standard for truth.
Which question were you trying to answer? The one about god’s biggest slaugher of all time, the smiting of the golden calf dancers or the prejudice that god shows against the disabled and ‘blemished’?Stuart
Hi again epistomaniac
OK. I’ll play your game then. In regards your first paragraph, it is everyone’s business what courses of action you advocate based on your beliefs. As a society we offer treatment in secure institutions for people who are suffering mental illness to the extent that they are a threat to themselves or others. I am sure you offer no such threat but people who believe things on faith, without evidence, present a potential source of danger. Islamic suicide bombers and christian cult leaders are two examples. I question your unsubstantiated beliefs ultimately for my own safety and the security of others too. Another reason is that to believe in divine design is to miss out on the far more astonishing story that ‘reality’ has to tell compared to Judeo-christian fantasy. But that would be prostelytising, so I’ll stop there! So yes you do have to conform to my criteria for rationality because I am a member of the public that insists that people be compulsorily offered treatment for dangerous delusion in cases where it is.
The next bit is amusing. ‘Parasite’ is quite a forward thing to say to someone you have only just ‘met’. Does the bible tell you to play the man and not the ball? I guess that could be a symptom of following a belief system that requires such a great deal of emotional buy-in, to the extend of not only believing in a philosophy, but also in absurd things like miracles. It is seen more in Islam where truly the person and the ideology are indistinguishable. What is it like to be half-person and half-ideology, I wonder. How am I ‘living off christians’? You have been watching too many vampire movies and have mixed that up with the christian victim mentality, I’m guessing.
I think a person who claims a knowledge of metaphysics has to be treated with great suspicion. You can talk all you want about the limits of empiricism but those limits coincide exactly with your ability to perceive. We may be in some system where we are being utterly deceived, but we cannot possibly know that and thus the only things we can know should be called physics. You say that ‘proof’ is a slippery term and the reason for that is the way the religious use the word. It is another of those terms that has a flexible definition in the apologist dictionary. There is no such thing as proof in empirical science, as we have discussed already. You have invented (or adopted) some kind of fantasy metaphysical world in which there is a whole (unstated) set of rules for proof. That is OK (as long as it does not damage anyone) but you cannot claim to know anything about that world except what you invent in your own imagination given that all you can observe is the empirical world (and the empirical world is defined as all you can observe). To claim that the alternative to your unknowable metaphisical world is nihilistic just ignores the reality of the purposeful and happy lives led by those who do not subscribe to such fantasies. I like to think of myself as one of them.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ July 09 2008,14:37) Which single divine smiting event in the bible resulted in the largest number of deaths? [1] Killing of the Egyptian army
[2] Slaughter of the Ethiopians
[3] The delivering of the Bashanites into the hands of Moses
[4] The Midianite massacreStuart
None of the above.
The global flooding would be the correct answer.
TimQuote (TimothyVI @ July 10 2008,23:25) Quote (Stu @ July 09 2008,14:37) Which single divine smiting event in the bible resulted in the largest number of deaths? [1] Killing of the Egyptian army
[2] Slaughter of the Ethiopians
[3] The delivering of the Bashanites into the hands of Moses
[4] The Midianite massacreStuart
None of the above.
The global flooding would be the correct answer.
Tim
OK. Perhaps I was thinking of deaths that may have actually been real events. The problem is that we cannot verify your answer because the world population drowned by the merciful one is not recorded in Genesis.One source I read estimated the world population in 2000BCE as 27 million. I am guessing the mathematical models that generate real estimates do not take account of mythical floods, and indeed there is no way you could go from 8 to 27,000,000 in a few hundred years.
God's glorious drowning of all innocent women, children and cute animals could well be the best biblical answer, so double points to you Tim VI.
Stuart
Quote (TimothyVI @ July 10 2008,23:25) Quote (Stu @ July 09 2008,14:37) Which single divine smiting event in the bible resulted in the largest number of deaths? [1] Killing of the Egyptian army
[2] Slaughter of the Ethiopians
[3] The delivering of the Bashanites into the hands of Moses
[4] The Midianite massacreStuart
None of the above.
The global flooding would be the correct answer.
TimAhh ha..The Nature God wins TIM ?
The Strongest God won the battles, once upona time, lives lost meant your god was weaker…just a thought….so why not just wipe out the earth with a stRock of a pen, have your god rise the waters…..WIPE OUT THE INTIRE EARTH, SO theres only one man left to begin the follow again, that is why and where the christian God gained and is so powerful today, NO other gods servived the flood? left with slight completion bombing it periodic?
So then, who may not approach to offer the bread of his God?
[1] The blind
[2] The lame
[3] People with flat noses
[4] Dwarves
[5] Men with broken testicles
[6] All of the above and moreStuart
Quote (Stu @ July 13 2008,12:01) So then, who may not approach to offer the bread of his God? [1] The blind
[2] The lame
[3] People with flat noses
[4] Dwarves
[5] Men with broken testicles
[6] All of the above and moreStuart
6, in the OT.Tim
Quote (TimothyVI @ July 13 2008,21:48) Quote (Stu @ July 13 2008,12:01) So then, who may not approach to offer the bread of his God? [1] The blind
[2] The lame
[3] People with flat noses
[4] Dwarves
[5] Men with broken testicles
[6] All of the above and moreStuart
6, in the OT.Tim
More points to you Tim VI. Although the LORD, in whose eyes we are all equal, tells us in Exodus that he made the disabilities that humans endure, in Leviticus 'he' fills in the details by telling us how he can't stand the sight of the 'blemshed'.what a loving god he is.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
