@king_majestros: He committed textbook ad hominem. Ignored the argument and attacked the person with "you hate religion;" this claim that he was talking about people in general is bull.
Religion… What do you think?
Wait, do you think there are no other factors in this system? Please tell me that isn't what you think. I swear, I'm going to check out if you actually believe
a) That the heat would be distributed evenly through the oceans, to every layer in every geographic area.
Do you not understand that large patches of hot water will not readily mix with the neighbouring cooler water, except perhaps at the Equator. This is because the Coriolis effect, like an invisible fence, confines the scalding water to a relatively small geographic area?
b) A decrease of 40 degrees after a few weeks globally would not assist with balancing the global ecosystem. Who knows how long the clouds were cooling the earth before the flood.
I'm actually done with you if this is what you think.
...I made no positive claim that Noah could have built a ship out of wood that could survive. You are always imagining what I think and reading into what i say. Now you are heaping a pretend burden on me as well.
Yes you are correct.
@spareheadone: Lmao have you actually looked into the creationist models in dship's video? First, a vapor canopy (clouds) wouldn't cool the Earth; a canopy of 2-3 feet would make the surface over 900 degrees. Second, I never claimed that heat would be distributed evenly. However, not only is water being blasted hard enough to shape different parts of the continental US, forcing water to mix, but runaway subduction would produce 10^28 joules which is more than enough to boil the entire ocean. Coriolis effect becomes even more negligible when you consider that Genesis theorists place Noah's ark as landing somewhere around Pakistan, which means Noah would be in the epicenter of the plate tectonic activity. That activity, according to the video, provides most of the energy driving the flood.
Me: how did his family build a wooden ship that didn't twist and fall apart in such violent wind and water? Not only did they live before modern engineering, but they also used a subpar material that doesn't work for projects that big... Imagine living in a wooden ship that'd be twisting, falling apart...
You: There are many examples of superior ancient products and methods.
Also you: I made no positive claim.
You engaging despite an inability to specify whether you're making an actual argument or not = I'm heaping a burden on you. Lol ok.
I love your pathetic half quotes of me
@spareheadone: I love your pathetic half quotes of science, but I guess I find a way to deal with it.
Are you mad because the only two explanations for your messages are: You were disagreeing with my argument about Noah's inability to build that kind of ship, or you were just bringing up irrelevant ways ancient methods were superior?
“What missing information ?”
It's explained right in the passage that you quoted; the passage that you quoted was discussing 2 Samuel 24:1 compared with 1 Chronicles 21:1, where you took to just repeat stuff, while reading without comprehending, in another effort to save face rather than concede more points. 1 Chronicles 21:1 is chronicling 2 Samuel 24:1, where Satan isn't mentioned in the version of this Bible passage that we have today. Putting two and two together, logic dictates that something that was being chronicled then is currently missing now.
“Nothing is missing. 2 Samuel 24:1 does say that The Anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel because David numbering Israel, why do you think the statement is conjoined together ? And is a Conjunction that implies compound or together, there is no "So" or "After" or "Then".”
I'm afraid that you're lost in your own spin that's being created by your insistence on saving face to concede a point you're not even talking about the pertinent point about what could be missing. I made no conjectures, just a logical extension from reading 2 Samuel 24:1, while you're pretending as if you have people fooled. You couldn't honestly be believing what you're saying. 2 Samuel 24:1 is not saying that the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, because of the census; the anger of the Lord is kindled against Israel because of existing sin. While the anger of the Lord is kindled against Israel, David gets moved to take the census, which causes God to act against both Israel and David. In order for what you say to be true, the verse would literally need to be in reverse order: David was moved to take the census so the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel; this isn't what the Bible says and the text is clear and plain as day, in this respect.
“I could care less what the so called Christian Community is saying or breaking down.”
In this incident, you should, as you're not interpreting the Scripture correctly (e.g. you're literally resorting to alter the plain text in reverse, after having conceded that Satan provoked the census and not God); the mainstream Christian church explains how to interpret Scripture correctly and I'm only swerving as a conduit.
“The Chronicler was giving you the information needed to understand what was going on. How else could you assume that 2 Samuel 24:1 was talking about Satan unless directly stated from the Chronicler ?”
The passage you're quoting explains to you exactly what you're asking. The information needed is the missing information.
“I am showing you GOD does bad things. I mean you wont even touch Joshua 7 anymore, or Numbers 11, or Numbers 21, or Exodus 12 which has GOD killing all the first born in Egypt. All you have to hang on is 2 Samuel 24 and the Chronicler essentially kills all your arguments.”
Well, your overall intent was trying to show that God actually did morally evil things. I already explained to you that God judged the individual and family based on His ability to read each of their thoughts and to see each of their actions to determine whether they were truly contrite for their sins. I'd already told you that God showed long suffering, as the events in Numbers 11 and 21 occurred more than 40 years of continued disobedience for the Mandate laid out back in Exodus. The Egyptians had previously killed a generation of the first born of the Israelites during the time that Moses was a baby: here, God was apparently multitasking. This all goes down to God's motives. Not knowing all of the facts underlying God's decisions, there is no way to judge His actions; and, this would be if He were another human being, when, He's not, as a very much superior Being of much higher authority; this was explained to you several times.
“None of the Bible variations use Disturbance. Heck, that 21 Century King James version of the Bible uses "Evil" in it's Isaiah 45:7 text. American Standard Version also uses "Evil". English Standard Version uses "Calamity". NIV uses "Disaster".”
Again, this was clearly explained for you right in the passage that you're quoting; the point at hand was your attempt at trying to use this verse to then try proving that God was or claimed to be the source of moral evil, which He is not, as evident by Scripture such as James 1:13. the matter at hand was that evil isn't the direct contrast of peace; good would be the direct contrast of evil; a disturbance or a calamity is the direct contrast of peace; the point was that this wasn't moral evil; your confusion is created actually from not being a heavy book reader, or, the information that you're peddling takes advantage of this short coming of the general type of person who would have a curiosity of learning about Christianity, but, being bombarded by this type of misinformation and your quoting these examples without more; the mistake is that you're comparing God to a person and don't realize that you just don't have all the information supporting God's motive for His actions and Laws/Rules; and, from there, now have to switch from moral evil to bad things; but, I explained that a bad thing was not necessary an evil thing for several iterations, where you had to concede more points to then move own with the discussion. See Job 2:10: But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.; here, you would clearly be sinning, if you accused God of having done moral evil. Obviously, you choice the King James version instead of one of the other Bible versions, offhand, because you were trying to get a way with peddling known misinformation and repeatedly so.
“Also, GOD being a Judge, Jury and Executioner does not mean he is a Just or Good Judge, Jury and Executioner.”
God is always just and God is always good; there naturally will be points to concede, when you're peddling known misinformation. God is also the Lawgiver, as you left out. Again, also, this goes to God's motives for giving the Rules that He gave to be followed; without knowing this, you lack context to judge God's actions, correctly, accurately, and fully.
Makes you look like a liar
@spareheadone: That's okay. You've professed symptoms of psychopathy so I couldn't care less what you think of other people.
Everyone can see that you half quoted me.
I hope you are going to be a lawyer or a politician
You will do great
@spareheadone: Everyone with two brain cells can see that the point doesn't change if I full quote you.
Me: how did his family build a wooden ship that didn't twist and fall apart in such violent wind and water? Not only did they live before modern engineering, but they also used a subpar material that doesn't work for projects that big... Imagine living in a wooden ship that'd be twisting, falling apart...
> There are many examples of superior ancient products and methods. There are Huge vessels made by people before common era, some of them are getting close to ark size.
The point - the only two explanations for your messages are: You were disagreeing with my argument about Noah's inability to build that kind of ship, or you were just bringing up irrelevant ways ancient methods were superior
> I made no positive claim that Noah could have built a ship out of wood that could survive.
^ Ergo this is a tap dance.
Your opinion has been seen, recorded, and ignored.
His name wasn't Noah. It was Manu
@spareheadone said:
His name wasn't Noah. It was Manu
Where in the Bible does it say that?
It's in the Mahabharata
@spareheadone: And is that a version of the holy bible?
It is the Hindu version of the story. A giant Serpent tows Manu's ark to safety
@spareheadone: That isn’t Noah in the Christian faith. The serpent is associated with the devil. That would have never happened.
Well there is the most ancient version where it's not Noah or Manu but Utnapishtim and his ark was shaped like a cube
Basically this happened.
@flashfyr: I know
I believe there is a flood story on Tutankhamen's Tomb
John 4:1-54:
When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
3 He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee.
4 And he must needs go through Samaria.
5 Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.
6 Now Jacob's well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour.
7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink.
8 (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.)
9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.
10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?
12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?
13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.
16 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.
17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:
18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.
19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.
26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.
27 And upon this came his disciples, and marvelled that he talked with the woman: yet no man said, What seekest thou? or, Why talkest thou with her?
28 The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men,
29 Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?
30 Then they went out of the city, and came unto him.
31 In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat.
32 But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.
33 Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat?
34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.
35 Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest.
36 And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal: that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together.
37 And herein is that saying true, One soweth, and another reapeth.
38 I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour: other men laboured, and ye are entered into their labours.
39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.
40 So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days.
41 And many more believed because of his own word;
42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.
43 Now after two days he departed thence, and went into Galilee.
44 For Jesus himself testified, that a prophet hath no honour in his own country.
45 Then when he was come into Galilee, the Galilaeans received him, having seen all the things that he did at Jerusalem at the feast: for they also went unto the feast.
46 So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman, whose son was sick at Capernaum.
47 When he heard that Jesus was come out of Judaea into Galilee, he went unto him, and besought him that he would come down, and heal his son: for he was at the point of death.
48 Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.
49 The nobleman saith unto him, Sir, come down ere my child die.
50 Jesus saith unto him, Go thy way; thy son liveth. And the man believed the word that Jesus had spoken unto him, and he went his way.
51 And as he was now going down, his servants met him, and told him, saying, Thy son liveth.
52 Then enquired he of them the hour when he began to amend. And they said unto him, Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him.
53 So the father knew that it was at the same hour, in the which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth: and himself believed, and his whole house.
54 This is again the second miracle that Jesus did, when he was come out of Judaea into Galilee.
Loading Video...
Loading Video...
This heat thing is a real problem for biblical creationists
In their own words...
The main sources of heat during the Flood are: (1) Accelerated Nuclear Decay, (2) Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (CPT) and (3) bombardment from space. Each is overwhelmingly sufficient to melt the entire Earth’s crust or to boil away the oceans. They follow different spatial patterns. Although no general explanation has yet been found of how a heat catastrophe during the Flood was avoided, worthwhile further investigations have become apparent.
In geological terms the Genesis Flood was short and violent, and must have generated an enormous amount of heat. However Noah, his family, the animals on the Ark and many aquatic creatures survived the Flood. Thus the problem arises of explaining how the heat was removed without raising temperatures too high for survival.
This project consists of a review of the relevant uniformitarian and creationist literature together with supporting calculations. The first part reassesses what is known about ocean temperatures through Earth history. Most of the relevant data comes from the oxygen-18 content of marine calcite, both inorganic and in fossil shells; more 18O in the calcite relative to the seawater indicates lower formation temperatures. Although data from Precambrian rocks is scanty, the fraction of 18O increases upwards throughout the geological record (Veizer and Prokoph 2015). Taken at face value this implies a progressive cooling of the oceans before, during and after the Flood. However some investigators have argued that the trend is largely due to a secular change in seawater chemistry. Further investigation from a biblical perspective, including newer methods of palaeothermometry, notably Mg/Ca (Barker et al. 2005), and “clumped isotopes” (Ghosh et al. 2006), is needed to reliably determine ocean palaeotemperatures.
Several of the findings of the RATE project, notably the widespread occurrence of polonium radiohalos in biotite flakes in granite (Snelling 2005), imply that radionuclide decay was vastly accelerated during the Flood. Given present-day nuclide concentrations and heat generation rates, and assuming that the main heat-generating decay series (238U, 235U, 232Th and 40K) were accelerated by a factor of 600 million over the Flood year (Snelling 2014), we estimate that this heat was over five times enough to melt the Earth’s entire continental crust.
The heat released during CPT is mainly that brought up by mantle convection to the ocean floor at mid-ocean ridges or spreading centres. The current heat deposition rate is ~3.9×1014 J/m2 of newly-formed oceanic lithosphere (Furlong and Chapman 2013). Thus the cooling needed to produce the present-day ocean floors (area 3.6×1014 m2) is estimated simply by multiplying these two figures together, which gives 1.4×1029 J – over 30 times enough to boil away Earth’s oceans.
The heat deposited by bombardment from space during the Flood is essentially the kinetic energy of the impactors, which depends on their masses and velocities and the number that fell during the Flood. Most creationist authors considering space impacts assume that they occurred mainly during the Flood, and that the Earth was struck by the same impactor population as the Moon However the most reliable estimate of what impacted the Earth during the formation of the lunar maria (roughly equivalent to the Flood) is probably that of Kring and Cohen (2002), who give a minimum energy/heat deposition of 1028 J, with a possible maximum an order of magnitude larger.
Given that these enormous heat loads arise by different mechanisms and in different locations, a generic heat removal mechanism is difficult to formulate. One possibility may be a supernatural, transiently-operating form of temperature-dependent radiation (not electromagnetic) from crustal materials, to which terrestrial substances are transparent. The feasibility of this idea could be investigated by simple quantitative modelling of crustal heat flows in Flood conditions.
@king_saturn said:
@just_sayin said:
Ah, so you decided to leave the Political thread to fight with a Lion again ?
Why is it that you are assuming my Position from some Atheist Philosopher ? I had never heard of Peter Bosshogian, but now I feel like you are going for a bit of a Low Blow instead of just directly responding to my arguments.
No, I said multiple times that GOD does both Good and Evil. The focus currently is God doing Bad Things because that is the focal point of the discussion as this is where we have Contention. I have used several accounts from the Bible to confirm my Position on this. Like I said before, even the Bible itself confirms that GOD does Bad Things from Isaiah 45:7. I mean by your logic about this it is impossible to call God even Good then. For to call God good is to measure his actions as therefore to be as such. The standard itself is what GOD himself says, and if GOD is telling you he does both Good and Evil what exactly do you expect ? Yeah, GOD can do whatever he wants with his Creation, but if he tells you he does both Good and Bad things from the Bible and we see GOD doing these things. Again, what is it that you expect ?
Tell Me This : How is it that you can find the account of Jesus dying on the Cross for Man's Sin to be GOD doing a Great Thing but I can not see GOD killing someone's sons and daughters for that Man's sin to be GOD doing a Bad Thing ?
Fight with a Lion? I'm not into big game hunting. I do have a 7 foot plush lion I won at the NC State Fair. I named him Aslan. But I don't fight him. He isn't a tame lion after all.
As @dshipp17 might have mentioned once or twice, the word for evil (rah) in Isaiah 45:7 can also mean "trouble, calamity, pain". It's a generic term used with a wide variety of meanings in the Bible. The context of the passage is dealing with natural phenomena (light, darkness) and not moral actions. Your interpretation would be outside the view of the author of Isaiah, who believed God to be a just God, and the understanding of most biblical scholars. So help me understand why you hold to it?
No, I don't agree with the assertion that by "my view" that God can not be called good or evil. What I want to be sure you understand about my point is that a rule or law must be imposed upon God to claim that God is wrong for either actively or passively letting some calamity come upon them, whether it is undeserved or deserved death, pain, suffering, or sickness. God never promised you a rose garden to use a very dated song reference. He never said we would not die or suffer. He never entered into that agreement. So to impose it upon him is what is unjust - not his actions. He is the suzerain and we the vassals. We are not on equal footing with him, but his creation. While it would be wrong for me to harm you because I do not have the legitimate authority to harm you, it would not be wrong for God to harm you, he has that right and authority.
If I enter a contract with you to sell my home, and decide to leave you the furniture in my bedroom, you could rightly say I have been "good" to you. I went above and beyond the limitations of the contract. But if you were to claim that I am "evil" and have treated you unjustly because I did not leave you my plush lion, Aslan, you have misspoken. I never promised you my lion. You can't make a legitimate claim against me for not giving you what you wanted. You might not like me for it, and you may feel I mistreated you, and think I'm bad - but you have merely pushed your laws upon me unjustly.
There is no real moral problem from my perspective with the accounts in 2 Kings and 1 Chronicles where 70,000 die for David's sin. First, one account goes out of its way to mention that the people are being punished for their own sin. You will say that one account says it is for David's sin. Why aren't both true? Why can't God use the occasion to accomplish both purposes? I'm sure you are aware that these books coexisted and that 2 Kings appears to mention Chronicles (or another record of Judah's kings) several times (2 Kings 1:18, 2 Kings 8:23, 2 Kings 12:19, 2 Kings 13:12, 2 Kings 14:15, 2 Kings 14:18 for just a few examples) and even another history of the kings of Israel is mentioned. It seems odd to me that people did not think that the differences in narrative were incompatible with all of these histories, nor do most bible scholars. So, why do you feel they are incompatible?
@dshipp17 said:
It's explained right in the passage that you quoted; the passage that you quoted was discussing 2 Samuel 24:1 compared with 1 Chronicles 21:1, where you took to just repeat stuff, while reading without comprehending, in another effort to save face rather than concede more points. 1 Chronicles 21:1 is chronicling 2 Samuel 24:1, where Satan isn't mentioned in the version of this Bible passage that we have today. Putting two and two together, logic dictates that something that was being chronicled then is currently missing now.
How is the Information missing, if we have the Information from 1 Chronicles 21 that the He is Satan ? 2 Samuel 24 technically is not missing Information anyways as Satan can technically be working under GOD's law anyways.
I'm afraid that you're lost in your own spin that's being created by your insistence on saving face to concede a point you're not even talking about the pertinent point about what could be missing. I made no conjectures, just a logical extension from reading 2 Samuel 24:1, while you're pretending as if you have people fooled. You couldn't honestly be believing what you're saying. 2 Samuel 24:1 is not saying that the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, because of the census; the anger of the Lord is kindled against Israel because of existing sin. While the anger of the Lord is kindled against Israel, David gets moved to take the census, which causes God to act against both Israel and David. In order for what you say to be true, the verse would literally need to be in reverse order: David was moved to take the census so the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel; this isn't what the Bible says and the text is clear and plain as day, in this respect.
You do know that "And" is a compound conjunction right ? Like if I said, Mr. Majestic was angry with Krypton and Superman was protecting Krypton from adversaries. How would you assume that Mr. Majestic was angry with Krypton before Superman was protecting it just because the subject of Majestic being angry with Krypton is first in the statement ? 2 Samuel 24, never uses Then or So or After, it's basically Again GOD was angry with Israel and Satan moved David to number Israel. None of that implies that GOD was angry with Israel before Satan moved David to number Israel, they are compounded. Also, when you consider that the Chronicler actually says that GOD was displeased with David after he numbered Israel and smote Israel because of this. It's pretty clear that the text is saying that GOD punished Israel because of David's sin. 1 Chronicles 21, is clear about the passage.
In this incident, you should, as you're not interpreting the Scripture correctly (e.g. you're literally resorting to alter the plain text in reverse, after having conceded that Satan provoked the census and not God); the mainstream Christian church explains how to interpret Scripture correctly and I'm only swerving as a conduit.
What am I altering ? Did I not explain what I was saying well enough for you to understand above ?
The passage you're quoting explains to you exactly what you're asking. The information needed is the missing information.
If the Information needed is given, how is it missing information ? Like, how is it you are not seeing this ?
Well, your overall intent was trying to show that God actually did morally evil things. I already explained to you that God judged the individual and family based on His ability to read each of their thoughts and to see each of their actions to determine whether they were truly contrite for their sins. I'd already told you that God showed long suffering, as the events in Numbers 11 and 21 occurred more than 40 years of continued disobedience for the Mandate laid out back in Exodus. The Egyptians had previously killed a generation of the first born of the Israelites during the time that Moses was a baby: here, God was apparently multitasking. This all goes down to God's motives. Not knowing all of the facts underlying God's decisions, there is no way to judge His actions; and, this would be if He were another human being, when, He's not, as a very much superior Being of much higher authority; this was explained to you several times.
This is all your Conjecture, no where in the text do we have anything about GOD judging Achan's family or moral intent. However, we do see in Joshua 7 that GOD held all of Israel accountable for Achan's sin as it is explained and GOD had Achan and his sons and daughters killed for his own sin that he confessed. GOD did not show Long Suffering, as soon as they started complaining about not having food or water in Numbers 11 or Numbers 21, GOD got mad and he punished them. The text does not say that they was complaining every single day for 40 years. Correct, the Egyptians did kill a generation of Israelites while Moses was a Baby, so instead of GOD trying to protect the Israelite children from a Pharoah who was bloodlusted, GOD would rather let those babies get killed off so he could later exact revenge against Egypt by killing off their First Born ? GOD multitasking again ? This conjecture is bizarre. Well, we do know that GOD does not mind Bloodshed and killing people when they do not do what he says or killing people to exact revenge. If there is no way to judge GOD actions then how do you judge that GOD is good ?
Again, this was clearly explained for you right in the passage that you're quoting; the point at hand was your attempt at trying to use this verse to then try proving that God was or claimed to be the source of moral evil, which He is not, as evident by Scripture such as James 1:13. the matter at hand was that evil isn't the direct contrast of peace; good would be the direct contrast of evil; a disturbance or a calamity is the direct contrast of peace; the point was that this wasn't moral evil; your confusion is created actually from not being a heavy book reader, or, the information that you're peddling takes advantage of this short coming of the general type of person who would have a curiosity of learning about Christianity, but, being bombarded by this type of misinformation and your quoting these examples without more; the mistake is that you're comparing God to a person and don't realize that you just don't have all the information supporting God's motive for His actions and Laws/Rules; and, from there, now have to switch from moral evil to bad things; but, I explained that a bad thing was not necessary an evil thing for several iterations, where you had to concede more points to then move own with the discussion. See Job 2:10: But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.; here, you would clearly be sinning, if you accused God of having done moral evil. Obviously, you choice the King James version instead of one of the other Bible versions, offhand, because you were trying to get a way with peddling known misinformation and repeatedly so.
Like I said, if someone is telling you that the create Disaster or Calamity, they are telling you that they do Bad Things. There is no way around this. It's not misinformation, you just do not want to deal with what the Bible is telling you. So if someone is doing Bad Things that is not like someone doing Evil ? GOD does act as a person though, he obviously has feelings and can be get angry and act as a dictator does at times from the Bible. The Bible says numerous times that GOD's anger was kindled by something and it's usually something he does not like, this is no different than another person. We also get angry about things we do not like. The only different is that GOD would be a much more Powerful Being than a Human but none of that deals with the Character of GOD which is on stage here. Job 2:10 has Job saying shall we not receive both Good and Evil things. I think other versions use Trouble. The point being is that Job recognized that both Good and Evil came from GOD. He would not be sinning to say GOD does Evil, he would however be sinning if he Cursed GOD because of it though. Many other people use the KJV Bible, so I do not see how you figure I am peddling misinformation. Heck, the passage of Job 2:10 you quoted was from the King James.
God is always just and God is always good; there naturally will be points to concede, when you're peddling known misinformation. God is also the Lawgiver, as you left out. Again, also, this goes to God's motives for giving the Rules that He gave to be followed; without knowing this, you lack context to judge God's actions, correctly, accurately, and fully.
Wait a Minute, you just judged GOD to be that though. You would need a standard to know that GOD is a good and just Judge. What standard are you using to know that this is so ? We can judge GOD's actions based on how he himself uses these so called rules and if they are consistent with what he supposedly saying. Like if GOD is just, how be it that he judged Israel to be in sin on the basis of knowing that it was Achan who had stolen from him and then in turn had all of Achan's children killed for his sin ? Is that Justice ? Is that Good ? Was GOD just and good in having several Israelites killed because they complained about not having Food ? Is it Just or Good to ever kill someone because they complain ?
@just_sayin said:
Fight with a Lion? I'm not into big game hunting. I do have a 7 foot plush lion I won at the NC State Fair. I named him Aslan. But I don't fight him. He isn't a tame lion after all.
Well, at least you are up for this Challenge. I do not see a lot of push back against you in the Political Thread.
As @dshipp17 might have mentioned once or twice, the word for evil (rah) in Isaiah 45:7 can also mean "trouble, calamity, pain". It's a generic term used with a wide variety of meanings in the Bible. The context of the passage is dealing with natural phenomena (light, darkness) and not moral actions. Your interpretation would be outside the view of the author of Isaiah, who believed God to be a just God, and the understanding of most biblical scholars. So help me understand why you hold to it?
Well, one version of the Bible also uses the word Disaster so you can throw that word in there as well. Considering someone is saying that they can cause Disaster, Trouble, Calamity or Pain, they are telling you that they can cause Bad Things to occur and generally we consider someone saying that they cause Disaster or cause Trouble, Evil.
No, I don't agree with the assertion that by "my view" that God can not be called good or evil. What I want to be sure you understand about my point is that a rule or law must be imposed upon God to claim that God is wrong for either actively or passively letting some calamity come upon them, whether it is undeserved or deserved death, pain, suffering, or sickness. God never promised you a rose garden to use a very dated song reference. He never said we would not die or suffer. He never entered into that agreement. So to impose it upon him is what is unjust - not his actions. He is the suzerain and we the vassals. We are not on equal footing with him, but his creation. While it would be wrong for me to harm you because I do not have the legitimate authority to harm you, it would not be wrong for God to harm you, he has that right and authority.
So because GOD is Waaaaaaaaaay More Powerful than us we can not judge any of his actions to be Good or Bad ? We can not say that hey GOD did a good thing here by healing by Grandma or GOD did a terrible thing here by causing an earthquake that killed a whole bunch of people ? What if the Bible backs the idea of GOD doing evil things ? Why do we have to be on equal footing with GOD to say whether he did Bad or Good ? Technically, I am a creation of my Mother and Father, does that mean I can never judge any of their actions to be bad or good too. Okay, so GOD is Waaaaaaaaay More Powerful than us, why does that mean we can not say whether his actions are Good or Bad, IF his Character is supposed to be that of Love, Mercy, and all that Good Stuff according to the Bible ?
If I enter a contract with you to sell my home, and decide to leave you the furniture in my bedroom, you could rightly say I have been "good" to you. I went above and beyond the limitations of the contract. But if you were to claim that I am "evil" and have treated you unjustly because I did not leave you my plush lion, Aslan, you have misspoken. I never promised you my lion. You can't make a legitimate claim against me for not giving you what you wanted. You might not like me for it, and you may feel I mistreated you, and think I'm bad - but you have merely pushed your laws upon me unjustly.
Is that what we are talking about ? GOD not leaving us stuffed animals in an agreement ? I was thinking more along the lines of the Bible is supposedly GOD's word, GOD's word supposedly never fails, the Bible says GOD is Love, God is Merciful, etc, and then we have GOD who can do the Bad Things to ya. Moreover though, especially the New Testament, we have constant teaching about GOD being Love and Mercy. My point being that GOD's character is Not Consistent, that at times GOD can show Mercy and Love and at other times GOD can be a very Dark and Violent being. I mean if GOD kills people for Complaining about not having food or water is that really something that measures Justice to you ? To kills someone for complaining ? How about our burnt up buddy Achan in Joshua 7, whom was killed along with his family for stealing something. I get that Achan had to be punished, but his sons and daughters had to be burnt up too ? I feel like you sort of soften the blows here a bit with your analogies. I get that GOD has the Power to do whatever he wants but that's GOD's Power we are talking about GOD's Character here.
There is no real moral problem from my perspective with the accounts in 2 Kings and 1 Chronicles where 70,000 die for David's sin. First, one account goes out of its way to mention that the people are being punished for their own sin. You will say that one account says it is for David's sin. Why aren't both true? Why can't God use the occasion to accomplish both purposes? I'm sure you are aware that these books coexisted and that 2 Kings appears to mention Chronicles (or another record of Judah's kings) several times (2 Kings 1:18, 2 Kings 8:23, 2 Kings 12:19, 2 Kings 13:12, 2 Kings 14:15, 2 Kings 14:18 for just a few examples) and even another history of the kings of Israel is mentioned. It seems odd to me that people did not think that the differences in narrative were incompatible with all of these histories, nor do most bible scholars. So, why do you feel they are incompatible?
Whoa. Where did 2 Kings comes from ? We was speaking on 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 dealing with David and the Census. Where does it say in 2 Samuel 24 that the people are being punished for their own Sin ? Also, how is 2 Kings relevant directly to this discussion about David and the Census ? GOD could, but he did not. GOD only punished Israel as GOD did nothing to David and he was the one who numbered Israel and brought guilt upon Israel. You lost me with 2 Kings because that nor these verses are directly tied to the account of David and the Census. Only 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 speak directly of David and the Census.
@king_saturn said:
@just_sayin said:
Well, at least you are up for this Challenge. I do not see a lot of push back against you in the Political Thread.
Its kinda dead isn't it? Sometimes I make comments on abcnews or cnn but I get like 50 responses in 5 minutes and I can't respond to them all.
Well, one version of the Bible also uses the word Disaster so you can throw that word in there as well. Considering someone is saying that they can cause Disaster, Trouble, Calamity or Pain, they are telling you that they can cause Bad Things to occur and generally we consider someone saying that they cause Disaster or cause Trouble, Evil.
I think you are making a false equivalency as dshipp17 has mentioned before. A natural event is not a moral event. I know some loosely connect the two by saying God cursed the ground after Adam's sin so they are related that way. Not sure if that is the implication or not. However, a natural event is just the following of natural law. You would have to impute motive, which would mean you know the mind of God. I'm just sure we fully can.
So because GOD is Waaaaaaaaaay More Powerful than us we can not judge any of his actions to be Good or Bad ? We can not say that hey GOD did a good thing here by healing by Grandma or GOD did a terrible thing here by causing an earthquake that killed a whole bunch of people ? What if the Bible backs the idea of GOD doing evil things ? Why do we have to be on equal footing with GOD to say whether he did Bad or Good ? Technically, I am a creation of my Mother and Father, does that mean I can never judge any of their actions to be bad or good too. Okay, so GOD is Waaaaaaaaay More Powerful than us, why does that mean we can not say whether his actions are Good or Bad, IF his Character is supposed to be that of Love, Mercy, and all that Good Stuff according to the Bible ?
When you say someone is doing "evil" or is "evil" you are making a moral claim. Moral claims must be supported by moral laws. What law did God break and who imposed it upon Him? Are you accusing God of murder? God is the creator - giver of life. he can give it and he can take it:
The LORD brings death and makes alive; he brings down to the grave and raises up. - 1 Samuel 2:6
You do not have the authority to make laws for God to follow. Yet, you can observe if God is just in his judgements and in keeping any promises. Grace does not conflict with justice, but love does not mean that justice does not matter either.
Is that what we are talking about ? GOD not leaving us stuffed animals in an agreement ? I was thinking more along the lines of the Bible is supposedly GOD's word, GOD's word supposedly never fails, the Bible says GOD is Love, God is Merciful, etc, and then we have GOD who can do the Bad Things to ya. Moreover though, especially the New Testament, we have constant teaching about GOD being Love and Mercy. My point being that GOD's character is Not Consistent, that at times GOD can show Mercy and Love and at other times GOD can be a very Dark and Violent being. I mean if GOD kills people for Complaining about not having food or water is that really something that measures Justice to you ? To kills someone for complaining ? How about our burnt up buddy Achan in Joshua 7, whom was killed along with his family for stealing something. I get that Achan had to be punished, but his sons and daughters had to be burnt up too ? I feel like you sort of soften the blows here a bit with your analogies. I get that GOD has the Power to do whatever he wants but that's GOD's Power we are talking about GOD's Character here.
Are the "bad things" God does to you, bad from all perspectives? Is it "evil" for God to do those things? Again, we are not equals. You and I are equals in the eyes of the law. Me and my plush lion are not equals in the eyes of the law. If I rip his stuffing out or disfigure him (just an analogy, Aslan), have I "sinned" against him? What law did I break? That's the point I keep making to you.
So, let's go further. God kills someone for complaining - so what? What sin did he commit? Did He promise he would not kill us or that we would live physically forever? Nope. Let's take Achan and his family. Achan gets punished for what he does, but let's assume his family are all innocent. Can God kill them for any reason he wants to? The answer is yep. If we die because of someone else's actions - has God violated his requirements towards us? Nope - he hasn't. You can say it isn't fair - but you are assuming that God can't do what he wants with regards to us. His promise is that we will each be judged ETERNALLY by our responses towards him. Temporally killing someone, whether permissively or actively, is within His rights.
Now do I believe God often has reasons for what He does. Sure. And I am amazed that you do not consider evidence against your claim. For instance, when Abraham begs God not to destroy Sodom, God says that He would not - if he could find 10 righteous persons. So, God does give some consideration to the the moral conduct of people, however does someone's moral standing negate his right to take life? Nope. Further, God had Israel wonder in the wilderness for 40 years- one reason given is that the sins of the Canaanites was not at its peak. God gave consideration on when Joshua would wage war so that it would be when the Israelites were more corrupt than before. This does not seem like God lacks mercy. Are you suggesting that if God doesn't always give us what we want he is evil?
Whoa. Where did 2 Kings comes from ? We was speaking on 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 dealing with David and the Census. Where does it say in 2 Samuel 24 that the people are being punished for their own Sin ? Also, how is 2 Kings relevant directly to this discussion about David and the Census ? GOD could, but he did not. GOD only punished Israel as GOD did nothing to David and he was the one who numbered Israel and brought guilt upon Israel. You lost me with 2 Kings because that nor these verses are directly tied to the account of David and the Census. Only 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 speak directly of David and the Census.
Sorry, my bad. I'm doing this by memory; I cited the wrong book. Point is the same. Chronicles refers to the book of Samuel the seer. "[A]nd in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer." - 1 Chronicles 29:29
You are assuming that the fallout from the census serves no purpose, that David learns nothing. That he learns nothing about the responsibility of being a king. Throughout the discussion with dshipp17 you seem to be working under the assumption that pain, suffering, death, and calamity never have a point. However, that may not be the case. Paul said it this way: We can rejoice, too, when we run into problems and trials, for we know that they help us develop endurance. And endurance develops strength of character, and character strengthens our confident hope of salvation. And this hope will not lead to disappointment. For we know how dearly God loves us (Romans 5:3-4 NLT)
@dshipp17 said:
Loading Video...
The light cones in our eyes face backwards, for some reason, whereas squids have forward-facing cones and this results in squids having better vision. This is more consistent with path dependency than creationism, a pattern where many animals end up with imperfect designs because they have to build on their imperfect starting points.
Our abs are also better suited to holding a horizontal position than an upright one.
Our brains are wired to jump to logical fallacies in order to survive in the wild, such as assuming patterns or seeing faces. Our brains don't come standard with sound logic and complex mathematical computation; those are the results of thousands of years of philosophy and building off those thinkers to get science and math, then we have to learn those systems.
Childhood contexts such as high external threat, father absence, and abusive parenting leads to early puberty/maturation and higher rates of teenage sex/pregnancy. Earlier puberty/maturation is not something we "decide." It's biological. This is more in line with facultative calibration where the priority would be reproducing quickly because survival chances are lower. This is not in line with a creator that makes all humans moral, thinks sex before marriage is evil, but designed less fortunate individuals' hormones to flare much earlier against their free will.
We also see a link between homosexuality and a mutation in the q28 region of the X chromosome. This leads to a prenatal immune response against SRY antigen, decreasing male differentiation in the brain (later born sons are more likely to be gay because this effect strengthens with every birth). However, we see that females born in these families can be 30% more fertile. Again, not a choice. This data is in line with sexually antagonistic pleiotropy, where the fitness of one sex is being sacrificed to increase the fitness of another. This is extremely advantageous in a number of contexts, so it must be designed, right?
It's extremely difficult to build a brain that can be highly aggressive, which manifests in business or physical combat depending on the culture, but can differentiate between outsiders and family. These highly aggressive males are the ones who commit domestic assault. However, these are the guys who reproduce most because their skills in protection are prized in subsistence culture or high crime rate areas, and their higher-than-average resources are sought after in modern society (female reproductive success is dependent on resources because pregnancy and lactation take 3-4x more calories than usual). Not only does this lead to domestic issues, but men have higher "honor murder" rates all over the world, killing other men over small slights and namecalling. Crime also increases with wealth inequality, regardless of the current standard of living. And again, we don't choose how our brains are wired and free will becomes a lot harder when a certain part of the brain is enlarged. Why did God design male brains and fitness this way?
Basically, if we asked an engineer to design a human body, what we have isn't what he'd settle with.
It's also scientifically unreasonable to think an adult human was handcrafted out of dust and "life" was breathed through his nostrils before plants existed, then an adult woman was formed out of the man's broken rib. Oh right, and women were designed to be helpers.
Stop calling it science. It's not.
@just_sayin said:
Its kinda dead isn't it? Sometimes I make comments on abcnews or cnn but I get like 50 responses in 5 minutes and I can't respond to them all.
Well I think that the Liberal strength in the Thread has sort of Submitted. I hardly ever hear conversing opinion in that Thread anymore.
I think you are making a false equivalency as dshipp17 has mentioned before. A natural event is not a moral event. I know some loosely connect the two by saying God cursed the ground after Adam's sin so they are related that way. Not sure if that is the implication or not. However, a natural event is just the following of natural law. You would have to impute motive, which would mean you know the mind of God. I'm just sure we fully can.
Is Disaster or Calamity just a Natural Event ? If GOD causes Disaster or Calamity to be they could essentially be anything in the realm of causing Bad Things. We can just look at how GOD allowed Satan to attack Job and Job's possessions to see that from a Biblical Account. That was GOD essentially allowing his Greatest Opposer to harm someone whom GOD himself saw as Perfect and Upright. Can we not gather a good understanding of the nature of GOD by reading the Bible and seeing stories about how he reacts to situations ? Why is it not possible to say GOD is Merciful when he gave the People of Ninevah time to Repent and try to send Jonah to talk to those People about their Sin and then can not also say GOD is somewhat Wicked as well for causing 70,000 People to die because David took a Census ?
When you say someone is doing "evil" or is "evil" you are making a moral claim. Moral claims must be supported by moral laws. What law did God break and who imposed it upon Him? Are you accusing God of murder? God is the creator - giver of life. he can give it and he can take it:
Well again, you are appealing to GOD's Power and not really looking at GOD's Character. Sure, GOD can do whatever he wants to us as the Creator, but we should expect that if GOD's character is Merciful and Loving that he would not just be killing us just because he can do so. That says nothing about GOD's character other than it's rather Harsh and Dark, not really Mercy or Loving.
The LORD brings death and makes alive; he brings down to the grave and raises up. - 1 Samuel 2:6
You do not have the authority to make laws for God to follow. Yet, you can observe if God is just in his judgements and in keeping any promises. Grace does not conflict with justice, but love does not mean that justice does not matter either.
So again, GOD's Power and Authority trumps his Character ? Because GOD is the Creator of all things and he can do anything he wants with us, we can not say anything about his Character. Yet, the Bible describes GOD's character as Merciful and Loving. The issue is GOD's character meshing with what accounts we have in the Bible and how they do not all the time.
Are the "bad things" God does to you, bad from all perspectives? Is it "evil" for God to do those things? Again, we are not equals. You and I are equals in the eyes of the law. Me and my plush lion are not equals in the eyes of the law. If I rip his stuffing out or disfigure him (just an analogy, Aslan), have I "sinned" against him? What law did I break? That's the point I keep making to you.
Well, we are not directly talking about me. Besides what I might think are Bad Things could be totally subject to my own thoughts. I was trying to use accounts from the Bible or accounts that we could agree show GOD as being a bit Harsh and Evil. Like the account of David and the Census, the account of Achan, the account of the Israelites complaining in the Wilderness and then GOD killing them. Why does GOD's power over us mean his Character is null and void ? What does it mean to even say GOD is Good or GOD is Merciful or GOD is Love if GOD can and will do anything he wants anyways ? Oh yeah, and about that Plush Lion analogy, the Plush Lion was not made in your Image was it ? That Plush Lion can not feel Pain can it ? That Plush Lion is not really something that you Love because if you did, would you rip the stuffing out of it ? Would you tear up your PC or your Playstation 4 or your XBOX One ? And these are Objects.
So, let's go further. God kills someone for complaining - so what? What sin did he commit? Did He promise he would not kill us or that we would live physically forever? Nope. Let's take Achan and his family. Achan gets punished for what he does, but let's assume his family are all innocent. Can God kill them for any reason he wants to? The answer is yep. If we die because of someone else's actions - has God violated his requirements towards us? Nope - he hasn't. You can say it isn't fair - but you are assuming that God can't do what he wants with regards to us. His promise is that we will each be judged ETERNALLY by our responses towards him. Temporally killing someone, whether permissively or actively, is within His rights.
Well, it's his Character that is the Issue. Damn, your first line sounds like something Russell from The Irishman would say. "So what you whacked that guy, Frank. He was complaining." In any case, we would expect that if GOD's Character is of Love and Mercy that we would not just see GOD killing people for Complaining just because he could do so. Again, so because GOD is more powerful than us he can do whatever he wants even though his Character is described as being contrary to doing whatever he wants.
Now do I believe God often has reasons for what He does. Sure. And I am amazed that you do not consider evidence against your claim. For instance, when Abraham begs God not to destroy Sodom, God says that He would not - if he could find 10 righteous persons. So, God does give some consideration to the the moral conduct of people, however does someone's moral standing negate his right to take life? Nope. Further, God had Israel wonder in the wilderness for 40 years- one reason given is that the sins of the Canaanites was not at its peak. God gave consideration on when Joshua would wage war so that it would be when the Israelites were more corrupt than before. This does not seem like God lacks mercy. Are you suggesting that if God doesn't always give us what we want he is evil?
You are making my point. GOD's character is Inconsistent. You literally are quoting accounts that show that at times GOD can show some sense of Mercy or Tolerance and other times GOD can lash out and attack harshly. My point is that if GOD's character is of Love and Mercy and GOD is Eternal and Perfect, why would his Nature and his Character be changing from account to account ? Why do we have at times GOD showing Mercy and at other times GOD instantly killing someone for sin if his Nature is Perfect and Good ? Why the Inconsistency. No, I am not suggesting that if GOD does not always give us what we want he is Evil. I am suggesting that GOD does do Evil at times by causing horrible things to happen where there is no means for the humans to react or even have a means of redemption. This creates a sense of Injustice and makes GOD look Evil in deed.
the wrong book. Point is the same. Chronicles refers to the book of Samuel the seer. "[A]nd in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer." - 1 Chronicles 29:29
Okay, what am I supposed to do with 1 Chronicles 29:29 though ? What is this telling us about David and the Census situation ?
You are assuming that the fallout from the census serves no purpose, that David learns nothing. That he learns nothing about the responsibility of being a king. Throughout the discussion with dshipp17 you seem to be working under the assumption that pain, suffering, death, and calamity never have a point. However, that may not be the case. Paul said it this way: We can rejoice, too, when we run into problems and trials, for we know that they help us develop endurance. And endurance develops strength of character, and character strengthens our confident hope of salvation. And this hope will not lead to disappointment. For we know how dearly God loves us (Romans 5:3-4 NLT)
I never said that Pain, Suffering, Death and Calamity never have a Point. I am saying that GOD killing thousands for the Sin of David is not Justice nor does it mesh with supposed GOD's Character in the Bible to do so. It would make more sense, if GOD was punishing Israel for their own Sin but the story never eludes to Israel being in sin (1 Chronicles 21), it's literally centered about David numbering Israel and what he had done wrong. I would have no argument here if GOD punished Israel because they as a nation did something wrong. As GOD would be in character to punish Israel. I feel like you kind of went a bit off topic here in dealing with Calamity and Pain as a whole but that's cool I will bite, My issue again is not that GOD allows adversity or pain or trouble, it's how GOD brings it about specifically from some of these Bible passages. There is no way you can not see some issue with GOD's character for killing off Israelites for complaining about having no food and water. Yes, GOD has the power to do what he pleases, but would he do what he pleases like that if his Character is to be Merciful and Loving ? Heck, even to say GOD is Just, is it Justice to kill someone because they are Complaining ?
My mother wanted to put her church's sticker on my car. I laughed maniacally then walked away.
Luke 19:22
You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant!
@king_saturn said:
@just_sayin said:
Well I think that the Liberal strength in the Thread has sort of Submitted. I hardly ever hear conversing opinion in that Thread anymore.
I think they are out there. Most of the old lefty mainstays have graduated or have new families.
Is Disaster or Calamity just a Natural Event ? If GOD causes Disaster or Calamity to be they could essentially be anything in the realm of causing Bad Things. We can just look at how GOD allowed Satan to attack Job and Job's possessions to see that from a Biblical Account. That was GOD essentially allowing his Greatest Opposer to harm someone whom GOD himself saw as Perfect and Upright. Can we not gather a good understanding of the nature of GOD by reading the Bible and seeing stories about how he reacts to situations ? Why is it not possible to say GOD is Merciful when he gave the People of Ninevah time to Repent and try to send Jonah to talk to those People about their Sin and then can not also say GOD is somewhat Wicked as well for causing 70,000 People to die because David took a Census ?
First, you realize that less than 200 years after Jonah, Nineveh was destroyed. So God showed mercy to one generation, but not another. Was he unjust for this? I don't think so.
Did God sin against Job? For that to be the case there would have to be a moral law over and above God that He is subject to. I keep asking you to name it. If there is no law above God, then God did not do "evil" for no moral law was broken. God can do with his creation as he sees fit.
Do you think Job's experience serves no purpose - either to Job or to those who have read it? If so, then God did not let a bad experience go to waste, but used it. Do you think Job's discussions with his 4 friends which reflect most thought on why people suffer and it being bad advice, has given no one comfort or solace who has gone through a difficult time? I do.
How is God sinful or wicked for the deaths of 70,000. Forget that the text suggests that they were being punished for their deeds. Assume all are innocent. Again, how has God sinned in killing them or letting them die? Did he make a covenant with them where he told them they could not die? Is there a law that says God can't play God? I'm not aware of this law, what is it?
Well again, you are appealing to GOD's Power and not really looking at GOD's Character. Sure, GOD can do whatever he wants to us as the Creator, but we should expect that if GOD's character is Merciful and Loving that he would not just be killing us just because he can do so. That says nothing about GOD's character other than it's rather Harsh and Dark, not really Mercy or Loving.
So again, GOD's Power and Authority trumps his Character ? Because GOD is the Creator of all things and he can do anything he wants with us, we can not say anything about his Character. Yet, the Bible describes GOD's character as Merciful and Loving. The issue is GOD's character meshing with what accounts we have in the Bible and how they do not all the time.
... I was trying to use accounts from the Bible or accounts that we could agree show GOD as being a bit Harsh and Evil. Like the account of David and the Census, the account of Achan, the account of the Israelites complaining in the Wilderness and then GOD killing them. Why does GOD's power over us mean his Character is null and void ? What does it mean to even say GOD is Good or GOD is Merciful or GOD is Love if GOD can and will do anything he wants anyways ? Oh yeah, and about that Plush Lion analogy, the Plush Lion was not made in your Image was it ? That Plush Lion can not feel Pain can it ? That Plush Lion is not really something that you Love because if you did, would you rip the stuffing out of it ? Would you tear up your PC or your Playstation 4 or your XBOX One ? And these are Objects.
Evil is by definition a moral judgement. It must be based on some moral law. If not it is just an opinion. The laws that apply to us, do not apply to God. He is the suzerain and we the vassals. To claim God "sinned" or is "evil" there must be some law God broke. The appeal to character is fine, but you can't really say someone has deficient character if they don't break the law. If God said I will always give you want you want - well he would be obligated to do that. But that is not the case, unless God himself has restricted his own actions by some covenant or promise. The covenant and promises in the Old Testament are heavy on our obligations. There is no obligation for God to give us a problem free life.
Tell me, by God's covenant standards with Israel, how many of David's people deserved to die? For all have sinned. And the wages of sin is death. So, the correct answer is all. So if God didn't kill them all, then He was merciful to some. Do you think that event may have lead some to repentance? I think it might have. And isn't the final state of our soul the real reward or punishment? Separation from God is the real punishment, physical death is not the end. There are punishments far worse than that.
God is loving, but he is also just and sovereign. Can one be just who never punishes the wicked? And aren't the "good" just? Just cause I want something and God says no does not mean that God is not loving. Did your parents always give you what you wanted? Of course not. I can't understand every reason why God does what he does. I do believe that physical death or suffering in not the final state of things. I would assume God takes the big picture into account.Well, it's his Character that is the Issue. Damn, your first line sounds like something Russell from The Irishman would say. "So what you whacked that guy, Frank. He was complaining."
I watched the first 30 minutes of the Irishman and then stopped. I wasn't into it and didn't want to spend 3 more hours on it. I'll take your word. Do you not see God's plan for all great and small, young or old, to be judged by the same standard as the great equalizer? Doesn't matter if you lived a hundred years or a hundred minutes - everyone will be judged the same way. Further, the free covenant offer for the forgiveness of sins for any one, no matter what they have done, isn't that an expression of love and grace. You don't want an eternal life with God - well, you won't be forced to be with Him.
In any case, we would expect that if GOD's Character is of Love and Mercy that we would not just see GOD killing people for Complaining just because he could do so. Again, so because GOD is more powerful than us he can do whatever he wants even though his Character is described as being contrary to doing whatever he wants.
If my complaining as the children of Israel did in the wilderness resulted in other souls losing faith in God and spending eternity apart from God, then wouldn't it be the loving thing for God to "whack" me? Paul in referencing those very same children of Israel said this about their bad example: Now these things which happened to our ancestors are illustrations of the way in which God works, and they were written down to be a warning to us who are the heirs of the ages which have gone before us. (1 Corinthians 10:11 JB Phillips Translation)
You are making my point. GOD's character is Inconsistent. You literally are quoting accounts that show that at times GOD can show some sense of Mercy or Tolerance and other times GOD can lash out and attack harshly.
I don't perceive it that way. I think God perfectly balances love and justice. A loving God who is not just permits and invites sin, a unloving God who is only focused on justice is a vengeful terror. I want neither of those. You have mad a lot of charges that God is not loving, but where does justice fit into the picture for you?
Okay, what am I supposed to do with 1 Chronicles 29:29 though ? What is this telling us about David and the Census situation ?
It goes back to the previous post where I pointed out that the people were aware of the different books as well as other versions of the histories. They did not feel the biblical accounts were incompatible and invited others to go see them. So why do you think they are incompatible?
I never said that Pain, Suffering, Death and Calamity never have a Point. I am saying that GOD killing thousands for the Sin of David is not Justice nor does it mesh with supposed GOD's Character in the Bible to do so. It would make more sense, if GOD was punishing Israel for their own Sin but the story never eludes to Israel being in sin (1 Chronicles 21), it's literally centered about David numbering Israel and what he had done wrong. I would have no argument here if GOD punished Israel because they as a nation did something wrong. As GOD would be in character to punish Israel. I feel like you kind of went a bit off topic here in dealing with Calamity and Pain as a whole but that's cool I will bite, My issue again is not that GOD allows adversity or pain or trouble, it's how GOD brings it about specifically from some of these Bible passages. There is no way you can not see some issue with GOD's character for killing off Israelites for complaining about having no food and water. Yes, GOD has the power to do what he pleases, but would he do what he pleases like that if his Character is to be Merciful and Loving ? Heck, even to say GOD is Just, is it Justice to kill someone because they are Complaining ?
One of the text says that God used the occasion to punish Israel for their sin. The details in Exodus about how to conduct a census suggest that the people had an individual role to play and that if they did not keep their part of the covenant they would be punished. I could stop there. But assume they are not guilty. How has God robbed them of eternity? He hasn't. If his actions severe to help others as 1 Cor 10:11 then all the better, but even if they don't - again I have to ask what law did God break?
@just_sayin said:
@king_saturn said:
@just_sayin said:
I think they are out there. Most of the old lefty mainstays have graduated or have new families.
Well they do not seem to be responding much to you or your comrades.
First, you realize that less than 200 years after Jonah, Nineveh was destroyed. So God showed mercy to one generation, but not another. Was he unjust for this? I don't think so.
Yes, but I was making a point about how GOD did show Ninevah mercy during the event with Jonah.
Did God sin against Job? For that to be the case there would have to be a moral law over and above God that He is subject to. I keep asking you to name it. If there is no law above God, then God did not do "evil" for no moral law was broken. God can do with his creation as he sees fit.
No, GOD did not sin against Job, but he did show he is a rather bizarre character for being willing to deal with Satan and put Job through all those disasters that Satan threw at him. It's more of GOD's character being rather cruel to even allow such problems to someone he considered Perfect and Upright.
Do you think Job's experience serves no purpose - either to Job or to those who have read it? If so, then God did not let a bad experience go to waste, but used it. Do you think Job's discussions with his 4 friends which reflect most thought on why people suffer and it being bad advice, has given no one comfort or solace who has gone through a difficult time? I do.
Well, GOD could have had Job go through other experiences also to serve a purpose to show that GOD can be with us in trials and tribulation. Why deal with Satan and have The Devil kill off his kids and bring sickness upon Job's body ? Seems pretty dark for The Almighty to consider such things.
How is God sinful or wicked for the deaths of 70,000. Forget that the text suggests that they were being punished for their deeds. Assume all are innocent. Again, how has God sinned in killing them or letting them die? Did he make a covenant with them where he told them they could not die? Is there a law that says God can't play God? I'm not aware of this law, what is it?
Where does it say in the Text that they was punished for their own deeds ? It's not that GOD can not kill someone, it's the if GOD's nature is of Justice and Mercy, he would not kill someone just because he could. He would have reason to do so beyond that. It's about GOD's character otherwise, how could we say GOD is Just or GOD is Merciful ?
Evil is by definition a moral judgement. It must be based on some moral law. If not it is just an opinion. The laws that apply to us, do not apply to God. He is the suzerain and we the vassals. To claim God "sinned" or is "evil" there must be some law God broke. The appeal to character is fine, but you can't really say someone has deficient character if they don't break the law. If God said I will always give you want you want - well he would be obligated to do that. But that is not the case, unless God himself has restricted his own actions by some covenant or promise. The covenant and promises in the Old Testament are heavy on our obligations. There is no obligation for God to give us a problem free life.
Okay, and like I said, what if GOD himself tells you he does Evil ? Are we just assuming GOD does it if he tells us he does both Good and Evil things ? Yeah, we do not have a Law to hold GOD accountable to, but what if his own actions and words follow that he does do such things as Evil ?
Tell me, by God's covenant standards with Israel, how many of David's people deserved to die? For all have sinned. And the wages of sin is death. So, the correct answer is all. So if God didn't kill them all, then He was merciful to some. Do you think that event may have lead some to repentance? I think it might have. And isn't the final state of our soul the real reward or punishment? Separation from God is the real punishment, physical death is not the end. There are punishments far worse than that.
This is a Good One, but the issue lies with are we born into Sin ? If we are and GOD has a hand in creating us in the womb as some passages suggest, then essentially GOD brings us into a situation where he can destroy us at any moment for any reason. The issue would be is this within GOD's character to just slaughter us for no reason other than he created us into this situation if GOD be Just or Merciful ? You could be right some could have repented after seeing GOD kill thousands of Israelites. The issue is still is it Just for GOD to kill off thousands just because David took a Census unlawfully ? Is that within GOD's character which is supposedly Just and Merciful to do so ? Are there not other ways for the Almighty to bring people to him without slaughtering Israelites because of sins that David did ?
God is loving, but he is also just and sovereign. Can one be just who never punishes the wicked? And aren't the "good" just? Just cause I want something and God says no does not mean that God is not loving. Did your parents always give you what you wanted? Of course not. I can't understand every reason why God does what he does. I do believe that physical death or suffering in not the final state of things. I would assume God takes the big picture into account.We are not speaking of GOD never punishing though. It's the means to which he does Punish. If GOD's character is Just and Mercy, then yeah I would expect GOD to punish sometimes. The thing is, GOD killing off thousands for the Sin of David seems way off and against GOD's character of Justice. Yes, GOD by right can do whatever he wants, but would he kill off thousands of people because one man did wrong ?
I watched the first 30 minutes of the Irishman and then stopped. I wasn't into it and didn't want to spend 3 more hours on it. I'll take your word. Do you not see God's plan for all great and small, young or old, to be judged by the same standard as the great equalizer? Doesn't matter if you lived a hundred years or a hundred minutes - everyone will be judged the same way. Further, the free covenant offer for the forgiveness of sins for any one, no matter what they have done, isn't that an expression of love and grace. You don't want an eternal life with God - well, you won't be forced to be with Him.
If we are judged by the same standard by GOD then why is judgment so different in many situations ? Like GOD at times shows mercy to those who have sinned against him and at other times he does not ? Obviously, Eternal Life would be greater than Mortal Life, well I guess that depends on how Eternal Life is spent. Also, shame on you for not sticking with The Irishman.
If my complaining as the children of Israel did in the wilderness resulted in other souls losing faith in God and spending eternity apart from God, then wouldn't it be the loving thing for God to "whack" me? Paul in referencing those very same children of Israel said this about their bad example: Now these things which happened to our ancestors are illustrations of the way in which God works, and they were written down to be a warning to us who are the heirs of the ages which have gone before us. (1 Corinthians 10:11 JB Phillips Translation)
Actually, the Loving thing would be for GOD to provide the Israelites with Sufficient Food and Water, then if they started complaining again, you Whack em. At least then, GOD would have shown intent to feed the Israelites instead of just killing them for complaining. So the warning is that if we Complain about GOD he will whack us too ? I was hoping Jesus death and resurrection had a little something to do with changing that.
I don't perceive it that way. I think God perfectly balances love and justice. A loving God who is not just permits and invites sin, a unloving God who is only focused on justice is a vengeful terror. I want neither of those. You have mad a lot of charges that God is not loving, but where does justice fit into the picture for you?
Justice fits into the picture with me as for GOD to punish those whom do break his laws with the intent to. The idea that GOD would punish other people for laws broken by someone else does not seem though as GOD being Just. GOD obviously can do whatever he wants, but we would not expect him to do that if GOD is Just.
It goes back to the previous post where I pointed out that the people were aware of the different books as well as other versions of the histories. They did not feel the biblical accounts were incompatible and invited others to go see them. So why do you think they are incompatible?
Why do I think what is Incompatible ? That's what I am not following.
One of the text says that God used the occasion to punish Israel for their sin. The details in Exodus about how to conduct a census suggest that the people had an individual role to play and that if they did not keep their part of the covenant they would be punished. I could stop there. But assume they are not guilty. How has God robbed them of eternity? He hasn't. If his actions severe to help others as 1 Cor 10:11 then all the better, but even if they don't - again I have to ask what law did God break?
Where does it say that GOD used the occasion to punish Israel for their sin in the Bible concerning David and the Census ? If you show that then I would be forced to concede to you and dshipp concerning this issue. Yes, I know about the details of the Census in Exodus, but the passage in 1 Chronicles 21 clearly says that it was the numbering of Israel from David that displeased the LORD and therefore he punished Israel. The account never focus on Israel doing anything wrong there, it does however focus on David numbering Israel unlawfully and even has David crying out to GOD saying how he had done wrong but these sheep (Israel) what have they done ? Well again, the point is about GOD's character and how he deals with us here on Earth. Why would GOD not deal Justly if it's his character to do so ?
On a side note, I have to say I thought this conversation was going to go downhill there for a minute with that Bosshogian stuff but you have me intrigued a great deal with a few points you brought up here especially in this last post.
A comrade of mine asked me: bro, how did you stop being an atheist? Well, I replied that I just don't have enough "faith" to be an atheist.
To be an atheist is to believe that all the laws of physics, all the laws of nature, the reality that surrounds you, every order observable in this world is the result of "randomness". To be an atheist is to deny the maxim of science that says "for all intents and purposes, there is a cause"and observing the causes and regressing through them, we inevitably arrive at a "primordial" cause or a "necessary" cause and then we come to the question of philosophy formulated by Leibniz that says "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and we also come to the reflection of what it is to be contingent and to be necessary. Is it true that we came from "nothing" to "nothing" without any purpose? Honestly, the only thing you can do is pretend that your life has some purpose, pretend that you are achieving something, when in fact everything is random and leads to "nothing", to no purpose.
But for you to reflect on that, it is necessary to understand that it has nothing to do with the Bible, that it has nothing to do with religion, but you have to observe the world around you, the perfect order of things and understand that you have some purpose. See that I am not talking about religion, but in observing things as they are, every human being who observes reality realizes that there is a greater purpose in what it is, and it is important for you to realize that purpose, that you matter, that you have a purpose in this world.
Now ... why did I become a Christian? You become a Christian when you feel challenged by Christ, seeing how important he was to life, to humanity, and it's important to me and those who have him inside their hearts. Having Christ in your heart, in your life, does not make you infallible, It doesn't make you a "super human", it does not leave you free to be a sinner and to be wrong. In looking at the life of Christ and his work done on Calvary, we really see something unique, so Christ made me a Christian, the word of Christ made me a Christian. Going beyond "religion", let's see, what did Christ do to deserve to have been mocked, tortured and killed the way he was? When reading the books of the gospel in the bible makes you realize how cruel and wicked are the hearts of mankind, tell me, a person who just came to this world to preach peace and good, why did he have to die in that horrendous way? Even nowadays, why is Christ insulted, mocked, blasphemed by many TV shows and even on YouTube channels?
Through that, maybe you’re on a path that I’ve trod myself, which is the path of knowing why you are here, what is your purpose? As a human being I am weak, I am a coward, I sin, and even then Christ gives me the strength and the will to continue on my path, because he is the one who gives me a purpose in life and people come and tell me that I’m nothing, I’m garbage .. it’s true, WE ALL ARE, that’s why men should not be worshiped, Christ came here to tell us this, to say that he is the way, the truth and the life and you won't find that feature in any man here in the world. Atheism is you being afraid of the "light", the more the light hits, the more clearly you see flaws in yourself, the more you see that you are just a human being and how horrible you are.
@cervical-shifter: Atheism is just a state of being unconvinced that a god exists. Gnostic atheists claim they know a god doesn't exist, agnostic atheists don't know but remain unconvinced. I don't have an arbitrarily high level of statistical resources to prove this, but from experience, reasonable atheists I've met have been agnostic ones because notions of absolute knowledge have been given up in every field (including academia) since philosophy hasn't solved the issue of solipsism. Anyway, agnostic atheists make no positive claims nor necessarily believe in literally anything you so confidently asserted in your first paragraph. That paragraph, by the way, is a hard straw man, false dichotomy, and ad hominem rolled into one, with loosely defined terminology like "purpose." I'm also confused as to whether you've updated your landscape on science since the 1800s because we casually have at least 17 models of an eternal universe, we know that Bayesian probability doesn't necessarily have a cause (especially in quantum physics), and you're taking a stance of naturalistic sciences to social sciences/individual psychology. Like, we don't use positivism to tell people how to live, dude...
If you wanna talk about what makes people moral, you might wanna look into national and international religiosity statistics. Murder rates, teenage pregnancy, unprotected premarital sex, general crime, etc. are highest in the most religious US states and the most religious countries the world over. The most secular states/countries are the safest and have the highest standards of living. It seems like being a horrible, purposeless human being makes you more likely to be an upstanding citizen who's more charitable to strangers. Yr emotional argument means little. Facts don't care about feelings, especially when you assume everyone should feel as shitty as you do.
@cervical-shifter: Wow, you couldn't be further from the truth. Your first paragraph shows how most ignorant religious people like yourself think what an Atheist is and means; and you treat it like a fact, too.
"So and so [because you are an ignorant religious person]." Feeding off of your post pertaining to using "he's an atheist, therefore..." as an insult, why does your comment at to Cervical-Shifter make it seem like you're upset and using "your an ignorant religious person" in an attempt to insinuate that he doesn't know what he's talking about?
You implied he's not using facts because he is religious. Wouldn't it be better to steer clear of that mental gameplay and stick to proving him wrong? Just_Sayin used that method and it made him look foolish.
@spareheadone: That's getting old.
I learnt my lesson
Now learn that you see in others what is in fact in yourself
@spareheadone: King didn't do the same thing you did, though.
When he pointed out your [so and so because you hate religion] thing, it was a clear ad hominem where you assumed my feelings and gave no scientific counterargument or well-researched reason to think the Earth would be too cold to boil, and me "failing to balance facts" was shown to be wrong with you admitting that heat is an issue with creationist models.
Not only did Cervical assume a ton of shit about what atheists feel, think, and believe (even worse than you did because you only attacked one person about one thing), but as far as King can see, the content of Cervical's message was proven to be blatantly ignorant because of the things I pointed out:
a. There are different positions within atheism and it's not just one big atheist nebula that believe the same things.
b. Atheists don't necessarily believe anything he asserted they do.
c. He's throwing out flimsy terminology like "purpose," "nothing," and "perfect order" without the stipulative definitions they demand.
d. He's using very antiquated science and philosophical thought.
e. Assuming that, just because he feels shitty about himself, so too must other people.
King also saw (I think) my list of Cervical's fallacies: Ad hominem, false dichotomy, and straw man. The way Cervical used them definitely reflects ignorance within the structure of his argument rather than just the facts, because someone trained in philosophical logic wouldn't typically commit so many fallacies, nor so strongly, in a single paragraph.
So whereas you assumed my thoughts and feelings and were proven wrong about one fact, this guy assumed the thoughts and feelings of many more people and was proven ignorant in many "facts" as well as the structure of his argument.
> Your first paragraph shows how most ignorant religious people like yourself think what an Atheist is and means; and you treat it like a fact, too.
King was talking about ignorant religious people, first of all, and was completely right in saying that Cervical treated his view of atheists as fact. In regards to King's generalization of "most" ignorant religious people... Statistically, atheists are placed on the same level of Muslims (at the bottom) in terms of trust and warm feelings. Historically, the US has not been a nice place for atheists, with a good chunk believing that atheists are out to destroy the government. The Boy Scouts flat out discriminated against atheists for 98% of their history, actually putting in their rules that atheists aren't allowed to join. So, just from a general glance at King's message, he's not wrong and there's a huge contextual difference between what you said to me and what he said to Cervical.
https://www.pewforum.org/2019/07/23/feelings-toward-religious-groups/
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/29/why-are-americans-still-uncomfortable-with-atheism
Cervical also makes the age-old argument that atheists don't know what it's like to be Christian, despite not having any metric to measure, yet that same Pew study shows that atheists answer more questions about religious knowledge correctly than theists, they score higher averages on "knowledge about Christianity" than any other group, and have the highest correlational strength between religious knowledge and affiliation. Just saying, it seems a hell lot like any Christian who asserts what atheism believes and goes, "Oh you're just afraid of the truth" is ignorant through and through.
I did not know you needed faith to be an Atheist. I thought Atheism was a lack of faith in the claims about a particular deity or deities. I would say however, that Anti Theism is many times locked in with Atheism as usually an Atheist will have Anti Theistic thoughts concerning certain looks of a Holy Text.
Uh, I will stick with Deism until I see more to conclude otherwise.
@king_saturn: The second someone looks at an atheist they don't know and says, "You believe..."
They're already wrong.
There are views that many atheists commit to that require faith.
Materialism
Physicalism
Avivogenesis
Abiogenesis
Biological macro -evolution
Reliants on these views are subject to
The science community.
Science media.
Science publishers.
@king_saturn said:
@just_sayin said:
@king_saturn said:
@just_sayin said:
Well they do not seem to be responding much to you or your comrades.
No they do not seem to be responding.
No, GOD did not sin against Job, but he did show he is a rather bizarre character for being willing to deal with Satan and put Job through all those disasters that Satan threw at him. It's more of GOD's character being rather cruel to even allow such problems to someone he considered Perfect and Upright.
Do you think Job's suffering may have served some greater purpose?
Well, GOD could have had Job go through other experiences also to serve a purpose to show that GOD can be with us in trials and tribulation. Why deal with Satan and have The Devil kill off his kids and bring sickness upon Job's body ? Seems pretty dark for The Almighty to consider such things.
So, if I hear you correctly - God didn't sin against Job, but his choice seems pretty dark. So it isn't so much that God is evil, but that you don't think he made the right choice. You would have preferred a story with no suffering or pain. I'm not sure it would have had the same impact upon its readers though. I would observe that the story does seem to indicate that God does put limits upon how much suffering Job would endure, it emphasizes that Satan must get permission. One of the things that stands out about Job is that God never tells Job why he is suffering. The commonly held reasons that his friends mention just don't apply. God never tells him about a deeper plan, but He does bring Job through the experience.
Where does it say in the Text that they was punished for their own deeds ? It's not that GOD can not kill someone, it's the if GOD's nature is of Justice and Mercy, he would not kill someone just because he could. He would have reason to do so beyond that. It's about GOD's character otherwise, how could we say GOD is Just or GOD is Merciful ?
Once again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel - 2 Samuel 24:1
It seems to me that the message of the Bible is that Jesus is much more concerned about if we perish eternally than if we do so physically:
About this time Jesus was informed that Pilate had murdered some people from Galilee as they were offering sacrifices at the Temple. “Do you think those Galileans were worse sinners than all the other people from Galilee?” Jesus asked. “Is that why they suffered? Not at all! And you will perish, too, unless you repent of your sins and turn to God. And what about the eighteen people who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them? Were they the worst sinners in Jerusalem? No, and I tell you again that unless you repent, you will perish, too.” - Luke 13:1-4 NLT
Check out Psalms 37 for a psalm dealing with not envying the wicked who seem to get away with stuff. The message seems to be that God will be just. If not punished in this lifetime they will be punished.
Okay, and like I said, what if GOD himself tells you he does Evil ? Are we just assuming GOD does it if he tells us he does both Good and Evil things ? Yeah, we do not have a Law to hold GOD accountable to, but what if his own actions and words follow that he does do such things as Evil ?
Again, where did he say he is evil or does evil. The Isaiah passage uses the word rah in a context that seems to suggest "trouble" or "calamity", not "evil". Unpleasant yes. Unwelcomed, no doubt. But not really evil.
This is a Good One, but the issue lies with are we born into Sin ? If we are and GOD has a hand in creating us in the womb as some passages suggest, then essentially GOD brings us into a situation where he can destroy us at any moment for any reason. The issue would be is this within GOD's character to just slaughter us for no reason other than he created us into this situation if GOD be Just or Merciful ? You could be right some could have repented after seeing GOD kill thousands of Israelites. The issue is still is it Just for GOD to kill off thousands just because David took a Census unlawfully ? Is that within GOD's character which is supposedly Just and Merciful to do so ? Are there not other ways for the Almighty to bring people to him without slaughtering Israelites because of sins that David did ?
We are not speaking of GOD never punishing though. It's the means to which he does Punish. If GOD's character is Just and Mercy, then yeah I would expect GOD to punish sometimes. The thing is, GOD killing off thousands for the Sin of David seems way off and against GOD's character of Justice. Yes, GOD by right can do whatever he wants, but would he kill off thousands of people because one man did wrong ?
God doesn't need a person to be in "sin" to play God in their lives. Both beneficial and unwelcomed natural circumstances come into the lives of sinners and righteous alike:For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. - Matthew 5:45
If Jesus and his disciples were not immune from suffering, why should we think we won't suffer?
About the census, As I understand it in Exodus 30:12 it says about the responsibility of those counted: Whenever you take a census of the people of Israel, each man who is counted must pay a ransom for himself to the Lord. Then no plague will strike the people as you count them.
Kinda on the nose their don't you think? So it definitely appears that the people failed to respond as they had been instructed and the plague came as a result of failing to follow God's command. But again, I point out, God is the live giver and it is his prerogative to let live or die. As Job puts it:
The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; Blessed be the name of the Lord. - Job:1:21
I watched the first 30 minutes of the Irishman and then stopped. I wasn't into it and didn't want to spend 3 more hours on it. I'll take your word. Do you not see God's plan for all great and small, young or old, to be judged by the same standard as the great equalizer? Doesn't matter if you lived a hundred years or a hundred minutes - everyone will be judged the same way. Further, the free covenant offer for the forgiveness of sins for any one, no matter what they have done, isn't that an expression of love and grace. You don't want an eternal life with God - well, you won't be forced to be with Him.
If we are judged by the same standard by GOD then why is judgment so different in many situations ? Like GOD at times shows mercy to those who have sinned against him and at other times he does not ? Obviously, Eternal Life would be greater than Mortal Life, well I guess that depends on how Eternal Life is spent. Also, shame on you for not sticking with The Irishman.
The 30 minutes I saw of the Irishman were boring and there were 3 hours to go.
If you are looking for the balance sheets to work out in this life you will disappointed, but as Jesus story of the rich man and Lazarus suggests the balance sheet will be balanced.
Actually, the Loving thing would be for GOD to provide the Israelites with Sufficient Food and Water, then if they started complaining again, you Whack em. At least then, GOD would have shown intent to feed the Israelites instead of just killing them for complaining. So the warning is that if we Complain about GOD he will whack us too ? I was hoping Jesus death and resurrection had a little something to do with changing that.
I thought God provided manna and quail for them before the whacking began.
Justice fits into the picture with me as for GOD to punish those whom do break his laws with the intent to. The idea that GOD would punish other people for laws broken by someone else does not seem though as GOD being Just. GOD obviously can do whatever he wants, but we would not expect him to do that if GOD is Just.
The plague appears to be a punishment for the people's own failure to obey Exodus 30:12. But let's say a drunk driver kills a child. That child died because of the choices of the drunk driver, but was the child's death God's punishment of the child or just God permitting the child to die. I think you can apply that to other instances as well.
@spareheadone said:
There are views that many atheists commit to that require faith.
Materialism
Physicalism
Avivogenesis
Abiogenesis
Biological macro -evolution
Reliants on these views are subject to
The science community.
Science media.
Science publishers.
Define atheism for the class.
@just_sayin said:
No they do not seem to be responding.
Well, it looks like you got Willpayton and a few that seem to have come back. I guess it could get interesting again soon.
Do you think Job's suffering may have served some greater purpose?
Well technically a lot of things we go through in life can serve a greater purpose. I think the issue is that GOD was willing to deal with someone whom is supposedly the very embodiment of Evil that is the issue. Also, assuming the story of Job did not exist. Is there not enough already in the Bible without to show that GOD can deliver people from trials and tribulation as it is ?
So, if I hear you correctly - God didn't sin against Job, but his choice seems pretty dark. So it isn't so much that God is evil, but that you don't think he made the right choice. You would have preferred a story with no suffering or pain. I'm not sure it would have had the same impact upon its readers though. I would observe that the story does seem to indicate that God does put limits upon how much suffering Job would endure, it emphasizes that Satan must get permission. One of the things that stands out about Job is that God never tells Job why he is suffering. The commonly held reasons that his friends mention just don't apply. God never tells him about a deeper plan, but He does bring Job through the experience.
Ha, I feel like you go for the extreme on the Left to measure me against what is stated in the Bible. Obviously, GOD testing us or having us go through things is not the issue as much as it is the extent of what is done. Having someone have their Children killed by the Greatest of Enemies and having that person go through totally hell with sickness and other Disaster is a lot extreme against GOD testing them other ways. Maybe GOD allows Job's children to get really sick and after time of testing Job's faith they could recover. The limits that Job's suffering has was to the extreme of what a person could possibly take though. I mean everything from having the Dude's children killed to having his body covered with Boils. Is the Deeper Plan needed here ? I mean did you come to GOD because Job suffered like Hell or because of something this Guy who called himself The Son Of Man did on Calvary ?
Once again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel - 2 Samuel 24:1
I have been over this one before, actually I was saying that 2 Samuel 24:1 is compounded as GOD was angry with Israel for David being moved to number them in Pride as the conjunction "And" has no "So" or "Then" and the He is supposedly "Satan" considering what 1 Chronicles 21 is saying. If the "He" is GOD then it could be as this is a continuation of GOD's actions. EX : GOD was Mad and he moved David to number Israel. What I see is : GOD was Mad and Satan moved David to number Israel. As if they are happening around the same time or so.
It seems to me that the message of the Bible is that Jesus is much more concerned about if we perish eternally than if we do so physically:
But isn't Jesus concerned a little about us dying physically too ? Otherwise, why would he have raised Lazarus from the Dead ? I think Jesus even raised a person from the Dead who was in a Funeral procession as well. I get your overall point I guess.
About this time Jesus was informed that Pilate had murdered some people from Galilee as they were offering sacrifices at the Temple. “Do you think those Galileans were worse sinners than all the other people from Galilee?” Jesus asked. “Is that why they suffered? Not at all! And you will perish, too, unless you repent of your sins and turn to God. And what about the eighteen people who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them? Were they the worst sinners in Jerusalem? No, and I tell you again that unless you repent, you will perish, too.” - Luke 13:1-4 NLT
I am little confused about this one. What do you mean here ? I get that we will perish for our Sins but how does this deal with David and the Census ? Maybe I am missing something here.
Check out Psalms 37 for a psalm dealing with not envying the wicked who seem to get away with stuff. The message seems to be that God will be just. If not punished in this lifetime they will be punished.
Okay, so GOD will be Just. That is Good to know..... I Hope.
Again, where did he say he is evil or does evil. The Isaiah passage uses the word rah in a context that seems to suggest "trouble" or "calamity", not "evil". Unpleasant yes. Unwelcomed, no doubt. But not really evil.
So you do not think that someone saying they cause Trouble, or they cause Disaster or they cause Calamity can not be considered Evil. Well lets do a quick thought experiment. Could we say that when a Terrorist kills a bunch of people in a School Shooting, that he did not create a Disaster or create a Calamity or that he did not create Trouble ? Isaiah 45:7 seems to be contrasting two concepts, it seems to be showing that GOD does all things. Good and Bad.
God doesn't need a person to be in "sin" to play God in their lives. Both beneficial and unwelcomed natural circumstances come into the lives of sinners and righteous alike:For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. - Matthew 5:45
If Jesus and his disciples were not immune from suffering, why should we think we won't suffer?
Okay, but if GOD is Just, would he just kill people for no other reason than he could or because someone else did something wrong on behalf of that particular Family ? Would not a Just GOD actually punish for Sins we actually do and not just because he can ?
About the census, As I understand it in Exodus 30:12 it says about the responsibility of those counted: Whenever you take a census of the people of Israel, each man who is counted must pay a ransom for himself to the Lord. Then no plague will strike the people as you count them.
Kinda on the nose their don't you think? So it definitely appears that the people failed to respond as they had been instructed and the plague came as a result of failing to follow God's command. But again, I point out, God is the live giver and it is his prerogative to let live or die. As Job puts it:
The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; Blessed be the name of the Lord. - Job:1:21
I read Exodus 30:12, but 1 Chronicles 21 never eludes to Israel themselves doing something wrong. It does directly say because David numbered Israel this displeased GOD therefore he punished Israel. It never eludes to Israel not doing their part in the Census. That's why I have been locked in battle with dshipp for so long. If the passage says anything about Israel themselves doing something wrong I would have had to drop this a long time ago.
The 30 minutes I saw of the Irishman were boring and there were 3 hours to go.
If you are looking for the balance sheets to work out in this life you will disappointed, but as Jesus story of the rich man and Lazarus suggests the balance sheet will be balanced.
I do not expect balance but I would think GOD who is Just and who is Merciful would not have us cut down because of someone else's wrongdoing.
I thought God provided manna and quail for them before the whacking began.
I think you maybe right about Numbers 11. Numbers 21 seems to have the Israelites complaining about how they have no food and no water though.
The plague appears to be a punishment for the people's own failure to obey Exodus 30:12. But let's say a drunk driver kills a child. That child died because of the choices of the drunk driver, but was the child's death God's punishment of the child or just God permitting the child to die. I think you can apply that to other instances as well.
I would not have a problem with this analysis using Exodus 30:12 if the Chronicler or 2 Samuel 24 eluded to this being an issue with Israel not complying properly with the Census as needed. Both accounts focus directly on David and how he was moved to take a Census when GOD did not want him to. Hence, one passage in 1 Chronicles 21 even has Joab, David's General saying why does the King want to bring Guilt upon Israel by numbering the People ? In the example of GOD allowing a Child to die because of a Drunk Driver I could see that as happening. I just can not wrap my head around the idea of GOD having thousands of people killed because David did something wrong. In the case, of the Drunk Driver that's something that GOD is allowing to happen, but GOD had the Angel himself go down and destroy so many of the Israelites. That's where I am not totally straight with.
@spareheadone said:
There are views that many atheists commit to that require faith.
Materialism
Physicalism
Avivogenesis
Abiogenesis
Biological macro -evolution
Reliants on these views are subject to
The science community.
Science media.
Science publishers.
But are those things directly tied in with Atheism ? If Atheism is about lacking faith in claims about GOD, are any of these other fields directly tied to that position ? I think these other areas you brought are things many Atheists would probably be into indeed but I do not think they are directly linked together.
They are linked indirectly
In an eternal universe could it be that mind and consciousness exist eternally?
@spareheadone said:
They are linked indirectly
Some atheists believe in the supernatural, just not gods. Ghosts, a godless afterlife, metaphysical realms, all of that. You can disbelieve literally everything, even the existence of the material universe, and you'd still be an atheist if you're unconvinced a god exists.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment