Religion… What do you think?

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8728

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for menos_kegare
Menos_Kegare

1084

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for jonjizz
jonjizz

1899

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223783

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@king_saturn:

Ps 23

Jehovah is my shepherd ...

Though I walk through the valley of Gehenna I will fear no evil.....

His ROD and his STAFF comfort me....

He restores my soul.

That line "His Rod and his Staff comfort me" always sounded like some rather Interesting Sexual Activity to me. King David might have liked more than just the Women.

LOL

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8728

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223783

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Ha Ha... Yeah I Forgot About Saul's Happy Son.

I think it's in 1 Samuel 18 about David and Jonathan.

I believe in that story King Saul tried to kill David by throwing a Spear or Javelin at him. I wonder if Saul said "Get Over Here" while tossing it.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8728

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@king_saturn:

Everyone seems to want to stick something in Dave

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

1523

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28258  Edited By FlashFyr

A friend asked where I've been and why I've been absent from this thread. As I was writing my response, I realized that my answer wasn't just personal disclosure on my part, but perhaps a system of thinking that could enlighten some people in general. To whoever's reading this: I'm done arguing here. These are my reasons and this is not an argument, so I'm not going to have a back-and-forth or look at the notifications that appear in this thread. Lay out your criticisms or insult me if you wish, just know that I won't see them.

To make a long story short, I was accepted into University of California - Los Angeles (UCLA) during the fall quarter of last year. To set some context or to illuminate folks who aren't familiar with universities, US News, alongside Clarivate Analytics, ranked UCLA #1 in public universities as of 2020.

Since my acceptance, I've had the privilege of learning philosophy, biological anthropology, statistics, sociology, etc. from some of the brightest minds in their respective fields. Not only do classes delve into the thought of multiple eras, but these professors are researchers practicing today. Not just any researchers, but some of the best. Becoming a full-time professor requires that you perform a minimum amount of research, but UCLA has among the stiffest competition when it comes to jobs. Some of these professors, particularly department heads, have written the most influential papers to grace their fields in the last twenty years. Snyder's work on mating preferences in high crime risk areas to shed light on evolutionary and facultatively calibrated psychology, to give one example. One example out of many.

The more I studied and the more I learned under these people, the more I realized how ridiculous it is to debate religion. I have two angles: Science and epistemology, and historical thought.

First, science. There's a reason that cosmology, biology, and other fields of study don't take "the God explanation" seriously. When reading that sentence, one must distinguish the difference between scientists believing in a god personally, and arguing for a god professionally. To exemplify this difference, Francis Collins, the lead researcher of the human genome project, became Christian because science couldn't answer philosophical questions like the meaning of life (science isn't supposed to, but more on that later). He holds personal beliefs that some science supports God, but fully acknowledges that faith is needed because his "evidence" is not conclusive, deductive, nor is the link between his evidence and God actually scientific. That is, he cannot use the scientific method to bridge that gap. He can believe that DNA is a language, but the fact that mutations can occur nonrandomly doesn't mean a god made it (few things in science are ever purely random, instead they are driven by laws). And this is why I say that science doesn't take God seriously. If you go to a cosmology or biology convention, there are no God-fearing scientists trying to proselytize their peers. Instead, they focus on building models to both explain and predict the natural world, leaving the supernatural behind. Why? Not only is such a process useful, but it's subject to the scientific method so that you can bridge evidence to conclusion. After all, if you can explain the past with laws and principles that are correct, then you can expect certain outcomes in the future. If those outcomes don't happen, then the model is incorrect. This is how we use evolution to breed animals and cure diseases. I assure you that we'd be unable to use modern methods to do either if the laws and principles behind evolution were incorrect.

Theology is not a model. While it attempts to explain the past, its explanations don't give us any useful or specific predictions, nor do they present what the world would look like if it were actually true. Don't you enjoy cars, television, and medicine? All things that science gave us because it explained the world and we could then tinker with those principles. Theology doesn't do that. Every "practical" lesson given to us from religion is nonphysical. And those lessons aren't even definite; they are subjective. For example, even though biblical moral systems claim to be objective, they are written such that they are open to interpretation and that's why there are thousands of denominations in Christianity. That's why you have some Christians who try to justify the wholesale genocide of children (some of those apologists are in this thread), and you have some Christians who don't believe that ever happened. That relates to the fact that descriptions of God and his traits also vary profoundly because, again, religious texts are interpretive. Even in the same church, you're likely to find a Christian in the back pew who disagrees with a Christian in the front pew. Disagreements about science, on the other hand, are settled through evidence and predictive power. It's not about making a model fit most with certain texts (texts are not evidence), which seems to be the go-to method of interreligious debate. No, if your model has greater empirical support and can predict more, it doesn't matter what's been written on the subject. On the point of predictive power, theists will often look to prophecy as a predictive power while missing the point: Those prophecies are also written in a manner that requires subjectivity. They are not definite, specific, answerable by one occurrence, driven by consistent laws/principles that give us verifiable use, etc. Take this passage on the rapture for instance:

No Caption Provided

Some interpret a literal rapture, some a metaphorical rapture, you can rationally interpret the rapture as occurring in Paul's lifetime because he wrote "we who are still alive" but plenty of people will tell you that "we" refers to humanity in general. This is but one example of useless prophecies. There've been at least a dozen events throughout history that could fit the biblical end times, but again, these prophecies are not written as definite, specific, answerable by one occurrence, driven by consistent laws/principles that give us verifiable use, etc.

And this is why God, as an explanation or as an arguable point, isn't taken seriously. Models give us functional use and explanations that can be verified. That's far more useful than listening to someone bumble on about why they've got the truth that they can't prove outside the texts. And when arguments move to evidence outside these texts, they're ridiculously dubious. The fact that an empty tomb exists in Jerusalem does not prove that Jesus was divine, that Jesus used that tomb in particular, or that Jesus even existed. Are you willing to grant that a horned bull-man called a minotaur existed because Minos exists? The Shroud of Turin, often hailed as the smoking gun of theology, was subjected to potassium-carbon dating and we're 99% sure it was created in the 13-14th century (link). No wonder the Church stopped allowing its artifacts to be tested. When we measure religious sites and churches that supposedly heal people, we find that there's no statistically significant effect that these areas/rituals have on recovery (more on statistics deniers later). You can always handwave these issues, saying that God doesn't want to be tested or whatever you'd like, but these are backpedals.

Scientists don't professionally consider unfalsifiable ideas because their time can be spent on things far more important than everyone trying to save their idiosyncratic versions of a deity.

This is not to say that science can answer everything: the meaning of life, why we should care about certain things like morality, etc. The most science can do for these areas is show which beliefs and moral systems produce certain outcomes. What behaviors, attitudes, and norms lead to greater emotional happiness and human wellbeing? Science can measure that, but whether we want those outcomes is something we decide as a society. Theism does not provide an objective moral standard because, as I just explained, those standards are still open to interpretation. Even if God came down today, inscribed his laws clearly, and said "this is objective," wouldn't we still be free to go another route, anyway? At the end of the day, morality is our collection of beliefs and behaviors, and even if we had a standard everyone agrees is objective, we still decide what we want and what we do. It's not science's job to tell us what our morals should be, it only tells us what happens with certain morals.

Further, it would be monumentally arrogant to assume that morality cannot exist without theism. The ideas of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness emerged during the Enlightenment and from Enlightenment thinkers; they are metaphysical precepts. Metaphysics requires no basis in science; they are the principles we've agreed upon collectively. These thinkers, including the United States' founding fathers and the philosophers from whom they derived their ideas, were also overwhelmingly deist, rejecting the Bible, divine revelation, and Jesus' divinity. They overthrew thousands of years of sociopolitical religious dogma, the religious dogma that monarchs wielded to say that people were not born equal, that they did not have inalienable rights, and that God chose rulers. Our modern notions of equality would be absurd to those religious monarchs, just as their notions are absurd to us. I'm not arguing about whether Europe and the Church correctly enacted religious ideology. My point is that we can develop better morals without religious texts, and we can be immoral with religious texts.

Certainly, we see there's nothing inherent about widespread religion that makes people more moral, as theists theorize.

Citing four different studies, Zuckerman states: "Murder rates are actually lower in more secular nations and higher in more religious nations where belief in God is widespread." He also states: "Of the top 50 safest cities in the world, nearly all are in relatively non-religious countries."

Within the United States, we see the same pattern. Citing census data, he writes: "And within America, the states with the highest murder rates tend to be the highly religious, such as Louisiana and Alabama, but the states with the lowest murder rates tend to be the among the least religious in the country, such as Vermont and Oregon."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/misinformation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2009.00247.x

Of course, this research opens the door for statistics deniers. Another reason I've decided that religious debates are a waste of my time. It's perfectly logical to say that scientists and statisticians fudge numbers to push an agenda and gain some benefit, just like it's logical to say that the Earth is flat but the evil government wants to hide God's design to drive the masses toward atheism... because they work for Satan. An idea being logical isn't enough. Every conspiracy theory is logical but that doesn't make it true. What's lacking is evidence. That's what separates outdated Aristotlean analysis from science. In science, it's common for there to be multiple logical hypotheses that explain a phenomenon, but we accept the one that's best supported. Conspiracy theorists, on the other hand, don't gain more evidence to support their conclusions. They speculate, often don't test, and change the facts to fit the theory or ignore contradictory evidence. That's when you get statistics deniers who handwave counter-evidence by claiming that scientists are corrupt. Yet that's a tactic to avoid meeting their burden of proof, while adding another "logical" claim that's baseless. You think people fudged the numbers? Prove it. That's where the tap dance begins.

On this thread, I've debated someone who, when asked to provide evidence of statisticians lying in a particular study, circled back to potential reasons organizations might have to fudge numbers. These organizations, I should add, are among the most reputable in the world (Pew and Gallup). When pressed further because logic alone doesn't cut it, that person provided - excuse my language - dumbass guesses that the sample was taken from one state (the sample was nationwide), and that children constituted a large portion. Because how could adults of sound mind ever be happy with atheism? A perfect example of changing the facts to fit his theory. He somehow didn't know that Gallup calls only adult phone numbers and it's both mathematically and intuitively unlikely that children would make up any sizable chunk of that pool. This wasn't linguistic ninjutsu; the methods of the study were posted on Gallup's site, but this person made mistake after mistake. As someone who's studied the language of statistics, regularly interacts with statisticians, and understands the weight of statistics in every science under the sun, I knew this person wasn't equipped with the tools to critique statistical methods. They were a conspiracy theorist wanting to save their argument in light of contradictory evidence. Either the methods confused them, they didn't read it, or they didn't want to acknowledge it; I can't think of any other explanation as to how they'd get the basics of the study so wrong. Indeed, I was arguing with someone who wasn't close to the level they needed to be.

Rationally, more issues abound. We live in a society with more scientific and measuring power than any previous era. We live in a society that loves to document everything on video, so much that people have recorded their murderers as they were being killed. People watching a car accident film the aftermath rather than helping. With this in mind, why are there no undoctored instances of paranormal activity on YouTube or any of the massive video stores on the internet? Why hasn't any scientist found something supernatural? Why do possessions, hauntings, and encounters always occur in areas where science and technology isn't there? If evil beings are untouchable by science, they have no reason to be afraid. Even religious texts make clear that they don't care about us knowing. And if a deity wanted people to know it exists, the rapid dissemination of his showings would be far more effective than a book that's a copy of a copy of a copy of a translation of a copy of another translation of scrolls that were written decades after the events they depict, written in a dead language with esoteric idioms that make no sense anymore. All these questions can be handwaved by endless tap dancing, or you can repeat over and over that miracles happen at your church, but the fact still remains: There is no statistical, video, or scientific evidence that can be conclusively linked to a deity. The more sophisticated thinkers have better things to do than listen to these tap dances that are supplied in lieu of hard evidence. Once you get the acknowledgment of one of the research organizations that study religious claims specifically, then you'll stop being a waste of time.

Then you have the other side of the coin. People who cherrypick scientific articles/facts to support their religious argument, acting as though it equates to credentials. And typically, these attempts are anti-science because they try to stick a god of the gaps fallacy into areas where scientific theory is incomplete, such as abiogenesis. More than once, terms have been misused, such as calling biogenesis a "law" even when it's pointed out that no consensus agrees on that. Yet they wouldn't dare bring their arguments to a biologist or the article's writer to confirm their suspicions, even when told explicitly they should do so. Presenting ideas and arguments to researchers is the process of peer review, one of the most important aspects of science. Instead of doing that, people on this thread have ignored the suggestion and continued their chain of arguments like building a house with no foundation. I have no interest in debating someone who acts as though science is on their side, then skips one of the most critical aspects of science. That is a phony. I'm surrounded by actual scientists at UCLA, and I now understand how hopeless it is to try explaining the breadth of science to individuals so uneducated, stubborn, or disingenuous. Is it surprising that education is negatively correlated with religiosity in the countries of the world?

I stand wholly with August Comte's positivist view on religion. While I reject his idea that sociology could replace religion and positivism's role in law and modern sociology, Comte's layout of human thinking is sophisticated and accurate. He writes that humanity undergoes three stages: (1) Theism and fictitiousness, (2) metaphysics and abstract thought, and finally, (3) positivism and science. Theism is our attempt to explain phenomena through supernatural forces, attributing them to sentient beings. These are myths, fictions in an attempt for absolute knowledge, but a necessary stepping-off point for human inquiry. Next is metaphysics, where we attempt to explain phenomena in terms of abstract forces rather than supernatural agents. Instead of multiple gods or a monotheistic god controlling aspects of the world, we assign these abstractions as the causes, but eventually merge everything into one force, often nature (thus we have atheistic religions like Buddhism or Taoism). This, again, is a necessary stepping-off point and the bridge to the final and most sophisticated system of thought: Positivism. Positivism gives up notions of absolute knowledge and seeks to explain phenomena through natural laws that can be tested and proven. That's why science doesn't make truth claims, rather it builds models derived from these laws and is open to being wrong, the greatest pitfall of religion. Comte also writes that individuals go through these stages. Children deal in fiction, adolescents in abstract theorizing, and adults in experience from the experimentation they've done throughout their lives.

Though, we often see that areas and people have a mix of each stage. People who subscribe to a religion are still the majority in every level of education, a result of the cultural environment that's developed over the past few centuries, but we see that (a) the intensity of religious beliefs decrease with education, (b) one is less likely to subscribe to a religion at all once they go past a high school diploma, (c) the most educated countries have the lowest religiosity. These are trends that affirm Comte not wholly (he didn't predict the power of culture, peer pressure, or the recent explosion of science deniers), but the statistics are in line with his idea of stages.

Why do these trends work in the directions I listed? I'd speculate that educated people don't easily make the same errors I mentioned in the above paragraphs. Certainly, I am far less likely to run into educated people who fail to see the importance of peer review or fail to read statistical methods. Maybe educated people see the cracks in religious arguments once they understand the nature of evidence vs theory, and how useless it is to make excuses for a god's absence as opposed to advancing the field in which they work.

But aside from the fact that this thread has revealed, time and again, that people here aren't on the level necessary to discuss science, statistics, and philosophical thinking, perhaps the biggest reason I find this thread to be a waste of time is: It's just sad. The fact that we live in a democratic society that believes in freedom and equality, yet people will argue for a cosmic theocracy, a monarch who's allowed to wipe out whole peoples, to say indentured servitude and slavery is okay, to destroy people's lives over a bet with Satan, to kill first-born infants, all because they believe he's the existent cosmic arbiter of morality which, no matter how many times you ask for evidence, they will tap dance, backpedal, make excuses, and shift the burden of proof as if it's the disbeliever's job to help their argument. To try so hard in arguing these absurd notions is insane.

It fills me with disgust and pity. Not all of these people are stupid. If anything, some could blossom into great thinkers and philosophers or scientists, but religion is a system that digs its claws in at an early age to bias everything thereon, and if it fails at that age, it still pesters via the questions that science isn't meant to answer. Take Herbert Spencer, a mind who was influential in numerous sciences during his day. He warned scientists to not allow their predispositions to bias their work, but that's exactly what he did by making religious moral declarations in his sociological theory. I have no problem with people holding religious beliefs, generally, but when people use them to tell others how to live... There's a big problem. When those people are willing to argue for Exodus 21, are those really the kinds of people you'd want voting to uphold your democracy? When those people are individuals who lash out at science because they don't understand it, who criticize statistics without reading the method, when there's the biggest explosion of flat earthers and other pushback organizations whose body is made up of uneducated people yet, there's a big problem. It's a problem I don't know how to solve except for encouraging people to attain further education. But I know that many don't have that opportunity and we live in an era of extreme student loan debt, which I can't solve. I know, though, that arguing here does nothing to alleviate those issues, advance my life, or advance the lives of anyone involved.

Avatar image for jonjizz
jonjizz

1899

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28259  Edited By jonjizz

heh i've been thinking the same for some time now... she's basically saying some people are too dumb to get it! lol

@flashfyr: hey it's nice to see you again! it's almost strange to see a voice of reason here, but anyway good job and good luck at uni, i entirely agree with your analysis of this thread

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

6122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#28260  Edited By dshipp17

@king_saturn:

“The problem is still, that GOD punished Israel for the Sin that David had done and in turn killed 70,000 Israelites. There was no other sin mentioned in 1 Chronicles 21 that gave heed to GOD causing to punish Israel. It was on the strength of David's unlawful census.”

That 1 Chronicles 21 doesn't mention that Israel was not innocent doesn't make any difference, at all, since they were still in close proximity to my citing of earlier chapters of 1 Chronicles and 1 Chronicles 21 says that Satan rose up against Israel, meaning that this included his tempting them into sin, which they succumbed; thus, it was an accumulation of ongoing and continuous sin. Here, it doesn't have to be an either or situation, as the Bible doesn't specify it to be that way. Thus, of the two, David was clearly less in sin and had just committed a transgression that involved the census. Thus, God punished Israel as a teaching lesson for David and punished Israel for their own ongoing sin, picking each for their individual sins, possibly even specifically targeting 70,000 of the ones who were planning a rebellion against David. But, again, as it's an abbreviation, meaning that lots of context is missing, it's just not wise to use this and attempt to accuse God under these circumstances, particularly and especially; keep in mind, James 1:13 and related verses to avoid the sin of deviation and imagination. On top of this, God was also exercising His right to bring down judgment on humanity at this given time.

“David's sin that caused this Disaster that lead to thousands being killed. That's why David was crying out to GOD the way he was, it was because he knew he had messed up Big Time.”

It was based on David's sin that God took this opportunity to rein down judgment on all of the guilty parties for each of their own sins. It was a teaching lesson and and opportunity for God to chasten David for his sins and another opportunity to punish others for their ongoing and continuous sins. 2 Samuel 24:1 begins with the anger of the Lord being kindled against Israel and ongoing sin for some extended period of time is what provoked God. But, really, 2 Samuel 24:1 starting with the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel and Satan being mentioned specifically in 1 Chronicles 21:1 is the same difference in degree, as an indicator that Israel was in sin, just before the incidents under discussion; point in fact, Israel was in sin both because the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel and because Satan rose up against Israel.

“I preferred 1 Chronicles 21 account but you kept going back to how GOD was angry with Israel and that's only in the 2 Samuel 24 passage that says also that GOD incited David to sin.”

No, this couldn't be correct and isn't correct; you were trying to make a point that it was God who incited David to take the census and that God had killed 70,000 for both inciting David to sin and for David's sin. And, you kept trying to making this case stick, even in the face of 1 Chronicles 21 and many persuasive arguments by several posters to make you see things otherwise; it is only now that you say that you preferred the 1 Chronicles 21 account and you've been quoted multiple times in this vein; you only altered some by saying that God used Satan to do His dirty work so as to ultimately relieve Satan of both his actions and something that is very clearly within his character to instead accuse God of something that is not within His character. You only used 1 Chronicles as a vehicle towards this end and always tried to dismiss 1 Chronicles 21:1 specifically. you were essentially, overall, trying to make a case for a Biblical contradiction, which is known to be very damaging within Christian circles and is something that is frequently combated, and also as what sounds like an excommunicated church pastor with an ax to grind, even considering that there are different denominations and something like this wouldn't even damage your salvation except in the eyes of your own previous denomination, whatever that might have been; basically just a personal dispute between yourself and someone who knows you better, besides God, of course.

“Ha Ha... You Sneaky Devil You !”

Please, don't do this to me. I've never, ever tried in anyway to do this and even viewing a brief clip or reading beyond something like about a paragraph of material from organizations claiming to be devil worshipers agitates me, pains me, disgusted me, and tends to rein down punishment from Heaven on me; I don't even read things from them, if I can help it; sometimes, or in the past, I would read stuff which could even include white supremacists to examine how they like to view things; I only looked at maybe up to about 30 minutes of stuff from devil worshipers, but, when I did, I just thought of ways to strongly disagree with what they were saying. And this is from all sincerity, honesty, and contrition. I'm God's advocate, only. And, I just thought about something: heading into a recent incident of chastisement from God upon me, I had been binge reading or recently come off of reading Tarot Witch of Rose which has a bunch of Satanic symbols within it; other factors were probably at play too, but, this incidents was also involved, now that I just thought about it.

“Joshua 7:15 "And it shall come be, that he that is taken the accursed thing shall be burnt with fire, he and all that he hath, because he hath transgressed against the covenant of the LORD, and because he hath wrought folly in Israel".

The passage is clear, that whoever out of Israel who took the accursed thing would be burnt and all that he has with him. Sorry, but no Cigar !”

The verses that I quoted says that this was a factor in God's decision to judge. Thus, a fair reading would be that, of all the sinners, these were selected to be judged for their own sins, where taking the accursed objects was a factor in the decision.

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223783

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dshipp17 said:

@king_saturn:

That 1 Chronicles 21 doesn't mention that Israel was not innocent doesn't make any difference, at all, since they were still in close proximity to my citing of earlier chapters of 1 Chronicles 21 and 1 Chronicles 21 says that Satan rose up against Israel, meaning that this included his tempting them into sin, which they succumbed; thus, it was an accumulation of ongoing and continuous sin. Here, it doesn't have to be an either or situation, as the Bible doesn't specify it to be that way. Thus, of the two, David was clearly less in sin and had just committed a transgression that involved the census. Thus, God punished Israel as a teaching lesson for David and punished Israel for their own ongoing sin, picking each for their individual sins, possibly even specifically targeting 70,000 of the ones who were planning a rebellion against David. But, again, as it's an abbreviation, meaning that lots of context is missing, it's just not wise to use this and attempt to accuse God under these circumstances, particularly and especially; keep in mind, James 1:13 and related verses to avoid the sin of deviation and imagination. On top of this, God was also exercising His right to bring down judgment on humanity at this given time.

Dude, it literally says in 1 Chronicles 21:1 what Satan did when he rose up against Israel. The passage says this 1 Chronicles 21:1 "Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census". When Satan rose up against Israel, there is no evidence of wrong doing of Israel at that point, that's why he incited David to take the Census because David take the census unlawfully would bring guilt upon Israel for David's sin. As a matter of fact here in 1 Chronicles 21:3 Joab says that David doing this census would bring guilt upon Israel. GOD did not punish Israel for their sin, GOD punished Israel for the Sin of David. It literally says in 1 Chronicles 21:7, that GOD punished Israel for the command that David gave.

It was based on David's sin that God took this opportunity to rein down judgment on all of the guilty parties for each of their own sins. It was a teaching lesson and and opportunity for God to chasten David for his sins and another opportunity to punish others for their ongoing and continuous sins. 2 Samuel 24:1 begins with the anger of the Lord being kindled against Israel and ongoing sin for some extended period of time is what provoked God.

No Sir, the guilt came upon Israel after David took the unlawful Census. It literally says this in 1 Chronicles 21:3 when Joab was getting ready to number Israel. Please, read the passage again. Yeah, 2 Samuel 24 does say GOD was angry with Israel, it also says that GOD incited David to sin. You really want to keep going with this ?

No, this couldn't be correct and isn't correct; you were trying to make a point that it was God who incited David to take the census and that God had killed 70,000 for both inciting David to sin and for David's sin. And, you kept trying to making this case stick, even in the face of 1 Chronicles 21 and many persuasive arguments by several posters to make you see things otherwise; it is only now that you say that you preferred the 1 Chronicles 21 account and you've been quoted multiple times in this vein; you only altered some by saying that God used Satan to do His dirty work so as to ultimately relieve Satan of both his actions and something that is very clearly within his character to instead accuse God of something that is not within His character. You only used 1 Chronicles as a vehicle towards this end and always tried to dismiss 1 Chronicles 21:1 specifically. you were essentially, overall, trying to make a case for a Biblical contradiction, which is known to be very damaging within Christian circles and is something that is frequently combated, and also as what sounds like an excommunicated church pastor with an ax to grind, even considering that there are different denominations and something like this wouldn't even damage your salvation except in the eyes of your own previous denomination, whatever that might have been; basically just a personal dispute between yourself and someone who knows you better, besides God, of course.

Yes I Did, that's because You kept saying that GOD was Angry with Israel beforehand. Those words are only in the 2 Samuel 24 account just as GOD encouraging David to sin is in the 2 Samuel 24 account. I kept it up because You kept on about GOD being angry with Israel. I said beforehand that I thought 2 Samuel 24:1 was fishy. Uh, No I did not. I mentioned several times to you about 1 Chronicles 21:7 and how it shows that GOD punished Israel for the sin of David. I said this several times. Well what is it other than a Bible Contradiction ? How can one passage say that GOD encouraged David to sin and the other say Satan did ?

Please, don't do this to me. I've never, ever tried in anyway to do this and even viewing a brief clip or reading beyond something like about a paragraph of material from organizations claiming to be devil worshipers agitates me, pains me, disgusted me, and tends to rein down punishment from Heaven on me; I don't even read things from them, if I can help it; sometimes, or in the past, I would read stuff which could even include white supremacists to examine how they like to view things; I only looked at maybe up to about 30 minutes of stuff from devil worshipers, but, when I did, I just thought of ways to strongly disagree with what they were saying. And this is from all sincerity, honesty, and contrition. I'm God's advocate, only.

It was a Joke... because I had caught you slipping.


The verses that I quoted says that this was a factor in God's decision to judge. Thus, a fair reading would be that, of all the sinners, these were selected to be judged for their own sins, where taking the accursed objects was a factor in the decision.

The verses you quoted was only part of the explanation of what GOD was getting ready to do about the one who stole the accursed thing. Joshua 7:15 is the direct command of what GOD wanted done to the actual person who had stolen.

Avatar image for menos_kegare
Menos_Kegare

1084

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@spareheadone said:

@menos_kegare:

Never read it

What are your thoughts?

Currently reading it. It's quite interesting.

I finished reading it and forgot to comment on this again.

It's pretty cool, the main focus is on Jesus' descent into Hell to conquer the grave and bring up the chosen dead into paradise.

It also gives a curious depiction of that aspect of the afterlife, with a few mentions at an entity supposedly under the name "Hades"(and it wasn't the standard Greek translation of the land of the dead in other biblical references, but an actual entity that was conversing with Satan).

Example excerpt:

And as Prince Satan and Hades were thus speaking to each other in turn, suddenly there was a voice as of thunders, and a shouting of spirits: Lift up your gates, ye princes; and be ye lifted up, ye everlasting gates; and the King of glory shall come in. Hades hearing this, said to Prince Satan: Retire from me, and go outside of my realms: if thou art a powerful warrior, fight against the King of glory. But what hast thou to do with Him? And Hades thrust Satan outside of his realms. And Hades said to his impious officers: Shut the cruel gates of brass, and put up the bars of iron, and resist bravely, that we, holding captivity, may not take Him captive.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8728

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@menos_kegare:

Ah that's cool

So that's like Zeuses brother I guess

My take on hades is that it is the soul/ghost of the universe

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8728

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28264  Edited By SpareHeadOne

Damning Damnation

Matthew 3

7But when John saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his place of baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8Therefore produce fruit worthy of repentance. 9And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10The ax lies ready at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

But the roots and stump remain.

Job 14

7For there is hope for a tree: If it is cut down, it will sprout again, and its tender shoots will not fail. 8If its roots grow old in the ground and its stump dies in the soil, 9at the scent of water it will bud and put forth twigs like a sapling.

Daniel 4

22you, O king, are that tree! For you have become great and strong; your greatness has grown to reach the sky, and your dominion extends to the ends of the earth. 23 you, O king, saw a watcher, a holy one, coming down from heaven and saying:

Cut down the tree and destroy it,

but leave the stump with its roots in the ground,

and a band of iron and bronze around it,

in the tender grass of the field.

Let him be drenched with the dew of heaven,

and graze with the beasts of the field

till seven times pass him by.’

24This is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree that the Most High has issued against my lord the king: 25You will be driven away from mankind, and your dwelling will be with the beasts of the field. You will feed on grass like an ox and be drenched with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass you by, until you acknowledge that the Most High is ruler over the kingdom of mankind, and He gives it to whom He wishes. 26As for the command to leave the stump of the tree with its roots, your kingdom will be restored to you as soon as you acknowledge that Heaven rules. 27Therefore, may my advice be pleasing to you, O king. Break away from your sins by doing what is right, and from your iniquities by showing mercy to the oppressed. Perhaps there will be an extension of your prosperity.”

Isaiah 6

13And though a tenth remains in the land, it will be burned again. As the terebinth and oak leave stumps when felled,so the holy seed will be a stump in the land.”

-

Remember John is setting the Pharisees and Sadduceesstraight about BAPTISM.

John is talking to people who are already God's people. At no point does he switch to talking about the saved and the unsaved or the good people and the evil people.

John's point to these Jews is that Jesus is going to thresh us all.

If you don't produce fruit in keeping with repentance, then you are holding on to your chaff and it will be more unpleasant for you when you are being threshed.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8728

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

heh i've been thinking the same for some time now... she's basically saying some people are too dumb to get it! lol

@flashfyr: hey it's nice to see you again! it's almost strange to see a voice of reason here, but anyway good job and good luck at uni, i entirely agree with your analysis of this thread

Avatar image for jonjizz
jonjizz

1899

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28266  Edited By jonjizz

lol freud had no chill

No Caption Provided

he was absolutely right though

Avatar image for king_majestros
King_Majestros

2640

Forum Posts

33

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@jonjizz: It still baffles me to this day how a large majority of Humanity believes in something that doesn't and hasn't ever existed. All deities, as I've known of them, has yet to prove themselves real; which begs the question... if they ultimately have the power to, why haven't/won't they? And it's always responded with, "why do they have to?" or, "they will when the moment is right," and even, "you have to believe in them first."

Avatar image for menos_kegare
Menos_Kegare

1084

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@jonjizz: I mean, Freud had his own unique problems.... lol

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8728

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@menos_kegare:

Too true.

And what did Freud mean by that statement? There is no context.

I mean you can rise above religion without becoming a know it all rabid anti-theistic naturalistic materialistic reductionist.

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

6122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#28270  Edited By dshipp17

@king_saturn:

“When Satan rose up against Israel, there is no evidence of wrong doing of Israel at that point, that's why he incited David to take the Census because David take the census unlawfully would bring guilt upon Israel for David's sin. As a matter of fact here in 1 Chronicles 21:3 Joab says that David doing this census would bring guilt upon Israel.”

And 2 Samuel 24:3 says that Joab was questing David's delighting in numbering Israel: And Joab said unto the king, Now the Lord thy God add unto the people, how many soever they be, an hundredfold, and that the eyes of my lord the king may see it: but why doth my lord the king delight in this thing?

2 Samuel 3:27, 18:14, 15:1-12, 20:1-2, 20:10 make clear that Israel was already in sin, at the time of this event; the Bible doesn't describe Israel being purged from their sins in any way, by the time of this event. Just use commonsense and logic to know that Israel was in sin.

“The verses you quoted was only part of the explanation of what GOD was getting ready to do about the one who stole the accursed thing. Joshua 7:15 is the direct command of what GOD wanted done to the actual person who had stolen.”

Again, you're just repeating yourself without listening and taking into consideration as to what you were told; thus, in the prior comment, that should suffice as an adequate response. Joshua 7:10-14 is critical for context and tells us more about what motivated God to take the action that He took.

Loading Video...

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223783

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dshipp17 said:

@king_saturn:

And 2 Samuel 24:3 says that Joab was questing David's delighting in numbering Israel: And Joab said unto the king, Now the Lord thy God add unto the people, how many soever they be, an hundredfold, and that the eyes of my lord the king may see it: but why doth my lord the king delight in this thing?

2 Samuel 24:3 is about King David delighting in numbering Israel. This is not evidence that Israel themselves was in the wrong at this point. This is actually what led to GOD punishing Israel, David taking the Census. Also, why did you use 2 Samuel 24 anyways ? Did, we not already go over how the passage says GOD incited David to Sin enough times ?

2 Samuel 3:27, 18:14, 15:1-12, 20:1-2, 20:10 make clear that Israel was already in sin, at the time of this event; the Bible doesn't describe Israel being purged from their sins in any way, by the time of this event. Just use commonsense and logic to know that Israel was in sin.

2 Samuel does have instances where Israel had been in Sin. 2 Samuel also has GOD encouraging David to sin and then in turn punishing Israel. At the point of King David punishing Israel, Israel had not been sinning at that point. It's clear because the passage itself explains how after David numbered Israel guilt would come upon the Nation. Also, 1 Chronicles 21 explains exactly why GOD punished Israel, it was because of the Census not Israel's sin. If Israel had been sinning at that point what would be the point of explaining this story as David taking an unlawful Census to punish Israel ? Why is it not instead written as GOD punishing Israel under it's own Sins instead ?

Again, you're just repeating yourself without listening and taking into consideration as to what you were told; thus, in the prior comment, that should suffice as an adequate response. Joshua 7:10-14 is critical for context and tells us more about what motivated God to take the action that He took.

Well it does not suffice, as Joshua 7:15 explains exactly what was to happen to the person who stole the accursed thing. Besides, what is even explained in Joshua 7 that makes GOD having Achan's sons and daughters killed off justice ? All that is stated is that Israel had done something very bad. Then Joshua 7:15 explains how it was an individual who had done this and what makes it even worse is Achan confesses to his sin and how he himself had done this bad thing. GOD still had no mercy on him or his children.

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

6122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Luke 22:3-38; 66-71:

Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.

4 And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.

5 And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money.

6 And he promised, and sought opportunity to betray him unto them in the absence of the multitude.

7 Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.

8 And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.

9 And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare?

10 And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in.

11 And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?

12 And he shall shew you a large upper room furnished: there make ready.

13 And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.

14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.

15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:

18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

21 But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.

22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!

23 And they began to enquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing.

24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.

25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.

28 Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.

29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;

30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

33 And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death.

34 And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.

35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying,

67 Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe:

68 And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go.

69 Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.

70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.

71 And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

Loading Video...
Loading Video...

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

6122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#28273  Edited By dshipp17

@king_saturn:

“2 Samuel 24:3 is about King David delighting in numbering Israel. This is not evidence that Israel themselves was in the wrong at this point. This is actually what led to GOD punishing Israel, David taking the Census.”

The evidence that Israel was in sin in this particular incident was 2 Samuel 24:1, as the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel; and, my previous posts were the Scripture that show that Israel was in sin. The sin involving the census was not the sole reason for God punishing Israel. As previously said, the sin involving the census was an opportunity to send a teaching lesson to David and to punish Israel for it's ongoing sin; the census is also an indicator that David had abandoned God in favor of his army, which also displeased God; David was numbering his army in a proud state of mind.

“Also, why did you use 2 Samuel 24 anyways ? Did, we not already go over how the passage says GOD incited David to Sin enough times ?”

Well, why did you use 1 Chronicles 21:3? A logical question since you're only repeating yourself, despite the explanations that you are getting. As far as the controversy as to whether it was God or Satan who incited the census, God just sent me the answer (or, another answer, considering it has been provided); note that in both 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21, Joab is trying to persuade David not to go forward with the census; as Joab was acting as a messenger of God at the time, this was a final warning from God to David not to go through with the census; thus, this is another indicator that it wasn't God who incited David to take the census. As previously stated, I used the Job incident as a mechanism to try to explain, but, also, things are abbreviated and material is missing; also, something else from the message, another explanation for the discrepancy is mistakes in the translation process.

“If Israel had been sinning at that point what would be the point of explaining this story as David taking an unlawful Census to punish Israel ? Why is it not instead written as GOD punishing Israel under it's own Sins instead ?”

2 Samuel 24 had already explained that Israel was in sin and 2 Samuel 24:1 is evidence that they were still in ongoing sin, at the time of the sin incident involving the census. This second account was to chronicle the incident, obviously, but, added the glaring clarification that it was actually Satan who tempted David to take the census, but, the full context of the actual sin is missing and so unknown, as already explained for you. 2 Samuel 24 clarifies that both David and Israel were getting a lesson from God, but, for separate reasons.

“Well it does not suffice, as Joshua 7:15 explains exactly what was to happen to the person who stole the accursed thing.”

This was covered before, when I explained to you that Joshua 7:10-14 shows that the accursed object was one factor among several that motivated God's decision.

“Then Joshua 7:15 explains how it was an individual who had done this and what makes it even worse is Achan confesses to his sin and how he himself had done this bad thing. GOD still had no mercy on him or his children.”

You have to confess with contrition for God to show you mercy. As God knew each of their individual thoughts, that is sufficient answer to explain the reason that God took the course of action explained: God watched the whole plan develop and so knew all that He needed to know in order to lay down judgment on the individuals involved. Also, God was at a point where He had to set examples, as, at that point, He had just recently established the Law; poor and unfortunate timing were also factors, I guess. But, now, we're in the New Testament; God is in a state to show blanket mercy, because Jesus took our sins upon Himself; all one has to do is be lead by John 3:16 to become a genuine Christian and go before God in prayer according to both the Lord's Prayer and 1 John 1:9, with the proper frame of mind and contrition, obviously.

Avatar image for jonjizz
jonjizz

1899

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28274  Edited By jonjizz

@king_majestros: yeah! i guess it's because we (humans) generally want to believe in it/would like it to be true

@menos_kegare: lol i can't argue with that, but imo he's one of those people that, despite his wild theories, oftentimes was just spot-on

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223783

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dshipp17 said:

@king_saturn:

The evidence that Israel was in sin in this particular incident was 2 Samuel 24:1, as the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel; and, my previous posts were the Scripture that show that Israel was in sin. The sin involving the census was not the sole reason for God punishing Israel. As previously said, the sin involving the census was an opportunity to send a teaching lesson to David and to punish Israel for it's ongoing sin; the census is also an indicator that David had abandoned God in favor of his army, which also displeased God; David was numbering his army in a proud state of mind.

The passage in 2 Samuel 24:1 says that the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel so he incited David to take a Census. The passage says that GOD incited David to take the unlawful census. GOD encouraged David to sin, now why would he do that if his character is Good ? That is and has been the problem with using this passage. It makes no sense. It would however make sense if GOD punished Israel minus encouraging David to take a Census. Then you would have something. Your last line is correct, it only adds fuel to my point though. GOD punished Israel for David's sin not their own sins. 1 Chronicles 21:7 kills any argument you have here that and the fact that the passage you use to show how GOD was angry at Israel also shows that GOD encouraged David to sin.

Well, why did you use 1 Chronicles 21:3? A logical question since you're only repeating yourself, despite the explanations that you are getting. As far as the controversy as to whether it was God or Satan who incited the census, God just sent me the answer (or, another answer, considering it has been provided); note that in both 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21, Joab is trying to persuade David not to go forward with the census; as Joab was acting as a messenger of God at the time, this was a final warning from God to David not to go through with the census; thus, this is another indicator that it wasn't God who incited David to take the census. As previously stated, I used the Job incident as a mechanism to try to explain, but, also, things are abbreviated and material is missing; also, something else from the message, another explanation for the discrepancy is mistakes in the translation process.

I used 1 Chronicles 21:3 for clarity on the situation. It shows how David's sin brought guilt upon Israel, and GOD was not angry with Israel beforehand in this account. In any case, whoever you believe incited the Census it does not change the fact that it was David's census that caused GOD to punish Israel and not their own sins. It's made clear in the account itself.

2 Samuel 24 had already explained that Israel was in sin and 2 Samuel 24:1 is evidence that they were still in ongoing sin, at the time of the sin incident involving the census. This second account was to chronicle the incident, obviously, but, added the glaring clarification that it was actually Satan who tempted David to take the census, but, the full context of the actual sin is missing and so unknown, as already explained for you. 2 Samuel 24 clarifies that both David and Israel were getting a lesson from God, but, for separate reasons.

You did not understand the question. The point was if GOD was angry at Israel beforehand, why did he need David to sin with the Census before he would act judgment upon Israel ? It's made clear in the account itself that GOD punished Israel because of what David had done wrong not what Israel was doing.

This was covered before, when I explained to you that Joshua 7:10-14 shows that the accursed object was one factor among several that motivated God's decision.

It's the most important factor though, because if Achan never steals the accursed thing, none of this happens.

You have to confess with contrition for God to show you mercy. As God knew each of their individual thoughts, that is sufficient answer to explain the reason that God took the course of action explained: God watched the whole plan develop and so knew all that He needed to know in order to lay down judgment on the individuals involved. Also, God was at a point where He had to set examples, as, at that point, He had just recently established the Law; poor and unfortunate timing were also factors, I guess. But, now, we're in the New Testament; God is in a state to show blanket mercy, because Jesus took our sins upon Himself; all one has to do is be lead by John 3:16 to become a genuine Christian and go before God in prayer according to both the Lord's Prayer and 1 John 1:9, with the proper frame of mind and contrition, obviously.

There is no evidence in the passage that Achan's sons and daughters had done something wrong to be contrite to GOD about. The passage in Joshua 7 has Achan's confession of how he had stole the accursed thing as well as GOD himself lays down the penalty of how the person who had done thing would be punished as all that this person has would be burnt, which is one heck of a penalty. There was no window for Achan to repent. He was to be killed because GOD had commanded it so.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8728

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I have step kids who often lie in order to defend their biological Father.

They also are not willing to acknowledge things that are blatantly true in defence of their family name.

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

6122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#28277  Edited By dshipp17

@king_saturn:

“The passage in 2 Samuel 24:1 says that the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel so he incited David to take a Census. The passage says that GOD incited David to take the unlawful census. GOD encouraged David to sin, now why would he do that if his character is Good ? That is and has been the problem with using this passage. It makes no sense.”

Because, as previously explained, this is similar to the way that everyone, including Job himself, were attributing Job's hardship to God, when, in fact, the entire context showed that Job's hardship was due to the actions of Satan. Also, as previously explained in several iterations now, this is an abbreviation of things; we're missing the entire context and description (e.g. this would be like taking the the part showing where God affirmed Job's good character to Satan, between Job 1:12 and Job chapter 2, and the part where God was happy that Job had maintained his integrity, despite Satan's actions; basically, without the full description, this is precisely what is happening in 2 Samuel 24:1). 1 Chronicles 21:1 has told us that inciting the census was the actions of Satan, not God. But, the anger of God was kindled against Israel for at least the reasons described in the passages that I'd previously cited for you. Your point that 2 Samuel 24 was somehow a completely different incident that could be viewed in isolation just doesn't fly, at all, for someone who is an adult and is giving it a reasonable effort to understanding what is going on; thus, the next best thing would be, at least, to assume that the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel for the reasons given in the earlier chapters of 2 Samuel that I cited and possibly even something else by or simultaneously with 2 Samuel 24:1. Additionally, I added the part where Joab, acting as a messenger of God, where something in his spirit is causing him pause about this specific action of David, is trying to persuade David not to proceed with the census; thus, trying to accuse God of inciting the census is the part that has to go, otherwise, it makes sense, where we to try reconciling things with James 1:13, as God's true character; it only makes no sense to you now, since you continue to fail to pay attention to what you've been told as the explanations for your points and questions.

“GOD punished Israel for David's sin not their own sins. 1 Chronicles 21:7 kills any argument you have here that and the fact that the passage you use to show how GOD was angry at Israel also shows that GOD encouraged David to sin.”

2 Samuel 24:1 says that the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel; thus, this is only correct if Israel was in sin. I cited earlier verses of 2 Samuel showing that they were in sin, heading into 2 Samuel 24:1, where something else may have accumulated on top of those verses. God punished both David and Israel for each of their sins, not for the sins of David, only. In the corollary verse in 2 Samuel 24, it reads 2 Samuel 24:10: And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the Lord, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O Lord, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.

“I used 1 Chronicles 21:3 for clarity on the situation.”

Ok, so I used 2 Samuel 24:3 for further clarity that was required.

“It shows how David's sin brought guilt upon Israel, and GOD was not angry with Israel beforehand in this account.”

Sure He was, from 2 Samuel 24:1, God's anger was kindling against Israel.

“You did not understand the question. The point was if GOD was angry at Israel beforehand, why did he need David to sin with the Census before he would act judgment upon Israel ?”

Because, God had several purposes, while you're trying to limit God's motive to David's decision to take the census. Previously, I explained to you that God is long suffering and not quick to punish; so, trying to argue against this point, while failing to give regard to things that you're being told, you've caught yourself, thinking that you caught me. Some of God's purposes were to give Israel opportunities to repent of their sins, after becoming contrite and confessing their sins, an opportunity to offer blood sacrifices (e.g. likely, the Jews was breaking laws from back in Exodus as to how frequently they had to be making blood sacrifices as a just in case against possible sins), and, thinking back to Job, even to test David as to whether he would succumb to Satan's temptation to take the census, and not listen to the warnings from Joab, as a few motives; there were probably, or likely, even more motives for God's delay, which may instead be the explanation; again, the full description has been edited away or lost over time, so, the full context is just simply not there to know whether these were God's motives, whether there were other motives, altogether, or whether these were just a few of the motives, but, Israel was clearly in sin by the time of God's decision, and was not contrite about the sins. As you read the Old Testament leading into 2 Samuel, and heading into Daniel, you'll note that the Jews appeared to be becoming increasingly frustrated and gradually and more easily succumbed to different opportunities to sin; thus, this is an explanation for the Jews' lack of contrition.

“There is no evidence in the passage that Achan's sons and daughters had done something wrong to be contrite to GOD about.”

Yes, there is; the evidence has to be inferred from Joshua 7:10-14, however; it comes from God calling for Joshua to organize the Jews into family groups to narrow down the suspects; and, additionally, because God knew each individual and it is not within God's character to punish innocent people for the sins of others.

“There was no window for Achan to repent. He was to be killed because GOD had commanded it so.”

It played out this way, however, because God knew Achan's heart, despite his outward appearance of giving a confession; God understood all the way back to the planning stages between Achan and his family members. And, also, God had to set an example for disobedience; also, we have Saul to compare to Achan, as showing whether he was truly contrite and had truly confessed. What I can gather is that Achan apparently thought that he was able to hide his guilt away from God, somehow; he wanted to test his theory, ultimately, being motivated by greed.

Avatar image for abstractraze
AbstractRaze

3665

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28278  Edited By AbstractRaze

Great applause to the American Heathens from the Asatru movement which took part of the Second Amendment rally in Richmond Virginia 20.01.2020.

No Caption Provided

No Caption Provided

From the depths of Walhalla, the force of the Gods reaches all corners on earth, enlightening and strengthening their sons, the gods are not resented because we forgot them, but rather they never ceased to give us up, they always lived in us.

After the first Nordic generations died, the all-father Wotan began to take form, no matter how brainwashed we are, all those false ideologies are a facade, a curtain in order to make us vulnerable, afraid and weak, the truth comes always afloat.

All this time while leading this pitiful agnostic perspective about god, I always felt that something was missing, when I saw Christianity, I only saw chains, pain and was afraid of them, because I'm free, until I discovered the deep importance of Heathenry and its freedom.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8728

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@abstractraze:

I trained for thirty years to kill people. Am I free ?

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223783

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dshipp17 said:

@king_saturn:

Because, as previously explained, this is similar to the way that everyone, including Job himself, were attributing Job's hardship to God, when, in fact, the entire context showed that Job's hardship was due to the actions of Satan. Also, as previously explained in several iterations now, this is an abbreviation of things; we're missing the entire context and description (e.g. this would be like taking the the part showing where God affirmed Job's good character to Satan, between Job 1:12 and Job chapter 2, and the part where God was happy that Job had maintained his integrity, despite Satan's actions; basically, without the full description, this is precisely what is happening in 2 Samuel 24:1). 1 Chronicles 21:1 has told us that inciting the census was the actions of Satan, not God. But, the anger of God was kindled against Israel for at least the reasons described in the passages that I'd previously cited for you. Your point that 2 Samuel 24 was somehow a completely different incident that could be viewed in isolation just doesn't fly, at all, for someone who is an adult and is giving it a reasonable effort to understanding what is going on; thus, the next best thing would be, at least, to assume that the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel for the reasons given in the earlier chapters of 2 Samuel that I cited and possibly even something else by or simultaneously with 2 Samuel 24:1. Additionally, I added the part where Joab, acting as a messenger of God, where something in his spirit is causing him pause about this specific action of David, is trying to persuade David not to proceed with the census; thus, trying to accuse God of inciting the census is the part that has to go, otherwise, it makes sense, where we to try reconciling things with James 1:13, as God's true character; it only makes no sense to you now, since you continue to fail to pay attention to what you've been told as the explanations for your points and questions.

Job's hardships was because of GOD though. Who controlled the rules into which Satan could torment Job ? Who bragged on Job and was willing to wager with Satan about Job's life ? It was GOD. None of this happens unless GOD allows it to. 1 Chronicles 21 also tells us that GOD punishes Israel because of David's sin, not what Israel had done. 2 Samuel 24 says GOD encouraged David to sin, so why do you keep using it ? Again, if GOD was so angry at Israel before what was the point of having David take an unlawful census to punish them ? The passage literally says in 2 Samuel 24:1 that he ( GOD ) incited David to take a Census. It's not me making up anything. James 1:13, is the writer of James perspective on GOD's character, that does not mean he is Correct. Especially when you consider what is written in Joshua 7, 1 Chronicles 21, Numbers 11, heck, you could even use how GOD had a plague kill all the First Born in Egypt in Exodus. How does this show GOD's character is so Good and not full of Confusion ?

2 Samuel 24:1 says that the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel; thus, this is only correct if Israel was in sin. I cited earlier verses of 2 Samuel showing that they were in sin, heading into 2 Samuel 24:1, where something else may have accumulated on top of those verses. God punished both David and Israel for each of their sins, not for the sins of David, only. In the corollary verse in 2 Samuel 24, it reads 2 Samuel 24:10: And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the Lord, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O Lord, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.

Again, that same scripture says that GOD incited David to sin. There is no evidence that Israel was in sin at the time of David's census. The passage says clearly in 1 Chronicles 21:7 that it was because of David's sin that Israel was punished as well as it says that guilt would be brought upon Israel because of David's sin. Again, you are assuming things, and that's bad considering the passage itself tells you why GOD punished Israel.

Ok, so I used 2 Samuel 24:3 for further clarity that was required.

Yeah whatever....

Sure He was, from 2 Samuel 24:1, God's anger was kindling against Israel.

I was talking about 1 Chronicles 21, it never says that GOD is angry with Israel in that account. The account you are using in 2 Samuel 24 says that GOD incited David to sin. Now you can keep using it, but ultimately the passage is fishy. In any case, both accounts make it clear that Israel was punished for David's sin and not anything they had done wrong. If it was so as you say it, then the passage would have stated that Israel was being punished for something they had done wrong and not something David had done wrong.

Because, God had several purposes, while you're trying to limit God's motive to David's decision to take the census. Previously, I explained to you that God is long suffering and not quick to punish; so, trying to argue against this point, while failing to give regard to things that you're being told, you've caught yourself, thinking that you caught me. Some of God's purposes were to give Israel opportunities to repent of their sins, after becoming contrite and confessing their sins, an opportunity to offer blood sacrifices (e.g. likely, the Jews was breaking laws from back in Exodus as to how frequently they had to be making blood sacrifices as a just in case against possible sins), and, thinking back to Job, even to test David as to whether he would succumb to Satan's temptation to take the census, and not listen to the warnings from Joab, as a few motives; there were probably, or likely, even more motives for God's delay, which may instead be the explanation; again, the full description has been edited away or lost over time, so, the full context is just simply not there to know whether these were God's motives, whether there were other motives, altogether, or whether these were just a few of the motives, but, Israel was clearly in sin by the time of God's decision, and was not contrite about the sins. As you read the Old Testament leading into 2 Samuel, and heading into Daniel, you'll note that the Jews appeared to be becoming increasingly frustrated and gradually and more easily succumbed to different opportunities to sin; thus, this is an explanation for the Jews' lack of contrition.

You are assuming things again. The passage clearly says and shows that GOD punished Israel because of David's sin. It was not about GOD being long suffering. It was about GOD punishing 70,000 People with Death because David messed up. Heck, the passage itself has David crying out saying how he had done wrong but Israel what have they done wrong ? You tried to make an excuse about that but it holds no water. Especially when you consider that Joab in 1 Chronicles 21 says that guilt would be upon Israel because of David numbering the people. The passage is clear. You keep trying to tap dance around what the Bible is telling you.

Yes, there is; the evidence has to be inferred from Joshua 7:10-14, however; it comes from God calling for Joshua to organize the Jews into family groups to narrow down the suspects; and, additionally, because God knew each individual and it is not within God's character to punish innocent people for the sins of others.

Again, you are assuming things. Nothing like that was inferred in Joshua 7:10-14. All that was stated was GOD was angry with Israel because of Achan stealing the accursed thing. Joshua 7:15 spells out what it is GOD wanted done here as punishment. There is no way around this. Not unless you just like spinning the Bible's words.

It played out this way, however, because God knew Achan's heart, despite his outward appearance of giving a confession; God understood all the way back to the planning stages between Achan and his family members. And, also, God had to set an example for disobedience; also, we have Saul to compare to Achan, as showing whether he was truly contrite and had truly confessed. What I can gather is that Achan apparently thought that he was able to hide his guilt away from God, somehow; he wanted to test his theory, ultimately, being motivated by greed.

You are assuming things and making stuff up that is not in the account in Joshua 7. I do not deal with hearsay and opinion when dealing with Bible verses.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8728

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dshipp17:

Remember in the beatitudes, Jesus said "never polish a cabbage with boot polish, you might just end up eating your boots"

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8728

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@king_saturn:

Remember the Lord Yeshua's words....

Matthew 5

…39But I tell you not to tolerate an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn and sidekick him in the guts; 40if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, poison his lawyer before the trial; 41and if someone forces you to go one mile, smash his kneecap with a rock.

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

6122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@king_saturn:

“Job's hardships was because of GOD though. Who controlled the rules into which Satan could torment Job ?”

It's very clear and in plain text that Job's hardship was the direct result of a direct attack on his possessions and his person from Satan. There were no rules placed on Satan. God let up the hedge of protection from around Job and Satan attacked. God set single boundaries on what Satan could do to Job, for Job's protection, knowing the nature of Satan would have been to destroy Job, ultimately and swiftly, quite frankly. Satan made and controlled each of the attacks that he perpetrated against Job; that's just something that is in plain text; these suggestions beyond that is just ill guided and spiteful conjecture on your part that generally has nothing to do, at all, with what is generally explained in mainstream Christianity and what most reasonably minded Christians believe, even Christians, by in large on the topic of Job; you're just simply wrong on this (as it was explained to you in multiple iterations in multiple different ways) and pretty much everything you try to argue concerning what's written in the Bible. And, this is a deviation from the point at hand, which was a demonstration of how context can be altered, when the text is abbreviated, such that 2 Samuel 24:1 is explained by 1 Chronicles 21:1, where the real player in inciting the census was Satan, but, is distorted by the way people wanted to see things; the Bible, being the inspired Word of God, just couldn't let this go by without the clarification brought about by 1 Chronicles 21:1.

“Who bragged on Job and was willing to wager with Satan about Job's life ?”

God complimented Job, which is a very good thing to receive from God by anyone; God actually warned Satan to save Job's life and to not lay his hand on Job, being concerned with preserving Job's life from the very start; an ill-guided and spiteful deviation from the plain text that is just plainly. This receiving compliments from God is likely something that happens for Christians, now days and is the ultimate good thing in the most absolute sense as can happen, as it's an indicator of eternal salvation; wrong.

“1 Chronicles 21 also tells us that GOD punishes Israel because of David's sin, not what Israel had done. 2 Samuel 24 says GOD encouraged David to sin, so why do you keep using it ?”

This is just wrong and isn't correct and accurate, given that this is after multiple iterations now. 1 Chronicles 21 was to show that Satan incited the census and 2 Samuel 24 was to show that Israel was in sin, by the time we reached 2 Samuel 24:1; 1 Chronicles 21 and 2 Samuel 24, taken together, is to show that God gave David every reason to avoid taking the census through the warnings from Joab, where each are necessary to clarify certain issues that come up with your interpretation of these events; this is being used, because you keep distorting Scripture and your ill-guided spite is likely to cause confusion and doubt for young, impressionable minds, as I previously explained in so many words, earlier, where it is my responsibility as a Christian to shield people away from this type of thing. And another clarification that I need to stop from continuing on: 2 Samuel 24:1 doesn't actually say anything like God incited or encouraged David to take the census; this terminology is actually taken from 1 Chronicles 21:1, when describing Satan as the true actor and was implanted by you onto 2 Samuel 24:1.

“Again, if GOD was so angry at Israel before what was the point of having David take an unlawful census to punish them ?”

Some possible multiple points were just explained in the prior response which you are addressing, so, kind of self-explanatory, you just have to read and listen to it; and, again, God probably had multiple motives that either involved what I've explained or others altogether; it's only you in your ill-guided attempts at distortion who is trying to limit God to a single motive that isn't consistent with His character, despite multiple rounds of clarification; you may not understand obvious points because you're being mislead by your own distortions that no one can seem to bring you away from; a suggestion would be to go to (Baptist) church this Sunday, or even later on today, as it's Wednesday Bible study, and have a pastor lay hands on you and rebuked the spirits away from you; the suggestion isn't a presumption, as I've already said that this is the sin of imagination, as you're consistently trying to ascribe a character onto God that is not that of God, where we have Bible Scripture such as James 1:13 to support my position here.

“The passage literally says in 2 Samuel 24:1 that he ( GOD ) incited David to take a Census. It's not me making up anything.”

No, it doesn't; as I just said, you took the work incited from 1 Chronicles 21:1 and implanted here in 2 Samuel 24:1. and, it was explained that literally, some of the passage is missing, due to abbreviation, which can make a drastic difference in terms of context, where I used Job as an illustration for you.

“James 1:13, is the writer of James perspective on GOD's character, that does not mean he is Correct.”

James 1:13 is both consistent with other verses from the Bible and, so, is also the inspired Word of God, not even James own perspective. Some related verses: Ecclesiastes 7:29, John 8:44, Romans 8:28, 1 Corinthians 14:33, and 1 John 1:5.

“Especially when you consider what is written in Joshua 7, 1 Chronicles 21, Numbers 11, heck, you could even use how GOD had a plague kill all the First Born in Egypt in Exodus. How does this show GOD's character is so Good and not full of Confusion ?”

Here, again, you're confused by your own distortion and these distortions were explained away in multiple iterations; you don't seem to realize or understand that you're only repeating yourself without regard to the explanations that you've been receiving. God exercises good through judging the sinful and wicked.

“The passage says clearly in 1 Chronicles 21:7 that it was because of David's sin that Israel was punished as well as it says that guilt would be brought upon Israel because of David's sin.”

This is your getting confused in your own distortions again; what 1 Chronicles 21:7 actually says is and God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel, but 2 Samuel 24:10 says And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.

“In any case, both accounts make it clear that Israel was punished for David's sin and not anything they had done wrong.”

Not at all; both 1 Chronicles 21:1 and 2 Samuel 24 show Joab trying to persuade David not to go forward with the census, as a messenger of God; 2 Samuel 24 makes clear that Israel was in sin, at the time that they were punished; but, punishing Israel was also a way of God addressing David's transgression in response to his contrition for his mistake that he started to understand, afterwards.

“You are assuming things again.”

God having purposes and justifications behiund his jusdgments is certainly not my assuming things; an intelligent being, down to people, having a purpose behind a decisiobn is just a logical extension to be drawn. But, here, we're interpreting the Bible to make sense of the purposes behind God's decisions.

“Heck, the passage itself has David crying out saying how he had done wrong but Israel what have they done wrong ?”

This was something explained to you several iterations again by way of an illustration with Job; David and Job assumed things which were not the actual state of affairs. 2 Samuel 24:1 makes clear that Israel was still in sin, while they were continually in sin from the earlier verses that I referenced.

“Especially when you consider that Joab in 1 Chronicles 21 says that guilt would be upon Israel because of David numbering the people.”

The actual purpose of Joab was to warn David away from taking the census by God., as is also consistent with 2 Samuel 24.

“Again, you are assuming things. Nothing like that was inferred in Joshua 7:10-14.”

It most certainly does: In the morning therefore ye shall be brought according to your tribes: and it shall be, that the tribe which the Lord taketh shall come according to the families thereof; and the family which the Lord shall take shall come by households; and the household which the Lord shall take shall come man by man.

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

6122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#28284  Edited By dshipp17

@spareheadone said:

@dshipp17:

Remember in the beatitudes, Jesus said "never polish a cabbage with boot polish, you might just end up eating your boots"

I'm afraid that I can't remember this from the Bible; where in the Bible?

Taylor Swift and her mother, Andrea, now need an intercessory prayer for the healing of Swift's mother's body in the brain area: Taylor Swift reveals mom has brain tumor

Loading Video...

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223783

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dshipp17 said:

@king_saturn:

It's very clear and in plain text that Job's hardship was the direct result of a direct attack on his possessions and his person from Satan. There were no rules placed on Satan. God let up the hedge of protection from around Job and Satan attacked. God set single boundaries on what Satan could do to Job, for Job's protection, knowing the nature of Satan would have been to destroy Job, ultimately and swiftly, quite frankly. Satan made and controlled each of the attacks that he perpetrated against Job; that's just something that is in plain text; these suggestions beyond that is just ill guided and spiteful conjecture on your part that generally has nothing to do, at all, with what is generally explained in mainstream Christianity and what most reasonably minded Christians believe, even Christians, by in large on the topic of Job; you're just simply wrong on this (as it was explained to you in multiple iterations in multiple different ways) and pretty much everything you try to argue concerning what's written in the Bible. And, this is a deviation from the point at hand, which was a demonstration of how context can be altered, when the text is abbreviated, such that 2 Samuel 24:1 is explained by 1 Chronicles 21:1, where the real player in inciting the census was Satan, but, is distorted by the way people wanted to see things; the Bible, being the inspired Word of God, just couldn't let this go by without the clarification brought about by 1 Chronicles 21:1.

No. In the story it was GOD who allowed Satan to torment Job after GOD bragged about Job to Satan. GOD basically wagered with Satan on whether Job would stay faithful to him if he brought disaster to him. GOD literally gave Satan power to punish Job, it says in Job 1:12 "And the LORD said, Behold all that he has is in thy power, only upon himself put not forth thy hand". That's GOD giving Satan power to torment Job. Satan did not just come out himself and start tormenting Job, GOD gave him the power to do so and this was after GOD bragged on Job about how Good he was. None of this happens unless GOD allows it to. I don't care what mainstream Christians believe, I care what is in the Texts. 2 Samuel 24 is not explained by 1 Chronicles 21. 1 Chronicles 21 says that Satan rose up against Israel and he incited David to take a Census. 2 Samuel 24 starts off with GOD was angry with Israel and he (GOD) incited David to take a Census. The accounts are different and since 1 Chronicles 21 never says GOD is angry with Israel or that GOD allowed Satan's hand to rise against Israel, you are stretching the accounts... again.

God complimented Job, which is a very good thing to receive from God by anyone; God actually warned Satan to save Job's life and to not lay his hand on Job, being concerned with preserving Job's life from the very start; an ill-guided and spiteful deviation from the plain text that is just plainly. This receiving compliments from God is likely something that happens for Christians, now days and is the ultimate good thing in the most absolute sense as can happen, as it's an indicator of eternal salvation; wrong.

GOD didn't just compliment Job. GOD bragged about Job to his worst of enemies in Satan and Satan took the opportunity to wager on Job's goodness towards GOD. GOD was willing to wager with Job's life over someone who literally waged War against him in Heaven. That's what makes it Insane.

This is just wrong and isn't correct and accurate, given that this is after multiple iterations now. 1 Chronicles 21 was to show that Satan incited the census and 2 Samuel 24 was to show that Israel was in sin, by the time we reached 2 Samuel 24:1; 1 Chronicles 21 and 2 Samuel 24, taken together, is to show that God gave David every reason to avoid taking the census through the warnings from Joab, where each are necessary to clarify certain issues that come up with your interpretation of these events; this is being used, because you keep distorting Scripture and your ill-guided spite is likely to cause confusion and doubt for young, impressionable minds, as I previously explained in so many words, earlier, where it is my responsibility as a Christian to shield people away from this type of thing. And another clarification that I need to stop from continuing on: 2 Samuel 24:1 doesn't actually say anything like God incited or encouraged David to take the census; this terminology is actually taken from 1 Chronicles 21:1, when describing Satan as the true actor and was implanted by you onto 2 Samuel 24:1.

You are lying again. 2 Samuel 24 says in the passage itself that it was GOD who incited the Census and 1 Chronicles 21 never says that GOD was angry with Israel beforehand. This is where you are stretching the scriptures to fit your own ideas. Heck, 1 Chronicles 21:7 clearly says why GOD punished Israel for David's sin and you seem to keep overlooking this for whatever reason. Both accounts make it clear that GOD punished Israel for David's sin and nothing else.

Some possible multiple points were just explained in the prior response which you are addressing, so, kind of self-explanatory, you just have to read and listen to it; and, again, God probably had multiple motives that either involved what I've explained or others altogether; it's only you in your ill-guided attempts at distortion who is trying to limit God to a single motive that isn't consistent with His character, despite multiple rounds of clarification; you may not understand obvious points because you're being mislead by your own distortions that no one can seem to bring you away from; a suggestion would be to go to (Baptist) church this Sunday, or even later on today, as it's Wednesday Bible study, and have a pastor lay hands on you and rebuked the spirits away from you; the suggestion isn't a presumption, as I've already said that this is the sin of imagination, as you're consistently trying to ascribe a character onto God that is not that of God, where we have Bible Scripture such as James 1:13 to support my position here.

Here again you are assuming things when the answer is right in front of you. The passage makes it clear that it was David's unlawful census as to why GOD punished Israel. It flat out says it in 1 Chronicles 21:7. How the heck can I be distorting things when this is exactly what the passage says ?

1 Chronicles 21:6 "But Joab did not include Levi and Benjamin in the numbering, because the King's command was repulsive to him"

1 Chronicles 21:7 "This command was also evil in the sight of the LORD, so he punished Israel"

Now explain to me how this is imagining things ?

No, it doesn't; as I just said, you took the work incited from 1 Chronicles 21:1 and implanted here in 2 Samuel 24:1. and, it was explained that literally, some of the passage is missing, due to abbreviation, which can make a drastic difference in terms of context, where I used Job as an illustration for you.

I am starting to wonder if you read the Bible now. This is literally what the passage says in 2 Samuel 24:1

2 Samuel 24:1 "And again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel and he (GOD) incited David against them saying, Go and take a Census of Israel and Judah" NIV

https://www.bible.com/bible/111/2SA.24.NIV

How do you know things are missing from the passages ?

James 1:13 is both consistent with other verses from the Bible and, so, is also the inspired Word of God, not even James own perspective. Some related verses: Ecclesiastes 7:29, John 8:44, Romans 8:28, 1 Corinthians 14:33, and 1 John 1:5.

And other verses are consistent with GOD's character being Inconsistent.

Here, again, you're confused by your own distortion and these distortions were explained away in multiple iterations; you don't seem to realize or understand that you're only repeating yourself without regard to the explanations that you've been receiving. God exercises good through judging the sinful and wicked.

The explanations you have given are Awful. The idea that GOD exercises Good through burning up people because they complain about not having Food or GOD exercises Good by having thousands of people killed because 1 person did something wrong is insane. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

This is your getting confused in your own distortions again; what 1 Chronicles 21:7 actually says is and God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel, but 2 Samuel 24:10 says And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.

How is it confusion when the passage is literally saying what I have been the whole time ? Yes, GOD was displeased with David's command so he punished Israel. That's literally what I have been saying the whole time. And your latter scripture only reinforces what I have been saying.

Not at all; both 1 Chronicles 21:1 and 2 Samuel 24 show Joab trying to persuade David not to go forward with the census, as a messenger of God; 2 Samuel 24 makes clear that Israel was in sin, at the time that they were punished; but, punishing Israel was also a way of God addressing David's transgression in response to his contrition for his mistake that he started to understand, afterwards.

2 Samuel 24 says that it was GOD who encouraged David to sin. That's why it is problematic. I keep telling you this. In any case, both cases show that GOD punished Israel for David's mistake.

God having purposes and justifications behiund his jusdgments is certainly not my assuming things; an intelligent being, down to people, having a purpose behind a decisiobn is just a logical extension to be drawn. But, here, we're interpreting the Bible to make sense of the purposes behind God's decisions.

No, you are just making up things because these passages that paint GOD in a bad light.

This was something explained to you several iterations again by way of an illustration with Job; David and Job assumed things which were not the actual state of affairs. 2 Samuel 24:1 makes clear that Israel was still in sin, while they were continually in sin from the earlier verses that I referenced.

And again, 2 Samuel 24 says that GOD encouraged David to sin. Why do you keep going to this ? When the passage itself is faulty and even on top of that the passage shows in it clearly that GOD punished Israel for David's sin, not their own.

The actual purpose of Joab was to warn David away from taking the census by God., as is also consistent with 2 Samuel 24.

Yes, Joab tried to warn David about the Census. The thing is that Joab also said that David's numbering would bring guilt upon Israel meaning that Israel which would in turn lead to GOD punishing them. We have been over this countless times now.

It most certainly does: In the morning therefore ye shall be brought according to your tribes: and it shall be, that the tribe which the Lord taketh shall come according to the families thereof; and the family which the Lord shall take shall come by households; and the household which the Lord shall take shall come man by man.

These are the rules concerning what was to happen with Israel after GOD had found out about someone stealing the accursed thing. None of this actually shows that Achan's sons or daughters was guilty of anything. What makes it worse is that in the following verse we see that GOD was to enact punishment on everything associated with a single person whom had done something wrong. GOD acting very inconsistent here.

Avatar image for jonjizz
jonjizz

1899

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

No Caption Provided

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

6122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#28287  Edited By dshipp17

@king_saturn:

“No. In the story it was GOD who allowed Satan to torment Job after GOD bragged about Job to Satan.”

This doesn't establish anything. It was Satan who decided to torment Job and Satan directs the torment of the souls who made poor decisions to end up in Hell with him. God allows individuals, people, and humanity the opportunity to make, or to not make, decisions such as whether to follow John 3:16 to become Christians and to start confessing their sins, daily, according to the Lord's Prayer and 1 John 1:9; these decisions from individual souls then allow Him to judge their eternal destination preside in Heaven or Hell. Further, in relation to the angels, 2/3 of the angels remained in Heaven, while Satan and I/3 of the angels followed him in his rebellion onto becoming his demons; thus, again, Job was under attack by Satan, where God limited Satan some to not harming Job and not killing Job, as Satan was in full control over his decisions on how to proceed to act. God complement Job and gave us an idea of His expectations.

“GOD basically wagered with Satan on whether Job would stay faithful to him if he brought disaster to him.”

No, Satan wagered with God that Job wouldn't stay faithful, if God were perceived to have brought disaster upon him; Satan then lost in that wager, as the text plainly shows.

“GOD literally gave Satan power to punish Job, it says in Job 1:12 "And the LORD said, Behold all that he has is in thy power, only upon himself put not forth thy hand". That's GOD giving Satan power to torment Job.”

No, this was the passage right after it was explained that God released a hedge of protection from around Job. While God placed Job's possessions into the hands of Satan, it was completely up to Satan as to how to proceed; in order for what you say to be nearly true, God would have had to specifically direct Satan to torment and punish Job. Again, people deciding what actions they'll be taking, mostly as it relates to deciding whether to become Christian or not at carious points during their lives, is how God judges peoples' actions moment by moment to determine who among the recently deceased souls heads to Heaven or Hell.

“Satan did not just come out himself and start tormenting Job, GOD gave him the power to do so and this was after GOD bragged on Job about how Good he was.”

This is a distortion of the facts. The only reason that Satan wasn't tormenting Job was because a hedge of protection by God was preventing him; as, the facts show, Satan had clearly considered tormenting Job on his own, prior to vising God in Heaven. It is Satan who is focused on tormenting people, as the facts clearly establishes. God didn't give Satan any power that Satan didn't already have, God just reduced His protections from around Job some to allow Satan to test his own wagers. God just complemented Job and gave the rest of us a blueprint as to how to live, in order to be pleasing in His eyes, at least, during the times before Christ.

“2 Samuel 24 is not explained by 1 Chronicles 21.”

This comment is just silly; 1 Chronicles is clearly supposed to be chronicling the events that were described in 2 Samuel 24, and elsewhere in the Bible, up to that point of the Holy Text; again, this is the definition of a chronicle.

“1 Chronicles 21 says that Satan rose up against Israel and he incited David to take a Census. 2 Samuel 24 starts off with GOD was angry with Israel and he (GOD) incited David to take a Census.”

1 Chronicles 21 does says that Satan incited David to take the census, which is the point that I made during multiple iterations with you; on the most recent iteration, I pointed out that you then extracted the term, incited, and transplanted into 2 Samuel 24, as it does not say that God incited David to take the census (e.g. I just discovered that we are discussing this Scripture from different Bible versions, where I'm using the King James Version, but, I've justified my decision later on here); the word, incited, is not in 2 Samuel 24. Clearly, Satan incited the census, which is inline with his character, while Joab unsuccessfully advised David against taking the census, as a messenger of God, which is inline with God's nature, where this then brings us into agreement with other Biblical Scripture such as James 1:13.

“The accounts are different and since 1 Chronicles 21 never says GOD is angry with Israel or that GOD allowed Satan's hand to rise against Israel, you are stretching the accounts... again.”

One logical explanation is that the chronicler probably found it unnecessary, as 2 Samuel had already established that Israel was in sin and 2 Samuel 24:1 specifically said that God's anger was kindled against Israel, which was a key indicator of ongoing and continuous sins in the Old Testament (e.g. but, including the part that Satan had incited the census was very critical, in order to help reduce some confusion that 2 Samuel 24:1 might have caused, in regards to the census; there, the author probably thought that Joab's warnings were enough to clarify God's wishes, in this situation, while using the reasoning from people in that time period to attribute any and all actions to God, not having, or being unwilling to accept, that Satan and his demons are the second force that influences things such as human behavior). Obviously, the only way that Satan could have arose against Israel was because a hedge of protection was missing from around them, as Job illustrates for us, except, here, one reason that it would have been removed was due to the ongoing and continuous sins of Israel, as Joshua 7 indicates.

“GOD was willing to wager with Job's life over someone who literally waged War against him in Heaven. That's what makes it Insane.”

Well, as God limited Satan from harming Job and, then, from killing Job, it wasn't a wager by God; the plain reading of the text shows that it was Satan who made the wager. Here, you're using the term, insane, which denotes a complete lose of control, while, at the same time trying to argue that God controlled Satan in his mission, or, specifically, to torment Job; here, you're arguing separate positions on the opposite ends of the spectrum, almost as if you have someone confused, just to keep from conceding points and to save face.

“You are lying again. 2 Samuel 24 says in the passage itself that it was GOD who incited the Census and 1 Chronicles 21 never says that GOD was angry with Israel beforehand. This is where you are stretching the scriptures to fit your own ideas. ”

No, you're twisted in your own lies and distortions, not even realizing, fully, at least, that I'd already debunked your claim, as the term, incite, comes from 1 Chronicles 21:1, and is something that you, yourself, transported into 2 Samuel 24 (e.g. or, rather, you should know that it was the Bible version which I'm using, along with the rest of mainstream Christianity, when discussion this particular Bible event).

“Heck, 1 Chronicles 21:7 clearly says why GOD punished Israel for David's sin and you seem to keep overlooking this for whatever reason”

No, I previously quoted 1 Chronicles 21:7 for you and it doesn't say anything even remotely close to what you're saying, as these are just your own words transplanted into the text, in order to keep from conceding a point. I also quoted 2 Samuel 24:10 for further clarity.

“Both accounts make it clear that GOD punished Israel for David's sin and nothing else.”

Both accounts showed Joab warning David against taking the census, as a messenger of God; 2 Samuel 24 specifies, clearly, that Israel was in sin, God's anger was kindled against them, for their sins, and Israel and David being punished for their sins for separate reasons, where some reasons tended to overlap a bit.

“1 Chronicles 21:6 "But Joab did not include Levi and Benjamin in the numbering, because the King's command was repulsive to him"

1 Chronicles 21:7 "This command was also evil in the sight of the LORD, so he punished Israel"

Now explain to me how this is imagining things ?”

Easy; this is Joab trying to do something separate from an action that He'd warned David against, as a messenger of God, while also following David's orders, in spite of those warnings.

“I am starting to wonder if you read the Bible now. This is literally what the passage says in 2 Samuel 24:1

2 Samuel 24:1 "And again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel and he (GOD) incited David against them saying, Go and take a Census of Israel and Judah" NIV”

2 Samuel 24:1 says: And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. KJV; from there, it says that David gave the command to number Israel; in response, Joab, as a messenger of God, warns him against it. Again the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, “Go, [a]number Israel and Judah.” NKJV; 1 Chronicles 21:1: And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. KJV; 2 Samuel 24:1: And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he [Satan] moved David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.” KJ21; 2 Samuel 24:1: And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. BRG; 2 Samuel 24:1: The Lord’s anger burned against Israel again, and he stirred up David against them to say: “Go, count the people of Israel and Judah.” CSB

And, an explanation from the Amplified Bible (AMB) concerning 2 Samuel 24:1: Now again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and [a]He incited David against them to say, “Go, [b]count [the people of] Israel and Judah.” See 1 Chr 21:1. As in the case of Paul’s thorn in the flesh (2 Cor 12:7; cf 1 Cor 5:5), God sometimes accomplishes His purposes by allowing Satan to inflict injury or cause trouble. Ordinarily taking a census would have been a routine procedure for a nation as a way of assessing taxes or conscripting and assigning men to an army. But in Israel none of this was necessary unless it was commanded by God, and David’s action was the product of ego and an uncharacteristic shift of trust and dependence from God to human resources (as Joab suspected, v 3). To his credit, David eventually realized this and came to God in repentance.

“And other verses are consistent with GOD's character being Inconsistent.”

No, this just isn't correct, concerning James 1:13, along with Ecclesiastes 7:29, John 8:44, Romans 8:28, 1 Corinthians 14:33, and 1 John 1:5; as with our back and forth, this could only be the product of confusion from distortions of the Scripture.

And, from Jesus: Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. 23 And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. 25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: 26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? 27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. 28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. 29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house. 30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

6122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Luke 23:34-49:

Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.

36 And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar,

37 And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself.

38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, This Is The King Of The Jews.

39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

44 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

45 And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.

46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

47 Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.

48 And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts, and returned.

49 And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things.

Loading Video...
Loading Video...

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223783

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dshipp17 said:

@king_saturn:

This doesn't establish anything. It was Satan who decided to torment Job and Satan directs the torment of the souls who made poor decisions to end up in Hell with him. God allows individuals, people, and humanity the opportunity to make, or to not make, decisions such as whether to follow John 3:16 to become Christians and to start confessing their sins, daily, according to the Lord's Prayer and 1 John 1:9; these decisions from individual souls then allow Him to judge their eternal destination preside in Heaven or Hell. Further, in relation to the angels, 2/3 of the angels remained in Heaven, while Satan and I/3 of the angels followed him in his rebellion onto becoming his demons; thus, again, Job was under attack by Satan, where God limited Satan some to not harming Job and not killing Job, as Satan was in full control over his decisions on how to proceed to act. God complement Job and gave us an idea of His expectations.

Yes, Satan decided to torment Job, and who let him torment Job ? Who was it that in Job 1:8 that had brought Job to the attention of Satan ? Who was it that took away his protective hedge around Job so that Satan could torment him ? Yes, that's right it was GOD and he was willing to do deals with the very being who caused chaos from the beginning in Satan. How is it that GOD be Good and yet willing to wager and deal with Satan ?

No, Satan wagered with God that Job wouldn't stay faithful, if God were perceived to have brought disaster upon him; Satan then lost in that wager, as the text plainly shows.

No dude, it was a deal between them both. That's why GOD let up the protective hedge around Job so Satan could do his evil deeds to Job. If GOD had said to Satan, I will not let you touch Job. Then you could say there is no deal but since GOD was willing to work with Satan to allow him to torment Job you can easily see they are dealing.

No, this was the passage right after it was explained that God released a hedge of protection from around Job. While God placed Job's possessions into the hands of Satan, it was completely up to Satan as to how to proceed; in order for what you say to be nearly true, God would have had to specifically direct Satan to torment and punish Job. Again, people deciding what actions they'll be taking, mostly as it relates to deciding whether to become Christian or not at carious points during their lives, is how God judges peoples' actions moment by moment to determine who among the recently deceased souls heads to Heaven or Hell.

GOD taking away Job's protective hedge was part of the deal between him and Satan so he could torment Job. GOD already knew what Satan was up to via his Omniscience so you can not say GOD did not know Job would torment him like that especially when it was GOD himself who gave power to Satan to do so and touch away his protection.

This is a distortion of the facts. The only reason that Satan wasn't tormenting Job was because a hedge of protection by God was preventing him; as, the facts show, Satan had clearly considered tormenting Job on his own, prior to vising God in Heaven. It is Satan who is focused on tormenting people, as the facts clearly establishes. God didn't give Satan any power that Satan didn't already have, God just reduced His protections from around Job some to allow Satan to test his own wagers. God just complemented Job and gave the rest of us a blueprint as to how to live, in order to be pleasing in His eyes, at least, during the times before Christ.

That's only part of the truth. Remember, GOD had to bring Job to Satan's attention, hence why Job 1:8 starts with GOD saying "Have you considered my servant Job". You really don't think that GOD knew what Satan was up to when he took his protection away from him ? You really don't think that GOD knew that by giving Satan the power to harm Job that he would torment him ? How is it you know that Satan is a tormentor and evil and the Almighty does not know that ?

This comment is just silly; 1 Chronicles is clearly supposed to be chronicling the events that were described in 2 Samuel 24, and elsewhere in the Bible, up to that point of the Holy Text; again, this is the definition of a chronicle.

Silly ? Is it silly to think that a book that is supposed to be chronicling the events of another book but has vastly different intros to it might not be explaining what it supposed to be ? How can 2 Samuel 24 be explained by 1 Chronicles 21 when one book has GOD encouraging David to Sin and the other has Satan encouraging David to Sin ? Are GOD and Satan the same beings ?

1 Chronicles 21 does says that Satan incited David to take the census, which is the point that I made during multiple iterations with you; on the most recent iteration, I pointed out that you then extracted the term, incited, and transplanted into 2 Samuel 24, as it does not say that God incited David to take the census (e.g. I just discovered that we are discussing this Scripture from different Bible versions, where I'm using the King James Version, but, I've justified my decision later on here); the word, incited, is not in 2 Samuel 24. Clearly, Satan incited the census, which is inline with his character, while Joab unsuccessfully advised David against taking the census, as a messenger of God, which is inline with God's nature, where this then brings us into agreement with other Biblical Scripture such as James 1:13.

Yes, 1 Chronicles 21 does say that Satan encouraged David to take the Census and 2 Samuel 24 says it was GOD himself who encouraged David to Sin. Yes, I was using the NIV version because you guys kept complaining about the verse I used in Isaiah 45:7 and how it says that GOD makes peace and creates evil in the KJV. Alright, so lets look at the 2 Samuel 24:1 passage as it reads from the KJV.

2 Samuel 24:1 "And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he (GOD) moved David against them to say, Go number Israel and Judah"

The passage still has GOD encouraging David to take an unlawful Census. Instead of inciting it uses the word moved. So you gain no ground here either. If GOD is moving David to sin, how the heck does that make any sense ?

One logical explanation is that the chronicler probably found it unnecessary, as 2 Samuel had already established that Israel was in sin and 2 Samuel 24:1 specifically said that God's anger was kindled against Israel, which was a key indicator of ongoing and continuous sins in the Old Testament (e.g. but, including the part that Satan had incited the census was very critical, in order to help reduce some confusion that 2 Samuel 24:1 might have caused, in regards to the census; there, the author probably thought that Joab's warnings were enough to clarify God's wishes, in this situation, while using the reasoning from people in that time period to attribute any and all actions to God, not having, or being unwilling to accept, that Satan and his demons are the second force that influences things such as human behavior). Obviously, the only way that Satan could have arose against Israel was because a hedge of protection was missing from around them, as Job illustrates for us, except, here, one reason that it would have been removed was due to the ongoing and continuous sins of Israel, as Joshua 7 indicates.

Well you can assume that, but then how would you explain 1 Chronicles 21:7 when it comes out and plainly says that GOD punished Israel because of "the thing" or "the command" that David had done ? It says nothing about Israel being in sin beforehand.

Well, as God limited Satan from harming Job and, then, from killing Job, it wasn't a wager by God; the plain reading of the text shows that it was Satan who made the wager. Here, you're using the term, insane, which denotes a complete lose of control, while, at the same time trying to argue that God controlled Satan in his mission, or, specifically, to torment Job; here, you're arguing separate positions on the opposite ends of the spectrum, almost as if you have someone confused, just to keep from conceding points and to save face.

But GOD still allowed Satan to torment Job and was willing to deal in on Satan's wager. It was a Bet between both GOD and Satan, that's what makes it so bad. The situation is insane, how is it that The Almighty himself who is supposedly Good is willing to bring Job before Satan and deal in on a bet that would cause Job so much torment ? It again goes back to the point of how GOD's character is Inconsistent.

No, you're twisted in your own lies and distortions, not even realizing, fully, at least, that I'd already debunked your claim, as the term, incite, comes from 1 Chronicles 21:1, and is something that you, yourself, transported into 2 Samuel 24 (e.g. or, rather, you should know that it was the Bible version which I'm using, along with the rest of mainstream Christianity, when discussion this particular Bible event).

You never debunked anything. It says clearly in the passage that GOD encouraged David to sin in 2 Samuel 24. I used the NIV version because Like I Said, you guys was complaining about how the KJV has GOD saying in Isaiah 45:7 how he creates Evil and I used it as evidence against you about how GOD does do Evil and the Bible does support it some way. Okay, I will continue to use the KJV no more NIV versions. So GOD does do Evil after all, huh ?

No, I previously quoted 1 Chronicles 21:7 for you and it doesn't say anything even remotely close to what you're saying, as these are just your own words transplanted into the text, in order to keep from conceding a point. I also quoted 2 Samuel 24:10 for further clarity.

Either you can not read or you are being blatantly obtuse. KJV version

1 Chronicles 21:5 "And Joab gave the sum number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel was thousand thousand and hundred thousand drew swords and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword"

1 Chronicles 21:6 "But Levi and Benjamin counted he (Joab) not among them, for the king's word was abominable to Joab"

1 Chornicles 21:7 "And GOD was displeased with this thing, so he smote Israel"

The thing GOD was displeased with was David's numbering of Israel. You can not be this dense or at least I would hope not.

Both accounts showed Joab warning David against taking the census, as a messenger of God; 2 Samuel 24 specifies, clearly, that Israel was in sin, God's anger was kindled against them, for their sins, and Israel and David being punished for their sins for separate reasons, where some reasons tended to overlap a bit.

2 Samuel 24 also says that GOD moved David to take a Census are we really doing this again ? It also says in 1 Chronicles 21:7 that GOD punished Israel for David's census.


Easy; this is Joab trying to do something separate from an action that He'd warned David against, as a messenger of God, while also following David's orders, in spite of those warnings.

The previous verses in the passage show that Joab did number some of Israel as stated and the last two verses I gave showed how Joab did not number certain Israel tribes but the numbering of Israel is what displeased the LORD and what caused GOD to punish Israel.

2 Samuel 24:1 "And again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel and he (GOD) incited David against them saying, Go and take a Census of Israel and Judah" NIV”

2 Samuel 24:1 says: And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. KJV; from there, it says that David gave the command to number Israel; in response, Joab, as a messenger of God, warns him against it. Again the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, “Go, [a]number Israel and Judah.” NKJV; 1 Chronicles 21:1: And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. KJV; 2 Samuel 24:1: And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he [Satan] moved David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.” KJ21; 2 Samuel 24:1: And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. BRG; 2 Samuel 24:1: The Lord’s anger burned against Israel again, and he stirred up David against them to say: “Go, count the people of Israel and Judah.” CSB

Almost all of the versions passages in 2 Samuel 24:1 show that it was GOD who encouraged David to take the unlawful census. Even 2 Samuel 24 in the KJV has GOD moving David to sin. I mean dude, what else do you want ? Even using the KJV it shows GOD moved David to sin in 2 Samuel 24:1.

And, an explanation from the Amplified Bible (AMB) concerning 2 Samuel 24:1: Now again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and [a]He incited David against them to say, “Go, [b]count [the people of] Israel and Judah.” See 1 Chr 21:1. As in the case of Paul’s thorn in the flesh (2 Cor 12:7; cf 1 Cor 5:5), God sometimes accomplishes His purposes by allowing Satan to inflict injury or cause trouble. Ordinarily taking a census would have been a routine procedure for a nation as a way of assessing taxes or conscripting and assigning men to an army. But in Israel none of this was necessary unless it was commanded by God, and David’s action was the product of ego and an uncharacteristic shift of trust and dependence from God to human resources (as Joab suspected, v 3). To his credit, David eventually realized this and came to God in repentance.

So what ? The reality of this passage is still David's numbering of Israel is what caused GOD to kill thousands of people. GOD killed 70,000 People over a sin from 1 man.

No, this just isn't correct, concerning James 1:13, along with Ecclesiastes 7:29, John 8:44, Romans 8:28, 1 Corinthians 14:33, and 1 John 1:5; as with our back and forth, this could only be the product of confusion from distortions of the Scripture.

And, from Jesus: Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. 23 And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. 25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: 26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? 27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. 28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. 29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house. 30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

Is Joshua 7 a distortion where GOD has Achan's sons and daughters killed for his sin ? Is it a distortion in Numbers 11 when GOD has Israelites killed over complaining about not having Food ? Is it a distortion when GOD had thousands killed because David took a census ? Is it a distortion that GOD had all the first born of Egypt killed when he was sending out those plagues ? GOD's character is Inconsistent.

Avatar image for just_sayin
just_sayin

4386

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@king_saturn: Forgive me, I get lost in the details sometimes. I am wondering, the underlying point or concern you are making about God. Are you saying that God is evil?

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

6122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#28291  Edited By dshipp17

@king_saturn:

“Yes, Satan decided to torment Job, and who let him torment Job ? Who was it that in Job 1:8 that had brought Job to the attention of Satan ?”

This doesn't establish anything and it was pretty much explained to you in the paragraph that you're quoting. God lets people and beings such as Satan make their own decisions. Satan chose how he would deal with Job. Just, the correct approach is to come at it from the perspective of James 1:13. Only good can come from God; but, people and beings have to be judged, also.

“How is it that GOD be Good and yet willing to wager and deal with Satan ?”

That God wagered with Satan is a distortion that came from your own mind; it has nothing to do with any reality. Satan wagered with God and lost his wager; God allows people and beings to decide their fates.

“No dude, it was a deal between them both.”

The plain text shows that Satan wagered with God that Job would lose his faith or love for God, if God were perceived to have caused him to lose his possessions; Satan then lost the wager. The response was to your saying that God had wagered this with Satan, when the plain text shows that it was Satan who made this wager. Again, just concede the lost point and move on with the discussion. God just observed Job make the correct choices via his free will.

“You really don't think that GOD knew what Satan was up to when he took his protection away from him ?”

This is both a product of your not conceding the point that God could have multiple motives, which is the case in our reality, and the point that you should stop engaging in the sin of imagination, because of James 1:13. For one, Job had God's hedge of protection around him, because he was a righteous man, based on his good choices, and this is a reward and promise from God; basically, here, you're coming from the filth of Satan in your approach, as this is sort of a corollary to what Satan said against both Job and God, in this passage; honestly, you have no point, as the proper approach is to presume pure and good motives onto God at all times.

“Silly ? Is it silly to think that a book that is supposed to be chronicling the events of another book but has vastly different intros to it might not be explaining what it supposed to be ?”

The intros aren't vastly different; things have been explained to you multiple times, but, your problem is that you won't concede points and move on with the discussion. Chronicles is basically hinting at information that was excluded and erased by a decision to abbreviate the event in question, thus, removing some important context to help with understanding the situation; this was explained to you several times, already, but, you keep repeating yourself, even after the explanation, repeating the same question, or moving the goal post to ask a question that was contradictory to a prior point which you'd previously lost; just moving the goal post and pretending doesn't really change anything for you.

“How can 2 Samuel 24 be explained by 1 Chronicles 21 when one book has GOD encouraging David to Sin and the other has Satan encouraging David to Sin ? ”

The response was provided to you several times now; you have to back track, look for the explanation, concede a point, and remove yourself from your self distortions. It was Satan who encourage or incited the census; God's involvement was in Joab warning David not to go through with the census; this should have been clear for anyone, after I quoted other Bible versions, where the justifications were provided, which further clarified the situation for you.

“Yes, I was using the NIV version because you guys kept complaining about the verse I used in Isaiah 45:7 and how it says that GOD makes peace and creates evil in the KJV. Alright, so lets look at the 2 Samuel 24:1 passage as it reads from the KJV.”

No, you used the NIV as a means to avoid conceding a number of points, as has become clearly obvious by now. Isaiah 45:7 isn't even in our conversation, that was a discussion that you had with another poster who seems to have given up on you, as you wont concede points and move forward with the conversation so that the discussion can be advanced forward.

“2 Samuel 24:1 "And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he (GOD) moved David against them to say, Go number Israel and Judah"

The passage still has GOD encouraging David to take an unlawful Census. Instead of inciting it uses the word moved. So you gain no ground here either. If GOD is moving David to sin, how the heck does that make any sense ?”

I gained ground long ago; it was a point that you had to concede. 1 Chronicles 21:1 clarifies that Satan provoked David to take the census; the current version of the King James Version, which is used to deal with situations such as this says: 2 Samuel 24:1: And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he [Satan] moved David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.” KJ21; this was clarified for you in my prior response, but, you just had to concede another point around this same discussion. Here, you embezzled text again by substituting God in place of Satan, even though a Bible developer showed the correct approach to you, which you should have gathered from reading my prior response.

“Well you can assume that, but then how would you explain 1 Chronicles 21:7 when it comes out and plainly says that GOD punished Israel because of "the thing" or "the command" that David had done ?”

I already quoted 1 Chronicles 21:7 and 2 Samuel 24:10 and demonstrated to you that you're lost in your own distortions; that simply isn't what 1 Chronicles 21:7 says; those are just your words that you wish were there, but, you have to move on with real reality now by, again, conceding points to advance the discussion forward.

“It says nothing about Israel being in sin beforehand.”

It doesn't have to, as 2 Samuel already did a pretty good job of establishing that Israel was in sin, so, the chronicler reasoned that it was unnecessary, although I haven't really tried to examine 1 Chronicles' take on earlier chapters of 2 Samuel.

“So GOD does do Evil after all, huh ?”

No, as I quoted James 1:13 and related verses; thus, this should have left you looking for reasons that such translation would be wrong; I'd suggests looking up Isaiah 45:7 in the KJ21 version of the Bible.

“Either you can not read or you are being blatantly obtuse. KJV version 1 Chronicles 21:5 "And Joab gave the sum number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel was thousand thousand and hundred thousand drew swords and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword"

1 Chronicles 21:6 "But Levi and Benjamin counted he (Joab) not among them, for the king's word was abominable to Joab"

1 Chornicles 21:7 "And GOD was displeased with this thing, so he smote Israel"”

Neither, as your silly little actions show; you were trying to make your point with 1 Chronicles 21:7, but had to include verse 5 and 6, while repeating yourself; verses 5 and 6 isn't 1 Chronicles 21:7; again, just concede the point so that the discussion can advance. Again, see 2 Samuel 24:10 and include verses from within 2 Samuel 24, where necessary.

“So what ? The reality of this passage is still David's numbering of Israel is what caused GOD to kill thousands of people. GOD killed 70,000 People over a sin from 1 man.”

That's just not correct in this reality; you got this from your own distortions by not conceding points so that the discussion could advance; 2 Samuel establishes that Israel was in sin; God didn't have a single motive, definitely not the single motive that you want to portray, God had multiple motives; again, this was previously explained for you.

“Is Joshua 7 a distortion where GOD has Achan's sons and daughters killed for his sin ?”

The quoted paragraph demonstrated another distortion, but, this is a distortion; it's explained in Joshua 7:10-14, as previously explained to you.

And, upon further investigation, what you're doing is taking the positions that New Age Christianity is trying to advance and making it your own; I realized this a while ago; I just kept playing along with you.

Avatar image for abstractraze
AbstractRaze

3665

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28292  Edited By AbstractRaze

@just_sayin said:

@king_saturn: Forgive me, I get lost in the details sometimes. I am wondering, the underlying point or concern you are making about God. Are you saying that God is evil?

How do you define evil? is there something like pure evilness with no way of redemption? the thing is that evilness is the lack of good, such as darkness talks for the lack of light.

Some places on earth are dark according to our visual perception, but in reality, they are bright, how we might percept things are not truly relevant.

The Christian God is supposed to be good from our moral values, but is he really absolutely good? when in reality we don't truly know if there is something purely good, could be there darkness in such an entity even in small fractions?

My theory is that no God is absolutely good, as a Heathen, I believe in the Norse gods, who are meant to be the collective embodiment of the first Nordic generation, one of the first pioneers of the Western civilization together with other European folks and if we die, part of our ghost would become part of them, they represent our spiritual, cultural, traditional and moral standards, but are they purely good, considering we're part of them and they are part of us?

Humanity as a species tries to be constructive as far they can, because that's our natural instinct, sometimes we build and sometimes we destroy in order to build something better, being constructive is something relative, sometimes we destroy if such an act is meant to do greater good, so the balance will tend to the bright side even though there is darkness on the other side.

PS:

Why did the Christian God ban Lucifer without giving him any chance of redemption, why is God so merciful with humans but not with his first creation, which are the angels and archangels?

Was Lucifer truly evil? or just the manifestation of humans who do not agree with what Christianity has to offer?

Is Lucifer truly evil or just the manifestation of change within the 10 commandments? the bible describe Lucifer as a bad entity, but the bible was no more and less than written by humans, do we really have to trust it and assume that Lucifer was evil?

Why does the Christian God promote the SIN? why does the Christian God promote guilt and pain against the people who commit sins? why does the Christian God, like to hold down the people in pain and shame whenever one commits a sin?

Why do he like to see us crawling on the floor while begging for forgiveness? is he a sadistic TYRANT?

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8728

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8728

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@abstractraze:

Helel was created evil. He was a sinner and murderer from the beginning.

Bible God uses Helel for His purpose

Helel will be thrown in the Lake of Fire for an eon of eons. Then he will be redeemed.

Because all things in the heavens and earth and under the earth, all powers and authorities, shall be reconciled with Christ and shall be One in Christ.

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

1523

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223783

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@king_saturn: Forgive me, I get lost in the details sometimes. I am wondering, the underlying point or concern you are making about God. Are you saying that God is evil?

No Sir. I am saying that the Character and Nature of GOD is Inconsistent. That has been my point the whole time. GOD does both Good and Evil. Hence, why I used Isaiah 45:7 and these multiple instances to show a darker side of The Almighty.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8728

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@flashfyr:

I knew you couldn't stay away

It's like resisting cake

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223783

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dshipp17 said:

@king_saturn:

This doesn't establish anything and it was pretty much explained to you in the paragraph that you're quoting. God lets people and beings such as Satan make their own decisions. Satan chose how he would deal with Job. Just, the correct approach is to come at it from the perspective of James 1:13. Only good can come from God; but, people and beings have to be judged, also.

Oh, you said something. That does not mean it was coherent or legit with our discussion. The point was that GOD was willing to deal in a wager with Satan according to the Job account. There is no way around it. If you read Job 1 you will see that Satan made a wager and GOD was willing to bet on that with Job's life.

That God wagered with Satan is a distortion that came from your own mind; it has nothing to do with any reality. Satan wagered with God and lost his wager; God allows people and beings to decide their fates.

It's not a distortion. Satan and GOD had a deal on Job's life. GOD was willing to allow Satan to torment Job, GOD gave Satan the authority to torment Job. It's in the story itself. Don't act like GOD did not know Satan would torment Job once he gave him the authority to.

The plain text shows that Satan wagered with God that Job would lose his faith or love for God, if God were perceived to have caused him to lose his possessions; Satan then lost the wager. The response was to your saying that God had wagered this with Satan, when the plain text shows that it was Satan who made this wager. Again, just concede the lost point and move on with the discussion. God just observed Job make the correct choices via his free will.

Satan made the Bet and GOD was willing to deal in. In any case, Satan and GOD bet on Job's life and that's insane that GOD would be willing to deal with Satan whom is supposedly his enemy in regards to tormenting someone who is faithful to him. GOD painted in a bad light again here. GOD just observed ? Did not GOD bring Job to Satan's attention in the account ? Did not GOD give Satan authority to harm Job's possessions including his Family. Are you serious, bruh ?

This is both a product of your not conceding the point that God could have multiple motives, which is the case in our reality, and the point that you should stop engaging in the sin of imagination, because of James 1:13. For one, Job had God's hedge of protection around him, because he was a righteous man, based on his good choices, and this is a reward and promise from God; basically, here, you're coming from the filth of Satan in your approach, as this is sort of a corollary to what Satan said against both Job and God, in this passage; honestly, you have no point, as the proper approach is to presume pure and good motives onto God at all times.

Yes, and GOD took away Job's protection after he went in on a bet with Satan. GOD gave Satan authority to harm Job's possessions including his family. Why are you not getting this ?

The intros aren't vastly different; things have been explained to you multiple times, but, your problem is that you won't concede points and move on with the discussion. Chronicles is basically hinting at information that was excluded and erased by a decision to abbreviate the event in question, thus, removing some important context to help with understanding the situation; this was explained to you several times, already, but, you keep repeating yourself, even after the explanation, repeating the same question, or moving the goal post to ask a question that was contradictory to a prior point which you'd previously lost; just moving the goal post and pretending doesn't really change anything for you.

Again, you have said things but that does not mean they are coherent with our discussion. 2 Samuel 24 says that GOD moved David to number Israel and 1 Chronicles 21 says that it was Satan who did. That is vastly different openings unless you believe Satan and GOD are the same. I keep saying these things because they are true. That's why. I am not going to let your interpretations sway me from what the text is saying.

The response was provided to you several times now; you have to back track, look for the explanation, concede a point, and remove yourself from your self distortions. It was Satan who encourage or incited the census; God's involvement was in Joab warning David not to go through with the census; this should have been clear for anyone, after I quoted other Bible versions, where the justifications were provided, which further clarified the situation for you.

I saw your explanation and thought it was garbage. Especially considering that 1 Chronicles 21:7 comes clean and tells you why GOD punished Israel and it was not because of Israel's sin.

No, you used the NIV as a means to avoid conceding a number of points, as has become clearly obvious by now. Isaiah 45:7 isn't even in our conversation, that was a discussion that you had with another poster who seems to have given up on you, as you wont concede points and move forward with the conversation so that the discussion can be advanced forward.

This makes no sense, why would I use the Bible to avoid conceding points ? Are you saying the NIV isn't the word of GOD ? In any case, even using the KJV it still shows what I have been telling you.

I gained ground long ago; it was a point that you had to concede. 1 Chronicles 21:1 clarifies that Satan provoked David to take the census; the current version of the King James Version, which is used to deal with situations such as this says: 2 Samuel 24:1: And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he [Satan] moved David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.” KJ21; this was clarified for you in my prior response, but, you just had to concede another point around this same discussion. Here, you embezzled text again by substituting God in place of Satan, even though a Bible developer showed the correct approach to you, which you should have gathered from reading my prior response.

1 Chronicles 21 does not clarify that it was Satan who encouraged the Census. It just says that it was. 2 Samuel 24 says something different. Now we could assume that Satan encouraged the Census from the 1 Chronicles account but then you lose that GOD was angry with Israel because that is not in the 1 Chronicles 21 account. Well, my NIV, KJV, ESV Bibles all say that he (GOD) incited David to number Israel and Judah. It says nothing about Satan doing anything there. I do not know what version of the Bible you are using but I have never used it before so I am very skeptical of what you are bringing here.

I already quoted 1 Chronicles 21:7 and 2 Samuel 24:10 and demonstrated to you that you're lost in your own distortions; that simply isn't what 1 Chronicles 21:7 says; those are just your words that you wish were there, but, you have to move on with real reality now by, again, conceding points to advance the discussion forward.

Actually 1 Chronicles 21:7 does say what I have been explaining. It says that this thing displeased the LORD, so he smote Israel. Well what thing had they been doing before 1 Chronicles 21:7, dshipp ? That thing was the numbering of Israel by Joab due to David's command to do so. Come on dude, you got to be able to see this if you are reading the passage.

It doesn't have to, as 2 Samuel already did a pretty good job of establishing that Israel was in sin, so, the chronicler reasoned that it was unnecessary, although I haven't really tried to examine 1 Chronicles' take on earlier chapters of 2 Samuel.

2 Samuel 24 at no point establishes that GOD punished Israel on the basis of their own sin. It does however show that David's numbering of the people caused this great disaster. Yeah, it says GOD was angry with Israel but it also says that GOD moved, incited, encouraged David to sin by numbering the people. That is what the passage says.

No, as I quoted James 1:13 and related verses; thus, this should have left you looking for reasons that such translation would be wrong; I'd suggests looking up Isaiah 45:7 in the KJ21 version of the Bible.

Well according to Isaiah 45:7, GOD himself declares he makes Peace and creates Evil (KJV). I do not use the KJ21 version of the Bible since it apparently varies from the NIV, KJV, ESV. That seems like a dangerous path, especially when you earlier had said that the regular KJV would suffice for our discussion now you are changing that again ?

Neither, as your silly little actions show; you were trying to make your point with 1 Chronicles 21:7, but had to include verse 5 and 6, while repeating yourself; verses 5 and 6 isn't 1 Chronicles 21:7; again, just concede the point so that the discussion can advance. Again, see 2 Samuel 24:10 and include verses from within 2 Samuel 24, where necessary.

I used 1 Chronicles 21:5-6 to bring more clarity to 1 Chronicles 21:7. Usually when a passage is difficult you can read the proceeding passages to understand better. I was hoping to do that here.

That's just not correct in this reality; you got this from your own distortions by not conceding points so that the discussion could advance; 2 Samuel establishes that Israel was in sin; God didn't have a single motive, definitely not the single motive that you want to portray, God had multiple motives; again, this was previously explained for you.

You said these things sure but that does not mean they are correct. If GOD had multiple motives as you have stated then why does the Bible not explain that GOD punished Israel for their own sin ? Why did GOD only punish Israel until after David had sinned by numbering the people ? Why would the Bible have passages that say GOD punished Israel for David taking a census if it was not so ?

The quoted paragraph demonstrated another distortion, but, this is a distortion; it's explained in Joshua 7:10-14, as previously explained to you.

And, upon further investigation, what you're doing is taking the positions that New Age Christianity is trying to advance and making it your own; I realized this a while ago; I just kept playing along with you.

Nothing is explained in Joshua 7 that shows that Achan's children was guilty of anything. What we do see however is GOD's character being very dark and cruel, willing to kill Achan's children on the basis of something Achan did bad. This is also even after Achan confessed his sin to Israel and GOD.

I am not taking the positions of New Age Christianity. I have said repeatedly that I am a Deist and I think GOD does both Good and Evil. GOD is not directly Evil but can do Cruel things just like he can do Great things. I have taken this time to examine his rather bizarre accounts from the Bible.

It's apparent this discussion is going no where further. Since you think that I keep saying the same things over and over again and I think you are trolling me. Why continue ?

Avatar image for just_sayin
just_sayin

4386

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@just_sayin said:

@king_saturn: Forgive me, I get lost in the details sometimes. I am wondering, the underlying point or concern you are making about God. Are you saying that God is evil?

How do you define evil? is there something like pure evilness with no way of redemption? the thing is that evilness is the lack of good, such as darkness talks for the lack of light.

Some places on earth are dark according to our visual perception, but in reality, they are bright, how we might percept things are not truly relevant.

The Christian God is supposed to be good from our moral values, but is he really absolutely good? when in reality we don't truly know if there is something purely good, could be there darkness in such an entity even in small fractions?

My theory is that no God is absolutely good, as a Heathen, I believe in the Norse gods, who are meant to be the collective embodiment of the first Nordic generation, one of the first pioneers of the Western civilization together with other European folks and if we die, part of our ghost would become part of them, they represent our spiritual, cultural, traditional and moral standards, but are they purely good, considering we're part of them and they are part of us?

Humanity as a species tries to be constructive as far they can, because that's our natural instinct, sometimes we build and sometimes we destroy in order to build something better, being constructive is something relative, sometimes we destroy if such an act is meant to do greater good, so the balance will tend to the bright side even though there is darkness on the other side.

PS:

Why did the Christian God ban Lucifer without giving him any chance of redemption, why is God so merciful with humans but not with his first creation, which are the angels and archangels?

Was Lucifer truly evil? or just the manifestation of humans who do not agree with what Christianity has to offer?

Is Lucifer truly evil or just the manifestation of change within the 10 commandments? the bible describe Lucifer as a bad entity, but the bible was no more and less than written by humans, do we really have to trust it and assume that Lucifer was evil?

Why does the Christian God promote the SIN? why does the Christian God promote guilt and pain against the people who commit sins? why does the Christian God, like to hold down the people in pain and shame whenever one commits a sin?

Why do he like to see us crawling on the floor while begging for forgiveness? is he a sadistic TYRANT?

You serious about being a believer in Norse Gods? I don't know much. I had 3 years of Latin in High School so I can tell you a lot about Roman gods but nothing about Norse ones.

I think evil is real. I think raping a preschooler and then killing her is genuinely evil. I think the existence of evil demonstrates that there is a god. If a moral lawgiver doesn't exist, then there is no real objective evil. Evil becomes what one group or one person says it is. One group says its OK to kill the other group and vice versa then that's their "good". If what is "evil" is based on majority rule or one what the craziest guy thinks then it is subjective and is just whatever you want it to be and therefore meaningless and not real. But I think evil is as definitive as 2 + 2 = 4.

Regarding "Lucifer", which is actually a latin name and not in the original text, is, as I understand it, an angelic being who dwelt in the presence of God without any veil where he could plead ignorance or without temptation, fully aware of who God is and his demands. I don't think angels get redemption for those reasons, not sure though. Do you think God owes them an opportunity at "redemption"?

Avatar image for just_sayin
just_sayin

4386

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@just_sayin said:

@king_saturn: Forgive me, I get lost in the details sometimes. I am wondering, the underlying point or concern you are making about God. Are you saying that God is evil?

No Sir. I am saying that the Character and Nature of GOD is Inconsistent. That has been my point the whole time. GOD does both Good and Evil. Hence, why I used Isaiah 45:7 and these multiple instances to show a darker side of The Almighty.

So, do you think god is inconsistent because he lets bad things happen to them, or because he judges them? Why would either of those be examples of god doing "evil"?