PDA

View Full Version : God told me to do it



Absinthe Anecdote
05-25-2015, 12:32 PM
When a person commits a horrendous crime and then claims that God or even Satan made them do it they are not believed by the legal system, or the general public.

Why?

Because, deep down most everyone knows this God business isn't true.

sandsjames
05-25-2015, 12:54 PM
When a person commits a horrendous crime and then claims that God or even Satan made them do it they are not believed by the legal system, or the general public.

Why?

Because, deep down most everyone knows this God business isn't true.Do you have anything new?

Absinthe Anecdote
05-25-2015, 03:31 PM
Do you have anything new?

Doesn't matter if it is new or not.

When someone claims that God talks to them they are not believed.

sandsjames
05-25-2015, 03:55 PM
Doesn't matter if it is new or not.

When someone claims that God talks to them they are not believed.

When someone's entire purpose on an internet forum is to make lame comments about one topic they become irrelevant.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-25-2015, 05:35 PM
When someone's entire purpose on an internet forum is to make lame comments about one topic they become irrelevant.

Not really surprised you are trying to make this about me, since you know what I am saying is true.

People believe in God for psychological reasons, it comforts them or they were indoctrinated to believe in the supernatural.

In contemporary American society, the "God told me to do it" defense isn't believed, even by God fearing adherents.

You know that if you were a jury member and the defendant claimed that God told them to kill their children, you wouldn't believe them.

sandsjames
05-25-2015, 05:55 PM
Not really surprised you are trying to make this about me, since you know what I am saying is true.

People believe in God for psychological reasons, it comforts them or they were indoctrinated to believe in the supernatural.

In contemporary American society, the "God told me to do it" defense isn't believed, even by God fearing adherents.

You know that if you were a jury member and the defendant claimed that God told them to kill their children, you wouldn't believe them.

It's simple. The majority of Christians believe in free will so the "devil made me do it" and "God made me do it" just aren't plausible.

That's the reason it's not believed. Everything else is arbitrary. Now have fun, cuz I'm done discussing religion with you. Your attempts are getting poorer the longer we go.

If you want to discuss other stuff, that's great. If you want to discuss religion, find someone else. If you want to take that as a win then, fine, you win. I don't have the desire to continue with this pointless "round 'n' round" with you anymore than I have the desire to answer the three year old who asks "why" over and over.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-25-2015, 06:09 PM
It's simple. The majority of Christians believe in free will so the "devil made me do it" and "God made me do it" just aren't plausible.

That's the reason it's not believed. Everything else is arbitrary. Now have fun, cuz I'm done discussing religion with you. Your attempts are getting poorer the longer we go.

If you want to discuss other stuff, that's great. If you want to discuss religion, find someone else. If you want to take that as a win then, fine, you win. I don't have the desire to continue with this pointless "round 'n' round" with you anymore than I have the desire to answer the three year old who asks "why" over and over.

The Christian bible is full of stories of God commanding people to do things, so the reason it isn't plausible has nothing to do with free will.

It isn't plausible is because people know that God is silent and not an active force in our world.

If you don't want to discuss religion with me, then don't. No need to be pouty and petulant about it.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-25-2015, 06:29 PM
Penn Jillette made the following observation:




God told Abraham to kill his son, and his proof of Abraham’s devotion was his willingness to kill his son. Jesus says very clearly, “abandon your father and mother, abandon your children and come with me.” There’s nothing pro-family about Christianity. That is all layered on. That is all-American. The American Christian church has a great deal of family values, but those aren’t found in the Bible, those aren’t in the root material.

I find this point interesting because it speaks to how believers are constantly overlooking what is in the bible.

If one studies the bible, it is very easy to see that God has inferior morals compared to the average modern day person.

Matai
05-26-2015, 03:18 PM
I'm not surprised you find this interesting. You love to cherry pick from the bible and think you have a great understanding of the bible. You don't look at the context and supporting scriptures.

Additionally, you don't want to talk religion. You want to bash. You aren't looking for answers or trying to find any faith. You've made up your mind and you're not looking for an honest "open" discussion.

I'm more a lurker than a real contributor, but every now and then I find you have a good point or two, but mostly you just want to argue back and forth with no real intent or desire to find compromise or gain understanding from anyone else's perspective.

Just my 2 cents.

Matai
05-26-2015, 03:32 PM
The main reason Christians don't accept the "God told me to do it" line is, among other things, that they believe in free will. Now, as you've stated God has countless times instructed someone to do something. However, if you look at those incidences all of them involve God speaking to his chosen representative on the Earth (the Prophet).

Today most Christians are of the belief that God has said all he needs to say and that he no longer has a prophet on the Earth. As such they can't accept that God is speaking to someone. For those who do believe that God still speaks to man, then they know who that representative is and I'm willing to bet that the person claiming "God told me to do it" isn't the representative.

In my personal opinion and from my own experiences I find that people want to believe their own way and interpret scripture their own way and when something doesn't jive with what they want then they discount that "part" of the teachings. The problem is with most of us (humans) is that we see things and think we are so smart and when something (like God) doesn't fit into the mold that we think he should be in (he should be like this because that's what I think God should be like) then we discount him as naught because he doesn't fit our view. The problem is that we are supposed to be learning to think and become like God in order to return to him. Most of us don't want to change our lives to fit the mold that God has outlined because we think we know better than Him what life is supposed to be like.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-26-2015, 03:36 PM
I'm not surprised you find this interesting. You love to cherry pick from the bible and think you have a great understanding of the bible. You don't look at the context and supporting scriptures.

Additionally, you don't want to talk religion. You want to bash. You aren't looking for answers or trying to find any faith. You've made up your mind and you're not looking for an honest "open" discussion.

I'm more a lurker than a real contributor, but every now and then I find you have a good point or two, but mostly you just want to argue back and forth with no real intent or desire to find compromise or gain understanding from anyone else's perspective.

Just my 2 cents.

Of course I want to bash religion. I think it is a detriment to human development on a species level.

Arguing and going back and forth is an effective way of exchanging ideas, and I don't want to compromise my belief that religion is ultimately harmful to humanity.

As far as me not looking at supporting scriptures, I'm about the only one on this forum who posts bible passages along with my comments.

If you think that you can take me down a notch with your bible knowledge, then do more than just toss in your two cents.

Rusty Jones
05-26-2015, 03:40 PM
What a crock of shit. If someone did what most would consider a "good deed" and claims that "God told me to do it," Christians would believe it. But, as we've seen many times throughout the Bible, God doesn't bind himself to the rules that he holds man to. With that being said, I find it quite odd that Christiana will base whether or not they'll believe "God told me to do it" on what the "it" is.

Rusty Jones
05-26-2015, 04:13 PM
The main reason Christians don't accept the "God told me to do it" line is, among other things, that they believe in free will. Now, as you've stated God has countless times instructed someone to do something. However, if you look at those incidences all of them involve God speaking to his chosen representative on the Earth (the Prophet).

Today most Christians are of the belief that God has said all he needs to say and that he no longer has a prophet on the Earth. As such they can't accept that God is speaking to someone. For those who do believe that God still speaks to man, then they know who that representative is and I'm willing to bet that the person claiming "God told me to do it" isn't the representative.

In my personal opinion and from my own experiences I find that people want to believe their own way and interpret scripture their own way and when something doesn't jive with what they want then they discount that "part" of the teachings. The problem is with most of us (humans) is that we see things and think we are so smart and when something (like God) doesn't fit into the mold that we think he should be in (he should be like this because that's what I think God should be like) then we discount him as naught because he doesn't fit our view. The problem is that we are supposed to be learning to think and become like God in order to return to him. Most of us don't want to change our lives to fit the mold that God has outlined because we think we know better than Him what life is supposed to be like.


Christians believe that God - specifically the Holy Spirit - speaks to them and provides them guidance on what is right and what is wrong when it comes time to make a judgement call.

Non-Christians, of course, call this a "conscience."

So to say that God does not speak to Christians, at least according to their own beliefs, is absurd. That's the very purpose of the Holy Spirit.

TJMAC77SP
05-26-2015, 05:15 PM
Christians believe that God - specifically the Holy Spirit - speaks to them and provides them guidance on what is right and what is wrong when it comes time to make a judgement call.

Non-Christians, of course, call this a "conscience."

So to say that God does not speak to Christians, at least according to their own beliefs, is absurd. That's the very purpose of the Holy Spirit.

In truth the vast majority of Christians do not believe God (or the Holy Spirit) actually speaks to them. Even those called to the Catholic clergy don't refer to the calling as God speaking to them.

People pray for guidance but they don't expect that guidance to be literal or parental in nature. Truthfully I can't speak from personal experience but I have certainly had enough conversations with Christians to know the thought process.

There are, of course Christians that believe whole heartedly that God literally speaks to them. They are a lot easier target for derision but nonetheless a minority.

Rusty Jones
05-26-2015, 05:30 PM
In truth the vast majority of Christians do not believe God (or the Holy Spirit) actually speaks to them. Even those called to the Catholic clergy don't refer to the calling as God speaking to them.

People pray for guidance but they don't expect that guidance to be literal or parental in nature. Truthfully I can't speak from personal experience but I have certainly had enough conversations with Christians to know the thought process.

There are, of course Christians that believe whole heartedly that God literally speaks to them. They are a lot easier target for derision but nonetheless a minority.

I wanted to throw in there that the Holy Spirit speaking to a particular Christian may or may not be believed to be actual "words;" but I thought that bringing up the Holy Spirit would mean that I didn't have to do that.

Even still, a Christian that doesn't believe that a literal exchange of words is occurring with God still believes that Holy Spirit - even if it gives them a "feeling" and nothing more - communicates with them in some fashion. Praying to God and asking "should I do this" definitely falls within that scope. They may not believe that God literally utters the words "yes" or "no," but they at least believe that the Holy Spirit make them feel whether or not the particular act in question would displease God.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-26-2015, 08:13 PM
The main reason Christians don't accept the "God told me to do it" line is, among other things,that they believe in free will. Now, as you've stated God has countless times instructed someone to do something. However, if you look at those incidences all of them involve God speaking to his chosen representative on the Earth (the Prophet).

According to numerous examples in the Old Testament, the fact that God speaks to a person, doesn't destroy their free will.

There are people in the bible who disobeyed God after he spoke to them directly.

Rattling off a few examples from the top of my head: Adam, Eve, Cain, Jonah, King Saul, and even Moses did a few things contrary to God's wishes. I'm sure I can come up with a few more examples if you want them.

So your free will explanation as to why Christians don't believe God talks to modern humans holds no water.

What is the among other things referring to?

If you mean that it is the hallmark of a crazy person to go around claiming that God talks to them, then I agree.




Today most Christians are of the belief that God has said all he needs to say and that he no longer has a prophet on the Earth. As such they can't accept that God is speaking to someone. For those who do believe that God still speaks to man, then they know who that representative is and I'm willing to bet that the person claiming "God told me to do it" isn't the representative.

Any biblical references to support the claim that God has said all he needs to say? Also, you seem to be claiming that God only talks through prophets.

So, if a guy like David Koresh claims to be a prophet, would you believe him?

sandsjames
05-26-2015, 08:16 PM
I'm not surprised you find this interesting. You love to cherry pick from the bible and think you have a great understanding of the bible. You don't look at the context and supporting scriptures.

Additionally, you don't want to talk religion. You want to bash. You aren't looking for answers or trying to find any faith. You've made up your mind and you're not looking for an honest "open" discussion.

I'm more a lurker than a real contributor, but every now and then I find you have a good point or two, but mostly you just want to argue back and forth with no real intent or desire to find compromise or gain understanding from anyone else's perspective.

Just my 2 cents.

Don't waste your time...seriously.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-26-2015, 08:23 PM
Don't waste your time...seriously.

Look, if you hadn't lost your temper and said that you don't want to talk religion with me anymore, then you wouldn't have had to go create the Matai account just to toss in an extra two cents.

You aren't fooling anyone with that fake account.

TJMAC77SP
05-26-2015, 11:23 PM
Look, if you hadn't lost your temper and said that you don't want to talk religion with me anymore, then you wouldn't have had to go create the Matai account just to toss in an extra two cents.

You aren't fooling anyone with that fake account.

AA, that account is pretty old.

Were you making a joke?

Matai
05-26-2015, 11:27 PM
You guys post way more and faster than I do....hehe.

First off, I stand corrected. My choice of wording was poor. I didn't mean to imply (while that's what my choice of words does) that God speaking to man destroys free will. I am quite aware of the fact that God speaking to man does not destroy free will. I was incorrectly implied something more along the lines that "Gold told me to do it" equated with "God forced me to do it." I know this isn't the same thing and I was mistaken in my approach.

The principle I was conveying (trying to) still stands I believe. The scriptures talk about how we should act. We should be good, kind, loving, etc. Therefore the "it" (what we are told to do) has a direct correlation to what Christians would accept. God doesn't just go willy nilly ordering people to go around and kill people, etc. However, the teachings quite clearly show that being kind and offering help to those less fortunate is something he would do. Therefore Christians generally don't have a problem accepting the fact that "God told me to X (be nice, help out someone, etc.)" is perfectly believable, while "God told me to X (go kill someone)" is not.

As for Christians generally not believing God speaks to man. The general prevailing thought is that the Bible contains the all words of God and nothing new is needed (or wanted?) is what I was referring to. Try telling a Christian there is new scripture in addition to the Bible and they'd more than likely disagree on this premise. (The Mormons being the exception to this rule, that I'm aware of) This was my intent in claiming that Christians don't believe God still speaks to man. Personal relationships with God are separate from that. (Why? I don't know.) Several posts talked about the Holy Spirit and communication via feelings, etc. The scriptures quite clearly talk about the Holy Spirit and indicate He communicates to each of us.

Matai
05-26-2015, 11:29 PM
It is in fact older than Sandsjames' account.

I used to post more, but I don't think everyone made it over when they went to this new format/look.

Matai
05-26-2015, 11:34 PM
So to say that God does not speak to Christians, at least according to their own beliefs, is absurd. That's the very purpose of the Holy Spirit.

Again, I'm not a regular poster, so forgive the jumbled mess of my replies. I know what I wanted to say, but seeing that I'm not a regular, I'm not up to speed on being "exact" in my wording. Bear with as I adjust to your (this forum, not just you specifically) needing technicalities spelled out. I'll try to answer comments as I can.

I did not mean to imply that God doesn't communicate through the Holy Spirit to each person on a personal level. I was trying to imply on a larger scale, i.e. that's the Prophet's job in the absence of God himself. I agree with you that the Holy Spirits' purpose is to communicate truth to each of us. My choice of wording wasn't as clear as it needs to be.

Note: (changed was to wasn't in last sentence)

Matai
05-26-2015, 11:45 PM
Of course I want to bash religion. I think it is a detriment to human development on a species level.

It's obvious you think it's a detriment to human development. Your opinion is noted. I happen to believe otherwise. I believe that religion is a boon to humans and it can inspire us. It can offer comfort, hope, purpose, and peace. Yes, I know you're going to say it can bring war, and hate, and everything else too. You see it has "half empty (all empty?)" and I see it as "half full (completely full?)"


Arguing and going back and forth is an effective way of exchanging ideas, and I don't want to compromise my belief that religion is ultimately harmful to humanity.

I disagree. Arguing IS NOT an effective way of exchanging ideas. It never has been, and it never will be. Now if you were to say "discussing/discussion" then I would have agreed with you. I would however, be inclined to say that that is not your intent. You want a fight, not a discussion. The bashing you do is an attempt to beat down your opponent, not exchange ideas.


As far as me not looking at supporting scriptures, I'm about the only one on this forum who posts bible passages along with my comments.

I agree, from the posts I've seen you do. You know what the scriptures say and you can quote them well. I was trying to imply that you kind of "cherry-pick" the ones you want and don't really look at the whole context of the scriptures (not just the context of the passage your using). I'm sort of sad that you know so much, but can't really see the picture for what it is. (I know, you don't care.)


If you think that you can take me down a notch with your bible knowledge, then do more than just toss in your two cents.

I wasn't trying to pick a fight. I was making an observation. You know the what the scriptures say, but you miss what they're trying to convey. In my opinion. However, I will try to address questions and comments when I can. I'm still new to this whole forum thing. I may not be as quick as you'd like, and it's obvious I still need to be more careful in my choice of wording.

Matai
05-26-2015, 11:52 PM
What a crock of shit. If someone did what most would consider a "good deed" and claims that "God told me to do it," Christians would believe it. But, as we've seen many times throughout the Bible, God doesn't bind himself to the rules that he holds man to. With that being said, I find it quite odd that Christiana will base whether or not they'll believe "God told me to do it" on what the "it" is.

I think I addressed this in another posted response. I'll try to summarize just in case. I'm not sure why you would find it odd that Christian will base whether or not they'll believe "Gold told me to do it" on what the "it" is. People doing what God has taught via the scriptures (i.e., being nice, love thine enemy, feed the hungry, etc.) is normal. Someone claiming that God told them to follow these teachins are in line with what a Christian would expect (and therefore accept) whereas someone claiming that "God told me to do it" where the "it" in this case goes against those teachings would bring doubt upon that claim.

It's almost like your kid (if you have one) doing something that they've been taught not to do and then claiming that you told them it was ok to do it. Generally speaking this would bring doubt to those who know what you taught your kid, or what you stood for. Whereas if your kid was doing something that you were totally supportive of, people who know you wouldn't find it so odd to see your kid doing likewise.
(Analogy is generally speaking, since I don't know you personally).

Hope that clears up what I was trying to say.

Matai
05-26-2015, 11:55 PM
Sandsjames, I've seen (read?) the hassle that you go through in response to this. I do have to agree that it likely won't lead anywhere because based on my own conclusions (and I could be wrong) most (if not all) of the religion bashers on this site have no interest in anything other than fighting/bashing. It really isn't about learning.

So why am I doing it? I don't honestly know. I guess I got tired of watching people bash religion. Even if I am not able to articulate as well as I hope to and end up "losing" at least I'll know that I tried.

Bos Mutus
05-26-2015, 11:59 PM
I do have to agree that it likely won't lead anywhere because based on my own conclusions (and I could be wrong) most (if not all) of the religion bashers on this site have no interest in anything other than fighting/bashing. It really isn't about learning.

So why am I doing it? I don't honestly know. I guess I got tired of watching people bash religion.

So, would you say your interest is in contesting the atheists and not really learning anything?

sandsjames
05-27-2015, 12:00 AM
Sandsjames, I've seen (read?) the hassle that you go through in response to this. I do have to agree that it likely won't lead anywhere because based on my own conclusions (and I could be wrong) most (if not all) of the religion bashers on this site have no interest in anything other than fighting/bashing. It really isn't about learning.

So why am I doing it? I don't honestly know. I guess I got tired of watching people bash religion. Even if I am not able to articulate as well as I hope to and end up "losing" at least I'll know that I tried.

Enjoy...he needs someone to do this with or he will have no purpose so it's a good thing you're around.

sandsjames
05-27-2015, 12:02 AM
So, would you say your interest is in contesting the atheists and not really learning anything?

Is any of it on forums generally about learning? I'd venture that it's more about trying to prove ones point, even at the expense of learning. That's the reason these topics never go anywhere.

sandsjames
05-27-2015, 12:04 AM
So, would you say your interest is in contesting the atheists and not really learning anything?

Oh, and there's also the other commonality of forums where a poster will twist another poster's post in order to fit their own bias (as your question, in this case, is doing).

Matai
05-27-2015, 12:04 AM
Because, deep down most everyone knows this God business isn't true.

Just curious if this is kind of like how Christians supposedly think all Atheists actually do believe in God, except in reverse?

I can't think of any other reason that you might be so angry at God (whom you don't believe) and try to attack those who (mostly) keep to themselves and want to live their own lives (with their religion) without interference. You seem hell bent on destroying something that really should have no impact whatsoever in your life. Are you really so petty as to try to destroy something that someone else holds dear?

Matai
05-27-2015, 12:07 AM
So, would you say your interest is in contesting the atheists and not really learning anything?

I guess I could repeat myself..."So why am I doing it? I don't honestly know. I guess I got tired of watching people bash religion."

I'm religious. I prefer not to have something I hold dear attacked for no reason other than to destroy it. If I learn what motivates people (and therefore learn something) all the better. It's more self-defense I think.

Matai
05-27-2015, 12:08 AM
Enjoy...he needs someone to do this with or he will have no purpose so it's a good thing you're around.

Well, you have all been carrying the torch (and life) of this forum for quite some time. I've read most of the stuff that comes and goes on here, but not much of a poster. I guess it's my turn.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-27-2015, 12:44 AM
Just curious if this is kind of like how Christians supposedly think all Atheists actually do believe in God, except in reverse?

I can't think of any other reason that you might be so angry at God (whom you don't believe) and try to attack those who (mostly) keep to themselves and want to live their own lives (with their religion) without interference. You seem hell bent on destroying something that really should have no impact whatsoever in your life. Are you really so petty as to try to destroy something that someone else holds dear?

Prothelyzing is a good thing.

As a Christian, it is your duty to prothelize and tell others about salvation through Jesus. You are commanded to do it by your savior.

As an Atheist, I am bound only by my belief that religion is a threat to human development, especially when it enters into governments.

God isn't required for people to be good to each other. We can do that on our own, God is a hinderence of our own creation.

Religion is dangerous because it can't be reasoned with and because it is irrational, that is why I bash it and bash it hard.

Most atheists are silent, as are most Christians, despite their duty to prothelize and spread their religion.

I want Christians to read their bibles, because I firmly believe that most don't read it or even give it much thought.

I also believe the quickest path to atheism is reading the bible, so my harshness is in that vain. I can't destroy your God, only you can to that.

I think it is far more likely that you will eventually destroy your God if you read the bible.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-27-2015, 12:45 AM
AA, that account is pretty old.

Were you making a joke?

Of course.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-27-2015, 01:13 AM
The principle I was conveying (trying to) still stands I believe. The scriptures talk about how we should act. We should be good, kind, loving, etc. Therefore the "it" (what we are told to do) has a direct correlation to what Christians would accept. God doesn't just go willy nilly ordering people to go around and kill people, etc. However, the teachings quite clearly show that being kind and offering help to those less fortunate is something he would do. Therefore Christians generally don't have a problem accepting the fact that "God told me to X (be nice, help out someone, etc.)" is perfectly believable, while "God told me to X (go kill someone)" is not.
.

When you say such things, I can tell that you haven't read the bible much.

Here is just one example of your kind and loving God ordering genocide, I can provide you others.

Let's start with this one. How do you justify God's order to kill babies and their mothers?

Read the whole story and we will talk about it, even if we have to read the entire book of Samuel, I want you to see why God was upset at Saul and why he wanted the Amalekites destroyed.




1 Samuel 15 New International Version (NIV)

The Lord Rejects Saul as King

15 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

4 So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim—two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand from Judah. 5 Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine. 6 Then he said to the Kenites, “Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites.

7 Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, near the eastern border of Egypt. 8 He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword. 9 But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves[b] and lambs—everything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed.

10 Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel: 11 “I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” Samuel was angry, and he cried out to the Lord all that night.

12 Early in the morning Samuel got up and went to meet Saul, but he was told, “Saul has gone to Carmel. There he has set up a monument in his own honor and has turned and gone on down to Gilgal.”

13 When Samuel reached him, Saul said, “The Lord bless you! I have carried out the Lord’s instructions.”

14 But Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What is this lowing of cattle that I hear?”

15 Saul answered, “The soldiers brought them from the Amalekites; they spared the best of the sheep and cattle to sacrifice to the Lord your God, but we totally destroyed the rest.”

16 “Enough!” Samuel said to Saul. “Let me tell you what the Lord said to me last night.”

“Tell me,” Saul replied.

17 Samuel said, “Although you were once small in your own eyes, did you not become the head of the tribes of Israel? The Lord anointed you king over Israel. 18 And he sent you on a mission, saying, ‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; wage war against them until you have wiped them out.’ 19 Why did you not obey the Lord? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the Lord?”

20 “But I did obey the Lord,” Saul said. “I went on the mission the Lord assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag their king. 21 The soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was devoted to God, in order to sacrifice them to the Lord your God at Gilgal.”

22 But Samuel replied:

“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”
24 Then Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned. I violated the Lord’s command and your instructions. I was afraid of the men and so I gave in to them. 25 Now I beg you, forgive my sin and come back with me, so that I may worship the Lord.”

26 But Samuel said to him, “I will not go back with you. You have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you as king over Israel!”

27 As Samuel turned to leave, Saul caught hold of the hem of his robe, and it tore. 28 Samuel said to him, “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to one of your neighbors—to one better than you. 29 He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind.”

30 Saul replied, “I have sinned. But please honor me before the elders of my people and before Israel; come back with me, so that I may worship the Lord your God.” 31 So Samuel went back with Saul, and Saul worshiped the Lord.

32 Then Samuel said, “Bring me Agag king of the Amalekites.”

Agag came to him in chains.[c] And he thought, “Surely the bitterness of death is past.”

33 But Samuel said,

“As your sword has made women childless,
so will your mother be childless among women.”
And Samuel put Agag to death before the Lord at Gilgal.

34 Then Samuel left for Ramah, but Saul went up to his home in Gibeah of Saul. 35 Until the day Samuel died, he did not go to see Saul again, though Samuel mourned for him. And the Lord regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel.

Footnotes:

1 Samuel 15:3 The Hebrew term refers to the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the Lord, often by totally destroying them; also in verses 8, 9, 15, 18, 20 and 21.
1 Samuel 15:9 Or the grown bulls; the meaning of the Hebrew for this phrase is uncertain.
1 Samuel 15:32 The meaning of the Hebrew for this phrase is uncertain.

Matai
05-27-2015, 06:27 PM
Prothelyzing is a good thing.

Proselytizing is not the same as bashing. You are out to destroy, not convert. You might like to think you're doing something good based on what you think about religion, but the way you go about it certainly isn't. You're combative in nature. So what you do vs. what a Christian does aren't the same.



As a Christian, it is your duty to prothelize and tell others about salvation through Jesus. You are commanded to do it by your savior.

And? See above. Proselytizing and bashing aren't the same thing.


As an Atheist, I am bound only by my belief that religion is a threat to human development, especially when it enters into governments.

And you're entitled to your opinion. The problem is that you're engaging in a war on religion with open hostility and not trying to convince people through discussion that they might be misguided or wrong. Your actions, in my opinion, are worse. You're openly hostile while Christian just believe certain things you happen to disagree with. For the most part they'd be willing to "agree to disagree" whereas you want to destroy all they stand for.


God isn't required for people to be good to each other. We can do that on our own, God is a hinderence of our own creation.

Never said God is required to be good to each other. There are plenty of good people who are not religious. You think God is created by man, I believe that man is created by God. You think he's a hindrance and I don't.


Religion is dangerous because it can't be reasoned with and because it is irrational, that is why I bash it and bash it hard.

I happen to disagree with you. Religion doesn't force people to do anything. People often use claims of religion (as far as Christianity is concerned) to do some very terrible things. That doesn't make it the fault of the religion. It's the fault of the people who use it wrongly. Just like I don't blame a gun for killing someone, I blame the person pulling the trigger.

As far as it can't be reasoned with, you are very wrong. Look at how many different denominations there are. Look at how many have changed over the years and changed what they accept. Religion might be more slow, but that isn't the same thing.


Most atheists are silent, as are most Christians, despite their duty to prothelize and spread their religion.

We aren't perfect, that's ok. God will be the judge on whether a person did what was expected of them or not. It isn't my place to do so. You obviously feel differently. You feel you're qualified to explain all things pertaining to religion. (so it seems).


I want Christians to read their bibles, because I firmly believe that most don't read it or even give it much thought.

I agree. I find that there are lots of Christians who fall into this category. Many want to interpret the bible and find things that they think are important and not important. That's their problem. It isn't mind and it shouldn't be yours. They will stand before God to be judged righteously and fairly. You aren't qualified to do so.


I also believe the quickest path to atheism is reading the bible, so my harshness is in that vain. I can't destroy your God, only you can to that.

No, what you believe is that the quickest path to Atheism is not truly understanding the bible and not accepting that you might not understand everything that God does. You make judgments based on what you think is right and wrong. You can't destroy my God. I can't destroy my God. I may (not likely) change what I believe, but what I believe doesn't change the truth of something. God exists. You disagree, that's ok.


I think it is far more likely that you will eventually destroy your God if you read the bible.

I have read the bible. I understand it quite well. I read from the Bible everyday. Do I do in-depth searches every single time, no I don't. I do however know what it means, I know what message it's trying to convey.

Matai
05-27-2015, 06:47 PM
When you say such things, I can tell that you haven't read the bible much.

Again, you're wrong. It's amazing that you can be so smart and overlook some pretty common phrases. I said "willy nilly." Which means (as I understand it) that he doesn't just do something for no reason. That's not the same as not doing it at all. I never claimed that God hadn't ordered someone to be killed. I implied that he doesn't do so for no reason, or just for fun.


Here is just one example of your kind and loving God ordering genocide, I can provide you others.

Let's start with this one. How do you justify God's order to kill babies and their mothers?

Read the whole story and we will talk about it, even if we have to read the entire book of Samuel, I want you to see why God was upset at Saul and why he wanted the Amalekites destroyed.

First off, I don't have to justify Gods actions. I am his creation. I have faith and trust that he does what he does for a reason. I don't have the same knowledge and understanding of God. I believe he has a plan and that he knows far more than I and that he will do what is necessary to save his children. Do I know every detail of how that's going to be accomplished, no I don't. To do so would be arrogance in the extreme.

I don't know if this will help, but I can only speculate as to the passage you provided as I wasn't there at the time and God doesn't answer to me. So, for what it's worth...

Yes, God did order the extermination of the Amalekites. Keep in mind that this is Old Testament, Law of Moses times (tooth for a tooth, etc). The Amalekites were constantly harassing and attacking the Israelites. Shortly after they had left Egypt the Amalekites had attacked Israel and killed many weak and elderly people (Deuteronomy 25) Even the "wicked" Babylonians thought the Amalekites were bad. The Amalekites practiced sexual immorality, public torture, and child burning. These aren't some innocent people. I can assume that given the fact that they were the first aggressors and that they were wicked and depraved that God decided they were beyond saving as a people and had them eliminated. He would have done so to save future generations of both Israelites and Amalekites. The Israelites so they wouldn't have to endure the influence and constant attacks from the Amalekites, and the Amalekites wouldn't raise any more children to be wicked and depraved. Those children would be covered under the grace of God. Remember death isn't a bad thing as far as God is concerned. It's a gateway to return to heaven. You view it is bad based on your understanding of life.

Now, looking at the fact that Saul was ordered to kill them all and failed to obey he was chastened accordingly. God has always asked for strict obedience. Saul failed to obey and took actions on his own. His actions, it could be argued, led to the fact that the Amalekites didn't get wiped out and that years later they tried to have all the Jews killed (see Haman). What trouble for the Jews could've been avoided had he been obedient. We don't know all that God does. We can't see what the future hold, but I believe that God does and he takes steps accordingly. He has used various peoples and cultures to punish the wicked throughout the scriptures. Even the chosen people of Israel were punished when they failed to keep the commandments of God.

Again, I can only surmise, and I hope that this at least gives some indication of what might be a possible and plausible explanation. While you like to pick the worst, you also have to realize that God deals justly and mercifully as well. Look at the story of the Ninevites. They were warned that if they didn't repent they would be wiped out. Well, they did repent. God deals justly and mercifully. You just happen to think that everything God did that you find reprehensible is "for fun" and that there is no justification for the actions involved. I only try to trust and believe that there is a plan and that God, the great creator and organizer of the world (worlds without end), knows a tad bit more than me and that his actions will lead to the best outcome available. It's called faith. A sixth sense (or seventh?) if you will.

(Note: corrected "act for strict obedience" to "asked for strict..")

Absinthe Anecdote
05-29-2015, 12:56 PM
Again, you're wrong. It's amazing that you can be so smart and overlook some pretty common phrases. I said "willy nilly." Which means (as I understand it) that he doesn't just do something for no reason. That's not the same as not doing it at all. I never claimed that God hadn't ordered someone to be killed. I implied that he doesn't do so for no reason, or just for fun.

Willy nilly? That is your explanation?




First off, I don't have to justify Gods actions. I am his creation. I have faith and trust that he does what he does for a reason. I don't have the same knowledge and understanding of God. I believe he has a plan and that he knows far more than I and that he will do what is necessary to save his children. Do I know every detail of how that's going to be accomplished, no I don't. To do so would be arrogance in the extreme.

So God has a plan. Really? It doesn't sound like it to me when I read the Old Testament.

He created man, they increased in numbers and became corrupted. He regretted creating them and then drowns them all, saving only Noah and his family.

Then they become corrupted again, so he starts ordering the genocide of particular tribes.

Are you really going to not question that and just go along with it?

Certainly it bothers you because you say that you don't have all the knowledge God does and you just trust he had a good reason.


I don't know if this will help, but I can only speculate as to the passage you provided as I wasn't there at the time and God doesn't answer to me. So, for what it's worth...

Yes, God did order the extermination of the Amalekites. Keep in mind that this is Old Testament, Law of Moses times (tooth for a tooth, etc).

Wait a minute! God was bound by the laws of Abraham and Moses? I thought those were God's laws for humanity prior to the arrival of Jesus?

Maybe you should have tried saying that God hadn't invented mercy yet?

Better yet, maybe you should conclude that the story of Saul was written by men and a perfect creator wasn't involved with the book of Samuel, or even the rest of the Old Testament.

That makes a lot more sense than attributing it to the "perfect" plan that is so complex that it involves the systematic extermination of people.



The Amalekites were constantly harassing and attacking the Israelites. Shortly after they had left Egypt the Amalekites had attacked Israel and killed many weak and elderly people (Deuteronomy 25) Even the "wicked" Babylonians thought the Amalekites were bad. The Amalekites practiced sexual immorality, public torture, and child burning. These aren't some innocent people. I can assume that given the fact that they were the first aggressors and that they were wicked and depraved that God decided they were beyond saving as a people and had them eliminated. He would have done so to save future generations of both Israelites and Amalekites. The Israelites so they wouldn't have to endure the influence and constant attacks from the Amalekites, and the Amalekites wouldn't raise any more children to be wicked and depraved. Those children would be covered under the grace of God. Remember death isn't a bad thing as far as God is concerned. It's a gateway to return to heaven. You view it is bad based on your understanding of life.

My view of killing children is bad because I have a moral code that values life.

There is no way that I would ever put my sword to a mother and child. Even the children of my enemies.

No way, NEVER! I would choose my own death over it.

You apparently would go into a village and run your sword through women and children.

You should have stuck to "God's plan is too mysterious for me to understand" because you just tried to justify killing babies and you sound like fucking monster to me.

You are going to claim that you are doing them a favor because you are sending them back to God?

Fuck that! That is insanity on the level of ISIS.

Just admit that the Old Testament is a book written by very brutal Bronze Age men.

For me, if a God did do all of that stuff, then I refuse to worship it because it is a monster.

But you, you fall to its feet and grovel, pray to it and call it infinitely wise.

Seriously, you sound like a member of ISIS to me.




Now, looking at the fact that Saul was ordered to kill them all and failed to obey he was chastened accordingly. God has always asked for strict obedience. Saul failed to obey and took actions on his own. His actions, it could be argued, led to the fact that the Amalekites didn't get wiped out and that years later they tried to have all the Jews killed (see Haman). What trouble for the Jews could've been avoided had he been obedient. We don't know all that God does. We can't see what the future hold, but I believe that God does and he takes steps accordingly. He has used various peoples and cultures to punish the wicked throughout the scriptures. Even the chosen people of Israel were punished when they failed to keep the commandments of God.

Again, I can only surmise, and I hope that this at least gives some indication of what might be a possible and plausible explanation. While you like to pick the worst, you also have to realize that God deals justly and mercifully as well. Look at the story of the Ninevites. They were warned that if they didn't repent they would be wiped out. Well, they did repent. God deals justly and mercifully. You just happen to think that everything God did that you find reprehensible is "for fun" and that there is no justification for the actions involved. I only try to trust and believe that there is a plan and that God, the great creator and organizer of the world (worlds without end), knows a tad bit more than me and that his actions will lead to the best outcome available. It's called faith. A sixth sense (or seventh?) if you will.

(Note: corrected "act for strict obedience" to "asked for strict..")

You really need to sit down and think about this some more.

There is no justification for killing the babies of your enemies. Even if a God tells you to do it by speaking to you with a big booming voice from the sky, you should not do it.

However, your God is speaking to you from some ancient texts that have been translated and copied from different languages.

Seriously, you need to reconsider this notion that God knows more than you.

The reason that the extermination of the Amalekites sounds brutal is because it was written by brutal men.

A kind and loving God had nothing to do with such a thing. If he did, then he isn't kind and loving.

You can't have it both ways. To not question the divinity of the text is insane, really really insane, and extremely dangerous.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-29-2015, 02:39 PM
The Amalekites were constantly harassing and attacking the Israelites. Shortly after they had left Egypt the Amalekites had attacked Israel and killed many weak and elderly people (Deuteronomy 25) Even the "wicked" Babylonians thought the Amalekites were bad. The Amalekites practiced sexual immorality, public torture, and child burning. These aren't some innocent people. I can assume that given the fact that they were the first aggressors and that they were wicked and depraved that God decided they were beyond saving as a people and had them eliminated. He would have done so to save future generations of both Israelites and Amalekites. The Israelites so they wouldn't have to endure the influence and constant attacks from the Amalekites, and the Amalekites wouldn't raise any more children to be wicked and depraved. Those children would be covered under the grace of God. Remember death isn't a bad thing as far as God is concerned. It's a gateway to return to heaven. You view it is bad based on your understanding of life.

Here is another big problem with your understanding of the Old Testament and the New Testament.

It is a problem that is largely reconciled by knowledgeable Christians by claiming that Jesus represents a new covenant between God and man.

You are mixing New Testament ideas with Old Testament ones.

The ancient Hebrews weren't focused on the afterlife as modern Christian are. There was no distinction between the unjust and just after death. They didn't believe in Heaven as you do, Heaven is a Christian idea.

Certain sects of early Judaism believed that there was nothing after life on earth, your life just ended and that was it. Other sects believed in reincarnation to a certain degree, but it was nothing like the Christian concept of Heaven.

For the ancient Hebrews punishments were meted out in the present life according to a series promises made between man and God.

If you were a knowledgable Christian, you should have talked about that instead of going on your ISIS-like justification of genocide.

And to be fair, you came close to talking about it when you clumsily mentioned "tooth for a tooth."

You should have explored that a little more, but you didn't. Go read about the New Covenant, you could have hit me hard over the head with that.

It is things like this that tell me you haven't studied your religion, or the history of it. You are following a religion that you don't know that much about.

As an ex-Christian I am ashamed of you.

As a person, I am frightened by your willingness to blindly follow an idea without question.

You are damned lucky that an evil preacher hasn't talked you into doing something horrible in the name of God.

Spend some more time reading your bible and studying your religion. At the very least, it will keep you from sounding like an idiot when you talk about religion with me.

It might even protect you from following an insane preacher some day.

That said, I still have a problem with a God that is supposed to be perfect, and infinitely wise, for doing all those horrendous things in the Old Testament.

There is no excuse for that behavior, other than the obvious. The obvious answer is that he is a God that was created by very brutal Bronze Age men.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-30-2015, 01:51 PM
Genesis 6 New International Version (NIV)

Wickedness in the World

6 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Let's have a little Saturday morning bible study and look at Genesis 6:1-4.

Many of you probably think that Christianity and Judaism are monotheistic religions, and by modern day standards they are.

However, here is a curious passage that points to polytheistic roots of Judaism. It makes it pretty clear that the practice of religion evolves over time.

It also indicates that the root material isn't holy as many people claim since it isn't timeless and is subject to human editors.

TJMAC77SP
05-30-2015, 06:05 PM
Let's have a little Saturday morning bible study and look at Genesis 6:1-4.

Many of you probably think that Christianity and Judaism are monotheistic religions, and by modern day standards they are.

However, here is a curious passage that points to polytheistic roots of Judaism. It makes it pretty clear that the practice of religion evolves over time.

It also indicates that the root material isn't holy as many people claim since it isn't timeless and is subject to human editors.

That's interesting.

It makes sense that in a part of the world which was universally pagan at the time that the roots of Judaism would be as well.

sandsjames
05-30-2015, 06:39 PM
That's interesting.

It makes sense that in a part of the world which was universally pagan at the time that the roots of Judaism would be as well.

That passage refers to angels that walked the earth as men and interacted very closely with men, very similar to what Jesus did, except that the angels were unable to avoid the temptations.

TJMAC77SP
05-30-2015, 07:47 PM
That passage refers to angels that walked the earth as men and interacted very closely with men, very similar to what Jesus did, except that the angels were unable to avoid the temptations.

Well, in any case I never learned of it in CCD (Catholic 'Sunday School')

Rusty Jones
05-30-2015, 07:55 PM
That passage refers to angels that walked the earth as men and interacted very closely with men, very similar to what Jesus did, except that the angels were unable to avoid the temptations.

You might want to study up on the Canaanite pantheon. I've discussed that here many times. Particularly how your God was a member of this pantheon. El was the chief, and Yahweh was one of his 70 sons (i.e., they're not the same as those of Abrahamic faiths believe).

Absinthe Anecdote
05-30-2015, 08:03 PM
That passage refers to angels that walked the earth as men and interacted very closely with men, very similar to what Jesus did, except that the angels were unable to avoid the temptations.

There has been several different views of what "sons of God" means and it has been a point of contention between both Jewish and Christian theologians over the centuries.

Some theologians claim that "sons of God" refers to the offspring of Seth, Adam and Eve's third son. Others have put forth that it refers to rebellious Angels, while still others claim it refers to Pagan royalty who married common women.

Remember, we are talking about an ancient Hebrew word: Sons of God (Heb: bənê hāʼĕlōhîm,[1] בני האלהים

Not sure what you mean by, "very similar to what Jesus did" but you would probably make most Christian scholars cringe by saying such a thing.

Rusty Jones
05-30-2015, 08:17 PM
There has been several different views of what "sons of God" means and it has been a point of contention between both Jewish and Christian theologians over the centuries.

Some theologians claim that "sons of God" refers to the offspring of Seth, Adam and Eve's third son. Others have put forth that it refers to rebellious Angels, while still others claim it refers to Pagan royalty who married common women.

Remember, we are talking about an ancient Hebrew word: Sons of God (Heb: bənê hāʼĕlōhîm,[1] בני האלהים

Not sure what you mean by, "very similar to what Jesus did" but you would probably make most Christian scholars cringe by saying such a thing.

I'm not sure if anyone really worships God (El). El assigned Yahweh to the Jews. He assigned his other sons to watch over other nations. In reality... no son of El gives a damn about you unless you belong to the nation that El assigned to him. I.e., if you're not a Jew... Yahweh doesn't care about you. In fact, he hates you.

Psalm 82, however, is completely ignored by both Christians and Jews (and is actually altered in Jewish Tanakhs). It shows El stripping all other gods of their powers for failing their respective chosen people. The world was supposed to be united under El. However, Christians and Jews believe that they're still worshipping Yahweh... someone who isn't a god anymore.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-30-2015, 08:22 PM
You might want to study up on the Canaanite pantheon. I've discussed that here many times. Particularly how your God was a member of this pantheon. El was the chief, and Yahweh was one of his 70 sons (i.e., they're not the same as those of Abrahamic faiths believe).

Excellent suggestion!

Far too many people ignore human history and other religions completely when they ponder their religions.

Christianity is actually a mixture of many religions, and while Judaism is the primary root religion, it too drew traditions from other beliefs.

None of these religions existed in a bubble, nor have they remained static.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-30-2015, 08:34 PM
I'm not sure if anyone really worships God (El). El assigned Yahweh to the Jews. He assigned his other sons to watch over other nations. In reality... no son of El gives a damn about you unless you belong to the nation that El assigned to him. I.e., if you're not a Jew... Yahweh doesn't care about you. In fact, he hates you.

Psalm 82, however, is completely ignored by both Christians and Jews (and is actually altered in Jewish Tanakhs). It shows El stripping all other gods of their powers for failing their respective chosen people. The world was supposed to be united under El. However, Christians and Jews believe that they're still worshipping Yahweh... someone who isn't a god anymore.

There are many passages that are completely ignored, it seems to be a Christian tradition.

I stand by my claim that most Christians have little knowledge of what they are worshiping.

Here is Psalm 82:




Psalm 82 New International Version (NIV)

Psalm 82
A psalm of Asaph.

1 God presides in the great assembly;
he renders judgment among the “gods”:
2 “How long will you[a] defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?[b]
3 Defend the weak and the fatherless;
uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
5 “The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”;
you are all sons of the Most High.’
7 But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.”
8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
for all the nations are your inheritance.
Footnotes:

Psalm 82:2 The Hebrew is plural.
Psalm 82:2 The Hebrew has Selah (a word of uncertain meaning) here.
New International Version (NIV)
Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

TJMAC77SP
05-31-2015, 12:06 AM
There are many passages that are completely ignored, it seems to be a Christian tradition.

I stand by my claim that most Christians have little knowledge of what they are worshiping.

Here is Psalm 82:

Funny you should say that. Early Catholic practice held that reading the bible and most certainly interpreting the bible was reserved exclusively for the clergy. Of course people who could actually read were rare and those that could read Latin even rarer (although according to Hollywood William Wallace could.......but I digress). Add to that the fact that actual printed bibles were not available until after Gutenberg invented his press and then of course for quite awhile after that. Before that the bible was hand scribed on parchment. There were orders of monks who were devoted to nothing else but creating these parchments.

Sorry, but I figured we were having history day on the MTF.

TJMAC77SP
05-31-2015, 12:17 AM
Speaking of history. A bit of personal history which no one will care about but this thread got me thinking about it.

In my family we all had to go to CCD until we made our confirmation in the seventh grade. My folks made me go in the eight grade (they probably figured it wouldn't hurt for me to get more religion). In any case I was extremely pissed about it until I went to the first class. We met on Tuesday afternoons after school (no I didn't go to Catholic school). Father Brown was the instructor. I had never had a priest teach CCD only nuns. Father Brown had the worst reputation in the parish. A no nonsense guy who didn't seem to like kids.

Anyway, turns out Father Brown's was an SJ (Jesuit) and had an advanced degree in history so for the entire year we learned the history of the Catholic church. While I am sure he didn't teach everything, he also didn't pull punches with the embarrassing stuff. A true historian, he told us about the popes who were grandfathers (even in the eight grade we could do the math on that tidbit). The pope (Stephen VI) who dug up his predecessor and put him on trail for some perceived offense. Obviously a nutjob. He spoke pretty critically of a lot of aspects of the crusades and what their true motivations were.

Anyway, I ended up enjoying that year and enjoyed thinking about it today.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-31-2015, 01:01 AM
Speaking of history. A bit of personal history which no one will care about but this thread got me thinking about it.

In my family we all had to go to CCD until we made our confirmation in the seventh grade. My folks made me go in the eight grade (they probably figured it wouldn't hurt for me to get more religion). In any case I was extremely pissed about it until I went to the first class. We met on Tuesday afternoons after school (no I didn't go to Catholic school). Father Brown was the instructor. I had never had a priest teach CCD only nuns. Father Brown had the worst reputation in the parish. A no nonsense guy who didn't seem to like kids.

Anyway, turns out Father Brown's was an SJ (Jesuit) and had an advanced degree in history so for the entire year we learned the history of the Catholic church. While I am sure he didn't teach everything, he also didn't pull punches with the embarrassing stuff. A true historian, he told us about the popes who were grandfathers (even in the eight grade we could do the math on that tidbit). The pope (Stephen VI) who dug up his predecessor and put him on trail for some perceived offense. Obviously a nutjob. He spoke pretty critically of a lot of aspects of the crusades and what their true motivations were.

Anyway, I ended up enjoying that year and enjoyed thinking about it today.

Cool story.

Sometimes I wish that I had gotten some exposure to the Catholic Church. I say that because Catholic priests are educated at a much higher level than your average Protestant pastor tends to be.

I did know some excellent pastors who went to college and studied religion as well as history. However, I knew a few who had dubious ordainment credentials and a few that didn't even graduate high school.

SomeRandomGuy
05-31-2015, 04:39 AM
Since we are having a little Bible study here I wanted to get some thoughts on this. Growing up in church my dad was always telling me that these are definitely the end times. Christians always conveniently forget that people have been prophesying the second coming for centuries now. Anyways, one thing my dad told me always stuck out. He said that Matthew 24 says that once Israel becomes a nation again (happened in 1948) "truely I tell you this generation will certainly not pass away until all of these things have happened"

Here is the full text of Matthew 24:


Matthew 24 New International Version (NIV)

The Destruction of the Temple and Signs of the End Times
24 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

4 Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.

9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’[a] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.

22 “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.

26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.

29 “Immediately after the distress of those days

“‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’[b]
30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.[d] 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[e] is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Looking at this chapter I'm not sure where my dad got the Israel tie in. I'm pretty sure its the part where Jesus says, "So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation"

The site I got the above text from references the abomination that causes desolation as something from Daniel 9:27, 11:31, and 12:10.

Here are those verses:


Daniel 9:27New International Version (NIV)

27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’[a] In the middle of the ‘seven’[b] he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple[c] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.[d]”[e]


Daniel 11:31New International Version (NIV)

31 “His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation.


Daniel 12:11New International Version (NIV)

11 “From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.

Ok, I admittedly didn't dig really deep into this. It appears to me that Jesus is saying that when we see the abomination that causes desolation setup in the temple we should flee Judea. (That's good for us we are already in America.) Next time I see my dad I will confirm this but when Israel became a nation in 1948 they setup the abomination that causes desolation in their temple. Doesn't this mean that the generation alive in 1948 will not pass before the second coming? If that's the case, how long is a generation? We might be running out of time. The verse AA quoted a page or two back says that man's days will be numbered to 125 years. No matter how we define generation (likely a lot shorter) if we are still roaming the earth in 2075 something went very wrong.

SomeRandomGuy
05-31-2015, 04:45 AM
Ok, after I just posted above I'm seeing the Israel tie in. Jerusalem was destroyed and not one stone was left on top of the other. Everything that Jesus predicted did happen. Verses 22-24 is where it comes from:


22 “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.

Jesus is saying that if Israel's suffering had not been cut short surely everyone would have died. Those days were cut short and Israel regained its homeland. That means that the generation that saw that happen will not pass before the second coming.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-31-2015, 10:49 AM
Ok, after I just posted above I'm seeing the Israel tie in. Jerusalem was destroyed and not one stone was left on top of the other. Everything that Jesus predicted did happen. Verses 22-24 is where it comes from:



Jesus is saying that if Israel's suffering had not been cut short surely everyone would have died. Those days were cut short and Israel regained its homeland. That means that the generation that saw that happen will not pass before the second coming.

Christian Apologetics will deal with this a number of different ways, but the obvious escape hatch is to direct your attention to Matthew 24:36




Matthew 24 New International Version (NIV)

36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father.

Some might try to claim that there was a problem with the Greek translation of the word generation.
I've heard some Christians claim that generation should actually mean race of people, meaning all the Jews.

Since being Jewish isn't a race, there is a big problem with that one, so you don't hear people trying that one much, but it is funny when you do.

When I read that passage, the part about Irsael being restablished as a nation isn't there. So if I was still a Christian, I'd ask you to point that out.

I know you just tried, but, suffering being cut short, equating to Israel being restablished as a nation is a bit of a jump.

It sure sounded like Jesus predicted a Second Coming in the First Century based on the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem.

BTW, a generation is widely accepted to mean 40 years.

sandsjames
05-31-2015, 12:04 PM
Since we are having a little Bible study here I wanted to get some thoughts on this. Growing up in church my dad was always telling me that these are definitely the end times. Christians always conveniently forget that people have been prophesying the second coming for centuries now. Anyways, one thing my dad told me always stuck out. He said that Matthew 24 says that once Israel becomes a nation again (happened in 1948) "truely I tell you this generation will certainly not pass away until all of these things have happened"

Here is the full text of Matthew 24:



Looking at this chapter I'm not sure where my dad got the Israel tie in. I'm pretty sure its the part where Jesus says, "So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation"

The site I got the above text from references the abomination that causes desolation as something from Daniel 9:27, 11:31, and 12:10.

Here are those verses:







Ok, I admittedly didn't dig really deep into this. It appears to me that Jesus is saying that when we see the abomination that causes desolation setup in the temple we should flee Judea. (That's good for us we are already in America.) Next time I see my dad I will confirm this but when Israel became a nation in 1948 they setup the abomination that causes desolation in their temple. Doesn't this mean that the generation alive in 1948 will not pass before the second coming? If that's the case, how long is a generation? We might be running out of time. The verse AA quoted a page or two back says that man's days will be numbered to 125 years. No matter how we define generation (likely a lot shorter) if we are still roaming the earth in 2075 something went very wrong.

Actually it says 120 years, which is interesting, because there has been one woman who lived to be 122...she died in 1995. The second highest is 119 and some days. On a side note, the top 10 oldest were all women.

Matai
06-03-2015, 04:28 PM
Willy nilly? That is your explanation?

You know, for someone who is so particular about the wording someone uses, you sure seem to ignore that when you do the reading. Either you really aren't that bright, or you just love to twist the words that someone actually wrote and imply meaning to it so that it fits your narrative of what you want.

You implied that I didn't read the bible because you thought I said that God "never" tells people to do something you would consider bad. I had used the words "willy nilly." I defined them.

It really is quite simple to follow. I said (and implied) that God doesn't do anything wihtout reason. It's not any more complicated than that.




So God has a plan. Really? It doesn't sound like it to me when I read the Old Testament.

I'm sorry you missed that part.


He created man, they increased in numbers and became corrupted. He regretted creating them and then drowns them all, saving only Noah and his family.

Then they become corrupted again, so he starts ordering the genocide of particular tribes.

Are you really going to not question that and just go along with it?

God created us with a plan and goal in mind. He also gave us free will and allowed us to choose. You are a prime example of someone who chooses not to believe and I'm an example of someone who does. If the scriptures are to be believed then I'm right and you're wrong. If they aren't to be believed then you're right and I'm wrong. The difference is if you're right, I lose nothing by believing. I'll still be a good person who tries to do the right thing and live a good life and doesn't attack anyone for no reason other than a difference of opinion. When I die I go to the great nothing that awaits. If I'm right and you're wrong, then you will face judgement for your actions and you will be held accountable for all you do. You will still be bitter and angry at people who only choose to have a belief in something greater than themselves.

God see his children and wants them to return home. If some of them become corrupted and so wicked that they jeopardize the lives and futures of the innocent then God removes them. Much like any other criminal that we do with in society now. Even some children now are tried as adults and receive harsh sentences. Difference is, God knows if they'll be repeat offenders or if they can be saved and acts accordingly.

You see life in it's totality as here on Earth. God (and the believers) believe that this life is merely a short span in the totality of life. You judge everything by the 70 (or so) years that a person lives here. God judges it by the eternities that it will continue to live after this life. You are angry because you view the deaths of these people as ending their existence in their totality. That isn't the case.


Certainly it bothers you because you say that you don't have all the knowledge God does and you just trust he had a good reason.

Never said it bothers me. It doesn't. I just said I don't understand everything. Not the same thing. I'm ok with learning as time goes on.


Wait a minute! God was bound by the laws of Abraham and Moses? I thought those were God's laws for humanity prior to the arrival of Jesus?

Again, you can't read. I never said God was bound by the laws of moses. I indicated the time period and the law that he expected his children to abide by. As such it would be reasonable to think that the commandments he issued and expected his children to follow, would also follow the rules he set for them. Pretty simple and straightforward.

If you want to read into something and twist it and make up something to fit your narrative, we won't get very far. I'll call you on it every time. Read what I said (wrote) not what you wished or hoped I said.


Maybe you should have tried saying that God hadn't invented mercy yet?

Maybe you should read what I actually wrote and let your reading comprehension do the work for you instead of trying to invent a meaning that wasn't implied, written, or intended. You're much better than this.


Better yet, maybe you should conclude that the story of Saul was written by men and a perfect creator wasn't involved with the book of Samuel, or even the rest of the Old Testament.

Or maybe you could read the story and the meaning behind what was written and stop trying to see everything in the bible through narrow minded views. There is a message in there and whether you like it or not.


That makes a lot more sense than attributing it to the "perfect" plan that is so complex that it involves the systematic extermination of people.

Because you view the end of this life as the end doesn't make it so. When there is more to come, the "systematic extermination" of people isn't as you claim it to be. They are in the next stage of life, whatever that may be.




My view of killing children is bad because I have a moral code that values life.

There is no way that I would ever put my sword to a mother and child. Even the children of my enemies.

No way, NEVER! I would choose my own death over it.

God also values life. He just knows life in its entirety isn't limited to the brief existence here.


You apparently would go into a village and run your sword through women and children.

You should have stuck to "God's plan is too mysterious for me to understand" because you just tried to justify killing babies and you sound like fucking monster to me.

You are going to claim that you are doing them a favor because you are sending them back to God?

Fuck that! That is insanity on the level of ISIS.

Just admit that the Old Testament is a book written by very brutal Bronze Age men.

For me, if a God did do all of that stuff, then I refuse to worship it because it is a monster.

But you, you fall to its feet and grovel, pray to it and call it infinitely wise.

Seriously, you sound like a member of ISIS to me.

Again, your not reading well. Nice spin. LOL. And here I was thinking you could discuss rationally with valid points. You implied I wouldn't be able to match you in this conversation, but I'm not the one letting my emotions get the better of me. I'm not making wild claims and accusations. If you can't handle it, let me know. I'm ok with letting you bow out to collect yourself.

I never said I would run into a village and run your sword through women and children. I never tried to justify killing babies. I gave what many would consider a plausible reason for why God did what He did. You're trying to attribute that to me. I merely claimed that God doesn't answer to me and that I may not understand all of the actions he takes because he is much smarter than I am.

Just admit that not everyone sees the monster you claim is so evident in the bible. Some people can manage to see the beauty and the love that God offers to His children.


You really need to sit down and think about this some more.

Why? I'd rather be filled with hope and love than anger, hatred and bitterness. Your way seems so much less pleasant.


There is no justification for killing the babies of your enemies. Even if a God tells you to do it by speaking to you with a big booming voice from the sky, you should not do it.

Never said I would. Again trying to twist words and put meaning where there isn't any.


However, your God is speaking to you from some ancient texts that have been translated and copied from different languages.

Seriously, you need to reconsider this notion that God knows more than you.

The reason that the extermination of the Amalekites sounds brutal is because it was written by brutal men.

A kind and loving God had nothing to do with such a thing. If he did, then he isn't kind and loving.

You can't have it both ways. To not question the divinity of the text is insane, really really insane, and extremely dangerous.

You see an act that is by all accounts brutal. I don't disagree with you. I, however, realize that God has a long term plan that I don't have all the details to. I questions and I wonder about the scriptures all the time. If I was to make all the decisions then things would've been different. I am, however, not GOD. I don't have all the knowledge it takes to create worlds without end. I have humbled myself and do the best I can. I accept that there are things I don't know, don't understand, and can't control. Your view is limited and God's view is not. You base all actions based on what you accept as your limited 80 year (give or take) window. God's view includes the eternities to come and as such his decisions are based on that. I don't fully comprehend it, but have faith that there is merit in his plan and his actions.

Of course I can have it both ways. I believe in a God who is both Just and Merciful. You don't believe that Justice and Mercy can co-exist. You believe that only one can be evident at any time.

The bible has been translated and copied many times. Has man managed to make some mistakes in the process? Probably. Does that mean that everything in the bible is false? No, it means I have to actually look and consider what the messages are and look a little into it. It has always been about faith. I have faith in God. I believe you don't. I find hope, you find despair.

Matai
06-03-2015, 05:01 PM
Here is another big problem with your understanding of the Old Testament and the New Testament.

It is a problem that is largely reconciled by knowledgeable Christians by claiming that Jesus represents a new covenant between God and man.

You are mixing New Testament ideas with Old Testament ones.

The ancient Hebrews weren't focused on the afterlife as modern Christian are. There was no distinction between the unjust and just after death. They didn't believe in Heaven as you do, Heaven is a Christian idea.

I disagree. You're viewing the Old Testament and New Testament as if they're exclusive of each other. Comments made in the New Testament by the Scribes and Pharisees, in trying to trap Jesus in his comments, evidence that they believed in and thought about life after death. See the comments about who get's the wife in the seven brothers who had no seed. They also claim lineage through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. There are several comments about him (Abraham) being in Heaven with God.

While commentary in the Old Testament doesn't go into great depth on the "life after death" part of their beliefs, to not include them at all is disingenuous.


Certain sects of early Judaism believed that there was nothing after life on earth, your life just ended and that was it. Other sects believed in reincarnation to a certain degree, but it was nothing like the Christian concept of Heaven.

For the ancient Hebrews punishments were meted out in the present life according to a series promises made between man and God.

If you were a knowledgable Christian, you should have talked about that instead of going on your ISIS-like justification of genocide.

And to be fair, you came close to talking about it when you clumsily mentioned "tooth for a tooth."

When I clumsily mentioned it? LOL! It was a reference to indicate the time period and law they were living in. Of course God, who gave them that law, would instruct them to abide by it. The fact that you want to discount the harshness of that law and still insist that the actions were brutal and "man-made" and that God wouldn't follow or give his followers instructions that pertain to and are relevant within that law is what amazes me.


You should have explored that a little more, but you didn't. Go read about the New Covenant, you could have hit me hard over the head with that.

This statement alone verifies that you knew what I was getting at and you want to try and discount it and say it was clumsy on my part when you were intentionally misreading what I wrote.


It is things like this that tell me you haven't studied your religion, or the history of it. You are following a religion that you don't know that much about.

Or that we disagree on what that religion actually means. You've clearly stated that you're in it to destroy religion. I'm a believer. There is a difference in opinion.

You originally asked for "justification" on God's commandments. I gave you a plausible and possible reason for those actions, while stating that I believe God has a plan that I don't fully understand. You then went on to rant and rave and assume certain actions and allowed your emotions to get the better of you when I was able to answer your "challenge" sufficiently. While you may not agree with my analysis, all you had to do was state that.


As an ex-Christian I am ashamed of you.

And I care because? Your current stance of hatred, bigotry, and intolerance don't do you any favors when trying to say you don't like someone because they see things differently than you.


As a person, I am frightened by your willingness to blindly follow an idea without question.

I don't blindly follow. I read, search, and question. I've just come to different conclusions than you.

What scares me is that you attack and antagonize those with differing views than yours. You tried to compare me to ISIS, but who has a more ISIS like attitude? I would argue that between the two of us, it's you. You've openly stated you want to destroy religion simply because you disagree with it. Those who try to live their lives in peace are on the receiving end of your hatred and anger simply because they disagree with you. I'm not out to destroy, you are. That seems to fit a lot more with ISIS sentimentality than my willingness to admit that I don't know everything and I'm willing to take some things on faith.


You are damned lucky that an evil preacher hasn't talked you into doing something horrible in the name of God.

LOL! Luck has nothing to do with it. I don't blindly follow. While you claim that I'm blinded by my faith (so to speak), you are more clearly blinded by your rage and hatred. It's not me I'm worried will do something terrible. I'm not the one seeking to destroy anything.


Spend some more time reading your bible and studying your religion. At the very least, it will keep you from sounding like an idiot when you talk about religion with me.

Between the two of us, I'm not the one making wild accusations and resorting to emotion filled commentary. If you don't like my answers, fine. That hardly qualifies me for "idiot" status.

With all the reading you do, it amazes me that you don't offer more "substance" or "counter-arguments" other than, God is bad, your bad, your religion is bad.


It might even protect you from following an insane preacher some day.

That said, I still have a problem with a God that is supposed to be perfect, and infinitely wise, for doing all those horrendous things in the Old Testament.

There is no excuse for that behavior, other than the obvious. The obvious answer is that he is a God that was created by very brutal Bronze Age men.

I'm aware that you have a problem with God. I don't know your life, what you've been through, or why you have such a hatred for Him. I believe God is perfect and as such I don't make excuses and I have to take things on faith when I don't fully understand them. It's not easy. It's not supposed to be. Many of those "horrendous" things in the Old Testament seem horrendous to us because we don't see things the same way that God does. All actions that God takes are colored by our limited understanding of this life and what we find acceptable and unacceptable. Like any person, I have to come to terms with the things that I find "horrendous."

Assuming God is real, you make claims that you know better than God based on your current level of knowledge in how things really work and I'm willing to accept that his knowledge is more than mine.

Assuming God is not real, my life and lifestyle does no harm. I live in peace (try to) and try to live a good life by living according the teachings of Christ (love your neighbor, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, take care of the sick, etc.) I see the good things in religion. You, are still full of anger, bitterness, and hatred (towards believers). The rest of your life, I can only assume you are happy. I just prefer to have a completely happy life where I don't seek to destroy someone else happiness simply for a differing of opinion. I'd rather not have a "mostly happy life except for those darn believers whom I have to seek out and destroy at all costs."

Matai
06-03-2015, 05:08 PM
Sorry it took so long to get back to this. I had some medical stuff come up (nothing major) and it made it hard to get back to this.

Rainmaker
06-03-2015, 07:46 PM
The I AM hath sent me......God is Consciousness. (I Am who I Am)..
The Christian Trivium =Greek Trivium. Father=Logic (mind is the builder), Son= Grammar (In the beginning was the word), Holy Ghost/Spirt= Rhetoric.... It's written as a story (Allegory/Metaphor) so that the illiterate could understand (Matt. 13:13). Doubt is the Devil Now suspend your reason (Doubting Thomas) and believe it and with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind and you will know peace Bitches..

MikeKerriii
06-04-2015, 02:12 AM
Assuming God is not real, my life and lifestyle does no harm. I live in peace (try to) and try to live a good life by living according the teachings of Christ (love your neighbor, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, take care of the sick, etc.) I see the good things in religion. You, are still full of anger, bitterness, and hatred (towards believers). The rest of your life, I can only assume you are happy. I just prefer to have a completely happy life where I don't seek to destroy someone else happiness simply for a differing of opinion. I'd rather not have a "mostly happy life except for those darn believers whom I have to seek out and destroy at all costs."Your lifestyle as expressed does no harm, but there are far more Christians intent on controling, by force of law, peole that disagreee with biblical madates

And you might want to talk to a Rabbi on the difference between the new testamate and old and the existence of heaven from their PROV. you will be very surprised, what christian theologians think Jews thought and think and what t Jewish theologians say on the same subject if often far different. Have you read the Torah? Even in a translation?

Absinthe Anecdote
06-04-2015, 08:26 AM
You know, for someone who is so particular about the wording someone uses, you sure seem to ignore that when you do the reading. Either you really aren't that bright, or you just love to twist the words that someone actually wrote and imply meaning to it so that it fits your narrative of what you want.

You implied that I didn't read the bible because you thought I said that God "never" tells people to do something you would consider bad. I had used the words "willy nilly." I defined them.

It really is quite simple to follow. I said (and implied) that God doesn't do anything wihtout reason. It's not any more complicated than that.





I'm sorry you missed that part.



God created us with a plan and goal in mind. He also gave us free will and allowed us to choose. You are a prime example of someone who chooses not to believe and I'm an example of someone who does. If the scriptures are to be believed then I'm right and you're wrong. If they aren't to be believed then you're right and I'm wrong. The difference is if you're right, I lose nothing by believing. I'll still be a good person who tries to do the right thing and live a good life and doesn't attack anyone for no reason other than a difference of opinion. When I die I go to the great nothing that awaits. If I'm right and you're wrong, then you will face judgement for your actions and you will be held accountable for all you do. You will still be bitter and angry at people who only choose to have a belief in something greater than themselves.

God see his children and wants them to return home. If some of them become corrupted and so wicked that they jeopardize the lives and futures of the innocent then God removes them. Much like any other criminal that we do with in society now. Even some children now are tried as adults and receive harsh sentences. Difference is, God knows if they'll be repeat offenders or if they can be saved and acts accordingly.

You see life in it's totality as here on Earth. God (and the believers) believe that this life is merely a short span in the totality of life. You judge everything by the 70 (or so) years that a person lives here. God judges it by the eternities that it will continue to live after this life. You are angry because you view the deaths of these people as ending their existence in their totality. That isn't the case.



Never said it bothers me. It doesn't. I just said I don't understand everything. Not the same thing. I'm ok with learning as time goes on.



Again, you can't read. I never said God was bound by the laws of moses. I indicated the time period and the law that he expected his children to abide by. As such it would be reasonable to think that the commandments he issued and expected his children to follow, would also follow the rules he set for them. Pretty simple and straightforward.

If you want to read into something and twist it and make up something to fit your narrative, we won't get very far. I'll call you on it every time. Read what I said (wrote) not what you wished or hoped I said.



Maybe you should read what I actually wrote and let your reading comprehension do the work for you instead of trying to invent a meaning that wasn't implied, written, or intended. You're much better than this.



Or maybe you could read the story and the meaning behind what was written and stop trying to see everything in the bible through narrow minded views. There is a message in there and whether you like it or not.



Because you view the end of this life as the end doesn't make it so. When there is more to come, the "systematic extermination" of people isn't as you claim it to be. They are in the next stage of life, whatever that may be.





God also values life. He just knows life in its entirety isn't limited to the brief existence here.



Again, your not reading well. Nice spin. LOL. And here I was thinking you could discuss rationally with valid points. You implied I wouldn't be able to match you in this conversation, but I'm not the one letting my emotions get the better of me. I'm not making wild claims and accusations. If you can't handle it, let me know. I'm ok with letting you bow out to collect yourself.

I never said I would run into a village and run your sword through women and children. I never tried to justify killing babies. I gave what many would consider a plausible reason for why God did what He did. You're trying to attribute that to me. I merely claimed that God doesn't answer to me and that I may not understand all of the actions he takes because he is much smarter than I am.

Just admit that not everyone sees the monster you claim is so evident in the bible. Some people can manage to see the beauty and the love that God offers to His children.



Why? I'd rather be filled with hope and love than anger, hatred and bitterness. Your way seems so much less pleasant.



Never said I would. Again trying to twist words and put meaning where there isn't any.



You see an act that is by all accounts brutal. I don't disagree with you. I, however, realize that God has a long term plan that I don't have all the details to. I questions and I wonder about the scriptures all the time. If I was to make all the decisions then things would've been different. I am, however, not GOD. I don't have all the knowledge it takes to create worlds without end. I have humbled myself and do the best I can. I accept that there are things I don't know, don't understand, and can't control. Your view is limited and God's view is not. You base all actions based on what you accept as your limited 80 year (give or take) window. God's view includes the eternities to come and as such his decisions are based on that. I don't fully comprehend it, but have faith that there is merit in his plan and his actions.

Of course I can have it both ways. I believe in a God who is both Just and Merciful. You don't believe that Justice and Mercy can co-exist. You believe that only one can be evident at any time.

The bible has been translated and copied many times. Has man managed to make some mistakes in the process? Probably. Does that mean that everything in the bible is false? No, it means I have to actually look and consider what the messages are and look a little into it. It has always been about faith. I have faith in God. I believe you don't. I find hope, you find despair.

You are still justifying the acts of genocide in the Old Testament by saying that God had a reason that you don't understand. You are just taking it on faith that it was a good reason because you believe God to be perfect.

Ordering that mothers and their babies be slaughtered is abhorrent and it is not an action I associate with a perfect being.

Especially when one considers the mythology that claims God is all powerful.

An all powerful entity that orders genocide and commits acts of genocide certainly had other options. The fact that he picked genocide more than once, when he had other options available should tell you something about the character of God.

How can you call that perfect?

Absinthe Anecdote
06-04-2015, 08:46 AM
The bible has been translated and copied many times. Has man managed to make some mistakes in the process? Probably. Does that mean that everything in the bible is false? No, it means I have to actually look and consider what the messages are and look a little into it. It has always been about faith. I have faith in God. I believe you don't. I find hope, you find despair.

If man has managed to alter the word of God in some instances, then what does that say about a God who is supposed to be all powerful?

It means he is dependent on man to help him to communicate, and that his word is subject to the editorial decisions of men.

Does that sound like another perfect plan to you?

Also, if parts of the bible are in error because of man's mistakes, and other parts of it are holy, who is the arbiter of what is or isn't holy?

Another man?

PS

To keep our posts from sprawling, I'm not going to do a line-by-line response. If you want me to address something that I skipped over, just ask.

Matai
06-04-2015, 02:43 PM
You are still justifying the acts of genocide in the Old Testament by saying that God had a reason that you don't understand. You are just taking it on faith that it was a good reason because you believe God to be perfect.

Ordering that mothers and their babies be slaughtered is abhorrent and it is not an action I associate with a perfect being.

Especially when one considers the mythology that claims God is all powerful.

An all powerful entity that orders genocide and commits acts of genocide certainly had other options. The fact that he picked genocide more than once, when he had other options available should tell you something about the character of God.

How can you call that perfect?

I do believe God to be perfect. Just as I allow my children to learn on their own, which sometimes involves falling down (learning to walk) or some other task that can be unpleasant (and sometimes painful) for a child, I believe that God does the same for us. You're right, I am saying that God has a reason that I don't understand. I take it on Faith, which is what the scriptures indicate is what I'm here to gain. I would agree with you that slaughtering mothers and babies is abhorrent if I was only looking from my limited perspective of this life and how I value life. I take on faith that God, who is looking at the eternal salvation of their souls, takes actions based on that. If I don't agree, I have to find a way to reconcile that. That's where the Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit) comes in. Through prayer I can ask and find peace that God knows what he's doing, even if I happen to wonder "what the heck?" It's not about me making God more like me or forcing Him to become as I want Him to be, it's about me having faith and learning to trust.

Part of the problem is, is that God allows His children to choose for themselves. He game them agency to make their own choices. This is to facilitate the learning process. He isn't going to force us to keep his commandments (that was Satan's plan). Christ came and atoned for all mankind. I know what that's supposed to mean, but I can't comprehend how it all works and all the details of it and how if I keep His commandments then I will have grace applied.

I guess I'm saying, the ends justify the means (as far as God is concerned) when it comes to saving the eternal souls of His children.

Other options - I'm sure he could've just stepped in and forced the Amalekites to be good, which would've gone against the agency he promised his children and not required his children to keep the law that He gave them. All in all, he could've gone against the grain of what He has claimed to be.

Matai
06-04-2015, 02:51 PM
If man has managed to alter the word of God in some instances, then what does that say about a God who is supposed to be all powerful?

It means he is dependent on man to help him to communicate, and that his word is subject to the editorial decisions of men.

Does that sound like another perfect plan to you?

Also, if parts of the bible are in error because of man's mistakes, and other parts of it are holy, who is the arbiter of what is or isn't holy?

Another man?

PS

To keep our posts from sprawling, I'm not going to do a line-by-line response. If you want me to address something that I skipped over, just ask.

Note: I agree in not going line by line. Same here, let me know if I miss something.

You're right in that it is difficult to determine what is "man's fault" and what isn't. It's part of why I believe that there is more scripture than just the bible, or that it is coming. God has claimed that He is the same, "yesterday, today, and forever" (I can find the exact reference if you need). On that vein I'm of the opinion that there will be, or are, prophets who speak to God and to man and clarify what the scriptures mean when faced with this ambiguity in the scriptures. He called prophets in Old Testament, had them in the New, and where are they now? I think they're here, or will be. More scripture is coming, or is here. I just have to find them. I also have the Holy Ghost, "he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (King James Version) The Holy Ghost is my personal communicator with God. He teaches truth and allows me to "verify" (if you will) when I have question. "Ask and Ye shall receive" "If a man lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith..." (James 1:5-6)

Is this plan perfect as I see it? I'm not so sure sometimes. I wonder how things could be perfect given the state of things as they are. However, again, I have faith that God knows what He's doing. If I'm right, I'm good to go. If I'm wrong and you're right, I join the nothing at death and have lost nothing in my life now.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-04-2015, 06:08 PM
Note: I agree in not going line by line. Same here, let me know if I miss something.

You're right in that it is difficult to determine what is "man's fault" and what isn't. It's part of why I believe that there is more scripture than just the bible, or that it is coming. God has claimed that He is the same, "yesterday, today, and forever" (I can find the exact reference if you need). On that vein I'm of the opinion that there will be, or are, prophets who speak to God and to man and clarify what the scriptures mean when faced with this ambiguity in the scriptures. He called prophets in Old Testament, had them in the New, and where are they now? I think they're here, or will be. More scripture is coming, or is here. I just have to find them. I also have the Holy Ghost, "he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (King James Version) The Holy Ghost is my personal communicator with God. He teaches truth and allows me to "verify" (if you will) when I have question. "Ask and Ye shall receive" "If a man lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith..." (James 1:5-6)

Is this plan perfect as I see it? I'm not so sure sometimes. I wonder how things could be perfect given the state of things as they are. However, again, I have faith that God knows what He's doing. If I'm right, I'm good to go. If I'm wrong and you're right, I join the nothing at death and have lost nothing in my life now.

What I gather from your two most recent posts is that you have faith that God is right in the instances when he ordered genocide, and in the instances he committed genocide.

You just have faith that he knows what he is doing. In other words it is impossible for God to do anything wrong. We can revisit this a little later.

For now let's talk about theological faith and why it is virtuous. In the section that I put in bold text, you describe the nature of your faith in the terms of Pascal's Wager. Pascal was a 17th century French philosopher, I urge you to look this up on your own.

You are essentially faking your belief to gain a reward in eternity. That sounds very disingenuous and theologically immoral.

Besides, if God is omniscient as you have described him previously, he would see through your ploy to hedge your bets.

It doesn't sound like you really believe in God to me, or are at least unsure about it.

I'll leave you with the following questions.

What makes theological faith virtuous? Why does God value your faith?

Rainmaker
06-04-2015, 06:24 PM
What I gather from your two most recent posts is that you have faith that God is right in the instances when he ordered genocide, and in the instances he committed genocide.

You just have faith that he knows what he is doing. In other words it is impossible for God to do anything wrong. We can revisit this a little later.

For now let's talk about theological faith and why it is virtuous. In the section that I put in bold text, you describe the nature of your faith in the terms of Pascal's Wager. Pascal was a 17th century French philosopher, I urge you to look this up on your own.

You are essentially faking your belief to gain a reward in eternity. That sounds very disingenuous and theologically immoral.

Besides, if God is omniscient as you have described him previously, he would see through your ploy to hedge your bets.

It doesn't sound like you really believe in God to me.

I'll leave you with the following questions.

What makes theological faith virtuous? Why does God value your faith?

Whether knowingly or unknowingly what you're continuing to parrot is the Luciferian doctrine that man was being held as a prisoner in the Garden of Eden by an unjust and vindictive God, and that man was not told by God that he could have the same powers as God (through evolution). If only he'd eat from the tree of knowledge. And man then did this and was set free (from the bonds of ignorance) by Lucifer through his agent on Earth Satan. Poena par sapientia (Pain brings Wisdom). This is the old testament law of cause and effect. Otherwise known as Karma is a Bitch...

Absinthe Anecdote
06-04-2015, 06:49 PM
Whether knowingly or unknowingly what you're continuing to parrot is the Luciferian doctrine that man was being held as a prisoner in the Garden of Eden by an unjust and vindictive God, and that man was not told by God that he could have the same powers as God (through evolution). If only he'd eat from the tree of knowledge. And man then did this and was set free (from the bonds of ignorance) by Lucifer through his agent on Earth Satan. Poena par sapientia (Pain brings Wisdom). This is the old testament law of cause and effect. Otherwise known as Karma is a Bitch...

Whatever.

If you want something good to read try Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain.

Rainmaker
06-04-2015, 07:25 PM
Whatever.

If you want something good to read try Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain.

Twain was paid off by Rockefeller to promote social deviance so I'm not suprised........He even read to Rockfeller's kids at Bible study. Sick....

.So, anyhow check this out...., the Luciferian belief is it's a riddle, wrapped inside a mystery and surrounded by an enigma. Now, the story goes something like this....The Garden of Eden was the original land, where everything was created perfect. Lucifer was the only angel given free will and so, chose to fall. He appeared to Eve as a snake and seduced her into givin up the booty . Eve went to Adam and said "Hey Adam check this crazy new thing out the snake showed me how to do".... Adam tried to resist her advance..... But, God Damn, That booty was lookin too good and so, Naturally, he fell for it. Therefore corrupting our DNA and kicking off evolution....Now, Lucifer and Christ are both referred to in the Bible as the morning star..... Man's beginning (natural) state is sinful, He's evolving from his fallen to his perfected state (Christ is perfect man) So, Whenever we give in to animal nature that's the definition of sin. I think the luciferian thing is a perversion of the word. but, like it or not...this what they believe.

But, However, you interpret it....The stories are fictional but, the truth is behind it. so, ignore the rules at your own risk... There's a spiritual battle that taking place within every man. Maybe, We're in a sort of cosmic hologram video game right now...

Absinthe Anecdote
06-05-2015, 01:55 PM
Twain was paid off by Rockefeller to promote social deviance so I'm not suprised........He even read to Rockfeller's kids at Bible study. Sick....

I know you are doing your shtick, but sometimes I'm surprised at how you have the tiniest shred of actual linkages.

Unfortunately, you have badly mangled the connection between Rockefeller and Twain. They were far from being in cahoots with one another.

Rockefeller was a stanch Baptist, and in his retirement years he was well known for teaching Sunday School at his church.

Twain was no fan of Rockefeller and was known for taking the occasional pot shot at Rockefeller.

Here is what Twain said of Rockefeller teaching Sunday School lessons.




Twain takes a good swing at John D. Rockefeller, that monster of greed and ambition who liked to give little talks to his Baptist church about the beauty of holi*ness and following in the footsteps of the Master who alone can satisfy our hearts (“Satan, twaddling sentimental sillinesses to a Sunday school, could be no burlesque upon John D. Rockefeller. . . . He can’t be burlesqued — he is himself a burlesque”)...

By the way, Twain was nearly broke in his later years, so I doubt he was paid off by anyone. He stayed on the lecture circuit until he was physically unable because his financial situation was so dire.

Rainmaker
06-05-2015, 02:21 PM
I know you are doing your shtick, but sometimes I'm surprised at how you have the tiniest shred of actual linkages.


By the way, Twain was nearly broke in his later years, so I doubt he was paid off by anyone. He stayed on the lecture circuit until he was physically unable because his financial situation was so dire.

Yes, I'm glad you brought this up... Twain was a rock star in his day, financially independent by his 30's but, blew all his money in poor investment schemes and was flat broke by his 50's. Twain also belonged to Polar Star Lodge No. 79 A.F.&A. He exposed some things. We'll leave it at that. The moral of the story is don't dance with the devil. Twain is hardly read in the public schools any more because even though he's brilliant he's not Politically correct enough for the leftist ideologues (and their lawyers) who have hijacked our republic.

"Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires, which plunge men into ruin and destruction."

Absinthe Anecdote
06-05-2015, 02:55 PM
Twain is hardly read in the public schools any more because even though he's brilliant he's not Politically correct enough for the leftist ideologues (and their lawyers) who have hijacked our republic.

Explain this a little more, because Twain has long been considered controversial. His books were being banned and criticized for being too vulgar in the 1880s.

I call Twain the "Pioneer of Satire" and I think his brand of irreverence and questioning of long held ideas frightens many on both sides of the political spectrum.

Rainmaker
06-05-2015, 03:16 PM
Explain this a little more, because Twain has long been considered controversial. His books were being banned and criticized for being too vulgar in the 1880s.

I call Twain the "Pioneer of Satire" and I think his brand of irreverence and questioning of long held ideas frightens many on both sides of the political spectrum.

Mostly talking about Huck Fin which used to be required reading on almost every school list. But,now is increasingly being taken out of the schools or censored because the language (the unspeakable word) makes certain people uncomfortable. The irony is that Twain defended blacks, jews and indians in his day and now he's being kicked to the curb by the PC Red brigade and you know who. tonight Rainmaker going to mix up some pink champiple and travel in my hot tub to September 11, 2027 the date that the G-d has told me in a dream was the next major crisis. I predict this will come full circle with a nasty backlash against the Marxists. I'll report back how it turns out as soon as able.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-05-2015, 04:51 PM
I wanted to respond to this earlier but didn't have time. Here is a recap of our conversation.


Here is another big problem with your understanding of the Old Testament and the New Testament.

It is a problem that is largely reconciled by knowledgeable Christians by claiming that Jesus represents a new covenant between God and man.

You are mixing New Testament ideas with Old Testament ones.

The ancient Hebrews weren't focused on the afterlife as modern Christian are. There was no distinction between the unjust and just after death. They didn't believe in Heaven as you do, Heaven is a Christian idea.

Certain sects of early Judaism believed that there was nothing after life on earth, your life just ended and that was it. Other sects believed in reincarnation to a certain degree, but it was nothing like the Christian concept of Heaven.

For the ancient Hebrews punishments were meted out in the present life according to a series promises made between man and God.



I disagree. You're viewing the Old Testament and New Testament as if they're exclusive of each other. Comments made in the New Testament by the Scribes and Pharisees, in trying to trap Jesus in his comments, evidence that they believed in and thought about life after death. See the comments about who get's the wife in the seven brothers who had no seed. They also claim lineage through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. There are several comments about him (Abraham) being in Heaven with God.

While commentary in the Old Testament doesn't go into great depth on the "life after death" part of their beliefs, to not include them at all is disingenuous.


You just gave me New Testament references to refute my statement that the Ancient Hebrews held a very different view of the afterlife than Christians.

The passages you are referencing are in Matthew 22 and Mark 12. Since they were written by Christians, they aren't an authoritative source for the belief system of Judaism, past or present.

As far as being disingenuous, go back and read how I characterized what the ancient Jews believed about the afterlife.

Noticed how I mentioned that certain sects believed nothing happened after death, while others believed in resurrection to a certain extent.

There is evidence of this belief in some form of resurrection in the Old Testament. Since you appear to be a lazy Christian, let me help you out.

Here is a list of references in the OT that indicate some ancient Jews believed in some form of afterlife or resurrection:

Job 14:7-15; 19:26; Psa. 16:9-11; 49:14-15; 73:23-26 Isa. 25:8; 53:12, Isa. 26:19; Dan. 12:2, 13; Hos. 13:14

I hope you go read them, but I suspect you won't. If you do, you will find that the references to resurrection are primarily to prophets.

You will not find much about heaven in the Old Testament. The concept of heaven in the New Testament is very much a Christian idea, and not one of ancient Judaism.

If you want, I can point you to some readings from Christian scholars that will help you understand how OT laws were fulfilled by Jesus, thus making heaven possible.

I can even point you to some Christian readings that will help you justify God's repeated use of genocide in the OT, much better than your explanation of, "He had a good reason, that I don't understand." If you want to read it, just ask.

This mean old atheist, actually wants you to read your bible and attain greater knowledge of your religion. I want you to seek it from Christian sources and Christian scholars.

However, the difference between me and your average pastor is that I will encourage you to use your critical thinking skills.