- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi Stu:
You ask:
Quote ++”I will advise whoever will listen to exercise faith in God's Word for a healing by sharing with them the scripture that I shared with you, but no, I will never advise someone not to take their medication or to stop a treatment like chemotherapy. That is a personal decision. Would you actively advise them to follow the recommendations of their doctors? What advertising would you do as part of using faith to heal – would you give the same warnings that drug companies must give? Would you be honest and tell people up from that no scientific research to date has found any benefit in using faith to heal that is better than a placebo?
Whether or not someone decides not to follow the advice of thier physician is a personal decision, and if he decides not to follow his advice, he should be willing to accept whatever risks would be involved in not following his advice. When my blood pressure was in the range of 200/110 at one time, I took the blood pressure medicine, although there were side effects, because I did not want to take the risk of having a stroke, for example.
Quote ++”Constructive criticism is wonderful when you yourself can provide a better solution. I believe that the human body as it was designed by my God is a work of art. As I understand it, the medical profession does not know what causes the prostate to enlarge as it does. More than likely it is because we have not taken care of our body or we have abused it in some way. I do not fault my creator nor am I going to critisize Him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate_Enlargement#Prostate_disorders has more than you need to know about prostate conditions. You should not criticise yourself for what you have – it is very common and almost certainly caused by factors outside your control. You SHOULD criticise the incompetent idiot who designed it, though.
It’s not just our poor male plumbing that is bad engineering.You probably have an appendix – a time bomb just waiting to get infected and imperil your life. There are people born without appendices who function with no deficiencies at all. Has your creator put you at such great potential risk for a reason? Even a first-year engineering student could come up with a better design for the lower back.
You have a nerve that starts in your skull, travels down into your chest, then back up into your skull before meeting the tissues that it enervates. What an utter waste of nerve tissue! You have a tailbone, and there are children born with tails. What purpose do those serve? You have a gene that codes for an enzyme that makes Vitamin C. It doesn’t work – we have to get Vitamin C from fruit, or suffer scurvy. What creator would give us stuff that would be very useful, but doesn’t work?Of course it is not poor design at all; just that our bodies are full of redundant stuff and mutations arising from our long and astonishing evolutionary history.
You are telling me that a man with and engineering degree, whom God created, is more capable of designing the human body than the creator?
Quote Isaiah 40:12 Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, F198 and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? 13 Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? 14 With whom took he counsel, and who instructed F199 him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding? 15 Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing. 16 And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt offering. 17 All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity. 18 To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him? 19 The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chains. 20 He that is so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree that will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, that shall not be moved. 21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? 22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: 23 That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity. 24 Yea, they shall not be planted; yea, they shall not be sown: yea, their stock shall not take root in the earth: and he shall also blow upon them, and they shall wither, and the whirlwind shall take them away as stubble. 25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. 26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth
You can believe in the theory of evolution if you want, but one day whether near or far, you will know the truth.
God Bless
And now for a little insight:
Why did Jehovah decree the extermination of the Canaanites?
The historical account shows that the populations of the Canaanite cities conquered by the Israelites were subjected to complete destruction. (Nu 21:1-3, 34, 35; Jos 6:20, 21; 8:21-27; 10:26-40; 11:10-14) This fact has been used by some critics as a means for depicting the Hebrew Scriptures, or “Old Testament,” as imbued with a spirit of cruelty and wanton slaughter. The issue involved, however, is clearly that of whether God’s sovereignty over the earth and its inhabitants is acknowledged or not. He had deeded over the right of tenure of the land of Canaan to the ‘seed of Abraham,’ doing so by an oath-bound covenant. (Ge 12:5-7; 15:17-21; compare De 32:8; Ac 17:26.) But more than a mere eviction or dispossessing of the existing tenants of that land was purposed by God. His right to act as “Judge of all the earth” (Ge 18:25) and to decree the sentence of capital punishment upon those found meriting it, as well as his right to implement and enforce the execution of such decree, was also involved.
The justness of God’s prophetic curse on Canaan found full confirmation in the conditions that had developed in Canaan by the time of the Israelite conquest. Jehovah had allowed 400 years from Abraham’s time for the ‘error of the Amorites to come to completion.’ (Ge 15:16) The fact that Esau’s Hittite wives were “a source of bitterness of spirit to Isaac and Rebekah” to the extent that Rebekah had ‘come to abhor her life because of them’ is certainly an indication of the badness already manifest among the Canaanites. (Ge 26:34, 35; 27:46)
During the centuries that followed, the land of Canaan became saturated with detestable practices of idolatry, immorality, and bloodshed. The Canaanite religion was extraordinarily base and degraded, their “sacred poles” evidently being phallic symbols, and many of the rites at their “high places” involving gross sexual excesses and depravity. (Ex 23:24; 34:12, 13; Nu 33:52; De 7:5) Incest, sodomy, and bestiality were part of ‘the way of the land of Canaan’ that made the land unclean and for which error it was due to “vomit its inhabitants out.” (Le 18:2-25) Magic, spellbinding, spiritism, and sacrifice of their children by fire were also among the Canaanites’ detestable practices.—De 18:9-12.Added to their other degrading practices was that of child sacrifice. According to Merrill F. Unger: “Excavations in Palestine have uncovered piles of ashes and remains of infant skeletons in cemeteries around heathen altars, pointing to the widespread practice of this cruel abomination.” (Archaeology and the Old Testament, 1964, p. 279) Halley’s Bible Handbook (1964, p. 161) says:
“Canaanites worshipped, by immoral indulgence, as a religious rite, in the presence of their gods; and then, by murdering their first-born children, as a sacrifice to these same gods. It seems that, in large measure, the land of Canaan had become a sort of Sodom and Gomorrah on a national scale. . . . Did a civilization of such abominable filth and brutality have any right longer to exist? . . . Archaeologists who dig in the ruins of Canaanite cities wonder that God did not destroy them sooner than he did.”—, Vol. 1, p. 739.
Jehovah had exercised his sovereign right to execute the sentence of death upon the wicked population of the entire planet at the time of the global Flood; he had done so with regard to the entire District of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of ‘the loud cry of complaint about them and their very heavy sin’ (Ge 18:20; 19:13); he had executed a decree of destruction upon Pharaoh’s military forces at the Red Sea; he had also exterminated the households of Korah and other rebels among the Israelites themselves. However, in these cases, God had employed natural forces to accomplish the destruction. By contrast, Jehovah now assigned to the Israelites the sacred duty of serving as principal executioners of his divine decree, guided by his angelic messenger and backed by God’s almighty power. (Ex 23:20-23, 27, 28; De 9:3, 4; 20:15-18; Jos 10:42) The results, nevertheless, were precisely the same to the Canaanites as if God had chosen to destroy them by some phenomenon such as a flood, fiery explosion, or earthquake, and the fact that human agents effected the putting to death of the condemned peoples, however unpleasant their task may seem, cannot alter the rightness of the divinely ordained action. (Jer 48:10) By using this human instrument, pitted against “seven nations more populous and mighty” than they were, Jehovah’s power was magnified and his Godship proved.—De 7:1; Le 25:38.
–Insight, Vol 1, Canaan, p. 401dave
I wonder, if stu had the power, what would he have done? Allowed the child sacrifice? Allowed everything that went against goodness, etc?
These were a people that did not deserve to live. Just as many justice systems today sometimes find people unfit to live, the “judge of all the earth” has the right to determine this.
And he has set a pattern for things to come.I should have mentioned that the following two posts were in response to stu's words:
Quote Warning! The Old Testament verses quoted below describe the mass murder of children and may not be suitable for those of a nervous disposition. Lev. 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
Deu. 20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.So saith the loving and forgiving deity.
My question I guess is: What would be the loving and “just” thing to do?
Allow those things to continue?Is it loving to allow someone who does horrible things to continue on their way? It's not loving to all who he comes in contact with. And it's not fair or just for anyone else.
And while Jehovah is forgiving, there are limits to his forgiveness.
Quote Warning! The Old Testament verses quoted below describe the mass murder of children and may not be suitable for those of a nervous disposition. Lev. 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
Deu. 20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.So saith the loving and forgiving deity.
Just looked at this more closely. The second set of verses certainly does not describe the “mass murder of children.”
I'm going to include this quote again:
“Canaanites worshipped, by immoral indulgence, as a religious rite, in the presence of their gods; and then, by murdering their first-born children as a sacrifice to these same gods. It seems that, in large measure, the land of Canaan had become a sort of Sodom and Gomorrah on a national scale. . . . Did a civilization of such abominable filth and brutality have any right longer to exist? . . . Archaeologists who dig in the ruins of Canaanite cities wonder that God did not destroy them sooner than he did.”—, See above for reference.“thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, . . . take unto yourselves.”
I don't know how you can extract “mass murder of children” out of that particular verse. Given that the canaanites were murdering their own children, first-borns anyway, maybe you have it backwards.
***
As for this verse, it's a completely different thing:
“‘In case there should be any man who calls down evil upon his father and his mother, he should be put to death without fail. It is his father and his mother upon whom he has called down evil. His own blood is upon him.–Lev 20:9A hateful and vicious spirit was as bad as murder in Jehovah’s sight. He therefore prescribed the same penalty for reviling one’s parents as for actually murdering them.
1 JOHN 3:14-15
“We know we have passed over from death to life, because we love the brothers. He who does not love remains in death. Everyone who hates his brother is a manslayer, and YOU know that no manslayer has everlasting life remaining in him.”A person who cursed his parents and wanted some dire calamity to befall them would have a hateful, murderous disposition. Although he did not use a weapon to kill them, at heart he desired their death. It would be a shocking lack of gratitude for the care and attention given him by his parents. Since such a vicious spirit constitutes murder in Jehovah’s sight, the Law prescribed the same penalty for thus reviling one’s parents as for actually murdering them.
I hope I have made things clearer on these two very separate scriptures.
Hi again David
++”You are telling me that a man with and engineering degree, whom God created, is more capable of designing the human body than the creator?
There is no creator. I was being satirical. I am saying an engineer might be able to design a better back than natural selection has provided. After all, the one we have has not had much time to adapt advantageously to walking upright.
++”You can believe in the theory of evolution if you want, but one day whether near or far, you will know the truth.
Are you going to tell me the Theory of Divine Creation? t8 seems very coy on the issue.
Stuart
Hi David
Before we look at your post, for my own sanity I’d like to state my own belief on the despicable character of the OT god. Because gods are fictional characters, the events depicted would be actually those of humans slaughtering other humans (or of accidental deaths, say in the example of Uzzah).
Now let’s enter the fantasy world of the christian for a while and look at the stuff you have downloaded from your favourite apologist websites:
++”Why did Jehovah decree the extermination of the Canaanites? The issue involved, however, is clearly that of whether God’s sovereignty over the earth and its inhabitants is acknowledged or not…His right to act as “Judge of all the earth” (Ge 18:25) and to decree the sentence of capital punishment upon those found meriting it, as well as his right to implement and enforce the execution of such decree, was also involved.
Following Gen. 18:25 there is an exchange between Abraham and god in which god seems to concede that if fewer than 50 righteous people can be found in Sodom he would still not slaughter them all. Abraham pushes the point and god eventually stops answering. God is not a deontologist! The number of righteous he might kill along with the perverted matters. But surely it would be absolutely wrong to let the guilty go unpunished? Apparently there is a number of innocent deaths that would be acceptable.
***
Just an aside, how did Abraham survive seeing god?
Gen. 12:7 And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.
Ex.33:20 There shall no man see me, and live; John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time.
***++”During the centuries that followed, the land of Canaan became saturated with detestable practices of idolatry, immorality, and bloodshed.
Bloodshed shouldn’t be too much of a problem for a barbaric deity. Hatred of idolatry is evidence of a jealous god. Immorality is a questionable accusation from a hypocrite.
++”Incest, sodomy, and bestiality were part of ‘the way of the land of Canaan’ that made the land unclean and for which error it was due to “vomit its inhabitants out.”
There probably has never been a community without a degree of such things. Why has there been no smiting in the last 2000 years?
++”. . . Did a civilization of such abominable filth and brutality have any right longer to exist? . . . Archaeologists who dig in the ruins of Canaanite cities wonder that God did not destroy them sooner than he did.”—, Vol. 1, p. 739.
The last sentence proves we are in cloud cuckoo land! Fundamentalist archeologists?
++”Jehovah had exercised his sovereign right to execute the sentence of death upon the wicked population of the entire planet at the time of the global Flood; he had done so with regard to the entire District of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of ‘the loud cry of complaint about them and their very heavy sin’ (Ge 18:20; 19:13); he had executed a decree of destruction upon Pharaoh’s military forces at the Red Sea; he had also exterminated the households of Korah and other rebels among the Israelites themselves. However, in these cases, God had employed natural forces to accomplish the destruction. By contrast, Jehovah now assigned to the Israelites the sacred duty of serving as principal executioners of his divine decree, guided by his angelic messenger and backed by God’s almighty power. (Ex 23:20-23, 27, 28; De 9:3, 4; 20:15-18; Jos 10:42)
In other words god continues with his murderous self-declared dictatorship, but commands others to do his killing for him. “For god king and country” is the rallying cry in used by wartime governments to ask their soldiers to kill the soldiers of the opponents. A god who kills (or even worse leads others into slaughter) is hypocritical when you consider his commandments.
Stuart
David,
++”I wonder, if stu had the power, what would he have done? Allowed the child sacrifice? Allowed everything that went against goodness, etc? These were a people that did not deserve to live. Just as many justice systems today sometimes find people unfit to live, the “judge of all the earth” has the right to determine this.
So I take it from this, you are a keen proponent of the death penalty. Forgiveness has its limits, yes? It seems to me generally only religious folk are keen on judicial killing. Just look at the religiosity of the nations that have it.
I already do lots today to try and stop child sacrifice. I vote for governments that represent my views by signing declarations on human rights and I actively oppose the irrational beliefs in gods and spirits that motivates some cultures to include child sacrifice as a ritual, to name two. Would you join a chorus of disbelief in the spiritual world if it would convince the priests to stop their child slaughter, which is done in the name of appeasing their gods?
++”And he has set a pattern for things to come. My question I guess is: What would be the loving and “just” thing to do? Allow those things to continue? Is it loving to allow someone who does horrible things to continue on their way? It's not loving to all who he comes in contact with. And it's not fair or just for anyone else. And while Jehovah is forgiving, there are limits to his forgiveness.
We have gone past “free will” here, he has taken things into his own bloodstained hand. Is he not omnipotent? If god cannot stop people from breaking his rules without he himself breaking one, what power does he have?
++”Just looked at this more closely. The second set of verses certainly does not describe the “mass murder of children.” … “thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, . . . take unto yourselves.”
OK then, lets hope god’s executioners kept listening past the “thou shalt smite every male…” bit.
++”As for this verse, it's a completely different thing:
“‘In case there should be any man who calls down evil upon his father and his mother, he should be put to death without fail. It is his father and his mother upon whom he has called down evil. His own blood is upon him.–Lev 20:9 A hateful and vicious spirit was as bad as murder in Jehovah’s sight. He therefore prescribed the same penalty for reviling one’s parents as for actually murdering them.…thus advocating murder of children.
++”1 JOHN 3:14-15 “We know we have passed over from death to life, because we love the brothers. He who does not love remains in death. Everyone who hates his brother is a manslayer, and YOU know that no manslayer has everlasting life remaining in him.”
So presumably then god does not grant everlasting life to those he used to murder the Canaanites or the people of Sodom. Seems a bit ungrateful.
++”A person who cursed his parents and wanted some dire calamity to befall them would have a hateful, murderous disposition. Although he did not use a weapon to kill them, at heart he desired their death. It would be a shocking lack of gratitude for the care and attention given him by his parents. Since such a vicious spirit constitutes murder in Jehovah’s sight, the Law prescribed the same penalty for thus reviling one’s parents as for actually murdering them.
I hope I have made things clearer on these two very separate scriptures.No, it just says “he who curseth…”. Just about every teenager at some point has done this, without necessarily wishing for death to befall his/her parents. Since when has death been a just penalty for lack of gratitude?
Yes you have made it very clear that your god is inconsistent from the OT to the NT, and is wrathful with little understanding of human nature but with little power to help humans improve themselves. It’s just as well he is a fictional character in a book that could be ignored, if it were not for the millions who want to play out these fantasies in real life, to the danger of those who would rather not be involved.
Stuart
Quote Hi again David ++”You are telling me that a man with and engineering degree, whom God created, is more capable of designing the human body than the creator?
There is no creator. I was being satirical. I am saying an engineer might be able to design a better back than natural selection has provided. After all, the one we have has not had much time to adapt advantageously to walking upright.
++”You can believe in the theory of evolution if you want, but one day whether near or far, you will know the truth.
Are you going to tell me the Theory of Divine Creation? t8 seems very coy on the issue.
Stuart
I think this post was meant for someone else. I wasn't the one having this conversation with you.
davie
Quote Following Gen. 18:25 there is an exchange between Abraham and god in which god seems to concede that if fewer than 50 righteous people can be found in Sodom he would still not slaughter them all. Abraham pushes the point and god eventually stops answering. God is not a deontologist! The number of righteous he might kill along with the perverted matters. But surely it would be absolutely wrong to let the guilty go unpunished? Apparently there is a number of innocent deaths that would be acceptable. You draw the wrong conclusion here. The point that was made is the exact opposite of what you state. If there were any innocent, God would spare the city. There were not even 50 righteous men. It was pushed further, as you say, not even 10 righteous men in that city.
Quote Just an aside, how did Abraham survive seeing god?
Gen. 12:7 And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.
Ex.33:20 There shall no man see me, and live; John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time.I believe there is a whole thread on that question. Read the second part of the verse, John 1:18b.
As with Moses, God’s speaking through angelic spokesmen to Moses in open, verbal communication (instead of by visions or dreams) that gave the basis for such expression. (Nu 12:6-8; Ex 33:20; Ac 7:35, 38; Ga 3:19; compare Ge 32:24-30; Ho 12:3, 4.)
I would love to discuss this, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with this topic.Quote ++”Incest, sodomy, and bestiality were part of ‘the way of the land of Canaan’ that made the land unclean and for which error it was due to “vomit its inhabitants out.” There probably has never been a community without a degree of such things. Why has there been no smiting in the last 2000 years?
Yes, but it's usually only to some “degree” as you say, not “the way of the land.”
Quote ++”. . . Did a civilization of such abominable filth and brutality have any right longer to exist? . . . Archaeologists who dig in the ruins of Canaanite cities wonder that God did not destroy them sooner than he did.”—, Vol. 1, p. 739. The last sentence proves we are in cloud cuckoo land! Fundamentalist archeologists?
Suspend their belief of whether they should have lived. What is your belief? The child sacrifice, etc does seem to shock many. To be digging through history and to find such things. I can understand why they would say such things. But you, what would you say of it? You are attacking God. So who exactly are you defending–The Canaanites?Is that really what you're saying?
Quote A god who kills (or even worse leads others into slaughter) is hypocritical when you consider his commandments. If a judge tells a very judgmental person not to be so judgmental, is that hypocracy?
We are commanded not to kill. Because it is not our right to take life. It is not ours to take.I bought a shiny car. “no one may touch this car.”
Makes sense. Of course, I can touch the car, right.
That's not hypocritical, though.Do you understand?
Quote So I take it from this, you are a keen proponent of the death penalty. Forgiveness has its limits, yes? It seems to me generally only religious folk are keen on judicial killing. Just look at the religiosity of the nations that have it.
I really have no opinion on the death penalty. Whatever the governments decide to do, that is the best we have right now. And I am not keen on killing at all.Quote ”I wonder, if stu had the power, what would he have done?
You would have…Quote I vote for governments that represent my views by signing declarations on human rights and I actively oppose the irrational beliefs in gods and spirits that motivates some cultures to include child sacrifice as a ritual, to name two.
Suppose there was no U.N. back then, and the government itself along with everyone, is wicked, vile, and sacrifice their firstborn to idol gods.Quote We have gone past “free will” here, he has taken things into his own bloodstained hand. Is he not omnipotent? If god cannot stop people from breaking his rules without he himself breaking one, what power does he have?
You misunderstand. He did not make the rules for himself.A parent says to a child: “No going on the street.”
And you would say: “Hypocritical parent, not only goes on the street, but drives on it!”
Well, the parent was making the rule for himself, was he?
Nope!
So, the parent isn't hypocritical in any sense of the word, is he?
Nope!
A parent and child are not equal and do not have to abide by the same rules. How much more of the Creator and the creation.
Quote My question I guess is: What would be the loving and “just” thing to do? Allow those things to continue?
You never really answered that question. I guess the children who are about to be sacrificed would see your love in your attempt to vote against their government and ban child sacrifice, etc. But they wouldn't be alive long enough to appreciate your ill fated efforts.mY QUESTION, again:
Should God have allowed those things to have continued? You accuse him of being unloving and unforgiving. What would your loving approach have been? Would you have forgiven those men, sent them on their way?Quote ++”As for this verse, it's a completely different thing:
“‘In case there should be any man who calls down evil upon his father and his mother, he should be put to death without fail. It is his father and his mother upon whom he has called down evil. His own blood is upon him.–Lev 20:9 A hateful and vicious spirit was as bad
as murder in Jehovah’s sight. He therefore prescribed the same penalty for reviling one’s parents as for actually murdering them.…thus advocating murder of children.
I didn't see the word “children” in there anywhere.
MATTHEW 15:4
“For example, God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Let him that reviles father or mother end up in death.’”
To “revile”:to assail with abusive language.
To “call down evil.”Although we live in a time when children are disobedient to parents, lacking natural affection (2 Tim 3:1) such is not the norm and has not always been the case. Growing up in this environment, we may be numb to it.
Quote No, it just says “he who curseth…”. Just about every teenager at some point has done this, without necessarily wishing for death to befall his/her parents. Since when has death been a just penalty for lack of gratitude?
It literally means “call down evil.” The word “curse” has taken on the meaning of swear words. But more broadly, it means to “call down evil.”Yes, today, just about every teenage does act that way.
2 TIMOTHY 3:1-5
“But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, D I S O B E D I E N T TO P A R E N T S, unthankful, disloyal, having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away.”But if your grandfather ever did that to your greatgrandfather, he wouldn't be walking for a week. You see stu, children were not always this way. Only in the last century have children started to treat their parents this way.
We live in usual times. It seems normal, because it's all we've ever known, growing up in it.
Anyway, summing up, maybe you should do some research on the canaanites of that time and see exactly who you are defending as worthy of life. You're also defending their way of life, including the murder of their children.
I have no idea how anyone could defend such things.david
Quote (david @ Sep. 27 2007,18:23) Quote Hi again David ++”You are telling me that a man with and engineering degree, whom God created, is more capable of designing the human body than the creator?
There is no creator. I was being satirical. I am saying an engineer might be able to design a better back than natural selection has provided. After all, the one we have has not had much time to adapt advantageously to walking upright.
++”You can believe in the theory of evolution if you want, but one day whether near or far, you will know the truth.
Are you going to tell me the Theory of Divine Creation? t8 seems very coy on the issue.
Stuart
I think this post was meant for someone else. I wasn't the one having this conversation with you.
davie
My apologies, David, my mistake.Stuart
Hi David,
++”[regarding Gen,18:25] You draw the wrong conclusion here. The point that was made is the exact opposite of what you state. If there were any innocent, God would spare the city. There were not even 50 righteous men. It was pushed further, as you say, not even 10 righteous men in that city.
I think you missed my point.
Quote
++”. . . Did a civilization of such abominable filth and brutality have any right longer to exist? . . . Archaeologists who dig in the ruins of Canaanite cities wonder that God did not destroy them sooner than he did.”—, Vol. 1, p. 739.The last sentence proves we are in cloud cuckoo land! Fundamentalist archeologists?
++”Suspend their belief of whether they should have lived. What is your belief? The child sacrifice, etc does seem to shock many. To be digging through history and to find such things. I can understand why they would say such things. But you, what would you say of it? You are attacking God. So who exactly are you defending–The Canaanites? Is that really what you're saying?
My belief is that this was written by a fundamentalist apologist who lives in a fantasy world. I don’t think any professional archeologist has passed this kind of judgement on the culture he was investigating. Please give me in independent reference for such a ridiculous statement. My opinion on child slaughter is that it is only done for religious reasons, and I am as appalled by the cause as much as I am by the deed.
++”If a judge tells a very judgmental person not to be so judgmental, is that hypocracy?
I think it would be more ironic than hypocritical, and I suspect judges have more nous than to say such things.
++”I bought a shiny car. “no one may touch this car.” Makes sense. Of course, I can touch the car, right. That's not hypocritical, though. Do you understand?
Let’s say, to parallel the case of Uzzah, you inadvertantly leave the doors of your new car unlocked in an area with a high crime rate, and that a passerby notices this and opens a door in order to lock the car, in a act intended only to help you. What punishment would you deem fit?
++”I really have no opinion on the death penalty. Whatever the governments decide to do, that is the best we have right now. And I am not keen on killing at all.
So you can’t see a better alternative to frying / hanging / poisoning human beings. What about doing something to help them fix their criminal ways? What of forgiveness? I suppose if you take your lead from the Murderous One, then the question of judicial killing might seem a bit flexible.
Then you say:
++”We are commanded not to kill. Because it is not our right to take life. It is not ours to take.So how do you apply this principle to your lack of opinion on state killing?
Stuart
David,
++”Suppose there was no U.N. back then, and the government itself along with everyone, is wicked, vile, and sacrifice their firstborn to idol gods.
Are you asking me whether I would act on the voices in my head that were saying “smite all the males…”?
Quote
We have gone past “free will” here, he has taken things into his own bloodstained hand. Is he not omnipotent? If god cannot stop people from breaking his rules without he himself breaking one, what power does he have?++”You misunderstand. He did not make the rules for himself. A parent says to a child: “No going on the street.” And you would say: “Hypocritical parent, not only goes on the street, but drives on it!” Well, the parent was making the rule for himself, was he? Nope! So, the parent isn't hypocritical in any sense of the word, is he? Nope!
A parent and child are not equal and do not have to abide by the same rules.What is the first thing most children do when told not to go on the road? What is the discussion that entails? When reflecting on the “no going on the road” commandment, what conclusion does an intelligent parent make? Surely, that yes it is hypocritical to say that! Children imitate their parents’ behaviours. I could go on and on about how this analogy does not apply to the present discussion, but I find it more interesting to ask you whether, in the light of the analogy you have used, you would agree with the seriously held theory that religion is an adopt-a-replacement-parent scheme for adults?
++”How much more of the Creator and the creation.
Well, I say how much more hypocritical of him than of the parent.
Quote
My question I guess is: What would be the loving and “just” thing to do? Allow those things to continue?++”You never really answered that question. I guess the children who are about to be sacrificed would see your love in your attempt to vote against their government and ban child sacrifice, etc. But they wouldn't be alive long enough to appreciate your ill fated efforts. MY QUESTION, again: Should God have allowed those things to have continued? You accuse him of being unloving and unforgiving. What would your loving approach have been? Would you have forgiven those men, sent them on their way?
What should god have done?? You are asking me to try and speculate on the motivations of a non-existent mass murderer, whose motivation you do not question either? You would claim him to be omnipotent. Why are you asking me what he should have done?
OK, I’ll tell you. I’ll tell god directly!Get creation right: if you want sycophantic worship then only create sycophants. Don’t give them “free will”, then sulkily drown most of them when it appears that your creation doesn’t turn out to be your idea of perfection after all. Don’t expect your children to grow up confident and respectful of others if you go round killing those who cross you. Don’t set rules you are not willing to abide by yourself. You are reaping what you sewed.
Of course there is no-one there to listen. Maybe the answer would have been to convince people that there are no gods, and therefore no reason to make sacrifices. A bit hard for a god to do, this one!
Stuart
David,
Quote
++”As for this verse, it's a completely different thing:
“‘In case there should be any man who calls down evil upon his father and his mother, he should be put to death without fail. It is his father and his mother upon whom he has called down evil. His own blood is upon him.–Lev 20:9 A hateful and vicious spirit was as bad as murder in Jehovah’s sight. He therefore prescribed the same penalty for reviling one’s parents as for actually murdering them.…thus advocating murder of children.
++”I didn't see the word “children” in there anywhere.
I didn’t see any exemption for them, either!
++”MATTHEW 15:4 For example, God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Let him that reviles father or mother end up in death.’”To “revile”:to assail with abusive language. To “call down evil.” Although we live in a time when children are disobedient to parents, lacking natural affection (2 Tim 3:1) such is not the norm and has not always been the case. Growing up in this environment, we may be numb to it. But if your grandfather ever did that to your greatgrandfather, he wouldn't be walking for a week. You see stu, children were not always this way. Only in the last century have children started to treat their parents this way. We live in usual times. It seems normal, because it's all we've ever known, growing up in it.
I think Socrates would have disagreed with you there. And so do I. Maybe our forebears would have learned to keep their “curses” to themselves on threat of being beaten, but I happen to believe that over 95% of the world’s children are decent people and always have been, in part thanks to well-judged parenting, especially in times when the child is showing the rebellion that we all showed at some point. Your god could learn a few tips on managing his creation without the need for inconsistent and murderous punishments, from such parents.
Quote
No, it just says “he who curseth…”. Just about every teenager at some point has done this, without necessarily wishing for death to befall his/her parents. Since when has death been a just penalty for lack of gratitude?++”It literally means “call down evil.” The word “curse” has taken on the meaning of swear words. But more broadly, it means to “call down evil.”
OK, lets take the most extreme form of this. A teenager in the time of the Old Testament prophets tells his parents “because you won’t let me have a new horse, I curse you both – I hope that a plague of boils descends upon both of you before you both die a horrible death each”.
You would follow your god’s judgement and be the first in line with a sharp stone?Stuart
Hi 942767
This reply was meant for you (apologies for the mix-up – I got lost in David's prolific cutting and pasting exercise).++”You are telling me that a man with and engineering degree, whom God created, is more capable of designing the human body than the creator?
There is no creator. I was being satirical. I am saying an engineer might be able to design a better back than natural selection has provided. After all, the one we have has not had much time to adapt advantageously to walking upright.
++”You can believe in the theory of evolution if you want, but one day whether near or far, you will know the truth.
Are you going to tell me the Theory of Divine Creation? t8 seems very coy on the issue.
Stuart
David,
++”Anyway, summing up, maybe you should do some research on the canaanites of that time and see exactly who you are defending as worthy of life. You're also defending their way of life, including the murder of their children.
I have no idea how anyone could defend such things.They were pagans, of course they would make idols and sacrifices. Murder is murder, and that they were doing it for gods makes it little different to the motivations you have yourself for worship, although your expressions of them are not as extreme. All this Levitican nonsense about homosexuality and mixing fabrics should not have put them off for a minute. I don’t condone their incest or bestiality – there are good basic biological and compassionate arguments against those acts. I have no idea how anyone could rejoice in the genocide they suffered. The bible references you pasted read like a political justification for an invasion. Even the motivation attributed to god – to cleanse the land – is not about justice. This is literally ethnic cleansing.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 27 2007,22:17) Hi 942767
This reply was meant for you (apologies for the mix-up – I got lost in David's prolific cutting and pasting exercise).++”You are telling me that a man with and engineering degree, whom God created, is more capable of designing the human body than the creator?
There is no creator. I was being satirical. I am saying an engineer might be able to design a better back than natural selection has provided. After all, the one we have has not had much time to adapt advantageously to walking upright.
++”You can believe in the theory of evolution if you want, but one day whether near or far, you will know the truth.
Are you going to tell me the Theory of Divine Creation? t8 seems very coy on the issue.
Stuart
Hi Stu:Your mistake in posting a reply to my post to David instead of to me is forgiven. We all make mistakes. Or at least, I do.
Also, know because of my personal experience that you are making a mistake when you say that there is not creator. I read the Psalm that t8 posted in which God states that “the fool has said, there is no God”, but as I have already mentioned, I was an agnostic at one time myself, and all of us who are born-again Christians were in unbelief at one time also, and so I can say that all of us were also foolish at one time in our unbelief.
I have already share my personal testimony with you that attests to the fact that God is a reality and that His testimony regarding His Only Begotten Son is true (no, not a theory) and you would not hear, therefore, the only thing left more me to do is to pray that God will somehow bring you to the knowledge of truth.
Good talking with you Stu.
God Bless
Hi 942767
++”Also, know because of my personal experience that you are making a mistake when you say that there is not creator. I read the Psalm that t8 posted in which God states that “the fool has said, there is no God”, but as I have already mentioned, I was an agnostic at one time myself, and all of us who are born-again Christians were in unbelief at one time also, and so I can say that all of us were also foolish at one time in our unbelief.
So you don not believe me when I say that through my personal experience I am almost certain that there is no god of any kind? Do you think it would be instructive if I posted my own testimony? I'd have to start an atheist testimony thread to do it. Do you discount the possiblility that, through some feat of illusion by someone, you have been immunised against critical thinking about your belief? That is what the “fool” insult is all about. Immunisation.
++”I have already share my personal testimony with you that attests to the fact that God is a reality and that His testimony regarding His Only Begotten Son is true (no, not a theory) and you would not hear, therefore, the only thing left more me to do is to pray that God will somehow bring you to the knowledge of truth.
Can you tell me the Theory of Divine Creation? t8 and David don't seem to want to share this detailed explanation with me.
Stuart
Quote My opinion on child slaughter is that it is only done for religious reasons, and I am as appalled by the cause as much as I am by the deed. I believe in Leviticus there is a command against child sacrifice. This command was given as they were about to enter Canaan, probably, so that they (the Israelites) wouldn't adopt this deplorable filth.
If you are “appalled” by the deed, why do you argue that it was unloving and unforgiving for God to step in and put a stop to it, along with the other ways of Canaanite religion?
Quote ++”If a judge tells a very judgmental person not to be so judgmental, is that hypocracy? I think it would be more ironic than hypocritical, and I suspect judges have more nous than to say such things.
Yes, I didn't like that comparison. The other two make more sense.Quote ++”I bought a shiny car. “no one may touch this car.” Makes sense. Of course, I can touch the car, right. That's not hypocritical, though. Do you understand? Let’s say, to parallel the case of Uzzah, you inadvertantly leave the doors of your new car unlocked in an area with a high crime rate, and that a passerby notices this and opens a door in order to lock the car, in a act intended only to help you. What punishment would you deem fit?
Your hate clouds your ability to reason properly. If we could just stick to this one subject for a while, that would be good.
But you do get my point? It is not hypocritical of the person who owns the car to do as he pleases. Similarly, it is not hypocritical of the parent who tells the child not to go on the street when the parent does just that, IS IT?No one would ever call that parent a hypocrite, yet he is doing something he told someone else not to do.
What makes the difference here, is that the parent and child are not equal in this.
The same can be applied to God and humans, then, can't it?So you can now stop calling God hypocritical, or you can start calling all parents hypocritical.
It would be unconsistent in your thinking not to do this.
So which will you change?Are parents hypocrites when they tell their children to not do something they themselves do (“no touching knives”)
OR
God isn't a hypocrite when he does something he tells us not to.
If you don't change your mind on one of these, your thinking is inconsistent.
Quote ++”I really have no opinion on the death penalty. Whatever the governments decide to do, that is the best we have right now. And I am not keen on killing at all. So you can’t see a better alternative to frying / hanging / poisoning human beings. What about doing something to help them fix their criminal ways? What of forgiveness? I suppose if you take your lead from the Murderous One, then the question of judicial killing might seem a bit flexible.
Perhaps you missed my last sentence. “I am not keen on killing at all.” In my first two sentences, I was just trying to convey that it's a conversation we can have some other time, and that as Christians, we should be “no part of the world” (unpolitical) and that all these governemnts will be removed anyway (Dan 2:44) and replaced by a much superior government. (Mat 6:9,10).Quote Then you say:
++”We are commanded not to kill. Because it is not our right to take life. It is not ours to take.So how do you apply this principle to your lack of opinion on state killing?
“We” (followers of Jesus) are commanded not to “take up the sword.”
What the governments do (which we should be no part of) is up to them.Quote ++”Suppose there was no U.N. back then, and the government itself along with everyone, is wicked, vile, and sacrifice their firstborn to idol gods. Are you asking me whether I would act on the voices in my head that were saying “smite all the males…”?
Are you suggesting you would “forgive” them? Or “help them fix their criminal ways”?
“What about doing something to help them fix their criminal ways? What of forgiveness?”–stu
“I'm sorry future child sacrifice. I have forgiven your dad and I have put him on a rehabilitation program.”
Quote ++”You misunderstand. He did not make the rules for himself. A parent says to a child: “No going on the street.” And you would say: “Hypocritical parent, not only goes on the street, but drives on it!” Well, the parent was making the rule for himself, was he? Nope! So, the parent isn't hypocritical in any sense of the word, is he? Nope!
A parent and child are not equal and do not have to abide by the same rules.What is the first thing most children do when told not to go on the road? What is the discussion that entails? When reflecting on the “no going on the road” commandment, what conclusion does an intelligent parent make? Surely, that yes it is hypocritical to say that! Children imitate their parents’ behaviours. I could go on and on about how this analogy does not apply to the present discussion, but I find it more interesting to ask you whether, in the light of the analogy you have used, you would agree with the seriously held theory that religion is an adopt-a-replacement-parent scheme for adults?
Why is it that I often feel you are worming your way out of questions, by saying they don't apply and asking a replacement question? And what does the question you just asked have to do with this discussion?
My question, again:
Are parents hypocrites when they tell their children to not do something they themselves do (“no touching knives”)
OR
God isn't a hypocrite when he does something he tells us not to.
I feel strongly that you actually understand what I am saying, but don't want to admit it.
Quote ++”How much more of the Creator and the creation. Well, I say how much more hypocritical of him than of the parent.
So, that's it then. Instead of accepting the obvious, what most would believe, you would rather call parents hypocrites for parenting their children than accept that God is not a hypocrite? ?
Quote Quote
My question
I guess is: What would be the loving and “just” thing to do? Allow those things to continue?++”You never really answered that question. I guess the children who are about to be sacrificed would see your love in your attempt to vote against their government and ban child sacrifice, etc. But they wouldn't be alive long enough to appreciate your ill fated efforts. MY QUESTION, again: Should God have allowed those things to have continued? You accuse him of being unloving and unforgiving. What would your loving approach have been? Would you have forgiven those men, sent them on their way?
What should god have done?? You are asking me to try and speculate on the motivations of a non-existent. . . .
Umm. No. Despite my asking it 5 times, no, that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking what should have been done, what any loving just, fair, forgiving person, such as yourself would have done, if you had the power?
Yet, you refuse to answer it, because that means you're letting the child sacrifice to continue. And saying that would be politically incorrect, not to mention extraordinary unloving, unjust, unfair, etc.
Your answer:
Quote Get creation right. . . .Don’t set rules you are not willing to abide by yourself. So if you were God, you would have created robots. I guess, rather than a daughter who has free will and freely says: “I love you daddy,” you'd rather have a robot. Most of your answer had nothing to do with the question, of course.
Again, your “don't set rules you aren't willing to abide by yourself” statement annoys me.
If you are any normal father,you yourself have done this countless times. And any normal person wouldn't have considered that hypocritical of you.Quote Can you tell me the Theory of Divine Creation? t8 and David don't seem to want to share this detailed explanation with me. The “God created everything out of nothing (or energy) theory” is very similar to the statement: “Nothing created everything out of nothing somehow” belief.
Neither are very detailed. God didn't tell me how he transformed his vast amounts of energy into matter. I wouldn't understand the math anyway. Nor would most scientists.
And similarly, scientists have extremely little to say on “why” there is everything when there could simply still be nothing.david.
David,
++”If you are “appalled” by [child slaughter], why do you argue that it was unloving and unforgiving for God to step in and put a stop to it, along with the other ways of Canaanite religion?
I suppose a bit more killing was really going to help, was it?
Quote
++”I bought a shiny car. “no one may touch this car.” Makes sense. Of course, I can touch the car, right. That's not hypocritical, though. Do you understand?Let’s say, to parallel the case of Uzzah, you inadvertantly leave the doors of your new car unlocked in an area with a high crime rate, and that a passerby notices this and opens a door in order to lock the car, in a act intended only to help you. What punishment would you deem fit?
++”Your hate clouds your ability to reason properly. If we could just stick to this one subject for a while, that would be good.
(What hate?) OK, I see it in the sense that it is not hypocrisy, but in that sense I don’t think it is a valid argument, either, because…
++”But you do get my point? It is not hypocritical of the person who owns the car to do as he pleases.
…your analogy must conclude some kind of ownership by god over humans, analogous to car ownership, a kind of slavery, is it? I know god asserts his ownership, but I for one would not be happy to accept his brutal dictatorship and false claim of ownership. You own the car, the parents don’t own their children and gods don’t own me.
++” Similarly, it is not hypocritical of the parent who tells the child not to go on the street when the parent does just that, IS IT? No one would ever call that parent a hypocrite, yet he is doing something he told someone else not to do. What makes the difference here, is that the parent and child are not equal in this.
I have just argued that I think it IS hypocrisy; did you actually read my reply?
++”The same can be applied to God and humans, then, can't it? So you can now stop calling God hypocritical, or you can start calling all parents hypocritical. It would be unconsistent in your thinking not to do this.
So which will you change? Are parents hypocrites when they tell their children to not do something they themselves do (“no touching knives”) OR God isn't a hypocrite when he does something he tells us not to.
If you don't change your mind on one of these, your thinking is inconsistent.Please read above.
++” [re death sentence] Perhaps you missed my last sentence. “I am not keen on killing at all.” In my first two sentences, I was just trying to convey that it's a conversation we can have some other time, and that as Christians, we should be “no part of the world” (unpolitical) and that all these governemnts will be removed anyway (Dan 2:44) and replaced by a much superior government. (Mat 6:9,10). “We” (followers of Jesus) are commanded not to “take up the sword.” What the governments do (which we should be no part of) is up to them.
Do you vote? If so, you are the government; they represent your views. Is this not a cop-out? If not, I should ask you whether you believe in human rights (apropos my support of governments that oppose child brutality on my behalf). So back to the original question: do you support the death penalty?
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
