Religion… What do you think?

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223763

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@king_saturn said:
@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"?

I would say because GOD can and has caused disaster and in turn causes bad things to happen. You can call it judgment but if GOD causes a disaster that kills several people, I do not think it's just GOD judging someone, it's GOD doing bad things or evil. Even the former, saying GOD allowing bad things to happen is problematic because if GOD knows something bad will happen and he allows it to occur while having the power to stop it is like being Cruel.

I mean if we had Police who would watch a woman get raped or a man's store robbed by some criminals without trying to stop the crime what would we think of that Officer ?

Avatar image for just_sayin
just_sayin

4381

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@just_sayin said:
@king_saturn said:
@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"?

I would say because GOD can and has caused disaster and in turn causes bad things to happen. You can call it judgment but if GOD causes a disaster that kills several people, I do not think it's just GOD judging someone, it's GOD doing bad things or evil. Even the former, saying GOD allowing bad things to happen is problematic because if GOD knows something bad will happen and he allows it to occur while having the power to stop it is like being Cruel.

I mean if we had Police who would watch a woman get raped or a man's store robbed by some criminals without trying to stop the crime what would we think of that Officer ?

I wonder if "cruel" is really the case. If a parent lets their child experience some short term pain to ensure them a better future like them getting a shot or pulling a tooth, is that evil? I don't think so. From god's perspective, which is eternity, any pain we experience is fleeting compared to eternity.

Going back to our "possible worlds" discussion, could a world without pain exist in a world with love?. Some of the deepest pain I've felt has been from someone rejecting me. If someone can never feel the suffering of rejection or the natural consequences of someone acting in a non-loving way, then love would have to be coerced, it would not be freely given. If I am not free to reject someone then I am not truly free to love them by my own free choice. It would seem that in a "what possible worlds can exist" scenario - there can be no love in a world where pain and suffering are not possibilities.

I'm not sure that the rules apply to god as they would to me and you. God is the creator. It seems to me that he can do what he wants with his creation. Would you think it "evil" if a painter threw away his painting, or if a potter broke the pot they made?

Avatar image for king_majestros
King_Majestros

2600

Forum Posts

33

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Religion needs to be destroyed for the better of Humanity. I always get a laugh at the "Pope" thinking himself high and mighty, in which case I don't recognize and would refuse to give him any special treatment. He's just an old man.

Avatar image for abstractraze
AbstractRaze

3639

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28304  Edited By AbstractRaze

@just_sayin said:
@abstractraze said:
@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 does 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"?

Yes, I believe in them, I became a Heathen, I'm a Neo-Pagan, unlike Christianity who tries to embrace the world such as Islam, well maybe not as extreme as Islam, but almost the same with the difference that Christianity helped to shape the West more or less, therefore our modern era, Heathenry is not an expansionist Religion, it only embraces the ancestry, traditional, spiritual heritage of the Indo-Germanic cultures, precisely the Viking era, around the 793–1066 AD, proceeded by the Germanic Iron Age.

No Caption Provided

Our brain is very complex, even if we see a person doing inhuman things, it only means there is almost no good in such a person, but does it really mean that there is absolutely nothing good within that person?

Of course, when we see a person like that, doing those sort of things, I make my calculations and I come to the conclusion that the light within this person is so tiny in comparison to the vast ocean of darkness, it's almost impossible to make it brighter, therefore there is no other alternative than sacrificing this person's life with the death penalty for the sake of the society one is living in, but there is no escape, you killed fractions of good in that person.

I don't believe in a hypocritical god such as the Christian god, but the simple fact that the Christian god ranks humans above angels, makes him a mediocre god, such as mediocre parents who openly says to ONE of his sons that he is the favorite one, or that he loves one of them more than the others, if I would hear my father saying that he loves me more than my other brothers, I would punch the hell out of him, the same with my mother and break contact to them, my family knows that, that's how I was raised too, that's a traditional value we pass to the next generations for already over 250 years, there is no favorite when it comes to your sons, your kids are your flesh and blood, equally, it are Germanic values, from the norse, because Germans are part of the Germanic peoples.

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223763

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@king_saturn said:
@just_sayin said:
@king_saturn said:
@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"?

I would say because GOD can and has caused disaster and in turn causes bad things to happen. You can call it judgment but if GOD causes a disaster that kills several people, I do not think it's just GOD judging someone, it's GOD doing bad things or evil. Even the former, saying GOD allowing bad things to happen is problematic because if GOD knows something bad will happen and he allows it to occur while having the power to stop it is like being Cruel.

I mean if we had Police who would watch a woman get raped or a man's store robbed by some criminals without trying to stop the crime what would we think of that Officer ?

I wonder if "cruel" is really the case. If a parent lets their child experience some short term pain to ensure them a better future like them getting a shot or pulling a tooth, is that evil? I don't think so. From god's perspective, which is eternity, any pain we experience is fleeting compared to eternity.

Going back to our "possible worlds" discussion, could a world without pain exist in a world with love?. Some of the deepest pain I've felt has been from someone rejecting me. If someone can never feel the suffering of rejection or the natural consequences of someone acting in a non-loving way, then love would have to be coerced, it would not be freely given. If I am not free to reject someone then I am not truly free to love them by my own free choice. It would seem that in a "what possible worlds can exist" scenario - there can be no love in a world where pain and suffering are not possibilities.

I'm not sure that the rules apply to god as they would to me and you. God is the creator. It seems to me that he can do what he wants with his creation. Would you think it "evil" if a painter threw away his painting, or if a potter broke the pot they made?

What if the Parent allows the Child to be tortured and raped ? Would we still look at the Parent in such a light as Good ? Even if something better could come from it. The idea that letting someone be in torment when you can stop has always been problematic. Sure, GOD is looking at things from an Eternal perspective but can he not also see things from this perspective and at least stop some of the torment ? I mean if we believe GOD intervenes in the lives of Humans is it too much to ask him to stop some crazy person from shooting up a school ? Or stop some horrible person from being raped and killed by some idiot ? Or stop some terrorists from killing people ? These are just a few examples.

I am not saying all pain should go away. I am saying I find it problematic that we have a deity who apparently on occasions causes disaster and great suffering which need not happen all the time. Sure, we should have down moments but is it too much to ask for a Loving GOD to at least stop the really bad stuff that happens in the world ? Also, why can not GOD stop someone who is in the midst of getting ready to do something horrible ? Like if a Terrorist was getting ready to blow up a building, GOD could cause that man to have a Heart Attack or something. Why does GOD have to let the entire disaster play out for us to have Free Will ?

The rules do not have to apply to GOD. If GOD's character is of Mercy and of Love, then his Character should show that in this world we live in when GOD manifests within reality. Why should we have to see things like some Crazy Idiot shooting up a school or building almost every other week if GOD has the power to stop him and could ? Well I would think GOD is evil if he threw away a painting that could feel pain, that could suffer, that could feel as a human does because I think it's cruel as hell for someone to just destroy a life like that. I mean there are reasons for violence, but GOD just killing people because he is GOD ? Does that really mesh with a GOD who is supposed to be merciful and good ?

Avatar image for just_sayin
just_sayin

4381

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

What if the Parent allows the Child to be tortured and raped ? Would we still look at the Parent in such a light as Good ? Even if something better could come from it. The idea that letting someone be in torment when you can stop has always been problematic. Sure, GOD is looking at things from an Eternal perspective but can he not also see things from this perspective and at least stop some of the torment ? I mean if we believe GOD intervenes in the lives of Humans is it too much to ask him to stop some crazy person from shooting up a school ? Or stop some horrible person from being raped and killed by some idiot ? Or stop some terrorists from killing people ? These are just a few examples.

I am not saying all pain should go away. I am saying I find it problematic that we have a deity who apparently on occasions causes disaster and great suffering which need not happen all the time. Sure, we should have down moments but is it too much to ask for a Loving GOD to at least stop the really bad stuff that happens in the world ? Also, why can not GOD stop someone who is in the midst of getting ready to do something horrible ? Like if a Terrorist was getting ready to blow up a building, GOD could cause that man to have a Heart Attack or something. Why does GOD have to let the entire disaster play out for us to have Free Will ?

The rules do not have to apply to GOD. If GOD's character is of Mercy and of Love, then his Character should show that in this world we live in when GOD manifests within reality. Why should we have to see things like some Crazy Idiot shooting up a school or building almost every other week if GOD has the power to stop him and could ? Well I would think GOD is evil if he threw away a painting that could feel pain, that could suffer, that could feel as a human does because I think it's cruel as hell for someone to just destroy a life like that. I mean there are reasons for violence, but GOD just killing people because he is GOD ? Does that really mesh with a GOD who is supposed to be merciful and good ?

I don't see myself on god's level. The analogy of a parent and child suggests that we might obtain his status. I wonder if anyone sees themself as evil for cleaning a shower which kills millions of bacteria - creations of god. Do they think they are evil for eating plants? Did they know that plants can sense when they are eaten and chemically react to it? They are much higher on the food chain than bacteria. We have the power to not eat them, so, why don't we feel guilty for taking their lives? Have you used your microwave lately, or used soap, or taken medicine? If so you killed a bunch of god's little creatures. Are we evil mass murderers that should be locked away for washing our clothes and bleaching our whites? I imagine that even though it is in our power to at least minimize their destruction, we don't consider it a moral imperative. Am I right, do you agree? If so, then why is god more morally obligated to give us the life and future that we desire, more than to give us whatever he wants to?

I don't know that I would call a natural disaster "evil" or letting it happen wrong. A volcano is just acting according to the natural laws, there is no malice. An asteroid that strikes and kills millions has no malicious intent. A Tsunami does tremendous damage, but did it do it in anger? If we assert that God is unjust if he does not give us the life we want - one without pain, without loss, without suffering, and definitely without death - have we not acted in a way that assumes our will is greater than his?

When I see evil - it affirms to me that god exists. If there is no moral lawgiver then "evil" is just an arbitrary made up thing in our heads.

Do you see any evidence that god demonstrates love and mercy? Do you see any actions that demonstrate his forgiveness or patience?

Avatar image for abstractraze
AbstractRaze

3639

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28307  Edited By AbstractRaze

@king_saturn: I feel and understand exactly what you think, and those are one of the so many controversies about the Christian God, but when it comes to us, Heathens, we have some sort of a symbiotic or reciprocal coexistence with the Gods, while in case of the Christian God, it's a completely different entity, apart from any human being and all other living beings, so what did the Christians in order to close that gap a bit? Jesus proclaimed himself as God's son who allegedly came to earth in order to pay for our sins.

But that's a cheesy way how to close the gap, a very convenient thing to do, while the Heathen Gods are closer to the people without the necessity to allegedly send some sort of Jesus in order to suffer for us and therefore keep the people in blame and hardship like, "Hey humans, my son paid for you, keep watching to the ground, do never stay firm and proud", considering that Christianity considers pride to be a sin.

What I'm trying to say is that the Heathen gods are more humane and humble, that is why we have different gods, which are the spiritual manifestation of people that prioritizes different roads or paths in their lives.

I mean, we don't have a god who ARROGANTLY thinks that he stays for any single action in our lives, because we are not equal, humans are not equal, we have different strengths, different personalities and aspirations.

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223763

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I don't see myself on god's level. The analogy of a parent and child suggests that we might obtain his status. I wonder if anyone sees themself as evil for cleaning a shower which kills millions of bacteria - creations of god. Do they think they are evil for eating plants? Did they know that plants can sense when they are eaten and chemically react to it? They are much higher on the food chain than bacteria. We have the power to not eat them, so, why don't we feel guilty for taking their lives? Have you used your microwave lately, or used soap, or taken medicine? If so you killed a bunch of god's little creatures. Are we evil mass murderers that should be locked away for washing our clothes and bleaching our whites? I imagine that even though it is in our power to at least minimize their destruction, we don't consider it a moral imperative. Am I right, do you agree? If so, then why is god more morally obligated to give us the life and future that we desire, more than to give us whatever he wants to?

I don't know that I would call a natural disaster "evil" or letting it happen wrong. A volcano is just acting according to the natural laws, there is no malice. An asteroid that strikes and kills millions has no malicious intent. A Tsunami does tremendous damage, but did it do it in anger? If we assert that God is unjust if he does not give us the life we want - one without pain, without loss, without suffering, and definitely without death - have we not acted in a way that assumes our will is greater than his?

When I see evil - it affirms to me that god exists. If there is no moral lawgiver then "evil" is just an arbitrary made up thing in our heads.

Do you see any evidence that god demonstrates love and mercy? Do you see any actions that demonstrate his forgiveness or patience?

Well we don't have to be on GOD's level to judge his actions do we ? I mean if GOD's character is of Mercy and Love and we see something he does as Cruel and Horrible, how does that make us wrong exactly ? How is it that we can judge some of GOD's actions to be Good and yet not be able to judge GOD's other actions as Bad ? I used the Parent and Child analogy because you earlier said something about a Parent letting their child go through some minor pain to get to a better outcome as a whole. I just played off that analogy. I think the reason we do not see ourselves as Evil for cleaning a shower and killing bacteria is because our scope and power of things is limited. We can not hear or see the cry of Bacteria when we clean our showers. We do not perceive bacteria the same way we do other life that we can see has feelings and sentience like Cats or Dogs and animals of that nature. Now, I think the issue with Plants is that again we Humans are limited in scope, we have to eat something to live, you can not live off of rocks or dirt, so Plant life at the minimal we would have to consume to live ourselves. Yes, I have used my microwave lately, but what I did not notice was something dying while I was using it. Now contrast this with GOD, The Almighty knows all things and can do anything within the realm of logic. So GOD is capable of giving us life and a future we desire because his scope of things and his power is nowhere as limited as humanity is. So to answer your question, I would have to disagree because I do not see using a microwave or eating plants anyways comparable to GOD allowing terrorists to shoot up a school or building or GOD causing an Earthquake that kills several people. GOD has more scope and power to control things and we humans simply do not.

Well, what if GOD causes the Natural Disaster himself ? I mean if GOD causes an Earthquake with the Intent to harm how is that not a Bad Thing that GOD is doing ? I don't know sometimes the Bible itself says GOD would get angry and then he would cause a disaster to happen, so it's possible GOD could do these things out of anger at times. I mean I know this happened a few times like this in Numbers with the Israelites. Well what if the Bible can confirm that GOD does act at the minimum Cruel at times ? Is it then Me calling GOD unjust or is it measuring the Character of GOD from the Texts and saying that GOD can be this way at times ?

I agree with this to some extent. Though technically GOD could allow evil to exist and still stop the really bad stuff from happening. Which is what I am more concerned about.

Yes Indeed, GOD can show Love and Mercy but I also see a lot in this world where GOD can be Cruel and Bad. Hence, why I use the Bible to show GOD's nature can be inconsistent at times. That's why I lean on Isaiah 45:7 so much because it shows GOD does it all, IMO at least.

Avatar image for abstractraze
AbstractRaze

3639

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28309  Edited By AbstractRaze

@king_saturn said:
saying GOD allowing bad things to happen is problematic because if GOD knows something bad will happen and he allows it to occur while having the power to stop it is like being Cruel.

Let us do reverse psychology.

While reanalyzing your issue on the subject, it pretty much seems to me that you're not really talking about this because of religion neither because you want to put in question the Christian god, but my question is, if God would exist according to your reasoning, those physically manifesting himself, would you seek for his intervention against injustice or evil? or it's just your subconscious desire to do it by yourself if you would be able too, which it's more than clear to me that you would.

Maybe someday beings from a far distant world could discover us, they could have far better technology than we do, so let us assume they study us and someday, they decide to fabricate or simulate god with their technology and do what entails your desires, which is the elimination of evil on earth according to their moral mindset, well let us assume that it's a similar mindset like ours.

We know that if it would be a human being doing this, we would call such a thing as tyranny and since I assume that it's your inner desire, that's a bit narcissist if you ask me, but I assume as well that if those hypothetical advanced living organisms would do such a thing to us and you would know about it, you would be completely fine with that, don't you? they would hypothetically not be different than us, just saying.

PS:

A redundant thing to ask, but there are no doubts that your approach is NOT sincere but rather, you are a bit hypocrite unless you truly advocate tyranny.

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223763

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28310  Edited By King Saturn

@abstractraze said:

@king_saturn: I feel and understand exactly what you think, and those are one of the so many controversies about the Christian God, but when it comes to us, Heathens, we have some sort of a symbiotic or reciprocal coexistence with the Gods, while in case of the Christian God, it's a completely different entity, apart from any human being and all other living beings, so what did the Christians in order to close that gap a bit? Jesus proclaimed himself as God's son who allegedly came to earth in order to pay for our sins.

But that's a cheesy way how to close the gap, a very convenient thing to do, while the Heathen Gods are closer to the people without the necessity to allegedly send some sort of Jesus in order to suffer for us and therefore keep the people in blame and hardship like, "Hey humans, my son paid for you, keep watching to the ground, do never stay firm and proud", considering that Christianity considers pride to be a sin.

What I'm trying to say is that the Heathen gods are more humane and humble, that is why we have different gods, which are the spiritual manifestation of people that prioritizes different roads or paths in their lives.

I mean, we don't have a god who ARROGANTLY thinks that he stays for any single action in our lives, because we are not equal, humans are not equal, we have different strengths, different personalities and aspirations.

Heathen Gods... who are these particular deities you are speaking of ?

@abstractraze said:
@king_saturn said:
saying GOD allowing bad things to happen is problematic because if GOD knows something bad will happen and he allows it to occur while having the power to stop it is like being Cruel.

Let us do reverse psychology.

While reanalyzing your issue on the subject, it pretty much seems to me that you're not really talking about this because of religion neither because you want to put in question the Christian god, but my question is, if God would exist according to your reasoning, those physically manifesting himself, would you seek for his intervention against injustice or evil? or it's just your subconscious desire to do it by yourself if you would be able too, which it's more than clear to me that you would.

Maybe someday beings from a far distant world could discover us, they could have far better technology than we do, so let us assume they study us and someday, they decide to fabricate or simulate god with their technology and do what entails your desires, which is the elimination of evil on earth according to their moral mindset, well let us assume that it's a similar mindset like ours.

We know that if it would be a human being doing this, we would call such a thing as tyranny and since I assume that it's your inner desire, that's a bit narcissist if you ask me, but I assume as well that if those hypothetical advanced living organisms would do such a thing to us and you would know about it, you would be completely fine with that, don't you? they would hypothetically not be different than us, just saying.

PS:

A redundant thing to ask, but there are no doubts that your approach is NOT sincere but rather, you are a bit hypocrite unless you truly advocate tyranny.

I feel like this is Marvel vs Capcom... A New Challenger Has Entered.

Well for the past several posts with other users we have gone over various scriptures concerning the nature of the GOD of the Bible more specific the Old Testament. So yes, we have been bringing the Christian GOD into question, at least his character. Why would I try to stop injustice myself if GOD fully manifest himself to me in reality and could do it ? I would ask him first why is all this suffering happening and why won't you help to stop these evil doers ?

Perhaps you are right here. Who says all evil has to be eliminated ? My thoughts are I would believe GOD could do better here if he is truly Merciful and Loving.

Correct, but I never said GOD should be destroying all evil. Just more of it than we see in this reality.

PS - Is It advocating tyranny to think GOD could do more to stop Evil ? How is that being hypocritical ?

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

6103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#28312  Edited By dshipp17

@king_saturn:

“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 ?”

The discussion has continued, because you're passing on misinformation that can then pollute the minds of the new and the curious. This was previously explained to you. Now, explaining yourself as deist, it is now especially important that I respond to any misinformation you spread about Christianity (e.g. previously, you said that you were once a pastor; how did that come about? Were you raised in Christianity, educated into Christianity to become a pastor, both, or neither?); I'm responding, because there is something much bigger at play then just being right: it's my Christian responsibilities and my responsibilities as God's advocate. You might think I'm trolling, because you're basically only taking very little of the reasons that you've received in response to your comments and repeating yourself, as if something you said has been validated or is still sustained. I've been able to respond to your comments and refute them in around seven different ways, at this state, where one should have sufficed. You're so stubborn and in so much in need to say face, that you don't seem to realize that you passed up on an updated Bible version that you're otherwise claiming to accept. That's only one example out of many now, where you're thinking that you're somewhere other than lost in your own spin.

It's unfortunate that you think God does evil, even after our back and forth; you could have helped yourself, by listening and then responding, instead of repeating yourself in or to just keep saving face on clearly bankrupt points.

“Oh, you said something. That does not mean it was coherent or legit with our discussion.”

The only reason that it seems incoherent or illegitimate is because you aren't examining what is being said for purposes of learning from it (e.g. now, obvious, you can't seem to comprehend what was said in not knowing what was said); thus, while you want to sound good by introducing the term, coherent, I think that you just pretty clearly explained exactly where your problem lies and it's why you keep spinning around like a car with 3 wheels and trying to speed ahead.

“The point was that GOD was willing to deal in a wager with Satan according to the Job account.”

So, I responded to that point to show that the plain text shows that it was Satan who was trying to wager with God and lost, twice. The account, that God was wagering with Satan, is you're own nonsense that doesn't have do with anything beyond your confused attempt to save face on a point that you lost long ago, probably with many other people besides me; essentially, you now just need to take the correct issues with maturity and advance the conversation by moving forward with the discussion, as is starting to become more and more apparent.

“It's not a distortion. Satan and GOD had a deal on Job's life.”

No, and, again no. the Bible actually shows, first, God restricting Satan from laying his hands on Job, and, then, from killing Job. Hence, again, you're speaking from your own spinning, wishing that your throwing paint at the wall has somehow ever stuck for you. Until you listen, you're hopelessly lost and nowhere even in the direction of any type of point win. Clearly, you don't even fully understand how you're distorting things or don't understand that you're distortion of things have been cleared.

“Did not GOD give Satan authority to harm Job's possessions including his Family. Are you serious, bruh ?”

Here is an example of your being lost in your own confusion and distortion by simply being too immature to move on with the discussion without saving face, by conceding a lost point that's made you look ridiculous several times over now; what does this have to do with your other point at hand, that I addressed: your misinformation that God was putting Job's life in jeopardy? Here, you're both talking out of both sides and easing into yet another tangent, based on a half truth for effect. God didn't authorize Satan to do harm to Job's possessions, God just placed them into Satan's hand and Satan decided that he would take the course to harm Job's possessions; nuance and specifics are important, where, you don't seem to understand or know that you're talking to someone who is aware that you're otherwise trying to misuse nuance and specifics to paint God as having ordered David to take the census, even in the face of another Scripture that says that Satan provoked David to take the census, where, the explanation is clearly in translation and missing text, where, in order to understand such, nuance and specifics are crucial in this particular context.

“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.”

Here, you think that you made a point, because, evidently, you didn't read, for purposes of comprehension, everything that I said, and, so, you're spinning around instead of moving forward with the conversation, being more concerned with saying face; in my prior point, I said that they can't be vastly different, because information was cut out from the passage in 2 Samuel 24:1 that could then lead to understanding 1 Chronicles 21:1, that Satan incited or provoked the census (e.g. this is the part that you either wouldn't pick up or the place where you're ignoring this clarifying information so that you can again repeat this now bankrupt point). The point was also made in support of this position, because Joab is otherwise trying to give David a final warning not to take the census, as God's messenger (e.g. If God were indeed trying to have David take the census so that He could then do harm to both David and Israel, why would a contrary warning go David's way? Are you trying that say that Satan was actually trying to save humanity from receiving harm, but, was unsuccessful? A valid point, since you seem to be favoring the version that seems to be saying that God incited the census over the version that's saying that Satan provoked the census; why are you so intent on holding to a version that is removing Satan from his true character (e.g. which would to be to bring harm and destruction to Israel, as the line leading to Jesus and just general harm and destruction to humanity, as a whole) and removing God from His true character (e.g. to bring Jesus as a gift of salvation)? Meantime, you're holding onto 1 Chronicle 21:7, when you were introduced to 2 Samuel 24:10 that you could be using in the alternative. I'm not sure if you're even able to pick up on that tendency or, you're fooling yourself into thinking that I'm somehow not picking up on that tendency, despite my many hints that I am picking up on it). Another point was made that this is the direction to lean towards, that God is trying to prevent David from sinning or further sinning, due to verses like James 1:13.

But, here, obviously trying to seem as if you know something that hundreds to thousands of church leaders don't, you can't stop saving face to move forward with the conversation, because you want to seem like you've kept this prized position that you spotted things that church leaders who are spreading the position of the mainstream Christian church are somehow wrong. This could definitely conceivably work, if you weren't conversing with someone not as experienced and determined as me, and, likely, this is exactly what you may be doing with your misinformation elsewhere, with people who are looking for ways to believe the misinformation that is commonly circulated, even though that information is repeatedly debunked, if only those people ventured towards places likely to have clarification for that information, such as the scholarly Christian community; your group can't keep traction, because the truth eventually comes to light one way or the other by simple fact that the information is the truthful facts.

“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, I'm afraid this is just a rouse for your saving face again, and pretending that somehow you didn't get caught. This remark is being made to a comment involving 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1; with that being the case, why is 1 Chronicles 21:7 even relevant to anything in relation to whether the information that I provided should have clarified things for you? I presented you with 2 Samuel 24:10 several times now. Here, you're zigzagging between 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles where the situation seems to be helping rehabilitate yourself from a lost point, where you should be abandoning the tendency to save face so that the conversation can advance. Part of the problem is that you're, again, not reading for comprehension so that you can provide a response that could move the conversation forward.

Avatar image for abstractraze
AbstractRaze

3639

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28313  Edited By AbstractRaze

@king_saturn said:
@abstractraze said:

@king_saturn: I feel and understand exactly what you think, and those are one of the so many controversies about the Christian God, but when it comes to us, Heathens, we have some sort of a symbiotic or reciprocal coexistence with the Gods, while in case of the Christian God, it's a completely different entity, apart from any human being and all other living beings, so what did the Christians in order to close that gap a bit? Jesus proclaimed himself as God's son who allegedly came to earth in order to pay for our sins.

But that's a cheesy way how to close the gap, a very convenient thing to do, while the Heathen Gods are closer to the people without the necessity to allegedly send some sort of Jesus in order to suffer for us and therefore keep the people in blame and hardship like, "Hey humans, my son paid for you, keep watching to the ground, do never stay firm and proud", considering that Christianity considers pride to be a sin.

What I'm trying to say is that the Heathen gods are more humane and humble, that is why we have different gods, which are the spiritual manifestation of people that prioritizes different roads or paths in their lives.

I mean, we don't have a god who ARROGANTLY thinks that he stays for any single action in our lives, because we are not equal, humans are not equal, we have different strengths, different personalities and aspirations.

Heathen Gods... who are these particular deities you are speaking of ?

They are the Norse Gods, such as Wotan, widely known as Odin, then we have Frigg, Tyr, Bragi, Balder, Idun and so on.

@king_saturn said:
@abstractraze said:
@king_saturn said:
saying GOD allowing bad things to happen is problematic because if GOD knows something bad will happen and he allows it to occur while having the power to stop it is like being Cruel.

Let us do reverse psychology.

While reanalyzing your issue on the subject, it pretty much seems to me that you're not really talking about this because of religion neither because you want to put in question the Christian god, but my question is, if God would exist according to your reasoning, those physically manifesting himself, would you seek for his intervention against injustice or evil? or it's just your subconscious desire to do it by yourself if you would be able too, which it's more than clear to me that you would.

Maybe someday beings from a far distant world could discover us, they could have far better technology than we do, so let us assume they study us and someday, they decide to fabricate or simulate god with their technology and do what entails your desires, which is the elimination of evil on earth according to their moral mindset, well let us assume that it's a similar mindset like ours.

We know that if it would be a human being doing this, we would call such a thing as tyranny and since I assume that it's your inner desire, that's a bit narcissist if you ask me, but I assume as well that if those hypothetical advanced living organisms would do such a thing to us and you would know about it, you would be completely fine with that, don't you? they would hypothetically not be different than us, just saying.

PS:

A redundant thing to ask, but there are no doubts that your approach is NOT sincere but rather, you are a bit hypocrite unless you truly advocate tyranny.

I feel like this is Marvel vs Capcom... A New Challenger Has Entered.

Well for the past several posts with other users we have gone over various scriptures concerning the nature of the GOD of the Bible more specific the Old Testament. So yes, we have been bringing the Christian GOD into question, at least his character. Why would I try to stop injustice myself if GOD fully manifest himself to me in reality and could do it ? I would ask him first why is all this suffering happening and why won't you help to stop these evil doers ?

Perhaps you are right here. Who says all evil has to be eliminated ? My thoughts are I would believe GOD could do better here if he is truly Merciful and Loving.

Correct, but I never said GOD should be destroying all evil. Just more of it than we see in this reality.

PS - Is It advocating tyranny to think GOD could do more to stop Evil ? How is that being hypocritical ?

The thing is that your approach seems to be based on your personal criteria of justice and good than rather any real critical focus on the Christian god.

To tell it in short, it seems like you're protesting or complaining, that how can it be possible that with so much evil and injustice out there, humanity doesn't fully respond on this concern, but rather they waste their time believing that there is a God who allegedly makes justice for them.

There are no doubts that the Christian god is a hypocrite in nature, but a god does not necessarily have to intervene, for instance, when Christians pray, they demand from God to do something for them and their personal problems, when a Heathen prays, we pray for our family and our people, not because we expect the Gods to do something for them, but rather spiritually inspire them to progress and be strong in their paths, because the Norse Gods are the spiritual manifestation of our strengths and our paths, we're conected to them, furthermore, we're not concerned in transmitting in others to be good or evil, because good acts are by default correlated with progress, sometimes we do minor bad things because we have no other option, but we instinctively try to evade bad attitudes, at the end of the day, we are human beings, for example, demanding a human being to sacrifice everything that he loves such as Jesus did, because if Jesus truly existed, and if he truly did that, how many broken hearts did he left behind for his eutopia? a bit selfish and somehow narcissistic, don't you think?

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

6103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@flashfyr said:
@dshipp17 said:
Loading Video...
No Caption Provided

The discussion has continued, because you're passing on misinformation that can then pollute the minds of the new and the curious. This was previously explained to you. Now, explaining yourself as deist, it is now especially important that I respond to any misinformation you spread about Christianity (e.g. previously, you said that you were once a pastor; how did that come about? Were you raised in Christianity, educated into Christianity to become a pastor, both, or neither?); I'm responding, because there is something much bigger at play then just being right: it's my Christian responsibilities and my responsibilities as God's advocate. You might think I'm trolling, because you're basically only taking very little of the reasons that you've received in response to your comments and repeating yourself, as if something you said has been validated or is still sustained. I've been able to respond to your comments and refute them in around seven different ways, at this state, where one should have sufficed. You're so stubborn and in so much in need to say face, that you don't seem to realize that you passed up on an updated Bible version that you're otherwise claiming to accept. That's only one example out of many now, where you're thinking that you're somewhere other than lost in your own spin.

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223763

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@king_saturn said:
@abstractraze said:

@king_saturn: I feel and understand exactly what you think, and those are one of the so many controversies about the Christian God, but when it comes to us, Heathens, we have some sort of a symbiotic or reciprocal coexistence with the Gods, while in case of the Christian God, it's a completely different entity, apart from any human being and all other living beings, so what did the Christians in order to close that gap a bit? Jesus proclaimed himself as God's son who allegedly came to earth in order to pay for our sins.

But that's a cheesy way how to close the gap, a very convenient thing to do, while the Heathen Gods are closer to the people without the necessity to allegedly send some sort of Jesus in order to suffer for us and therefore keep the people in blame and hardship like, "Hey humans, my son paid for you, keep watching to the ground, do never stay firm and proud", considering that Christianity considers pride to be a sin.

What I'm trying to say is that the Heathen gods are more humane and humble, that is why we have different gods, which are the spiritual manifestation of people that prioritizes different roads or paths in their lives.

I mean, we don't have a god who ARROGANTLY thinks that he stays for any single action in our lives, because we are not equal, humans are not equal, we have different strengths, different personalities and aspirations.

Heathen Gods... who are these particular deities you are speaking of ?

They are the Norse Gods, such as Wotan, widely known as Odin, then we have Frigg, Tyr, Bragi, Balder, Idun and so on.

@king_saturn said:
@abstractraze said:
@king_saturn said:
saying GOD allowing bad things to happen is problematic because if GOD knows something bad will happen and he allows it to occur while having the power to stop it is like being Cruel.

Let us do reverse psychology.

While reanalyzing your issue on the subject, it pretty much seems to me that you're not really talking about this because of religion neither because you want to put in question the Christian god, but my question is, if God would exist according to your reasoning, those physically manifesting himself, would you seek for his intervention against injustice or evil? or it's just your subconscious desire to do it by yourself if you would be able too, which it's more than clear to me that you would.

Maybe someday beings from a far distant world could discover us, they could have far better technology than we do, so let us assume they study us and someday, they decide to fabricate or simulate god with their technology and do what entails your desires, which is the elimination of evil on earth according to their moral mindset, well let us assume that it's a similar mindset like ours.

We know that if it would be a human being doing this, we would call such a thing as tyranny and since I assume that it's your inner desire, that's a bit narcissist if you ask me, but I assume as well that if those hypothetical advanced living organisms would do such a thing to us and you would know about it, you would be completely fine with that, don't you? they would hypothetically not be different than us, just saying.

PS:

A redundant thing to ask, but there are no doubts that your approach is NOT sincere but rather, you are a bit hypocrite unless you truly advocate tyranny.

I feel like this is Marvel vs Capcom... A New Challenger Has Entered.

Well for the past several posts with other users we have gone over various scriptures concerning the nature of the GOD of the Bible more specific the Old Testament. So yes, we have been bringing the Christian GOD into question, at least his character. Why would I try to stop injustice myself if GOD fully manifest himself to me in reality and could do it ? I would ask him first why is all this suffering happening and why won't you help to stop these evil doers ?

Perhaps you are right here. Who says all evil has to be eliminated ? My thoughts are I would believe GOD could do better here if he is truly Merciful and Loving.

Correct, but I never said GOD should be destroying all evil. Just more of it than we see in this reality.

PS - Is It advocating tyranny to think GOD could do more to stop Evil ? How is that being hypocritical ?

The thing is that your approach seems to be based on your personal criteria of justice and good than rather any real critical focus on the Christian god.

To tell it in short, it seems like you're protesting or complaining, that how can it be possible that with so much evil and injustice out there, humanity doesn't fully respond on this concern, but rather they waste their time believing that there is a God who allegedly makes justice for them.

There are no doubts that the Christian god is a hypocrite in nature, but a god does not necessarily have to intervene, for instance, when Christians pray, they demand from God to do something for them and their personal problems, when a Heathen prays, we pray for our family and our people, not because we expect the Gods to do something for them, but rather spiritually inspire them to progress and be strong in their paths, because the Norse Gods are the spiritual manifestation of our strengths and our paths, we're conected to them, furthermore, we're not concerned in transmitting in others to be good or evil, because good acts are by default correlated with progress, sometimes we do minor bad things because we have no other option, but we instinctively try to evade bad attitudes, at the end of the day, we are human beings, for example, demanding a human being to sacrifice everything that he loves such as Jesus did, because if Jesus truly existed, and if he truly did that, how many broken hearts did he left behind for his eutopia? a bit selfish and somehow narcissistic, don't you think?

Concerning these Norse Gods... Is there a reason why you left Thor off the list ? Also, do actually pray to all these deities or just some of them ?

Well, earlier I used passages from the Bible that supposedly says GOD makes peace and creates evil / disaster. I used that to show that GOD does both Good and Evil. I have not really given my own criteria of what justice is. I am simply showing how GOD's character seems to go against being merciful and loving at times and used examples I thought was relevant.

Not really, my point was and has been that GOD does both Good and Bad. I have been attacked by multiple users for this position claiming that this is not the Bible's position even though I have shown multiple other accounts that show GOD can be cruel at times.

You are correct, BUT and IF, GOD's character is supposedly merciful and loving as many Christians claim he is, would you not expect him to manifest in ways to at least stop some of the bad stuff we see in the world ?

Your summary of Heathen beliefs and values is Interesting. I will have to do some digging into the Norse Gods beyond Thor in Marvel Comics. I do have a bit of a slight question about your thoughts on Jesus though. Do you think Jesus really loved things in this world considering many believe he came from another realm and was sent to do a mission from The Almighty himself ? I mean if Jesus came and desired to do GOD the Father's will, is he really doing something he did not want to do in sacrifice ? I am sure Jesus left behind many broken hearts... but considering his death and proposed resurrection and ascension to Heaven would lead to Eternal Life for those broken hearts. Is the supposed selfishness of The Vice Ruler Of The Universe so bad now ?

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223763

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dshipp17 said:

@king_saturn:


The discussion has continued, because you're passing on misinformation that can then pollute the minds of the new and the curious. This was previously explained to you. Now, explaining yourself as deist, it is now especially important that I respond to any misinformation you spread about Christianity (e.g. previously, you said that you were once a pastor; how did that come about? Were you raised in Christianity, educated into Christianity to become a pastor, both, or neither?); I'm responding, because there is something much bigger at play then just being right: it's my Christian responsibilities and my responsibilities as God's advocate. You might think I'm trolling, because you're basically only taking very little of the reasons that you've received in response to your comments and repeating yourself, as if something you said has been validated or is still sustained. I've been able to respond to your comments and refute them in around seven different ways, at this state, where one should have sufficed. You're so stubborn and in so much in need to say face, that you don't seem to realize that you passed up on an updated Bible version that you're otherwise claiming to accept. That's only one example out of many now, where you're thinking that you're somewhere other than lost in your own spin.

The only information I have passed on was what the Bible itself says and summaries of such. You can call it whatever you like but this is getting real old this back and forth. I would take you more seriously dshipp if you actually used legitimate Bible verses to back your positions and not just your own speculations.

It's unfortunate that you think God does evil, even after our back and forth; you could have helped yourself, by listening and then responding, instead of repeating yourself in or to just keep saving face on clearly bankrupt points.

I think GOD does Evil because the Bible has GOD claiming he does Evil. At least the KJV does. Other versions say GOD creates Calamity or Disaster. Really it all boils down to GOD doing Bad Things though. I repeat myself because I would think that scripture would hold up as legit in these discussions. It's not my speculation that GOD does Evil if the Bible claims he does. Isaiah 45:7

The only reason that it seems incoherent or illegitimate is because you aren't examining what is being said for purposes of learning from it (e.g. now, obvious, you can't seem to comprehend what was said in not knowing what was said); thus, while you want to sound good by introducing the term, coherent, I think that you just pretty clearly explained exactly where your problem lies and it's why you keep spinning around like a car with 3 wheels and trying to speed ahead.

Yeah, I got a problem. I read the Bible and bring out a few verses and some users get mad about it cause apparently they do not like what The Bible is saying here.

So, I responded to that point to show that the plain text shows that it was Satan who was trying to wager with God and lost, twice. The account, that God was wagering with Satan, is you're own nonsense that doesn't have do with anything beyond your confused attempt to save face on a point that you lost long ago, probably with many other people besides me; essentially, you now just need to take the correct issues with maturity and advance the conversation by moving forward with the discussion, as is starting to become more and more apparent.

Have you actually read the book of Job ? Read where GOD asked had Satan considered Job ? Read where GOD took away Job's protection ? Read where GOD gave Satan authority to harm Job ? Do you really think when GOD gave Satan authority over his stuff he would just send him flowers and candy ? Do you think GOD is dumb ? That the same entity that waged war in Heaven would just be pleasant and nice to Job when GOD gave him power to harm him ?

No, and, again no. the Bible actually shows, first, God restricting Satan from laying his hands on Job, and, then, from killing Job. Hence, again, you're speaking from your own spinning, wishing that your throwing paint at the wall has somehow ever stuck for you. Until you listen, you're hopelessly lost and nowhere even in the direction of any type of point win. Clearly, you don't even fully understand how you're distorting things or don't understand that you're distortion of things have been cleared.

This is what Job 2:7 says "So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown."

If GOD restricted Satan from laying hands on Job, then why did GOD allow Satan to put sore boils on his body ?

Here is an example of your being lost in your own confusion and distortion by simply being too immature to move on with the discussion without saving face, by conceding a lost point that's made you look ridiculous several times over now; what does this have to do with your other point at hand, that I addressed: your misinformation that God was putting Job's life in jeopardy? Here, you're both talking out of both sides and easing into yet another tangent, based on a half truth for effect. God didn't authorize Satan to do harm to Job's possessions, God just placed them into Satan's hand and Satan decided that he would take the course to harm Job's possessions; nuance and specifics are important, where, you don't seem to understand or know that you're talking to someone who is aware that you're otherwise trying to misuse nuance and specifics to paint God as having ordered David to take the census, even in the face of another Scripture that says that Satan provoked David to take the census, where, the explanation is clearly in translation and missing text, where, in order to understand such, nuance and specifics are crucial in this particular context.

GOD was putting Job's life in Jeopardy. Yes, GOD said Satan could not kill Job, but Satan tormenting the crap out of Job and took his children as well. GOD did authorize Satan to do harm to Job's possessions, why do you think GOD gave Satan authority over Job's things including his health ? I actually said earlier that I like using the 1 Chronicles 21 account more because it is more clearer about what was happening in the account IMO.

Here, you think that you made a point, because, evidently, you didn't read, for purposes of comprehension, everything that I said, and, so, you're spinning around instead of moving forward with the conversation, being more concerned with saying face; in my prior point, I said that they can't be vastly different, because information was cut out from the passage in 2 Samuel 24:1 that could then lead to understanding 1 Chronicles 21:1, that Satan incited or provoked the census (e.g. this is the part that you either wouldn't pick up or the place where you're ignoring this clarifying information so that you can again repeat this now bankrupt point). The point was also made in support of this position, because Joab is otherwise trying to give David a final warning not to take the census, as God's messenger (e.g. If God were indeed trying to have David take the census so that He could then do harm to both David and Israel, why would a contrary warning go David's way? Are you trying that say that Satan was actually trying to save humanity from receiving harm, but, was unsuccessful? A valid point, since you seem to be favoring the version that seems to be saying that God incited the census over the version that's saying that Satan provoked the census; why are you so intent on holding to a version that is removing Satan from his true character (e.g. which would to be to bring harm and destruction to Israel, as the line leading to Jesus and just general harm and destruction to humanity, as a whole) and removing God from His true character (e.g. to bring Jesus as a gift of salvation)? Meantime, you're holding onto 1 Chronicle 21:7, when you were introduced to 2 Samuel 24:10 that you could be using in the alternative. I'm not sure if you're even able to pick up on that tendency or, you're fooling yourself into thinking that I'm somehow not picking up on that tendency, despite my many hints that I am picking up on it). Another point was made that this is the direction to lean towards, that God is trying to prevent David from sinning or further sinning, due to verses like James 1:13.

But, here, obviously trying to seem as if you know something that hundreds to thousands of church leaders don't, you can't stop saving face to move forward with the conversation, because you want to seem like you've kept this prized position that you spotted things that church leaders who are spreading the position of the mainstream Christian church are somehow wrong. This could definitely conceivably work, if you weren't conversing with someone not as experienced and determined as me, and, likely, this is exactly what you may be doing with your misinformation elsewhere, with people who are looking for ways to believe the misinformation that is commonly circulated, even though that information is repeatedly debunked, if only those people ventured towards places likely to have clarification for that information, such as the scholarly Christian community; your group can't keep traction, because the truth eventually comes to light one way or the other by simple fact that the information is the truthful facts.

I did not ignore anything, I just clarified the accounts properly. When you kept going back to 2 Samuel 24 to say GOD was angry with Israel I showed also that this account has GOD moving David to number Israel. You gave out some obscure Bible version that says 2 Samuel 24 is saying Satan encouraged David to do this but the KJV, NIV, ESV all say what I am saying so it is what it is.

No, I'm afraid this is just a rouse for your saving face again, and pretending that somehow you didn't get caught. This remark is being made to a comment involving 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1; with that being the case, why is 1 Chronicles 21:7 even relevant to anything in relation to whether the information that I provided should have clarified things for you? I presented you with 2 Samuel 24:10 several times now. Here, you're zigzagging between 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles where the situation seems to be helping rehabilitate yourself from a lost point, where you should be abandoning the tendency to save face so that the conversation can advance. Part of the problem is that you're, again, not reading for comprehension so that you can provide a response that could move the conversation forward.

You keep saying saving face, but saving face to whom ? Also, why is it that when we go an examine these passages directly I am usually the one in the right just like here with Job. I kept using 1 Chronicles 21:7 because it directly says that this thing in numbering Israel is why GOD smote Israel and nothing else. I used the other passages before it to show clarity. Okay, I am not reading for comprehension yet here on multiple occasions it is you who have been surprised by the Holy Text when I bring out new Scriptures. LOL

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8665

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Damning Damnation 2

Matthew 3

11I baptize you withbwater for repentance, but after me will come One more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.12His winnowing fork is in His hand to clear His threshing floor and to gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

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 the 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.

1 Cor 3

12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, 13his workmanship will be evident, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will prove the quality of each man’s work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive a reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss. He himself will be saved, but only as if through the flames.

The wheat then, is the part of a Pharisee or Sadducee that survives The Day of Fire. It will be the part of him that displays the fruit of The Spirit.

The chaff is the part of a Pharisee or Sadducee that is burnt up on The Day of Fire.

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

6103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#28318  Edited By dshipp17

@king_saturn:

“The only information I have passed on was what the Bible itself says and summaries of such. You can call it whatever you like but this is getting real old this back and forth. I would take you more seriously dshipp if you actually used legitimate Bible verses to back your positions and not just your own speculations.”

This isn't actually what has been taking place, as anyone could tell who has been reading for comprehension. I've quoted multiple Bible verses. Case and point, that's why 1 Chronicles 21:1 is being discussed: it was presented as a rebuttal to your preference for 2 Samuel 24:1; again, you first repeat misinformation and then introduce misinformation; I haven't been speculating, I've been quoting Bible verses and making logical extensions and advising you that what you're saying has to be wrong, as it doesn't jive with Scriptures like James 1:13; what you're doing is trying to take Satan's attributes and attribute them to God, while pretending Satan isn't there and then arguing the complete opposite, when there's an opportunity to save face and avoid progressing with the conversation; meanwhile, I've remain consistent and established that God cannot be the source of moral evil as is consistent with the teachings of the Bible; and, by the way, case and point, the paragraph you're quoting asked you about your Christian background and your claim to have once been a pastor; but, you're responding to something from your imagination that has little to nothing to do with the iteration at hand; that I've been speaking based entirely on speculation while you were quoting actual Bible verses is just total nonsense (e.g. the Bible just doesn't allow someone to take Satan's attributes and transport them onto God in any way that is legitimate and with any staying power; this is basically where you're saying that I'm speculating while you're quoting Scripture, even though thousands of church leaders also teach from my position; you really should escape your fantasy delusions and just read what's actually going on instead of repeating yourself distortions from which you derive your confusions).

“I think GOD does Evil because the Bible has GOD claiming he does Evil. At least the KJV does. It's not my speculation that GOD does Evil if the Bible claims he does. Isaiah 45:7”

It actually doesn't and several posters have gone back and forth with you, using Scripture context to demonstrate that such isn't the case; this is the actual reality of things, not you're quoting Scripture but everyone else speculating. Additionally, Scripture like James 1:13 further illuminates that what you'd like to believe just simply doesn't jive with reality as taught from Scripture; after all, there must be a bases for all of mainstream Christianity teaching from a position that God isn't a source of evil with nothing in Scripture, anywhere, supporting it; you just have to listen and learn, but, sometimes, that might also require some maturity; if you're unwilling to mature some, then, you can't stunt your own growth and look silly in the process, just like a car trying to race forward missing a forth wheel.

“Have you actually read the book of Job ?”

Sure, you might have picked up on it, after I quoted from Job to you several times and used it to debunked a number of your points on a repeated basis now.

“Read where GOD gave Satan authority to harm Job ?”

In the previous post, I demonstrated how this part is purely the product of your imagination or distortions that you could used on someone less experienced with the Bible and more inclined towards your position. God never gave Satan authority to harm Job in the Scripture under discussion which was Job chapter 1; you the, advanced to chapter 2, in order to safe face, but, first things first, you have to move the discussion forward with chapter 1; chapter 2 could be discussed, after we've dealt with chapter 1, where you've demonstrated that you can read with an intention to comprehend while avoiding a need to save face and conceding one more point, in the process.

“Do you really think when GOD gave Satan authority over his stuff he would just send him flowers and candy ?”

The problem here is that you're mis-characterizing God's motive (e.g. this is where you're trying to establish your point that God sometimes does evil, when, I said that He doesn't do moral evil; and, that's where the bind was planted: I'm not about to agree with your position that God sometimes does moral evil, where you're not actually ale to use Scripture to back up your position, contrary to what you said; and, it is this that is a reflection of real reality, not your quoting Scripture and my using speculation); second, you're narrowing God down to your own, single motive; but, before, it was explained to you that God likely had multiple motives and if He had something near a single motive, it certainly isn't the one that you'd like to ascribe His way so that you can save face; third, the point was that Satan had his own choices but choice what to do without any direction from God, except to not harm Job, in chapter 1, and not to kill Job, in chapter 2.

“If GOD restricted Satan from laying hands on Job, then why did GOD allow Satan to put sore boils on his body ?”

Because, in the previous context, we were discussing Job, chapter 1. It is there that God restricted Satan to not lay his hands on Job. In chapter 2, which you're saving face around, or, trying, God restricted Satan from being able to kill Job. Another example that demonstrates that you're quoting Biblical text while I'm only speculating is a product of your distortions stemming from your imagination and fantasy of a reality. This could be solved, however, by reading with the effort at comprehension so that you can advance the discussion.

“GOD was putting Job's life in Jeopardy. Yes, GOD said Satan could not kill Job, but Satan tormenting the crap out of Job and took his children as well.”

You can answer this by going to the Scripture that says that God will not give a particular individual more than that individual is able to bear; thus, God wasn't placing Job's life in jeopardy, because Job was able to bear what he was being put through by Satan, whereas, someone else such as his wife wouldn't not have been able to bear it, as the Book of Job reads. But, another case and point where your position cannot bear out that you're using Scripture, whereas I'm speculating, where I'm using other Scripture to establish my points. What really happen here was I provided specificity and then you generalized in an effort to save face as I'd already established several times now. Basically, here, are you talking about chapter 1 or chapter 2? The discussion was previously centered on chapter 1 of Job; but, this is a matter of your wishful thinking that you're using Scripture but I'm speculating just to keep up with you somehow.

“I actually said earlier that I like using the 1 Chronicles 21 account more because it is more clearer about what was happening in the account IMO.”

Well, not in regard to the specification at hand: your preference for God instead of Satan inciting David to take the census; also, while you said that, you were also trying to use 1 Chronicles 21:7, which had nothing to do with your very expansive list of sentences which turned out not to be within 1 Chronicles 21:7, at all. It was I who brought in 1 Chronicles 21 as a form of clarification in actual action. The original discussion was whether 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 represented a Bible contradiction, especially on whether it was God or Satan who incited the census; and, then, after you started spinning over this point, you characterized your labeling your imaginary remarks as being clarified by 1 Chronicles 21:7, as a means of avoiding an apparent need to just concede more points. This is just the real reality of things, not my struggling to use my own speculation to respond to your use of Scripture to make a point that God does moral evil.

“When you kept going back to 2 Samuel 24 to say GOD was angry with Israel I showed also that this account has GOD moving David to number Israel. You gave out some obscure Bible version that says 2 Samuel 24 is saying Satan encouraged David to do this but the KJV, NIV, ESV all say what I am saying so it is what it is.”

This just isn't reality; and, I presented several Bible versions; the Bible version that I presented was the latest version of the King James version; with this, it illuminated that you had embezzled a Bible verse by substituting God in place of Satan, where not Bible version contains your embezzled distortion. The updated King James version reads that Satan moved David to number Israel; this would better fit with the character of Satan and better fit with Joab making a last ditch effort to warn David against going through with taking the census. Again, why is it me who is able to point out what really happened, if I'm speculating but you're using Scripture?

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223763

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28319  Edited By King Saturn

@dshipp17 said:

@king_saturn:

This isn't actually what has been taking place, as anyone could tell who has been reading for comprehension. I've quoted multiple Bible verses. Case and point, that's why 1 Chronicles 21:1 is being discussed: it was presented as a rebuttal to your preference for 2 Samuel 24:1; again, you first repeat misinformation and then introduce misinformation; I haven't been speculating, I've been quoting Bible verses and masking logical extensions and advising you that what you're saying has to be wrong, as it doesn't jive with Scriptures like James 1:13; what you're doing is trying to take Satan's attributes and attribute them to God, while pretending Satan isn't there and then arguing the complete opposite, when there's an opportunity to save face and avoid progressing with the conversation; meanwhile, I've remain consistent and established that God cannot be the source of moral evil as is consistent with the teachings of the Bible; and, by the way, case and point, the paragraph you're quoting asked you about your Christian background and your claim to have once been a pastor; but, you're responding to something from your imagination that has little to nothing to do with the iteration at hand; that I've been speaking based entirely on speculation while you were quoting actual Bible verses is just total nonsense (e.g. the Bible just doesn't allow someone to take Satan's attributes and transport them onto God in any way that is legitimate and with any staying power; this is basically where you're saying that I'm speculating while you're quoting Scripture, even though thousands of church leaders also teach from my position; you really should escape your fantasy delusions and just read what's actually going on instead of repeating yourself distortions from which you derive your confusions).

You still don't get it and it's sad. 2 Samuel 24 does say he (GOD) was encouraging David to take a Census. Yes, 1 Chronicles 21:1 says it was Satan but that same book says nothing about GOD being angry with Israel and it also says that GOD punished Israel for David's numbering and nothing else. Again, you trying to say some stuff about me misrepresenting the passages but anyone can look them up themselves and see what they say. I used the NIV, ESB, KJV and none of them say that the He is Satan. It's believed that from the 1 Chronicles 21 account which I have no problem with. The problem is in assuming that the passages are directly the same in which they are not. One directly states Satan rose up against Israel and the other has GOD being Angry with Israel and saying he moving David to number Israel. It's as plain as that.

It actually doesn't and several posters have gone back and forth with you, using Scripture context to demonstrate that such isn't the case; this is the actual reality of things, not you're quoting Scripture but everyone else speculating. Additionally, Scripture like James 1:13 further illuminates that what you'd like to believe just simply doesn't jive with reality as taught from Scripture; after all, there must be a bases for all of mainstream Christianity teaching from a position that God isn't a source of evil with nothing in Scripture, anywhere, supporting it; you just have to listen and learn, but, sometimes, that might also require some maturity; if you're unwilling to mature some, then, you can't stunt your own growth and look silly in the process, just like a car trying to race forward missing a forth wheel.

This is what Isaiah 45:7 KJV says "I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil, I the LORD do all these things".

Once again, the scriptures themselves show that you are Lying and that I am not. Now, the other books use Calamity or Disaster but again what does it mean for someone to say that the create or cause Disaster ? They are telling you they do Bad Things. How can this be made any clearer ?

Sure, you might have picked up on it, after I quoted from Job to you several times and used it to debunked a number of your points on a repeated basis now.

I do not recall you using a single scripture in Job to rebuttal anything I have stated. On the other hand, I have been constantly using the Holy Text to show you things.

In the previous post, I demonstrated how this part is purely the product of your imagination or distortions that you could used on someone less experienced with the Bible and more inclined towards your position. God never gave Satan authority to harm Job in the Scripture under discussion which was Job chapter 1; you the, advanced to chapter 2, in order to safe face, but, first things first, you have to move the discussion forward with chapter 1; chapter 2 could be discussed, after we've dealt with chapter 1, where you've demonstrated that you can read with an intention to comprehend while avoiding a need to save face and conceding one more point, in the process.

Now it is you who are moving the goal posts. The discussion was over Job, not just Chapter 1 of the account. I have used several passages in Chapter 1 to show my point anyways. In Job 1, GOD brought Job before Satan, GOD also was willing to wager with Job's Life with Satan, GOD gave Satan power over Job's things and this is The Almighty allowing himself to be pulled into a Bet with the same entity that waged war in Heaven against him. That's Crazy.

The problem here is that you're mis-characterizing God's motive (e.g. this is where you're trying to establish your point that God sometimes does evil, when, I said that He doesn't do moral evil; and, that's where the bind was planted: I'm not about to agree with your position that God sometimes does moral evil, where you're not actually ale to use Scripture to back up your position, contrary to what you said; and, it is this that is a reflection of real reality, not your quoting Scripture and my using speculation); second, you're narrowing God down to your own, single motive; but, before, it was explained to you that God likely had multiple motives and if He had something near a single motive, it certainly isn't the one that you'd like to ascribe His way so that you can save face; third, the point was that Satan had his own choices but choice what to do without any direction from God, except to not harm Job, in chapter 1, and not to kill Job, in chapter 2.

But I don't care what you say, I care what the Text says. The Holy Text is supposed to be the Word of GOD not the words of some User on a Comic Book Site. Isaiah 45:7 says what I have been talking about concerning GOD doing Evil. No, I am showing that GOD did in fact put Job's life in Satan's hands, it was a Bet that GOD was willing to get on with Satan and that's after the fact that GOD presented Job to Satan which is even more crazy. You really do not think GOD knew that Satan was going to harm Job when he gave him power over him ?

Because, in the previous context, we were discussing Job, chapter 1. It is there that God restricted Satan to not lay his hands on Job. In chapter 2, which you're saving face around, or, trying, God restricted Satan from being able to kill Job. Another example that demonstrates that you're quoting Biblical text while I'm only speculating is a product of your distortions stemming from your imagination and fantasy of a reality. This could be solved, however, by reading with the effort at comprehension so that you can advance the discussion.

No, that was the context you was using. We was discussing Job as a whole account. GOD willing to bet with Satan on Job's life and allowing Satan to torment him.

You can answer this by going to the Scripture that says that God will not give a particular individual more than that individual is able to bear; thus, God wasn't placing Job's life in jeopardy, because Job was able to bear what he was being put through by Satan, whereas, someone else such as his wife wouldn't not have been able to bear it, as the Book of Job reads. But, another case and point where your position cannot bear out that you're using Scripture, whereas I'm speculating, where I'm using other Scripture to establish my points. What really happen here was I provided specificity and then you generalized in an effort to save face as I'd already established several times now. Basically, here, are you talking about chapter 1 or chapter 2? The discussion was previously centered on chapter 1 of Job; but, this is a matter of your wishful thinking that you're using Scripture but I'm speculating just to keep up with you somehow.

I think you miss the bigger picture here. It's the fact that GOD was willing to deal in with a wager that Satan had made that is the problem. GOD knowing that Job could endure Satan's power is not the issue. It's the fact that GOD comes off as Dark for even considering having Job go through this with the same being that wager war with him and caused so much destruction. Well, I am talking about the account of Job as a whole. Why would we limit this to just Chapter 1 ?

Well, not in regard to the specification at hand: your preference for God instead of Satan inciting David to take the census; also, while you said that, you were also trying to use 1 Chronicles 21:7, which had nothing to do with your very expansive list of sentences which turned out not to be within 1 Chronicles 21:7, at all. It was I who brought in 1 Chronicles 21 as a form of clarification in actual action. The original discussion was whether 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 represented a Bible contradiction, especially on whether it was God or Satan who incited the census; and, then, after you started spinning over this point, you characterized your labeling your imaginary remarks as being clarified by 1 Chronicles 21:7, as a means of avoiding an apparent need to just concede more points. This is just the real reality of things, not my struggling to use my own speculation to respond to your use of Scripture to make a point that God does moral evil.

That's because you kept going back to 2 Samuel 24 to show it was GOD who was angry with Israel whereas the 1 Chronicles 21 account says no such things. Also, the passage makes it clear in 1 Chronicles 21 that it was David's numbering that caused this disaster. 1 Chronicles 21:7 is the direct passage that states GOD smote Israel because of the thing that displeased him (David's numbering) which is eluded to directly in 1 Chronicles 21:5-6. Then you have 1 Chronicles 21:3 that has Joab saying that David's numbering of Israel would be the cause of trespass to Israel. The Bible has GOD saying that he does Evil, it's not speculation. What is speculation is to assume that because other versions of the Bible say GOD causes Disaster or Calamity, GOD does not do Evil as for one to do those things is to do Bad Things.

This just isn't reality; and, I presented several Bible versions; the Bible version that I presented was the latest version of the King James version; with this, it illuminated that you had embezzled a Bible verse by substituting God in place of Satan, where not Bible version contains your embezzled distortion. The updated King James version reads that Satan moved David to number Israel; this would better fit with the character of Satan and better fit with Joab making a last ditch effort to warn David against going through with taking the census. Again, why is it me who is able to point out what really happened, if I'm speculating but you're using Scripture?

No, you used a less common version of the Bible that hardly no one uses. NIV, ESB and the KJV all have he (GOD) moved David to take a Census in 2 Samuel 24:1. It's not embezzled. You did not point out what is really happening, you used a version of the Bible that's less common to make a point about something that is stated in other multiple texts as different. But even if I assumed you could be right, it still does not change the fact that GOD killed those Israelites over the sin of David numbering the people. It's stated clearly in 1 Chronicles 21, that this is so.

Avatar image for abstractraze
AbstractRaze

3639

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28320  Edited By AbstractRaze

@king_saturn said:
@abstractraze said:
@king_saturn said:
@abstractraze said:

@king_saturn: I feel and understand exactly what you think, and those are one of the so many controversies about the Christian God, but when it comes to us, Heathens, we have some sort of a symbiotic or reciprocal coexistence with the Gods, while in case of the Christian God, it's a completely different entity, apart from any human being and all other living beings, so what did the Christians in order to close that gap a bit? Jesus proclaimed himself as God's son who allegedly came to earth in order to pay for our sins.

But that's a cheesy way how to close the gap, a very convenient thing to do, while the Heathen Gods are closer to the people without the necessity to allegedly send some sort of Jesus in order to suffer for us and therefore keep the people in blame and hardship like, "Hey humans, my son paid for you, keep watching to the ground, do never stay firm and proud", considering that Christianity considers pride to be a sin.

What I'm trying to say is that the Heathen gods are more humane and humble, that is why we have different gods, which are the spiritual manifestation of people that prioritizes different roads or paths in their lives.

I mean, we don't have a god who ARROGANTLY thinks that he stays for any single action in our lives, because we are not equal, humans are not equal, we have different strengths, different personalities and aspirations.

Heathen Gods... who are these particular deities you are speaking of ?

They are the Norse Gods, such as Wotan, widely known as Odin, then we have Frigg, Tyr, Bragi, Balder, Idun and so on.

@king_saturn said:
@abstractraze said:
@king_saturn said:
saying GOD allowing bad things to happen is problematic because if GOD knows something bad will happen and he allows it to occur while having the power to stop it is like being Cruel.

Let us do reverse psychology.

While reanalyzing your issue on the subject, it pretty much seems to me that you're not really talking about this because of religion neither because you want to put in question the Christian god, but my question is, if God would exist according to your reasoning, those physically manifesting himself, would you seek for his intervention against injustice or evil? or it's just your subconscious desire to do it by yourself if you would be able too, which it's more than clear to me that you would.

Maybe someday beings from a far distant world could discover us, they could have far better technology than we do, so let us assume they study us and someday, they decide to fabricate or simulate god with their technology and do what entails your desires, which is the elimination of evil on earth according to their moral mindset, well let us assume that it's a similar mindset like ours.

We know that if it would be a human being doing this, we would call such a thing as tyranny and since I assume that it's your inner desire, that's a bit narcissist if you ask me, but I assume as well that if those hypothetical advanced living organisms would do such a thing to us and you would know about it, you would be completely fine with that, don't you? they would hypothetically not be different than us, just saying.

PS:

A redundant thing to ask, but there are no doubts that your approach is NOT sincere but rather, you are a bit hypocrite unless you truly advocate tyranny.

I feel like this is Marvel vs Capcom... A New Challenger Has Entered.

Well for the past several posts with other users we have gone over various scriptures concerning the nature of the GOD of the Bible more specific the Old Testament. So yes, we have been bringing the Christian GOD into question, at least his character. Why would I try to stop injustice myself if GOD fully manifest himself to me in reality and could do it ? I would ask him first why is all this suffering happening and why won't you help to stop these evil doers ?

Perhaps you are right here. Who says all evil has to be eliminated ? My thoughts are I would believe GOD could do better here if he is truly Merciful and Loving.

Correct, but I never said GOD should be destroying all evil. Just more of it than we see in this reality.

PS - Is It advocating tyranny to think GOD could do more to stop Evil ? How is that being hypocritical ?

The thing is that your approach seems to be based on your personal criteria of justice and good than rather any real critical focus on the Christian god.

To tell it in short, it seems like you're protesting or complaining, that how can it be possible that with so much evil and injustice out there, humanity doesn't fully respond on this concern, but rather they waste their time believing that there is a God who allegedly makes justice for them.

There are no doubts that the Christian god is a hypocrite in nature, but a god does not necessarily have to intervene, for instance, when Christians pray, they demand from God to do something for them and their personal problems, when a Heathen prays, we pray for our family and our people, not because we expect the Gods to do something for them, but rather spiritually inspire them to progress and be strong in their paths, because the Norse Gods are the spiritual manifestation of our strengths and our paths, we're conected to them, furthermore, we're not concerned in transmitting in others to be good or evil, because good acts are by default correlated with progress, sometimes we do minor bad things because we have no other option, but we instinctively try to evade bad attitudes, at the end of the day, we are human beings, for example, demanding a human being to sacrifice everything that he loves such as Jesus did, because if Jesus truly existed, and if he truly did that, how many broken hearts did he left behind for his eutopia? a bit selfish and somehow narcissistic, don't you think?

Concerning these Norse Gods... Is there a reason why you left Thor off the list ? Also, do actually pray to all these deities or just some of them ?

Well, earlier I used passages from the Bible that supposedly says GOD makes peace and creates evil / disaster. I used that to show that GOD does both Good and Evil. I have not really given my own criteria of what justice is. I am simply showing how GOD's character seems to go against being merciful and loving at times and used examples I thought was relevant.

Not really, my point was and has been that GOD does both Good and Bad. I have been attacked by multiple users for this position claiming that this is not the Bible's position even though I have shown multiple other accounts that show GOD can be cruel at times.

You are correct, BUT and IF, GOD's character is supposedly merciful and loving as many Christians claim he is, would you not expect him to manifest in ways to at least stop some of the bad stuff we see in the world ?

Your summary of Heathen beliefs and values is Interesting. I will have to do some digging into the Norse Gods beyond Thor in Marvel Comics. I do have a bit of a slight question about your thoughts on Jesus though. Do you think Jesus really loved things in this world considering many believe he came from another realm and was sent to do a mission from The Almighty himself ? I mean if Jesus came and desired to do GOD the Father's will, is he really doing something he did not want to do in sacrifice ? I am sure Jesus left behind many broken hearts... but considering his death and proposed resurrection and ascension to Heaven would lead to Eternal Life for those broken hearts. Is the supposed selfishness of The Vice Ruler Of The Universe so bad now ?

Why I did not mention Thor?

Well, you have to take into consideration that you can't compare Heathenry with Abrahamic religions such as Islam or Christianity, we don't really have any prayer order, we're free people, we're not enslaved to mere men-made rules when it comes to our belief, our prayers are spontaneous prayers, we know that some of the Gods are taken more into consideration than others when referring to the Heathen followers, but we're not individually forced to pray or strictly consider all of them in our prayers, because as humans, we have different priorities and paths than others.

In my situation, I prefer to consider Tyr and Odin, because of the issue in Virginia, an estate which is proposing to take away the guns of the people, restrict the freedom of the people, as we all know, at any moment civil war could occur and I have family in Lansing Michigan and Michigan is not far away from West-Virginia, there is only Ohio in between, I already bought my flight tickets to Michigan, I'm flying to the U.S next Thursday.

So, to me, it makes sense to consider Tyr ( Tīw, day Tuesday) who is the God of war and fair deals while Odin (Wotan, Wōden, day Wednesday) mainly represents wisdom, loyalty and battle, then Idun who is the goddess of the youth when it comes to Neo-Paganism, while in the Old Pagan believe she represents immortality and therefore eternity and there is no such a thing as eternity, even among the Gods.

I consider a wise attack to be the best defense. Thor stays for protection, strength and fertility, while in the old Norse belief, he represented the lightning, thunder, protection of humanity, hallowing, strength and fertility, things changed alot in the Neo-Pagan belief, but the thunders and lightning are still a symbol of him, such as the Mjölnir hammer too.

We are free people, independent people, we make our own conclusions, we do not surrender under parameters when it comes to our beliefs, we have our own will.

The Mjölnir on her back.
The Mjölnir on her back.

So, in short, we both then agree that the Christian God is a hypocrite.

Did Jesus love things in this world?

Not really, there are alot of contradictions, one of them, he sacrificed himself without offering any resistance, this implies that he lacked self-esteem, there are no doubts that he did some merits to be happy about and therefore value himself, value his accomplishments, those theoretically founding a rational self-esteem on him based on merits, but he literally committed suicide by not offering any resistance during his sentence.

The thing is, if you don't appreciate yourself, how are you going to appreciate others? Everything starts by oneself.

For the simple fact that he knew that resurrection would happen, which I don't think it did happen because it was a made-up fairy tale by his apostles in order to manipulate the people and of course it was a planned thing with this Jesus, let alone if he truly existed, which is a sign of SADISM and sociopathic patterns.

First of all, he emotionally broke other people to pieces, people who had fate on him, to later resurrect, like saying, "your tears were enjoyable, at least I know that my sacrifice worked, I saw you on the ground, crying like never before,hey papa, are you satisfied? they are on the ground suffering, they are in your pocket"

Years later...

"Hey humans, my son paid for your sins, keep watching to the ground, do never stay firm and proud, carry the blame and shame to the last days of your lives and eat mud under my feet, I'm your creator, know your place and keep swallowing maggots"

There is not such a thing as eternity, that's foolishness.

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

6103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@king_saturn:

“2 Samuel 24 does say he (GOD) was encouraging David to take a Census. Yes, 1 Chronicles 21:1 says it was Satan but that same book says nothing about GOD being angry with Israel and it also says that GOD punished Israel for David's numbering and nothing else.”

It doesn't matter that 1 Chronicles 21:1 doesn't include the part where God's anger is kindled against Israel; the reason for introducing 1 Chronicles 21:1, in the first place, was to show that Satan provoked David to take the census. It is also important, once again, because Joab is advising David against going through with the census, where Joab trying to dissuade David from taking the census is in both 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21. The latest King James revision of the Bible is worded: 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; and, this is where you embezzled God in place of Satan; no other Bible revision phrases such that God is substituted for Satan; that is what you included into the text as a means of avoiding the compulsion to concede another lost point.

“I used the NIV, ESB, KJV and none of them say that the He is Satan.”

But, the point at hand was that neither of these has God inserted as “he (God)”, in the way that you've listed; however, the KJ21 does have: 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.”, which was the point at hand.

“It's believed that from the 1 Chronicles 21 account which I have no problem with. The problem is in assuming that the passages are directly the same in which they are not.”

Sure, the passages aren't directly the same, but, previously, that's a point that you tried to make as a means of avoiding an occasion to concede another lost point; I've always maintained that they're describing the same event and that 2 Samuel 24:1 is missing material that was used by the chronicler who wrote 1 Chronicles 21:1 which makes clear that Satan incited the census, as the KJ21 shows.

“One directly states Satan rose up against Israel and the other has GOD being Angry with Israel and saying he moving David to number Israel. It's as plain as that.”

No, it isn't and it's been explained to you in many different ways by many different people, plus the fact that the mainstream church isn't teaching that; it's so clearly against that that Bible revisions are making it clear that something else should be there and that God didn't incited the census; and, you keep dodging the fact that Joab, as a messenger of God, is providing David a final warning not to go forward with the census.

“This is what Isaiah 45:7 KJV says "I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil, I the LORD do all these things".

Once again, the scriptures themselves show that you are Lying and that I am not. Now, the other books use Calamity or Disaster but again what does it mean for someone to say that the create or cause Disaster ?”

I'm not lying about anything in what I said in the paragraph from me that you're quoting. It's quite obvious that the other Bible versions are making it clear for people to draw that the verse is talking about a contrast, not moral evil. Church leaders are also teaching it in such a way. Only you are trying to claim otherwise, despite the Bible text. You should be getting a clue, by acting as an adult, by reasoning with yourself, what is the contrast of peace, where the contrast of light is darkness? The contrast of peace is a disturbance; this isn't talking moral evil; otherwise, wouldn't it instead be phrase: I bring about good and cause evil? This is the justification behind the wording for the other Bible revisions. I think people who discussed this with you know that you get this, you're just unwilling to be adult enough or mature enough to concede a point and move forward with the conversation, instead electing to save face and alter your phrasing as if you'd always been correct. The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing peace and creating disaster; I am the Lord who does all these things. AMB

“I do not recall you using a single scripture in Job to rebuttal anything I have stated. On the other hand, I have been constantly using the Holy Text to show you things.”

That's probably because you weren't reading for comprehension, as I'd previously explained; see posts 28198, 28277, 28283, etc.

“The discussion was over Job, not just Chapter 1 of the account.”

Post 28198 shows that the context was with Job chapter 1.

“In Job 1, GOD brought Job before Satan, GOD also was willing to wager with Job's Life with Satan, GOD gave Satan power over Job's things and this is The Almighty allowing himself to be pulled into a Bet with the same entity that waged war in Heaven against him.”

This is just wrong for the reasons previously explained to you in prior posts. Satan wagered with God in chapter 1, lost, wagered with God, again, and lost again in chapter 2. Satan made the vast bulk of the commentary to countered God's complimenting Job. In order to counter God's compliments for Job, Satan wagered with God that if certain conditions were applied to Job he would then abandon or forsake God. This is just the plain text of Job.

“Isaiah 45:7 says what I have been talking about concerning GOD doing Evil.”

This is just simply wrong; why would the people responsible for making Bible revisions go through the trouble of using terms like calamity? The context of Isaiah 45:7 is to show contrast, not moral evil, for the reasons explained above.

“No, I am showing that GOD did in fact put Job's life in Satan's hands, it was a Bet that GOD was willing to get on with Satan and that's after the fact that GOD presented Job to Satan which is even more crazy.”

This is just plain wrong, partly for the reasons previously explained and the plain text shows that God was consistently concerned with Job's life being spared. God specifically did not place Satan's life into Satan's hands.

“No, you used a less common version of the Bible that hardly no one uses. NIV, ESB and the KJV all have he (GOD) moved David to take a Census in 2 Samuel 24:1. It's not embezzled.”

For the reasons explained above, this is wrong; God does not appear next to he in any Bible version, but, 2 Samuel 24:1 does read: 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; for you wrote is an embezzlement indeed, as you substituted God in place of Satan; this is the latest revision of the King James version of the Bible, not an obscure version that no one uses. You again got yourself looking ridiculous by preferring saving face over reading for comprehension and just repeating points that you should have conceded long ago.

Avatar image for jonjizz
jonjizz

1877

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28322  Edited By jonjizz
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223763

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dshipp17 said:

@king_saturn:

It doesn't matter that 1 Chronicles 21:1 doesn't include the part where God's anger is kindled against Israel; the reason for introducing 1 Chronicles 21:1, in the first place, was to show that Satan provoked David to take the census. It is also important, once again, because Joab is advising David against going through with the census, where Joab trying to dissuade David from taking the census is in both 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21. The latest King James revision of the Bible is worded: 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; and, this is where you embezzled God in place of Satan; no other Bible revision phrases such that God is substituted for Satan; that is what you included into the text as a means of avoiding the compulsion to concede another lost point.

It does matter that 1 Chronicles 21 does not include that GOD was angry with Israel because if GOD is not stated to be angry at Israel then you can not say that there is evidence that GOD punished Israel for their own Sin in this account. That is why it's important. It's even more important when you consider that 1 Chronicles 21 spells out clearly that David's numbering of Israel is why GOD punished Israel. Do you believe that 1 Chronicles 21 is an accurate account of what happened ? If so, why are you pushing so hard against what this passage is telling you ? I agreed with you before that Joab trying to speak against David when taking the Census. In fact, the passage shows that Joab even stated that David doing this would cause Israel to be in trespass or guilt against GOD. I did not embezzle GOD in the passage. 2 Samuel 24:1 reads like this "And again the anger of the LORD was kindled in Israel and he moved David to say, Go and number Israel and Judah. Why would we assume or believe anyone but GOD is the "He" in this passage without be giving more incite ? Lets use other words lets say a statement like this.

King Saturn was angry with Dshipp, and he encouraged a Teddy Bear to go and tickle Dshipp's feet.

Why would you assume or believe the He is anyone else other than Me in the statement ? Think about it.

Yes Yes, the latest version of the King James Bible uses Satan as the He. My point was that this is not stated in any other version and I gave you an example to show my position. Also, do you know of any preachers or teachers who use the KJ21 compared to KJV or NIV or ESV ? Most of the people I know use the KJV with Concordances.

But, the point at hand was that neither of these has God inserted as “he (God)”, in the way that you've listed; however, the KJ21 does have: 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.”, which was the point at hand.

I know you know what I am saying. If a statement starts off with GOD was doing something and then it says He was doing something else, why would or should we assume it is anyone else other than GOD ? The passage here never specifies that, Now obviously 1 Chronicles 21 says that Satan was the one who encouraged David to do this thing. I have no problem with that.

Sure, the passages aren't directly the same, but, previously, that's a point that you tried to make as a means of avoiding an occasion to concede another lost point; I've always maintained that they're describing the same event and that 2 Samuel 24:1 is missing material that was used by the chronicler who wrote 1 Chronicles 21:1 which makes clear that Satan incited the census, as the KJ21 shows.

What point am I losing here ? The point was and still is that GOD killed 70,000 People because David numbered Israel and Judah unlawfully. Well you can say that 2 Samuel 24:1 is missing material, but how do you know that ? What do you think of 1 Chronicles 21 ? Do you see 1 Chronicles 21 as accurate ? If so, why do you contend with the passages that I have used to shown that GOD did punish Israel for what David did wrong ?

No, it isn't and it's been explained to you in many different ways by many different people, plus the fact that the mainstream church isn't teaching that; it's so clearly against that that Bible revisions are making it clear that something else should be there and that God didn't incited the census; and, you keep dodging the fact that Joab, as a messenger of God, is providing David a final warning not to go forward with the census.

We already been over this, the KJV, NIV, ESV all say that he (GOD) moved David to take the Census. The composition of the scripture leaves no room for it being no other way unless otherwise stated. Now, you can assume that it is Satan from the 1 Chronicles 21 account. Not really even disputing that. The point is that the passages are different and do read as I have stated. Yes, Joab did warn David.


I'm not lying about anything in what I said in the paragraph from me that you're quoting. It's quite obvious that the other Bible versions are making it clear for people to draw that the verse is talking about a contrast, not moral evil. Church leaders are also teaching it in such a way. Only you are trying to claim otherwise, despite the Bible text. You should be getting a clue, by acting as an adult, by reasoning with yourself, what is the contrast of peace, where the contrast of light is darkness? The contrast of peace is a disturbance; this isn't talking moral evil; otherwise, wouldn't it instead be phrase: I bring about good and cause evil? This is the justification behind the wording for the other Bible revisions. I think people who discussed this with you know that you get this, you're just unwilling to be adult enough or mature enough to concede a point and move forward with the conversation, instead electing to save face and alter your phrasing as if you'd always been correct. The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing peace and creating disaster; I am the Lord who does all these things. AMB

You said specifically that the Bible did not say GOD does Evil. I showed you that it does say that in the KJV. Other versions of the Bible use Disaster sure. Like I said though, if GOD is telling you that he creates Disaster, GOD is telling you he does Bad Things. I would not expect Church Leaders to teach this as they squeeze the scriptures themselves for their own reasons. It's easier to speak of GOD being all good and never doing no harm and GOD loving everyone. That's what draws more Church Members. You start reading stuff in the Old Testament about how GOD killed people for complaining or GOD killed people for David taking a Census or GOD has someone killed and burnt up as well as his family for stealing then you will have a hard time promoting GOD is love with these accounts, not unless you twist them. Well technically making peace is doing something Good just as causing Disaster is to bring something Bad, so I think the passage makes good at describing what I am talking about here.

That's probably because you weren't reading for comprehension, as I'd previously explained; see posts 28198, 28277, 28283, etc.

You still did not mention one scripture. Not one. It should be easy for you if I am so wrong.

Post 28198 shows that the context was with Job chapter 1.

No, we obviously started with Job 1 but there was no parameters that this discussion was only about Job 1. This is about the account of Job's life being wagered between Satan and GOD.

This is just wrong for the reasons previously explained to you in prior posts. Satan wagered with God in chapter 1, lost, wagered with God, again, and lost again in chapter 2. Satan made the vast bulk of the commentary to countered God's complimenting Job. In order to counter God's compliments for Job, Satan wagered with God that if certain conditions were applied to Job he would then abandon or forsake God. This is just the plain text of Job.

Sure, Satan lost the bets with GOD, but that's not the point. The point is that GOD was willing to even consider what Satan was saying. For GOD to allow Satan to touch Job's family, For GOD to allow Satan to touch Job's own body with sickness is really Bizarre, considering what Satan did against GOD and continues to do. It does not make sense. What makes it worse is that GOD gave Satan authority to even harm Job's children. Don't act like GOD did not know what Satan would do with this Power. He had to know.

This is just simply wrong; why would the people responsible for making Bible revisions go through the trouble of using terms like calamity? The context of Isaiah 45:7 is to show contrast, not moral evil, for the reasons explained above.

Simple Question : If someone is saying that they can create Calamity or Disaster for you are they telling you that they are doing Good or Bad Things ? Think about it.

This is just plain wrong, partly for the reasons previously explained and the plain text shows that God was consistently concerned with Job's life being spared. God specifically did not place Satan's life into Satan's hands.

GOD allowed Satan to torment Job. GOD even allowed Satan to have Job's children killed just so he could show that Job would stay faithful to him ? Are you not understanding how Bizarre that this is for GOD to even allow this ?

For the reasons explained above, this is wrong; God does not appear next to he in any Bible version, but, 2 Samuel 24:1 does read: 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; for you wrote is an embezzlement indeed, as you substituted God in place of Satan; this is the latest revision of the King James version of the Bible, not an obscure version that no one uses. You again got yourself looking ridiculous by preferring saving face over reading for comprehension and just repeating points that you should have conceded long ago.

GOD does not have to appear next to the He, you understand english composition do you not. If the passage is saying GOD was angry with Israel and he moved David to number Israel. Why the heck would you assume or believe the "He" in this passage is anyone else other than GOD unless otherwise shown ? Only the KJ21 states the He is Satan. It's not like there are multiple versions that even say this. I do not know anyone who uses the King James 21 Century Book, just about everyone in the Southern Baptist Community uses the King James Version. Most do not even use the NIV or even ESV in some cases.

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223763

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Why I did not mention Thor?

Well, you have to take into consideration that you can't compare Heathenry with Abrahamic religions such as Islam or Christianity, we don't really have any prayer order, we're free people, we're not enslaved to mere men-made rules when it comes to our belief, our prayers are spontaneous prayers, we know that some of the Gods are taken more into consideration than others when referring to the Heathen followers, but we're not individually forced to pray or strictly consider all of them in our prayers, because as humans, we have different priorities and paths than others.

In my situation, I prefer to consider Tyr and Odin, because of the issue in Virginia, an estate which is proposing to take away the guns of the people, restrict the freedom of the people, as we all know, at any moment civil war could occur and I have family in Lansing Michigan and Michigan is not far away from West-Virginia, there is only Ohio in between, I already bought my flight tickets to Michigan, I'm flying to the U.S next Thursday.

So, to me, it makes sense to consider Tyr ( Tīw, day Tuesday) who is the God of war and fair deals while Odin (Wotan, Wōden, day Wednesday) mainly represents wisdom, loyalty and battle, then Idun who is the goddess of the youth when it comes to Neo-Paganism, while in the Old Pagan believe she represents immortality and therefore eternity and there is no such a thing as eternity, even among the Gods.

I consider a wise attack to be the best defense. Thor stays for protection, strength and fertility, while in the old Norse belief, he represented the lightning, thunder, protection of humanity, hallowing, strength and fertility, things changed alot in the Neo-Pagan belief, but the thunders and lightning are still a symbol of him, such as the Mjölnir hammer too.

We are free people, independent people, we make our own conclusions, we do not surrender under parameters when it comes to our beliefs, we have our own will.

The Mjölnir on her back.
The Mjölnir on her back.

So, in short, we both then agree that the Christian God is a hypocrite.

Did Jesus love things in this world?

Not really, there are alot of contradictions, one of them, he sacrificed himself without offering any resistance, this implies that he lacked self-esteem, there are no doubts that he did some merits to be happy about and therefore value himself, value his accomplishments, those theoretically founding a rational self-esteem on him based on merits, but he literally committed suicide by not offering any resistance during his sentence.

The thing is, if you don't appreciate yourself, how are you going to appreciate others? Everything starts by oneself.

For the simple fact that he knew that resurrection would happen, which I don't think it did happen because it was a made-up fairy tale by his apostles in order to manipulate the people and of course it was a planned thing with this Jesus, let alone if he truly existed, which is a sign of SADISM and sociopathic patterns.

First of all, he emotionally broke other people to pieces, people who had fate on him, to later resurrect, like saying, "your tears were enjoyable, at least I know that my sacrifice worked, I saw you on the ground, crying like never before,hey papa, are you satisfied? they are on the ground suffering, they are in your pocket"

Years later...

"Hey humans, my son paid for your sins, keep watching to the ground, do never stay firm and proud, carry the blame and shame to the last days of your lives and eat mud under my feet, I'm your creator, know your place and keep swallowing maggots"

There is not such a thing as eternity, that's foolishness.

Why Did You Not Mention Thor : That's interesting concerning Tyr, the Norse God of War. Well, hopefully he helps you with your situation in Virginia. I think anyone should be able to protect themselves and their family. Tyr, not a name I am too familiar with. What do you think about Loki ? Is he a God worth worship or is he like a more sinister deity ?

Did Jesus Love Things In This World : Well I must say I always thought it strange that if Jesus existed he did die like that. I mean I would think GOD or perhaps Jesus was a Demigod would have the longevity to still be around even unto this day in his Glorified Body along with the Holy Spirit helping and doing good deeds into the world.

As Far as Yahweh being Hypocritical. That is True to some Extent I guess. At least the Holy Texts about him show him that way.

Well if not Eternity, what about Longevity ? Surely, Odin and Tyr are long lived.

Avatar image for abstractraze
AbstractRaze

3639

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28325  Edited By AbstractRaze

@king_saturn said:
@abstractraze said:

Why I did not mention Thor?

Well, you have to take into consideration that you can't compare Heathenry with Abrahamic religions such as Islam or Christianity, we don't really have any prayer order, we're free people, we're not enslaved to mere men-made rules when it comes to our belief, our prayers are spontaneous prayers, we know that some of the Gods are taken more into consideration than others when referring to the Heathen followers, but we're not individually forced to pray or strictly consider all of them in our prayers, because as humans, we have different priorities and paths than others.

In my situation, I prefer to consider Tyr and Odin, because of the issue in Virginia, an estate which is proposing to take away the guns of the people, restrict the freedom of the people, as we all know, at any moment civil war could occur and I have family in Lansing Michigan and Michigan is not far away from West-Virginia, there is only Ohio in between, I already bought my flight tickets to Michigan, I'm flying to the U.S next Thursday.

So, to me, it makes sense to consider Tyr ( Tīw, day Tuesday) who is the God of war and fair deals while Odin (Wotan, Wōden, day Wednesday) mainly represents wisdom, loyalty and battle, then Idun who is the goddess of the youth when it comes to Neo-Paganism, while in the Old Pagan believe she represents immortality and therefore eternity and there is no such a thing as eternity, even among the Gods.

I consider a wise attack to be the best defense. Thor stays for protection, strength and fertility, while in the old Norse belief, he represented the lightning, thunder, protection of humanity, hallowing, strength and fertility, things changed alot in the Neo-Pagan belief, but the thunders and lightning are still a symbol of him, such as the Mjölnir hammer too.

We are free people, independent people, we make our own conclusions, we do not surrender under parameters when it comes to our beliefs, we have our own will.

The Mjölnir on her back.
The Mjölnir on her back.

So, in short, we both then agree that the Christian God is a hypocrite.

Did Jesus love things in this world?

Not really, there are alot of contradictions, one of them, he sacrificed himself without offering any resistance, this implies that he lacked self-esteem, there are no doubts that he did some merits to be happy about and therefore value himself, value his accomplishments, those theoretically founding a rational self-esteem on him based on merits, but he literally committed suicide by not offering any resistance during his sentence.

The thing is, if you don't appreciate yourself, how are you going to appreciate others? Everything starts by oneself.

For the simple fact that he knew that resurrection would happen, which I don't think it did happen because it was a made-up fairy tale by his apostles in order to manipulate the people and of course it was a planned thing with this Jesus, let alone if he truly existed, which is a sign of SADISM and sociopathic patterns.

First of all, he emotionally broke other people to pieces, people who had fate on him, to later resurrect, like saying, "your tears were enjoyable, at least I know that my sacrifice worked, I saw you on the ground, crying like never before,hey papa, are you satisfied? they are on the ground suffering, they are in your pocket"

Years later...

"Hey humans, my son paid for your sins, keep watching to the ground, do never stay firm and proud, carry the blame and shame to the last days of your lives and eat mud under my feet, I'm your creator, know your place and keep swallowing maggots"

There is not such a thing as eternity, that's foolishness.

Why Did You Not Mention Thor : That's interesting concerning Tyr, the Norse God of War. Well, hopefully he helps you with your situation in Virginia. I think anyone should be able to protect themselves and their family. Tyr, not a name I am too familiar with. What do you think about Loki ? Is he a God worth worship or is he like a more sinister deity ?

Did Jesus Love Things In This World : Well I must say I always thought it strange that if Jesus existed he did die like that. I mean I would think GOD or perhaps Jesus was a Demigod would have the longevity to still be around even unto this day in his Glorified Body along with the Holy Spirit helping and doing good deeds into the world.

As Far as Yahweh being Hypocritical. That is True to some Extent I guess. At least the Holy Texts about him show him that way.

Well if not Eternity, what about Longevity ? Surely, Odin and Tyr are long lived.

I repeat myself again, he is not purely the god of war, he represents fair deals or treaties, such as justice as well, in some cases he can be considered the god of armistice.

We don't worship, our Gods are our friends, our companions, they are the spiritual manifestation of our paths we inherited from our ancestry, our culture that we're inspired for.

I repeat myself again, we don't seek help, we seek for inspiration and strength, and Virginia is not my direct problem, it's an indirect problem because the government is restricting freedom, but hostility could spread and represent a danger to my family in Michigan and if it hits my family, then I have a personal problem with the issue, the U.S is not my country, Germany is my country, the only thing in common is that my family in Michigan is American, so if it hits my family, I would unite against the common enemy which represents danger to my family, that's all.

You are very familiar of course, the day Tuesday is Tyr's day, it's based on his name.

I don't consider Loki as an essential God, he represents a mislead in discipline, such as dishonesty as well, he most likely represents regression, but all those things are part of humanity's regressive attributes we must take care for and make sure to fend them off.

Yes, there we have another contradiction, because if it was true that he had all those healing powers and such supposed longevity, what a waste right?

Longevity? what do you mean exactly? if there wouldn't be any conscious mind ready to acknowledge their existence or spiritual presence, they would vanish.

If from one day to another God would erase all living organisms in the universe, there wouldn't be a conscious mind to judge or debate his existence, perhaps I don't think the Christian God exists at all, we as common people, we're not connected to him, he's his own entity.

Within the Heathen Gods flows our ancestry, our heritage, our will and our paths, they are there because we collectively make it possible, they are partially a manifestation of our collective spiritual presence such as from our ancestry as well.

Loading Video...

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223763

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I repeat myself again, he is not purely the god of war, he represents fair deals or treaties, such as justice as well, in some cases he can be considered the god of armistice.

We don't worship, our Gods are our friends, our companions, they are the spiritual manifestation of our paths we inherited from our ancestry, our culture that we're inspired for.

I repeat myself again, we don't seek help, we seek for inspiration and strength, and Virginia is not my direct problem, it's an indirect problem because the government is restricting freedom, but hostility could spread and represent a danger to my family in Michigan and if it hits my family, then I have a personal problem with the issue, the U.S is not my country, Germany is my country, the only thing in common is that my family in Michigan is American, so if it hits my family, I would unite against the common enemy which represents danger to my family, that's all.

You are very familiar of course, the day Tuesday is Tyr's day, it's based on his name.

I don't consider Loki as an essential God, he represents a mislead in discipline, such as dishonesty as well, he most likely represents regression, but all those things are part of humanity's regressive attributes we must take care for and make sure to fend them off.

Yes, there we have another contradiction, because if it was true that he had all those healing powers and such supposed longevity, what a waste right?

Longevity? what do you mean exactly? if there wouldn't be any conscious mind ready to acknowledge their existence or spiritual presence, they would vanish.

If from one day to another God would erase all living organisms in the universe, there wouldn't be a conscious mind to judge or debate his existence, perhaps I don't think the Christian God exists at all, we as common people, we're not connected to him, he's his own entity.

Within the Heathen Gods flows our ancestry, our heritage, our will and our paths, they are there because we collectively make it possible, they are partially a manifestation of our collective spiritual presence such as from our ancestry as well.

Loading Video...

1. Interesting... Tyr is a God of multiple qualities other than War. So he is not directly like Ares. Well since he is a God of Justice and Fair Deals it balances out with his quality of being a God of War as well I guess. So Tyr should know when to go to War and when not to not just hellbent on War.

2. I swore I heard something like this before from someone on YouTube concerning Gods. I think he was called The Golden Man or something like that.

3. Interesting, so in seeking inspiration and strength from the Gods. Are you not seeking their help in some way ? Perhaps not as the Abrahamic God but still in a spiritual way ?

4. So Loki is really not much of a God then ? At least not one to be revered in any way. So is there any point of even acknowledging Loki outside of how represents of regression of human behavior and what he means as a Character in the MCU ?

5. Indeed, I always thought it strange that Jesus had so much power and yet used it in such a limited way when he could have done so much more with his power. Now the excuse is that Jesus had to leave to allow the Holy Spirit to come and dwell with us on the Earth but does that really mean Jesus had to leave ? Why could we not have multiple deities on the Earth, the Holy Spirit and Jesus dwelling with us.

6. Well, I mean if the Gods themselves could be Long Lived, then perhaps they could grant us such things if Eternity is not an option.

7. That's an interesting way of looking at it. The Christian GOD is a separate entity from us. Supposedly beyond Time and Space and can do anything within Logic. Yet somehow we are supposedly made in the Image of GOD. Then after that GOD rejects Man because they did something he told them not to.

8. Ah, well this sort of answers some of the other questions I had earlier. So these Norse Gods are essentially here through the collective of Humanity as Spiritual Guides. I thought you might have said something like this earlier before.

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

6103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#28327  Edited By dshipp17

@king_saturn:

“It does matter that 1 Chronicles 21 does not include that GOD was angry with Israel because if GOD is not stated to be angry at Israel then you can not say that there is evidence that GOD punished Israel for their own Sin in this account. That is why it's important. It's even more important when you consider that 1 Chronicles 21 spells out clearly that David's numbering of Israel is why GOD punished Israel. Do you believe that 1 Chronicles 21 is an accurate account of what happened ? If so, why are you pushing so hard against what this passage is telling you ?”

You sure can, because 1 Chronicles is chronicling 2 Samuel. I'd previously explained that the chronicler likely thought that certain things were just unnecessary for inclusion, since 2 Samuel had already done a good and thorough job of establishing that Israel was in sin. 1 Chronicles isn't just discussing the events of 2 Samuel, it's also discussing many events leading into and including 2 Samuel, dating back to the start of Genesis. But, based on the way 1 Samuel 24:1 was left, I think it was quite logical to specify that Satan incited the census. Clearly, the answer was provided in my saying that material is likely missing that could have brought a great deal more context to 2 Samuel 24:1, and, hence, the reason that Job was brought into this discussion.

1 Chronicles 21 isn't intended to be a word by word recitation of 2 Samuel 24; you can understand this by deriving what the chronicler was trying to accomplish; the entirety of 1 Chronicles gives you a context, which is that it was trying to point out key events, starting from the beginning of Genesis.

I haven't been pushing hard against anything in 1 Chronicles, I've been pointing out that you seemed bent on hiding the fact that 1 Chronicles 21:1 shows that Satan provoked the census. I also pointed out that 1 Chronicles 21:7 doesn't or did not say anything close to what you said that it said, in multiple iterations, as required; such was dangerous, anyway, as all one had to do was look up 1 Chronicles 1 21:7.

“I agreed with you before that Joab trying to speak against David when taking the Census.”

No you didn't; you didn't even acknowledge it until now, because it was being used to counter your absurd argument that God instead of Satan incited the census, or that, in some way, both had encouraged David to sin so that God could proceed to punish innocent people, after God had encouraged people to sin, going so far as to reducing the inspired Word of God down to the opinion of someone, when you were repeatedly told that your position could not be correct, as it went counter to Scriptures such as James 1:13.

“I did not embezzle GOD in the passage. 2 Samuel 24:1 reads like this "And again the anger of the LORD was kindled in Israel and he moved David to say, Go and number Israel and Judah. Why would we assume or believe anyone but GOD is the "He" in this passage without be giving more incite ?”

You did indeed embezzled the passage for the reasons explained in the comment that you quoted, by inserting ”he (GOD)” into the passage, where the Bible actually labels it as he (Satan). For one, a Bible translation tells you that the he is Satan. Two, 1 Chronicles 21:1 says that the he should have been Satan, when it was clarified. Three, it was explained to you that the he could not be God, because, then, it would mean that God pushed David to sin, which would go counter to what the Bible otherwise says about God's character and James 1:13; and, four, the discussion was a rebuttal to the claim that this represents a Bible contradiction. You'd have to be remarkably dense, if you can't answer this question for yourself, by now, given how many times it has been clarified for you to get you to concede these points and allow the discussion to advance forward; there multiple iterations also advised you to read for comprehension and to start behaving like an adult and start behaving maturely.

“Yes Yes, the latest version of the King James Bible uses Satan as the He. My point was that this is not stated in any other version and I gave you an example to show my position.”

This isn't actually true; it is plain as day that you were trying to claim that the latest King James revision was some unknown Bible version that nobody reads, even after twice being told that it wasn't as you said, simply because you wouldn't just concede the point. This is the latest, or one of the latest, Bible revisions, precisely because people like you are misrepresenting this Bible passage as a Bible contradiction, despite the evidence and explanations to the contrary. It's meant to quell the fire coming from this ongoing claim of Bible contradictions by your group and atheists.

“Also, do you know of any preachers or teachers who use the KJ21 compared to KJV or NIV or ESV ? Most of the people I know use the KJV with Concordances.”

Isn't that sort of an oxymoron, since the KJ21 is the latest version of the King James Bible? This can easily be explained by understanding that new Bible revisions don't instantly make themselves into the church pews. This has nothing to do with the situation at hand: this was explained several iterations ago, but, you kept failing to properly digest what was written so that the conversation could progress forward.

“I know you know what I am saying. If a statement starts off with GOD was doing something and then it says He was doing something else, why would or should we assume it is anyone else other than GOD ? The passage here never specifies that,”

I'm afraid not; this was purely a matter of your refusal to not allow the conversation to move forward by refusing to concede a point that was lost by yourself long ago. Things were presented to you several different ways for you to understand the answer to your own question. Using 1 Chronicles 21:1, and understanding that God couldn't be the author of sin and confusion (e.g. verses like James 1:13), along with my pointing out that Joab was warning David against sin, in both 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21, you could have long again conceded that material is obviously missing to help yourself fully understand the full and total context of 2 Samuel 24:1, where I also introduced Job for purposes illustration.

“What point am I losing here ? The point was and still is that GOD killed 70,000 People because David numbered Israel and Judah unlawfully.”

You lost the point by refusing to focus on the issue at hand: describing the reasons that it was Satan who provoked David to sin, when comparing 2 Samuel 24:1 to 1 Chronicles 21:1. The 70,000 was a different topic that could have been addressed, separately, after you'd demonstrated that you had read, with comprehension, the justifications that could allow you to concede points related to Satan being the true source for provoking David to use a census to sin against God. And, again, Israel was in sin and God had different motives for His actions, not just a single motive, especially not the motive implied in your suggestion here; this was explained to you in several different ways, leading up to this point; thus, you have had plenty of bases to understand.

“You said specifically that the Bible did not say GOD does Evil. I showed you that it does say that in the KJV. Other versions of the Bible use Disaster sure.”

You couldn't have shown me anything like this, because the Bible doesn't say anywhere that God does evil. The verse that you were quoting was very thoroughly explained as describing a contrast between two opposite conditions, using the surrounding context, as illustrative evidence of the point to show that there was no evidence in the cited Bible passage that suggested that God does moral evil.

“It's easier to speak of GOD being all good and never doing no harm and GOD loving everyone.”

God causing harm, on this physical plane, isn't the equivalent of God doing moral evil. Evil is a motive and a state of mind. But, God's motive is always for the greater good. This is basically a misunderstanding that is often passed along for those issues such as mine that are not sins but might lead to a sin (e.g. my issue of burning with passion; many church leaders would then portray it as lust, and, by extension, fornication or adultery, using that famous Matthew 5:28, to the best of their abilities, when, in fact, it's just burning with passion and might one day lead to my taking a physical action that would then be a sin; the confusion is explained in my motives; because of my motives, my burning with passion isn't lust, where lust implies that I want to commit adultery or to fornicate, primarily to sin, or to commit these acts; but, I abhor sinning and I avoid them at all cost; but, I have no other choice but to experience sexuality, because of the chemical processes of my body; there are others, though, that are in this category, but might actually still be sins, such as hate; but, pride, would probably fall into my category more, as you can have different motives to be prideful; another is greed; but, it would be extremely difficult to separate hate from doing a violent act, except you haven't yet done it; but, the sin is the actual physical act of killing, adultery, or fornication). But, it appears that you're strictly and intentionally trying to cause confusion through misinformation and confusion because you keep advancing these known or often used cliche that are generally used to keep people from deciding to become Christians or which are normally the sources of confusion by misinformation, thus, keeping people from choosing to be saved by becoming Christians.

“You still did not mention one scripture. Not one. It should be easy for you if I am so wrong.”

Those posts are quoting from Job chapters 1 and 2, especially post 28198.

“No, we obviously started with Job 1 but there was no parameters that this discussion was only about Job 1. This is about the account of Job's life being wagered between Satan and GOD.”

Quoting Job 1 sets the clear perimeter that the discussion is about Job 1; the context is further set, based on your deriving from what could have been my implied motive, at the time, based on the comments that I made at the time, and for what reasons I made the comment, based on the wording that I was quoting, implying that it was intended to respond to those words. But, that's a distraction from your saying that I had never quoted from the Bible, when, in fact, I had, based on these posts. It was just simply a matter of your not conceding a lost point to advance the discussion.

“Sure, Satan lost the bets with GOD, but that's not the point. The point is that GOD was willing to even consider what Satan was saying.”

No, the point was that you were saying that God made the wager, when it was Satan who made the wager; and, this occurred, despite multiple iterations were the point was laid home to you in several different ways; it was again a matter of your refusing to concede a lost point to advance the conversation. And, again, the flow with this logic is, first, you're assuming God had one motive, when He had multiple motives, and, second, that His motive is the one that you're claiming, when, in fact, it isn't within God's character (e.g. thus, if He in fact did have a single motive, it certainly wouldn't have been the one that you're trying to ascribe to God). Some motives are clear, based on what we can further gather from what we are suppose to gleam from the Book of Job, rather than just narrowing it down to just a one time purpose at this point in Job's life for that particular point in history (e.g. it is clear that God's motive wasn't to just have a bet with Satan over what Job might do, almost as if to toy with both Satan and Job).

“Simple Question : If someone is saying that they can create Calamity or Disaster for you are they telling you that they are doing Good or Bad Things ? Think about it.”

Again, morality, in order to be good or evil, depends on the motives of the originator, where, God's only motive is for the greater good in a given situation. And, the point was that this was a contrast, not moral evil, given the clear context in the Bible passage; that was the point that had to be conceded to advance the discussion forward.

“Are you not understanding how Bizarre that this is for GOD to even allow this ?”

The issue at hand, though, was showing you that you were just plain wrong in saying that God had put Job's life at risk; and, this occurred, despite several iterations of clarification against your comments that are design to illicit confusion and misinformation, even in the face of the proper clarification; that's actually what's bizarre here.

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

6103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Luke 24:1-12:

Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.

2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.

3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.

4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?

6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,

7 Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.

8 And they remembered his words,

9 And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.

10 It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

11 And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.

12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.

Loading Video...
Loading Video...

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8665

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dshipp17:

Is this Mary the mother of James and John?

Or is this Mary the mother of James and Jesus?

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

6103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@dshipp17:

Is this Mary the mother of James and John?

Or is this Mary the mother of James and Jesus?

Mary, mother of Jesus.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8665

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dshipp17:

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I See

fanks

Avatar image for just_sayin
just_sayin

4381

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Well we don't have to be on GOD's level to judge his actions do we ? I mean if GOD's character is of Mercy and Love and we see something he does as Cruel and Horrible, how does that make us wrong exactly ? How is it that we can judge some of GOD's actions to be Good and yet not be able to judge GOD's other actions as Bad ? I used the Parent and Child analogy because you earlier said something about a Parent letting their child go through some minor pain to get to a better outcome as a whole. I just played off that analogy. I think the reason we do not see ourselves as Evil for cleaning a shower and killing bacteria is because our scope and power of things is limited. We can not hear or see the cry of Bacteria when we clean our showers. We do not perceive bacteria the same way we do other life that we can see has feelings and sentience like Cats or Dogs and animals of that nature. Now, I think the issue with Plants is that again we Humans are limited in scope, we have to eat something to live, you can not live off of rocks or dirt, so Plant life at the minimal we would have to consume to live ourselves. Yes, I have used my microwave lately, but what I did not notice was something dying while I was using it. Now contrast this with GOD, The Almighty knows all things and can do anything within the realm of logic. So GOD is capable of giving us life and a future we desire because his scope of things and his power is nowhere as limited as humanity is. So to answer your question, I would have to disagree because I do not see using a microwave or eating plants anyways comparable to GOD allowing terrorists to shoot up a school or building or GOD causing an Earthquake that kills several people. GOD has more scope and power to control things and we humans simply do not.

Well, what if GOD causes the Natural Disaster himself ? I mean if GOD causes an Earthquake with the Intent to harm how is that not a Bad Thing that GOD is doing ? I don't know sometimes the Bible itself says GOD would get angry and then he would cause a disaster to happen, so it's possible GOD could do these things out of anger at times. I mean I know this happened a few times like this in Numbers with the Israelites. Well what if the Bible can confirm that GOD does act at the minimum Cruel at times ? Is it then Me calling GOD unjust or is it measuring the Character of GOD from the Texts and saying that GOD can be this way at times ?

I agree with this to some extent. Though technically GOD could allow evil to exist and still stop the really bad stuff from happening. Which is what I am more concerned about.

Yes Indeed, GOD can show Love and Mercy but I also see a lot in this world where GOD can be Cruel and Bad. Hence, why I use the Bible to show GOD's nature can be inconsistent at times. That's why I lean on Isaiah 45:7 so much because it shows GOD does it all, IMO at least.

Sometimes in our discussions I feel you are a disciple of Boghossian - "Deny all plausible and logical answers, and above all continue to sow doubt." (I'm joking - kinda)

To take a philosophical approach to your questions (again thanks for the "contingent worlds" questions; they lead me to Alvin Plantinga's "Sin, Free-Will, and Forgiveness" book - which literally deals with your specific questions), I don't think you can have a world where good and evil exists, but God prevents people from using their free will or denies them the results of using their free will. It seems in all logically consistent contingent worlds where love must exist - then free will must exist. If free will exists, then sin is possible. All sin results in either pain, suffering, harm, or evil on some level. You are essentially arguing for a world where we can be a little bad, but not too bad - or a world that is structured to limit free will, or the physical and or spiritual consequences of sin. It seems to me you are arguing for a world without justice also. What some would call "cruel" or "bad" may actually be temporal judgment for some sin or violation. Can justice truly exist in a world without the possibility of punishment? Would a world where people are not able to see the full results of depravity of sin result in more people following God or would it result in more sin? I suspect it would result in more sin because people would rationalize that the cost of committing sin is not so great.

You might argue that natural disasters are not the result of our sins, and arguments of a "fallen world" aside I'd say you are right. While the Bible identifies some natural phenomena with punishment for some sin, Jesus made it clear that the collapse of a tower which killed many people and a man being born blind had nothing to do with sin. However, just because we find ourselves in the middle of a hurricane, earthquake, or tsunami does not prove that God is cruel. Just because some people are born without sight is no more an indication that God has sinned than it is that the one born blind is responsible due to his sins. The idea that the world must be "perfect" and that nothing undesirable happens to us, may be something we hope for, but that isn't necessarily evidence that God is evil. How do you know that is his intent? Why is God obligated to give us a "perfect" life, especially if his concern is for the quality of our eternal life?

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8665

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

There is no free will

God blinds the eyes of his people

Veils the hearts of the wicked

Hardens whomever he wills

Predestines all who will come to him

Free will is un biblical

Avatar image for just_sayin
just_sayin

4381

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

There is no free will

God blinds the eyes of his people

Veils the hearts of the wicked

Hardens whomever he wills

Predestines all who will come to him

Free will is un biblical

And yet, it does seem that Jesus knew that when he said: "Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own." - John 7:17

He must have felt really stupid saying to a group of unbelievers: Yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. - John 5:40. Only to realize that they can't refuse. And don't get me started on Paul - he must have been misinformed when he said about Jesus: Who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:4). Surely, if God desired all people to be saved - then they would be saved right, unless that's not right.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8665

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@just_sayin:

And yet, it does seem that Jesus knew that when he said: "Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own." - John 7:17

Anyone who chooses to do the will of God was already-

- drawn by God to Himself (John 6:44,65).

- cleaned in heart (Psalm 51:10).

- appointed to believe (Acts 13:48).

- having God work faith in them (John 6:28-29).

- chosen to be holy and blameless (Eph. 1:4)

- chosen for salvation (2 Thess. 2:13-14).

- granted the act of believing (Phil. 1:29).

- granted repentance (2 Tim. 2:24-26).

- called according to His purpose (2 Tim. 1:9).

- caused to be born again (1 Pet. 1:3).

- predestined to salvation (Rom. 8:29-30).

- predestined to adoption (Eph. 1:5).

- predestined according to His purpose (Eph. 1:11).

- made born again not by our will but by His will (John 1:12-13).

He must have felt really stupid saying to a group of unbelievers: Yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. - John 5:40. Only to realize that they can't refuse.

Romans 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, He gave them up to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

Romans 8:7 because the mind of the flesh is hostile to God: It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8Thosecontrolled bythe fleshcannotpleaseGod.

And don't get me started on Paul - he must have been misinformed when he said about Jesus: Who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:4). Surely, if God desired all people to be saved - then they would be saved right, unless that's not right.

Romans 11:7 What then? What Israel was seeking, it failed to obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8asit is written:Godgavethema spiritof stupor,eyesthatcould not see,andearsthatcould not hear,tothis very day.”

Deuteronomy 29:4 Yet to this day the LORD has not given you a mind to understand, eyes to see, or ears to hear.

Isaiah 6:9 And He replied, "Go and tell this people: 'Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.'

2 Thessalonians 2: 11For this reason, God will send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie, 12in order that judgment will come upon all who have disbelieved the truth and delighted in wickedness.

From our perspective we have free will. From God's perspective there is only His will.

Proverbs 19:21 Many plans are in a man's heart, but the purpose of the LORD will prevail.

Proverbs 20:24 A man's steps are from the LORD, so how can anyone understand his own way?

Jeremiah 10:23 I know, O LORD, that a man's way is not his own; no one who walks directs his own steps.

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223763

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dshipp17 said:

@king_saturn:

You sure can, because 1 Chronicles is chronicling 2 Samuel. I'd previously explained that the chronicler likely thought that certain things were just unnecessary for inclusion, since 2 Samuel had already done a good and thorough job of establishing that Israel was in sin. 1 Chronicles isn't just discussing the events of 2 Samuel, it's also discussing many events leading into and including 2 Samuel, dating back to the start of Genesis. But, based on the way 1 Samuel 24:1 was left, I think it was quite logical to specify that Satan incited the census. Clearly, the answer was provided in my saying that material is likely missing that could have brought a great deal more context to 2 Samuel 24:1, and, hence, the reason that Job was brought into this discussion.

2 Samuel does not say that Israel was in Sin at the time of David numbering Israel. In fact, the passage is clear in 2 Samuel 24, that Israel was punished for David's numbering of Israel as when David pleaded with the LORD to take away the iniquity from him, the Prophet came to him with Three Choices of Plagues and then The LORD brought about the Disaster into Israel, that is why David was crying out to GOD in the passage because GOD had not directly punished him for numbering Israel but had punished Israel harshly. It's even made more clearer that GOD punished Israel because of David numbering Israelites in 1 Chronicles 21:5-7 when Joab numbers certain tribes but could not number all of them because David's command to disgusted him and it also disgusted GOD and then GOD punished Israel because of it. This is the main point, that GOD punished Israel for David's unlawful census and nothing else. You have no evidence that GOD punished Israel for their own sin especially when considering what is stated directly in 1 Chronicles 21.

1 Chronicles 21 isn't intended to be a word by word recitation of 2 Samuel 24; you can understand this by deriving what the chronicler was trying to accomplish; the entirety of 1 Chronicles gives you a context, which is that it was trying to point out key events, starting from the beginning of Genesis.

This is irrelevant to the discussion, regardless of who encouraged David to number Israel, GOD punished Israel because David took an unlawful census. GOD killed 70,000 People because David did something wrong and that is cruel and unjust.

I haven't been pushing hard against anything in 1 Chronicles, I've been pointing out that you seemed bent on hiding the fact that 1 Chronicles 21:1 shows that Satan provoked the census. I also pointed out that 1 Chronicles 21:7 doesn't or did not say anything close to what you said that it said, in multiple iterations, as required; such was dangerous, anyway, as all one had to do was look up 1 Chronicles 1 21:7.

No, I am not bent on anything. My main point is GOD killed 70,000 People because David did something wrong. Everything else is cannon fodder. 1 Chronicles 21:7 states that GOD punished Israel because of the numbering that David had commanded. Read from 1 Chronicles 21:5-7 and get the full context. Nothing is dangerous about what I am saying. If you read 1 Chronicles 21, you shall see what I am saying is right.

No you didn't; you didn't even acknowledge it until now, because it was being used to counter your absurd argument that God instead of Satan incited the census, or that, in some way, both had encouraged David to sin so that God could proceed to punish innocent people, after God had encouraged people to sin, going so far as to reducing the inspired Word of God down to the opinion of someone, when you were repeatedly told that your position could not be correct, as it went counter to Scriptures such as James 1:13.

You are lying. I said in another reply that Joab when he went against David said that David doing this numbering would bring trespass or guilt upon Israel as stated in 1 Chronicles 21:3. Which further shows that David numbering Israel was why GOD killed those thousands of Israelites. All this is evidence in my favor not yours.

You did indeed embezzled the passage for the reasons explained in the comment that you quoted, by inserting ”he (GOD)” into the passage, where the Bible actually labels it as he (Satan). For one, a Bible translation tells you that the he is Satan. Two, 1 Chronicles 21:1 says that the he should have been Satan, when it was clarified. Three, it was explained to you that the he could not be God, because, then, it would mean that God pushed David to sin, which would go counter to what the Bible otherwise says about God's character and James 1:13; and, four, the discussion was a rebuttal to the claim that this represents a Bible contradiction. You'd have to be remarkably dense, if you can't answer this question for yourself, by now, given how many times it has been clarified for you to get you to concede these points and allow the discussion to advance forward; there multiple iterations also advised you to read for comprehension and to start behaving like an adult and start behaving maturely.

Only one Bible variation says that the he was Satan and considering this only came up recently you did not know this was true yourself until recently. The problem here is that this point is irrelevant. It means nothing because ultimately GOD killed thousands of Israelites because David's unlawful census. You have provided nothing to show otherwise.

This isn't actually true; it is plain as day that you were trying to claim that the latest King James revision was some unknown Bible version that nobody reads, even after twice being told that it wasn't as you said, simply because you wouldn't just concede the point. This is the latest, or one of the latest, Bible revisions, precisely because people like you are misrepresenting this Bible passage as a Bible contradiction, despite the evidence and explanations to the contrary. It's meant to quell the fire coming from this ongoing claim of Bible contradictions by your group and atheists.

Then why didn't you bring it up earlier if you knew this Bible version had the he as Satan then ? Why wait until damn near ten posts into our conversation over this if you knew that this was so ? Even so, the point is meaningless, it means nothing against the point that GOD still did Evil by killing 70,000 People because David numbered Israel unlawfully. Who cares if it was Satan or GOD who encouraged David to number the people if it was GOD who was doing all killing anyways ?

Isn't that sort of an oxymoron, since the KJ21 is the latest version of the King James Bible? This can easily be explained by understanding that new Bible revisions don't instantly make themselves into the church pews. This has nothing to do with the situation at hand: this was explained several iterations ago, but, you kept failing to properly digest what was written so that the conversation could progress forward.

It's not an oxymoron at all. Most churches that I knew of and have been in use the classic KJV or sometimes the NIV. Every now and then you have some that use the ESV. I failed at nothing. Look at each the NIV, the ESV and the original KJV. None of them have the he as Satan and there would be no reason to assume otherwise unless specified. This point is meaningless though, I mean what do you accomplish even if I agree with you Satan incited David to sin if GOD was the one who had 70,000 People killed because of David's sin ?

I'm afraid not; this was purely a matter of your refusal to not allow the conversation to move forward by refusing to concede a point that was lost by yourself long ago. Things were presented to you several different ways for you to understand the answer to your own question. Using 1 Chronicles 21:1, and understanding that God couldn't be the author of sin and confusion (e.g. verses like James 1:13), along with my pointing out that Joab was warning David against sin, in both 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21, you could have long again conceded that material is obviously missing to help yourself fully understand the full and total context of 2 Samuel 24:1, where I also introduced Job for purposes illustration.

But this point is meaningless. I mean what does it mean to accept that GOD encouraged David to sin if GOD is the one who killed thousands of people because of what David had done wrong ? Introducing Job only makes this worse because this is another instance where we see GOD doing some dark stuff as I have explaned.

You lost the point by refusing to focus on the issue at hand: describing the reasons that it was Satan who provoked David to sin, when comparing 2 Samuel 24:1 to 1 Chronicles 21:1. The 70,000 was a different topic that could have been addressed, separately, after you'd demonstrated that you had read, with comprehension, the justifications that could allow you to concede points related to Satan being the true source for provoking David to use a census to sin against God. And, again, Israel was in sin and God had different motives for His actions, not just a single motive, especially not the motive implied in your suggestion here; this was explained to you in several different ways, leading up to this point; thus, you have had plenty of bases to understand.

No, the 70,000 People was the Main Topic, the 2 Samuel 24:1 vs 1 Chronicles 21:1 was the side point. GOD killing the 70,000 People because David took a census was the point to show that GOD does cruel and unjust things at times. I could care less about the other point because even with if it be Satan who encourage David to take a Census, because it changes nothing in the position that GOD killed thousands because of David's sin. There is no evidence that Israel was in sin at the time of GOD punishing Israel because of the Census. There is however a great deal of evidence that GOD punished Israel because of the Census.

You couldn't have shown me anything like this, because the Bible doesn't say anywhere that God does evil. The verse that you were quoting was very thoroughly explained as describing a contrast between two opposite conditions, using the surrounding context, as illustrative evidence of the point to show that there was no evidence in the cited Bible passage that suggested that God does moral evil.

Isaiah 45:7 the KJV says that GOD makes peace and creates evil. You are in denial of what the Bible says. You tried to explain your position but I have shown multiple accounts in the Bible to back up that GOD does do evil at times. Including Joshua 7 which you have no answer for and Numbers 11 which you had a lame answer for and in Exodus when GOD had the First Born of Egypt killed during the Plagues when Israel was still in bondage and all this is just the tip of the iceberg actually.

God causing harm, on this physical plane, isn't the equivalent of God doing moral evil. Evil is a motive and a state of mind. But, God's motive is always for the greater good. This is basically a misunderstanding that is often passed along for those issues such as mine that are not sins but might lead to a sin (e.g. my issue of burning with passion; many church leaders would then portray it as lust, and, by extension, fornication or adultery, using that famous Matthew 5:28, to the best of their abilities, when, in fact, it's just burning with passion and might one day lead to my taking a physical action that would then be a sin; the confusion is explained in my motives; because of my motives, my burning with passion isn't lust, where lust implies that I want to commit adultery or to fornicate, primarily to sin, or to commit these acts; but, I abhor sinning and I avoid them at all cost; but, I have no other choice but to experience sexuality, because of the chemical processes of my body; there are others, though, that are in this category, but might actually still be sins, such as hate; but, pride, would probably fall into my category more, as you can have different motives to be prideful; another is greed; but, it would be extremely difficult to separate hate from doing a violent act, except you haven't yet done it; but, the sin is the actual physical act of killing, adultery, or fornication). But, it appears that you're strictly and intentionally trying to cause confusion through misinformation and confusion because you keep advancing these known or often used cliche that are generally used to keep people from deciding to become Christians or which are normally the sources of confusion by misinformation, thus, keeping people from choosing to be saved by becoming Christians.

If GOD causes Harm on this physical plane how is it not the equal of GOD doing evil ? What is the intent of anyone doing Evil ? It's usually to do harm to someone or something. It's crazy for you to suggest otherwise. You seriously don't think when GOD causes a Disaster that his intent isn't to do harm ? Then why does Harm often happen when GOD causes disaster or GOD allows it ? I have caused no misinformation. It's just you are on the losing end of this battle once again.

Those posts are quoting from Job chapters 1 and 2, especially post 28198.

I quoted scripture from Job 1 and Job 2, you quoted no scripture to back your points. None.

Quoting Job 1 sets the clear perimeter that the discussion is about Job 1; the context is further set, based on your deriving from what could have been my implied motive, at the time, based on the comments that I made at the time, and for what reasons I made the comment, based on the wording that I was quoting, implying that it was intended to respond to those words. But, that's a distraction from your saying that I had never quoted from the Bible, when, in fact, I had, based on these posts. It was just simply a matter of your not conceding a lost point to advance the discussion.

I do not need to concede a point I won. In Job 1:18-19, Job's sons and daughters are killed by Satan and GOD allowed Satan to do this in the wager and somehow you think that GOD did not give Satan authority to harm Job in this wager in Job 1 ? You don't think GOD was a bit Dark to allow Satan power to hurt Job's sons and daughters in a wager just to prove that Job would stay faithful ? If someone killed your son or daughter would it not hurt you ?

No, the point was that you were saying that God made the wager, when it was Satan who made the wager; and, this occurred, despite multiple iterations were the point was laid home to you in several different ways; it was again a matter of your refusing to concede a lost point to advance the conversation. And, again, the flow with this logic is, first, you're assuming God had one motive, when He had multiple motives, and, second, that His motive is the one that you're claiming, when, in fact, it isn't within God's character (e.g. thus, if He in fact did have a single motive, it certainly wouldn't have been the one that you're trying to ascribe to God). Some motives are clear, based on what we can further gather from what we are suppose to gleam from the Book of Job, rather than just narrowing it down to just a one time purpose at this point in Job's life for that particular point in history (e.g. it is clear that God's motive wasn't to just have a bet with Satan over what Job might do, almost as if to toy with both Satan and Job).

The original point concerning Job was that both Satan and GOD was in on the wager and bet. Hence why GOD took away Job's protection and Satan was able to harm Job and Job's stuff. This is easy to see in Job 1 and Job 2. I do not care about how many motives GOD had. The idea that GOD was willing to allow Satan to torment Job is totally bizarre and cruel. So GOD was toying with Satan and Job ? GOD was willing to allow the Devil to kill Job's children and even put boils on Job's body just to toy with both of them ? And you somehow do not think that this is Cruel for GOD to do this ?

Again, morality, in order to be good or evil, depends on the motives of the originator, where, God's only motive is for the greater good in a given situation. And, the point was that this was a contrast, not moral evil, given the clear context in the Bible passage; that was the point that had to be conceded to advance the discussion forward.

What Greater Good comes from GOD killing people in a Disaster ? What Greater Good came from GOD killing 70,000 People because David took a Census ? What Good came from GOD killing Achan's sons and daughters because Achan stole something ? What Greater Good came from GOD killing Israelites because they complained about having no Food ? If GOD's intent is to do harm when he causes these Disasters how is it not GOD doing Evil ? The point is not being conceded because you have not made a strong case yet.

The issue at hand, though, was showing you that you were just plain wrong in saying that God had put Job's life at risk; and, this occurred, despite several iterations of clarification against your comments that are design to illicit confusion and misinformation, even in the face of the proper clarification; that's actually what's bizarre here.

No, that's the issue you choose to think was what was wrong here. The issue that is wrong is that GOD was willing to bet on Job's life with Satan. GOD was willing to allow Satan to torment Job. GOD was willing to allow Satan to kill Job's kids. GOD was willing to allow Satan to put sore boils on his body. GOD allowed Satan to do some messed up stuff to Job just to show that Job would stay faithful to him which is insane and further shows that GOD does do cruel stuff again. You at best won 1 point on a discussion that was a side discussion to the main discussion of GOD being Evil - Bad.

King Saturn - 9

dshipp - 1

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223763

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28337  Edited By King Saturn

@just_sayin said:

Sometimes in our discussions I feel you are a disciple of Boghossian - "Deny all plausible and logical answers, and above all continue to sow doubt." (I'm joking - kinda)

To take a philosophical approach to your questions (again thanks for the "contingent worlds" questions; they lead me to Alvin Plantinga's "Sin, Free-Will, and Forgiveness" book - which literally deals with your specific questions), I don't think you can have a world where good and evil exists, but God prevents people from using their free will or denies them the results of using their free will. It seems in all logically consistent contingent worlds where love must exist - then free will must exist. If free will exists, then sin is possible. All sin results in either pain, suffering, harm, or evil on some level. You are essentially arguing for a world where we can be a little bad, but not too bad - or a world that is structured to limit free will, or the physical and or spiritual consequences of sin. It seems to me you are arguing for a world without justice also. What some would call "cruel" or "bad" may actually be temporal judgment for some sin or violation. Can justice truly exist in a world without the possibility of punishment? Would a world where people are not able to see the full results of depravity of sin result in more people following God or would it result in more sin? I suspect it would result in more sin because people would rationalize that the cost of committing sin is not so great.

You might argue that natural disasters are not the result of our sins, and arguments of a "fallen world" aside I'd say you are right. While the Bible identifies some natural phenomena with punishment for some sin, Jesus made it clear that the collapse of a tower which killed many people and a man being born blind had nothing to do with sin. However, just because we find ourselves in the middle of a hurricane, earthquake, or tsunami does not prove that God is cruel. Just because some people are born without sight is no more an indication that God has sinned than it is that the one born blind is responsible due to his sins. The idea that the world must be "perfect" and that nothing undesirable happens to us, may be something we hope for, but that isn't necessarily evidence that God is evil. How do you know that is his intent? Why is God obligated to give us a "perfect" life, especially if his concern is for the quality of our eternal life?

But we are not asking for GOD to intervene every time someone does something evil, just more than he actually does now. GOD does not have to prevent people from using their free will to stop evil. If someone is getting ready to commit a drive by in a neighborhood and GOD causes the guns that the thugs will use to kill people to jam and then the police happen to show up and arrest the killers while seeing them possessing firearms with the intent to kill, did GOD stop the people from using their free will or stopped a horrible event from happening in the process ? The killers was already intent on doing evil and GOD stopped them. Well technically our free will is limited already anyways, we can not literally do anything that we wish we could do, not literally. Besides, GOD in the past intervened in situations according to the Bible, why not do some more of that stuff now ? I think a world where we could see more of GOD's supernatural properties would result in more people following him. A world where people saw Angels protecting others, where we saw GOD intervening on behalf on humans with his Divine Power would lead more people to him, not the other way around.

Well I never said the world had to be Perfect but can clearly be better if GOD intervened more often on behalf of those who are in harms way. It's not that GOD has to completely get rid of evil and bad stuff but if we saw GOD doing the supernatural stuff as well as good more often it would lead to more people following him as well as a better world. Obviously the idea is to draw people into the Eternal Living but why would GOD be so lax in this reality when he created it too ? Why allow so much evil when you don't have to especially if GOD is loving and merciful. Really ? You think if GOD causes Earthquakes, Hurricanes or Tsunamis with the intent to harm people he is not cruel ? I get why that the events of natural disaster do happen on our planet but don't you think it be a bit strange that if GOD be behind these natural disasters he is not somewhat kind of cruel if he uses them to destroy humans ? Again, GOD does not have to give us a perfect life, but he could give us a better one than this obviously.

Avatar image for jonjizz
jonjizz

1877

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

6103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#28339  Edited By dshipp17

@king_saturn:

“2 Samuel does not say that Israel was in Sin at the time of David numbering Israel. You have no evidence that GOD punished Israel for their own sin especially when considering what is stated directly in 1 Chronicles 21.”

I already quoted passages from 2 Samuel that showed Israel was in sin. Further, 2 Samuel 24:1 starts with the Old Testament punch phrase of ongoing sin. Again, certainly God can multitask and have several motives for making a decision. Please be adult enough to start understanding that, concede the point, and just advance on with the conversation.

“This is irrelevant to the discussion, regardless of who encouraged David to number Israel, GOD punished Israel because David took an unlawful census.”

You asked what the purpose of 1 Chronicles was (e.g. whether I thought that it was an inaccurate recital of 2 Samuel) and that was the answer. This is actually irrelevant to that question. Israel was punished for their own sins, for the reasons already explained to you; again, with that explanation in mind, God can certainly multitask to accomplish more than one motive at a time.

“No, I am not bent on anything.”

You certainly are, as, Satan being the source for encouraging David to take the census is a game changer for this discussion.

“You are lying.”

No, I'm not; you haven't advanced to the topic of Satan having provoked the census and Joab, acting as a messenger of God, warning David away from taking the census; and you still incorrectly state that Israel was in sin. I provided the reasons why and, instead of conceding a point, you are now trying to shift the issue at hand, once more.

“Only one Bible variation says that the he was Satan and considering this only came up recently you did not know this was true yourself until recently.”

If it were true, that's irrelevant to the point that this Bible version showed that you'd embezzled Biblical text by substituting “he (Satan)” with “he (GOD).” This latest revision of the King James Version of the Bible is a necessary extrapolation to quell the misinformation that you are trying to participate in spreading.

“Then why didn't you bring it up earlier if you knew this Bible version had the he as Satan then ?”

It was clearly brought up, because I had to quote it several times to show that you'd embezzled the Bible. Actually, you just simply kept trying to shift the topic; it wasn't that it wasn't brought up.

“Who cares if it was Satan or GOD who encouraged David to number the people if it was GOD who was doing all killing anyways ?”

Because it counters your position that God had punished innocent people for David's sins, if the one who incited the census were Satan; and, it counters misinformation that God can participate in evil and that there is a Bible contradiction. It's central to my response that Israel was in sin. So, God was judging Israel and David for their sins.

“It's not an oxymoron at all. Most churches that I knew of and have been in use the classic KJV or sometimes the NIV. Every now and then you have some that use the ESV. I failed at nothing. Look at each the NIV, the ESV and the original KJV. None of them have the he as Satan and there would be no reason to assume otherwise unless specified.”

There sure is a reason: 1 Chronicles 21:1 says that Satan provoked David to take the census and Joab was warning David not to take the census, where 1 Chronicles 21 revisits 2 Samuel 24. There are a couple of other Bible versions that the church uses, also. The cited source is very relevant, since it is actually the latest revision for the King James Version of the Bible. This was explained to you in the post that you're trying to provide a response. Quelling misinformation is a very relevant and a critical topic for the church to address, where the misinformation can defame God's character. All mainstream churches also don't preach a message designed to favor God over Satan as being the instigator of a sin. If this topic does come up, the church leaders will immediately proceed to 1 Chronicles 21:1 from 2 Samuel 24:1, as it would be the responsible thing to do for a church leader trying to teach and advance Biblical truth, while avoiding an semblance of creating confusion.

“Introducing Job only makes this worse because this is another instance where we see GOD doing some dark stuff as I have explaned.”

Actually, Job shows Satan doing dark things, as is consistent with his character.

“Isaiah 45:7 the KJV says that GOD makes peace and creates evil. You are in denial of what the Bible says.”

No, I'm not in denial, especially since I'm the one trying to get you to come into agreement with all the leaders from the mainstream church in Christianity. That you keep dogging the point means that you're in denial about that point. This was already explained and demonstrated to you by several posters plus myself that this Bible verse is describing a contrast. If the Bible meant moral evil, it would have substituted the word, peace, with the word, good (e.g. the contrast of light is darkness; a far better contrast for moral evil would be good, if actual moral evil were the intent of this Bible verse). And, the fact that Bible revisions focus on demonstrating this contrast is also on my side. As far as the rest, you've only been trying to spread misinformation that has been rebutted by Bible scholars and church leaders, where I've had to repeatedly show you the light.

“If GOD causes Harm on this physical plane how is it not the equal of GOD doing evil ?”

The passage that you're quoting is literally explaining the answer for this question. It's a function of motive. God has to execute judgment. Executing a convicted killer causes harm. Or, arresting a criminal to prevent that person from harming others can cause harm by causing that person to experience pain. That's why I suggested that you start behaving like an adult; this is what I'd need to explain to someone without a lot of life experience.

“You seriously don't think when GOD causes a Disaster that his intent isn't to do harm ?”

Harm and moral evil are separate issues for the reasons explained to you right inside the passage that you're supposedly responding to with this question. The issue at hand was that God isn't the originator of moral evil.

“I quoted scripture from Job 1 and Job 2, you quoted no scripture to back your points. None.”

Post 28198 is my both quoting and proving my take for Job chapter 1. I also gave other examples of post where I quoted Scripture and I've been describing Scripture. Anyone familiar with the Bible would be familiar with the verses that I have been directly quoting or paraphrasing in my own words.

“GOD was willing to allow the Devil to kill Job's children and even put boils on Job's body just to toy with both of them ? And you somehow do not think that this is Cruel for GOD to do this ?”

Here, you're siding seeping issues which involved my countering misinformation from you that it was Satan wagering with God and losing his wagers. And, also, that God was protective of Job's life, not putting Job's life at risk.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8665

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Job would have loved death many times

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223763

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28341  Edited By King Saturn

@dshipp17 said:

@king_saturn:

I already quoted passages from 2 Samuel that showed Israel was in sin. Further, 2 Samuel 24:1 starts with the Old Testament punch phrase of ongoing sin. Again, certainly God can multitask and have several motives for making a decision. Please be adult enough to start understanding that, concede the point, and just advance on with the conversation.

Again you Lie. You never quoted one passage that showed Israel was in Sin at the time of 2 Samuel 24, however there are several passages I have shown in 1 Chronicles 21 that show GOD punished Israel for David's numbering. 1 Chronicles 21:5-7 explains clearly that GOD punished Israel for David's numbering. I aint conceding anything because the Bible backs my position not yours.

You asked what the purpose of 1 Chronicles was (e.g. whether I thought that it was an inaccurate recital of 2 Samuel) and that was the answer. This is actually irrelevant to that question. Israel was punished for their own sins, for the reasons already explained to you; again, with that explanation in mind, God can certainly multitask to accomplish more than one motive at a time.

No Israel was not punished for their own Sin. Prove it. Show the passages in 2 Samuel 24 or 1 Chronicles 21 that say Israel was punished for their own Sin.

You certainly are, as, Satan being the source for encouraging David to take the census is a game changer for this discussion.

No it's not. I already said before that Satan encouraging David to number Israel changes nothing because that is what is stated in 1 Chronicles 21 anyways. What else is discussed in 1 Chronicles 21 is how Joab said David numbering Israel would bring Trespass or Guilt upon Israel and how GOD punished Israel for David numbering Israel and nothing else.

No, I'm not; you haven't advanced to the topic of Satan having provoked the census and Joab, acting as a messenger of God, warning David away from taking the census; and you still incorrectly state that Israel was in sin. I provided the reasons why and, instead of conceding a point, you are now trying to shift the issue at hand, once more.

No you shifted the discussion from GOD doing evil to this. The point was always that GOD killed 70,000 People because David sinned. You still have not provided scripture to show that Israel was punished for their own Sin in 2 Samuel 24 or 1 Chronicles 21. Hence, you automatically lose this point because you can not provide evidence for your points.

If it were true, that's irrelevant to the point that this Bible version showed that you'd embezzled Biblical text by substituting “he (Satan)” with “he (GOD).” This latest revision of the King James Version of the Bible is a necessary extrapolation to quell the misinformation that you are trying to participate in spreading.

The point is still irrelevant.

It was clearly brought up, because I had to quote it several times to show that you'd embezzled the Bible. Actually, you just simply kept trying to shift the topic; it wasn't that it wasn't brought up.

No, at first you quoted 1 Chronicles 21:1 as the source to say this. You just recently brought up the KJ21 version. It's still irrelevant anyways as it was GOD whom punished Israel for David's sin.

Because it counters your position that God had punished innocent people for David's sins, if the one who incited the census were Satan; and, it counters misinformation that God can participate in evil and that there is a Bible contradiction. It's central to my response that Israel was in sin. So, God was judging Israel and David for their sins.

No it does not. GOD did participate in Evil because he punished Israel over David's sin when Israel had not done anything wrong at that time. There is no evidence that Israel was in sin at the time of David numbering Israel in 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 lays out clearly that Israel was punished for David numbering Israel.

There sure is a reason: 1 Chronicles 21:1 says that Satan provoked David to take the census and Joab was warning David not to take the census, where 1 Chronicles 21 revisits 2 Samuel 24. There are a couple of other Bible versions that the church uses, also. The cited source is very relevant, since it is actually the latest revision for the King James Version of the Bible. This was explained to you in the post that you're trying to provide a response. Quelling misinformation is a very relevant and a critical topic for the church to address, where the misinformation can defame God's character. All mainstream churches also don't preach a message designed to favor God over Satan as being the instigator of a sin. If this topic does come up, the church leaders will immediately proceed to 1 Chronicles 21:1 from 2 Samuel 24:1, as it would be the responsible thing to do for a church leader trying to teach and advance Biblical truth, while avoiding an semblance of creating confusion.

Irrelevant to the point.

Actually, Job shows Satan doing dark things, as is consistent with his character.

Job 1 and Job 2 has GOD allowing Satan to torment Job. That is what the problem is and has been here. GOD was willing to allow Satan to torment Job in spite of the fact that Satan is a direct rival to GOD and humanity.

No, I'm not in denial, especially since I'm the one trying to get you to come into agreement with all the leaders from the mainstream church in Christianity. That you keep dogging the point means that you're in denial about that point. This was already explained and demonstrated to you by several posters plus myself that this Bible verse is describing a contrast. If the Bible meant moral evil, it would have substituted the word, peace, with the word, good (e.g. the contrast of light is darkness; a far better contrast for moral evil would be good, if actual moral evil were the intent of this Bible verse). And, the fact that Bible revisions focus on demonstrating this contrast is also on my side. As far as the rest, you've only been trying to spread misinformation that has been rebutted by Bible scholars and church leaders, where I've had to repeatedly show you the light.

No, that's your interpretation of the Passage. Like I said, it's still consistent in Isaiah 45:7, that if GOD creates Peace ( which is to do Good ) then to create Disaster or Calamity ( is to do Evil or Bad Things ). You have tried to work around this but you know what I am talking about. You have not rebutted anything.

The passage that you're quoting is literally explaining the answer for this question. It's a function of motive. God has to execute judgment. Executing a convicted killer causes harm. Or, arresting a criminal to prevent that person from harming others can cause harm by causing that person to experience pain. That's why I suggested that you start behaving like an adult; this is what I'd need to explain to someone without a lot of life experience.

Those examples are not directly what Isaiah 45:7 is talking about. GOD causing Disaster or Calamity is GOD causing Bad Things to occur even to those whom are not Criminals. Hence, why I used the Bible to show the point. Case and Point, Joshua 7 or Numbers 11 or Exodus when GOD kills all the First Born in Egypt, GOD killing thousands because David took a Census. These are not instances where we are talking about GOD simply executing judgment, but GOD doing bad things because these people are not directly guilty of anything.

Harm and moral evil are separate issues for the reasons explained to you right inside the passage that you're supposedly responding to with this question. The issue at hand was that God isn't the originator of moral evil.

Not Really, if GOD's intent is to do harm with Disaster or Calamity, he can be doing Evil as I explained in the passage using those different accounts.

Post 28198 is my both quoting and proving my take for Job chapter 1. I also gave other examples of post where I quoted Scripture and I've been describing Scripture. Anyone familiar with the Bible would be familiar with the verses that I have been directly quoting or paraphrasing in my own words.

You still can't even quote one verse to show your point about Job 1 ? This is why you constantly fail. Job 1:12 has GOD allowing Satan to harm Job's possessions. Job 1:8 has GOD literally bring Job to Satan's attention. Job 1:18-19, has Satan killing Job's sons and daughters after GOD gave Satan authority to harm Job's things. GOD allowed Satan to torment Job and bring harm to an innocent man.

Here, you're siding seeping issues which involved my countering misinformation from you that it was Satan wagering with God and losing his wagers. And, also, that God was protective of Job's life, not putting Job's life at risk.

You still don't get it ? The point was that GOD was willing to even deal in on Satan's wagers. That GOD was willing to allow Satan to harm his sons and daughters just to win a wager that Job would stay faithful to him, that GOD was willing to allow Satan to put Boils on Job's body just to show that Job would stay faithful. That is the Problem.

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

1510

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28342  Edited By FlashFyr

@dshipp17: I made a meme that quoted and/or paraphrased a video you posted and your "response" didn't respond to my message at all. Instead you go for ad hominems in a petty, solipsistic, red herring attempt to show an audience of none that you've won. And in your blind and idiotic stupor, you somehow thought I claimed myself a deist when I never have, yet you also claim -I- spread misinformation when, in fact, you just did. And that is not the only time you've been blatantly wrong yet you fail to acknowledge or recognize it (your critique on Pew's statistical methods was such a hysterically ignorant guessing game that any statistician would laugh in your face. I still can't believe you asked if the survey was taken only in one state). This consistent pattern shows you don't have the intellectual nor moral upstanding to be dignified with more than this paltry paragraph. Don't worry, you can walk away without issue. I'm not lowly and base enough to declare myself a winner.

Avatar image for just_sayin
just_sayin

4381

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@just_sayin:

And yet, it does seem that Jesus knew that when he said: "Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own." - John 7:17

Anyone who chooses to do the will of God was already-

- drawn by God to Himself (John 6:44,65).

- cleaned in heart (Psalm 51:10).

- appointed to believe (Acts 13:48).

- having God work faith in them (John 6:28-29).

- chosen to be holy and blameless (Eph. 1:4)

- chosen for salvation (2 Thess. 2:13-14).

- granted the act of believing (Phil. 1:29).

- granted repentance (2 Tim. 2:24-26).

- called according to His purpose (2 Tim. 1:9).

- caused to be born again (1 Pet. 1:3).

- predestined to salvation (Rom. 8:29-30).

- predestined to adoption (Eph. 1:5).

- predestined according to His purpose (Eph. 1:11).

- made born again not by our will but by His will (John 1:12-13).

He must have felt really stupid saying to a group of unbelievers: Yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. - John 5:40. Only to realize that they can't refuse.

Romans 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, He gave them up to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

Romans 8:7 because the mind of the flesh is hostile to God: It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8Thosecontrolled bythe fleshcannotpleaseGod.

And don't get me started on Paul - he must have been misinformed when he said about Jesus: Who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:4). Surely, if God desired all people to be saved - then they would be saved right, unless that's not right.

Romans 11:7 What then? What Israel was seeking, it failed to obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8asit is written:Godgavethema spiritof stupor,eyesthatcould not see,andearsthatcould not hear,tothis very day.”

Deuteronomy 29:4 Yet to this day the LORD has not given you a mind to understand, eyes to see, or ears to hear.

Isaiah 6:9 And He replied, "Go and tell this people: 'Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.'

2 Thessalonians 2: 11For this reason, God will send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie, 12in order that judgment will come upon all who have disbelieved the truth and delighted in wickedness.

From our perspective we have free will. From God's perspective there is only His will.

Proverbs 19:21 Many plans are in a man's heart, but the purpose of the LORD will prevail.

Proverbs 20:24 A man's steps are from the LORD, so how can anyone understand his own way?

Jeremiah 10:23 I know, O LORD, that a man's way is not his own; no one who walks directs his own steps.

Wow, you freely choose to paste a lot of verses there!

God's predestination is based on his knowledge of the future. He does not make our choice for us, instead we alone make our choice. God can not do our repenting for us, at least that's what God said:

Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions, so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die” (Eze. 18:30-31)

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. - 1 John 1:9

A man who refuses to admit his mistakes can never be successful. But if he confesses and forsakes them, he gets another chance. - Proverbs 28:13 (TLB)

Look! I have been standing at the door, and I am constantly knocking. If anyone hears me calling him and opens the door, I will come in and fellowship with him and he with me. (Revelation 3:20)

The Bible speaks of God giving us time to repent:

And I gave her space to repent of her fornication, and she repented not” (Rev. 2:21)

Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live! - Ezekiel 18:30-32

The Bible even ends on the notion that we have a choice to make:

The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let the one who hears say, “Come!” Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life. - Revelation 22:17

I didn't choose as many verses as I could, but I choose ones that demonstrate we must be the ones to repent and believe. He's knocking and we are all able to open the door.

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

6103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#28344  Edited By dshipp17

@king_saturn:

“Again you Lie. You never quoted one passage that showed Israel was in Sin at the time of 2 Samuel 24, however there are several passages I have shown in 1 Chronicles 21 that show GOD punished Israel for David's numbering. 1 Chronicles 21:5-7 explains clearly that GOD punished Israel for David's numbering. I aint conceding anything because the Bible backs my position not yours.”

Post 28270 was like at least the second time that I had to post verses showing that Israel was in sin, at the time that they were punished by God. This, again, shows that you are only repeating yourself and too immature to advance the discuss, like an adult, while refusing to concede a series of lost points and shifting the topic, once I have debunked your dribbling a flow of cliche misinformation and talking points that have repeatedly been debunked by Christian scholars (e.g. but, at this point, I don't want to continue to seem like I'm trying to insult the people who are not yet of adult age who might be viewing these posts; children are actually much more able to display growth potential then the way you have been behaving so far). Additionally, 2 Samuel 24:1 leads off by describing Israel as in sin. In relation to 1 Chronicles 21:5-07, I quoted for you 2 Samuel 24:10, as a means of addressing that attempt to side track the issues at hand, in order to keep the discussion on focus.

It is actually you who has lied multiple times now, in your last couple of posts, after I'd demonstrated how immature you look by being unsuccessful in trying to shift the topic, once you realized that there were more points to concede. The point is that Israel was in sin and God is able to multitask by punishing each involved party for their individual sins for individual reasons. Basically, being in both a limited capacity of intelligence, as a human being, and being further handicapped by shear ego, you're trying to presume to question God by narrowing His vast and infinite intellectual capacities down to your limited perspective, where, also, a great deal of context is unable to be known, due to information that is clearly missing from 2 Samuel 24:1. Scriptures like James 1:13 say that God cannot be the author of sin and confusion.

“No you shifted the discussion from GOD doing evil to this.”

No, I didn't shift the topic, I addressed the topic by rebutting known misinformation that is widely circulated to then reaffirm that God is not doing evil things. I already explained that evil is a function of motive.

“It's still irrelevant anyways as it was GOD whom punished Israel for David's sin.”

It clearly isn't irrelevant, as you embezzled the Bible in an attempt to enhance widely circulated misinformation that is otherwise widely rebutted, which is the explanation for the reasons that mainstream Christianity holds certain views on these topics which do not agree with your suggestions. Without this embezzlement, you have even less of a point; what you're showing is that you're unable to properly interpret Scripture, unable to understand properly interpreted Scripture, and are unwilling to learn how to properly interpret Scripture for your own growth capacity. I'm only largely serving as a conduit for information that is explained in the scholarly Christian community, while adding some other much needed enhancements, of course, from the bit of information that I'm able to come across.

“Job 1 and Job 2 has GOD allowing Satan to torment Job. That is what the problem is and has been here.”

As previously explained, Job 1 was brought in to explain to you how just a little bit of missing passage can completely alter one's perception of a Biblical event, as I was explaining to you that material was likely missing from 2 Samuel 24:1, in order to get you to accept the view of mainstream Christianity that Satan incited the census as clarified by 1 Chronicles 21:1. It then became a shifted topic to counter your misinformation that God had placed Job's life in jeopardy, when, in reality, it was actually Job's life that God was specifically concerned with saving. Now, after several iterations, where you could not successfully lie about that point, you're trying to redirect and shift the topic, without conceding these points that you took even further overboard by lying on several iterations. Again, your capacity to learn and grow in the field of properly interpreting Scripture is very limited, simply because you are just not adult enough to grow your understanding, when you have to agree that you could be wrong about something. And, I'm only largely being a conduit for what is widely accepted as the proper understanding within the mainstream Christian community in properly interpreting our Holy Text, as Christians, while recognizing the widely circulated misinformation about the Holy Text, where nuance is sometimes required to properly explain away something that could look like something else at first blush.

“Not Really, if GOD's intent is to do harm with Disaster or Calamity, he can be doing Evil as I explained in the passage using those different accounts.”

Except the Bible teaches that evil is never going to be a motivating factor with God, where evil is a function of motive (e.g. and the Scriptures supporting this point was cited and addressed for you in several iterations). And, the passage that you're quoting, or, one of the previous passages that you quoted from this iteration, has explained that causing harm does not have to be proportional to an evil motive, especially where God is concerned or the topic of discussion. Again, you're trying to bring God's intellectual capacity down to your level, where your level is even further stunted by your lack of maturity and inability to properly interpret Scripture at the intermediary to advanced levels, in order for you to come into agreement with what mainstream Christianity teaches; you're further hampered by your preference to be mislead by information that is clearly designed to be misrepresentations.

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

6103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#28345  Edited By dshipp17

@flashfyr: "I made a meme that quoted and/or paraphrased a video you posted and your "response" didn't respond to my message at all."

I did respond; the response was that you clearly could not have actually watched the clip before you commented on it. You suggested that the presenter in the video was trying to make a case for how science is only correct by agreeing with Genesis, when that nor even the word, Genesis, itself, even came up in the clip. And, you clearly showed that this was something that is a consistent pattern of yours: thinking that you're actually able to ridicule the video without actually looking through it for fail of being unable to establish the things that you would like to believe; as an adult, you should know that life will often require you to alter a preferred perceptions in order to accept things that are real reality, especially when that perception involves spreading misinformation, causing people from that reality to then be required to defend itself.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8665

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28346  Edited By SpareHeadOne

@just_sayin:

God's predestination is based on his knowledge of the future.

-

God's predestination is based on his unchanging plan and purpose

Hebrews 6: 17So when God wanted to make the unchanging nature of His purpose very clear to the heirs of the promise, He guaranteed it with an oath.

Ephesians1:9 And He has made known to us the mystery of His will according to His good pleasure, which He purposed in Christ 10as a plan for the fullness of time, to bring all things in heaven and on earth together in Christ. 11In Him we were also chosen as God’s own, having been predestinedaccording to the purpose of Him who works out everything by the counsel of His will,

Romans 8: 28 And we know that God works all things together for the good of those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose. 29For those God foreknew, He also predestined to beconformed totheimageofHisSon,so thatHewould bethe firstborn among manybrothers. 30And those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified.…

-

He does not make our choice for us, instead we alone make our choice. God can not do our repenting for us, at least that's what God said:

Well I'm not sure about that yet.

Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions, so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die” (Eze. 18:30-31)

-

It is God who grants repentance. Not us.

Proverbs 10:23 To do evil is like sport to a fool, But a man of understanding has wisdom.

24 The fear of the wicked will come upon him, And the desire of the righteous will be granted.

-

It is God who gives us a new heart and it is God who cleans the heart. Not us.

Ezekiel 36:26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

Acts 15:9 He made no distinction between us and them, for He cleansed their hearts by faith.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. - 1 John 1:9

-

It is God who clothes us with humility. Not us.

1 Peter 5:5 Likewise you younger people, submit yourselves to your elders. Yes, all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed withhumility, for “God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble.”

A man who refuses to admit his mistakes can never be successful. But if he confesses and forsakes them, he gets another chance. - Proverbs 28:13 (TLB)

-

It is God who grants repentance. Not us.

2 Timothy 2:25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,

-

Look! I have been standing at the door, and I am constantly knocking. If anyone hears me calling him and opens the door, I will come in and fellowship with him and he with me. (Revelation 3:20)

John 6:65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”

John 10:26 But because you are not My sheep, you refuse to believe. 27 My sheep hear My voice; I know them, and they follow Me.

-

The Bible speaks of God giving us time to repent:

And I gave her space to repent of her fornication, and she repented not” (Rev. 2:21)

-

It is God who grants repentance. Not us.

Acts 5:31 "He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

-

Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live! - Ezekiel 18:30-32

-

It is God who grants repentance. Not us.

Acts 11:18 When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life."

-

It is God who gives us a new heart and it is God who cleans the heart. Not us.

Psalm 51:10 Createin mea cleanheart,O God,and renewa rightspiritwithin me.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance as our way of life.

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

-

The Bible even ends on the notion that we have a choice to make:

The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let the one who hears say, “Come!” Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life. - Revelation 22:17

God makes the one thirsty and makes the one wish for the water of life.

I didn't choose as many verses as I could, but I choose ones that demonstrate we must be the ones to repent and believe. He's knocking and we are all able to open the door.

Only His sheep hear him knocking

Avatar image for king_saturn
King Saturn

223763

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dshipp17 said:

@king_saturn:

The sign of a man who is losing a discussion is when he continues to throw insults without providing evidence for the position he is fighting for. You have continued to call me names repeatedly in these discussions as well as have not shown the scriptures to back you position. That's okay though, I will continue to show the scriptures and what they say and show that your positions are not actually correct and stay cordial in this discussion.

Post 28270 was like at least the second time that I had to post verses showing that Israel was in sin, at the time that they were punished by God. This, again, shows that you are only repeating yourself and too immature to advance the discuss, like an adult, while refusing to concede a series of lost points and shifting the topic, once I have debunked your dribbling a flow of cliche misinformation and talking points that have repeatedly been debunked by Christian scholars (e.g. but, at this point, I don't want to continue to seem like I'm trying to insult the people who are not yet of adult age who might be viewing these posts; children are actually much more able to display growth potential then the way you have been behaving so far). Additionally, 2 Samuel 24:1 leads off by describing Israel as in sin. In relation to 1 Chronicles 21:5-07, I quoted for you 2 Samuel 24:10, as a means of addressing that attempt to side track the issues at hand, in order to keep the discussion on focus.

Dude, if you know that Israel was in sin at the time of 2 Samuel 24, then why do you not post the scriptures showing it ? Why is it you can not seem to provide evidence all of a sudden for your position if I am so wrong about what I am saying ? Also, while 2 Samuel 24:1 says that the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, the passage also says that David was moved to number Israel and Judah and this was done unlawfully. The passage is clear that David's numbering of Israel is what caused GOD to be angry with Israel. This is even demonstrated with 1 Chronicles 21, when Joab says that David numbering Israel would bring trespass or guilt upon Israel. Also 1 Chronicles 21:5-7 shows that after Joab numbered Israel and did not number other tribes this thing or command of David displeased GOD and he smote Israel because of it. Now unless you can provide scripture backing your position that Israel was in sin at the time of 2 Samuel 24, there is no reason to think otherwise, especially considering what 1 Chronicles 21 says. Also, concerning 2 Samuel 24:10, this is not evidence in your favor. This shows that David was heart broken over numbering the people and he wanted the sin taken away from him which actually GOD accepts at this point because in the following verses we see Gad come into the scene and the three plagues are chosen from. Also, I keep repeating myself because these points I am making are based on the Holy Texts. So I will keep saying what is in the Bible.

It is actually you who has lied multiple times now, in your last couple of posts, after I'd demonstrated how immature you look by being unsuccessful in trying to shift the topic, once you realized that there were more points to concede. The point is that Israel was in sin and God is able to multitask by punishing each involved party for their individual sins for individual reasons. Basically, being in both a limited capacity of intelligence, as a human being, and being further handicapped by shear ego, you're trying to presume to question God by narrowing His vast and infinite intellectual capacities down to your limited perspective, where, also, a great deal of context is unable to be known, due to information that is clearly missing from 2 Samuel 24:1. Scriptures like James 1:13 say that God cannot be the author of sin and confusion.

This is a sign of concession because you are just using insults and not providing proper context to what you are saying now. No, there is no evidence that Israel was sin at the time of 2 Samuel 24, on the other hand it actually shows that David's sin is what was displeasing to GOD and caused GOD to punish Israel. It's stated clearly in 1 Chronicles 21:5 -7 which you seem to keep overlooking. Like I said earlier, 2 Samuel 24:1 has GOD angry with Israel but it also has David being moved to number Israel and Judah which is what displeased GOD. This is the only sin on tap in 2 Samuel 24 that was shown to anger or displease GOD and it's made clear in 1 Chronicles 21 that this is what did it.

No, I didn't shift the topic, I addressed the topic by rebutting known misinformation that is widely circulated to then reaffirm that God is not doing evil things. I already explained that evil is a function of motive.

You gave what you thought was good explanations to a side point. The point was always about GOD doing evil. I said openly before that I have no problem with 1 Chronicles 21 which flat out states Satan encouraged David number Israel that's why I have been using so much. You seriously do not think when GOD causes these disasters his intent is not to harm ? I already showed you multiple accounts now where GOD causes disaster and his intent is to harm. We can go through some of them again.

It clearly isn't irrelevant, as you embezzled the Bible in an attempt to enhance widely circulated misinformation that is otherwise widely rebutted, which is the explanation for the reasons that mainstream Christianity holds certain views on these topics which do not agree with your suggestions. Without this embezzlement, you have even less of a point; what you're showing is that you're unable to properly interpret Scripture, unable to understand properly interpreted Scripture, and are unwilling to learn how to properly interpret Scripture for your own growth capacity. I'm only largely serving as a conduit for information that is explained in the scholarly Christian community, while adding some other much needed enhancements, of course, from the bit of information that I'm able to come across.

Like I said, I don't care what Mainstream Christians believe, I care about what is in the Text itself. I did not embezzle anything, 2 Samuel 24:1 in the KJV, ESV, NIV all read as the he being GOD not Satan. We can assume it's Satan based on 1 Chronicles 21, but in using 1 Chronicles 21 all your arguments fall to pieces because of what I have been showing you in this scriptures.

As previously explained, Job 1 was brought in to explain to you how just a little bit of missing passage can completely alter one's perception of a Biblical event, as I was explaining to you that material was likely missing from 2 Samuel 24:1, in order to get you to accept the view of mainstream Christianity that Satan incited the census as clarified by 1 Chronicles 21:1. It then became a shifted topic to counter your misinformation that God had placed Job's life in jeopardy, when, in reality, it was actually Job's life that God was specifically concerned with saving. Now, after several iterations, where you could not successfully lie about that point, you're trying to redirect and shift the topic, without conceding these points that you took even further overboard by lying on several iterations. Again, your capacity to learn and grow in the field of properly interpreting Scripture is very limited, simply because you are just not adult enough to grow your understanding, when you have to agree that you could be wrong about something. And, I'm only largely being a conduit for what is widely accepted as the proper understanding within the mainstream Christian community in properly interpreting our Holy Text, as Christians, while recognizing the widely circulated misinformation about the Holy Text, where nuance is sometimes required to properly explain away something that could look like something else at first blush.

So now you are going with the excuse again that the Bible is missing information concerning Job 1 ? Well you may believe that 2 Samuel 24:1 is missing information, but I do not think it is. What is needed is right in front of you. 2 Samuel 24:1 is basically GOD is pissed off with Israel because of David's behavior in being moved to number Israel and Judah without GOD's consent. Hence, why Joab was trying to speak against it because he knew David's sin would cause great problems for Israel. Israel themselves was not sinning at this point, however David was. More insults ? Are you sure you are really a Child of GOD ? Would someone representing Yeshua constantly be ripping insults against someone just because they do not agree with the way someone is interpreting the Bible or would they act more cordial ? I don't care what the mainstream community of Christianity thinks though, I care what the Bible itself says.

Except the Bible teaches that evil is never going to be a motivating factor with God, where evil is a function of motive (e.g. and the Scriptures supporting this point was cited and addressed for you in several iterations). And, the passage that you're quoting, or, one of the previous passages that you quoted from this iteration, has explained that causing harm does not have to be proportional to an evil motive, especially where God is concerned or the topic of discussion. Again, you're trying to bring God's intellectual capacity down to your level, where your level is even further stunted by your lack of maturity and inability to properly interpret Scripture at the intermediary to advanced levels, in order for you to come into agreement with what mainstream Christianity teaches; you're further hampered by your preference to be mislead by information that is clearly designed to be misrepresentations.

Really ? How else would one describe someone whom is Evil other than someone whose intent is to do Harm ? If GOD's intent is to do harm or kill someone just because that person did not do what he asked. How is that not the equal of GOD doing Evil or bad things ? Does GOD have to kill people with disaster ? Is not GOD able to punish in other ways ? Why was GOD not doing evil when he had Achan's sons and daughters killed in Joshua 7 because Achan did something wrong ? Why was GOD not doing evil when he had 70,000 People killed because David had messed up when he did not have to punish them for David's sin ? Why was GOD not doing evil when he had all the first born in Egypt killed when Pharoah had a hard heart and would not let Israel out of slavery ? Was all of Egypt's first born responsible for Pharoah's misgivings against Egypt ? Why should all those children suffer for someone's else bad behavior if GOD is not acting badly here ?

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

1510

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28348  Edited By FlashFyr

@dshipp17 said:

@flashfyr: "I made a meme that quoted and/or paraphrased a video you posted and your "response" didn't respond to my message at all."

I did respond; the response was that you clearly could not have actually watched the clip before you commented on it. You suggested that the presenter in the video was trying to make a case for how science is only correct by agreeing with Genesis, when that nor even the word, Genesis, itself, even came up in the clip. And, you clearly showed that this was something that is a consistent pattern of yours: thinking that you're actually able to ridicule the video without actually looking through it for fail of being unable to establish the things that you would like to believe; as an adult, you should know that life will often require you to alter a preferred perceptions in order to accept things that are real reality, especially when that perception involves spreading misinformation, causing people from that reality to then be required to defend itself.

> You suggested that the presenter in the video was trying to make a case for how science is only correct by agreeing with Genesis

0:28 "it talked about how one kind evolved into another, and I remember thinking 'well that's not right because I'd read Genesis'"

1:55 "God's word is true from the beginning... I need to remove this myth... that evolution is somehow supported by science. It isn't. Good science confirms biblical creation."

> without actually looking through it for fail of being unable to establish the things that you would like to believe

Clearly untrue on both accounts as I just demonstrated.

> especially when that perception involves spreading misinformation

Misinformation like saying the word Genesis didn't come up in the clip?

No Caption Provided

You're a waste of time.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

8665

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@flashfyr:

You Love Science I Guess

Do you think that science books can be wrong?

Do you think that not everything you read is factual?

As a secular humanist do you filter what you observe through philosophies such as positivism, materialism/physicalism, scientism, selective reductionism?

Avatar image for flashfyr
FlashFyr

1510

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@spareheadone:

Yes.

Yes.

Secular humanism has nothing to do with those philosophies since it's a metaphysical desire.