Christians: Why would an all-good God base our salvation from Hell on whether or not we believe in a 2,000-year-old supernatural story?

[Stranger]

 

 

.....What in the actual fuck does that have to do with anything I said?

 

You asked.   I answered.

 

Stranger

 

 

[Stranger]

 

Do you think a father is justified in abusing his own daughter, so long as he's doing it "for her own good"?

 

What would be the 'good'.  What would be the abuse?

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

I'm not going round in circles any more with you today, Stranger.

 

Read the links.

 

Then get back to me with your new understanding.

 

 

 

 

See you tomorrow.

 

Stranger

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

 

Have you read the page on this link yet, Stranger?

 

Not yet.  

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

But all of his points are very important because they expose everything that is wrong in the Bible, demonstrating that it is NOT the "Word of God", but only of men. If you truly knew "the truth" as you claim to, then you would have a response and be able to demonstrate to us how Citsonga's points are wrong.

 

As I said, I am not interested in writing a book.  

 

I could say just as easily, Go read Genesis thru Revelation as that should explain all your doubts.  Then get back with me.   If you say you have read it, then read it again, because you apparently missed it. 

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

Show me the verses that demonstrate that Adam KNEW.  Point to the part of the story where god EXPLAINED.  Do not simply assert it, boy; PROVE IT!

 

I did.  

 

Stranger

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

You are speaking nonsense christianese gibberish.

 

 

If God was going to "feel bad" about making man, but he knew it was going to happen because of "omniscience..." then why do it at all?

 

 

Stranger's assertion that "God feels" reduces his deity to a finite, struggling one. It is not metaphysically ultimate. Stranger needs to go home.

 

Taking off the snark: Stranger can come into a fuller life by starting simply with the reality that we humans all inhabit, and working from there.

[ag_NO_stic]

 

 

You asked.   I answered.

 

Stranger

 

 

 

"What is 2 + 2?" "DRAGON!"

[florduh]

Some people still argue that Christianity is not a cult. I offer in evidence this thread.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Not yet.  

 

Stranger

 

Then can I please have your word that you will do so at your soonest opportunity?

 

Btw, you don't need to be a scientist to understand it.  

The writer has pitched the article for the general public and therefore no specialized knowledge or training is required to understand what is being said.   A high school student could do so.  But, if you need help Stranger, just say so and I will gladly explain.  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[ag_NO_stic]

 

 

Why do it at all?   Because God has purpose in what He is doing.  The flood and destroying man who turned away from Him was part of it.  That was not the end, just a part of the whole.  God did do it correctly.

 

God is patient, kind, and slow to anger.  Read Exodus and Numbers.

 

I am not adding anything.  The word 'kill' there speaks to murder.

 

It means there are those who don't want the truth.    If they don't want the truth God will give them a lie.  And they will believe the lie.   (2Thess. 2: 7-12)

 

Salvation involves more than just being delivered from going to hell.  That is immediate salvation. Then the believer has a walk of salvation in this life being saved from the world, the flesh, and the devil.   In Romans when Paul says we are saved by grace and not works he is speaking to the immediate salvation being delivered from going to hell.  When James speaks of salvation by woks, he is speaking to ones walk of salvation where works are demonstrated.   If you check the two examples that Paul and James give of their salvation, you will see they are different.  Why?  Because the speak of different aspects of salvation.  (Rom. 4:3)   (James 2:21)

 

I did explain it.  

 

I'm not sure the Scriptures you are addressing in your last comment.  And I don't understand your question.

 

Stranger

 

 

 

But if "God did it correctly" then why did "God regret it?" Why would anyone regret anything done correctly?

 

Apparently reading the same books produces very different results. Moses hits a rock and gets "grounded" for 40 years. That is impatient, unkind, and quick to anger.

 

The fact that you say "The word 'kill' speaks to murder" proves my point. God did not say, "Thou shalt not murder" nor did he say, "Thou shalt not kill, and to be clear I'm speaking about murder here." Definition of "kill": "cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing)." 

 

For the record, Stranger, I do not want your ridiculous exegesis of the text and I did not ask for your personal, "fallen" interpretation of the verse. I want you explain why god says "Don't Lie.....unless I compel you to." Do you not see how one could make the argument that any lie came from god?

 

Your salvation bit is a load of horseshit. You are referring to the process of sanctification, not salvation. Sanctification is the christianese word for those who are already "saved" and are being constantly made more righteous though their "walk with god." "Salvation" is defined as "preservation or deliverance from harm, ruin, or loss." What are we being saved from? Your god, specifically hell.  As for the James/Romans contradiction, this is categorically untrue. James and Paul argued with each other off and on through these letters" and they warned believers of each other's theology. The James verse you quoted refutes itself in the verse right before that when it says, "You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?" You took James 2:21 out of context where James is asking incredulously if you think that Abraham was saved by righteousness, a direct contraction with Romans. God is apparently speaking to you through his word, stranger, he called you a fool.

 

No you didn't. You "tried to explain it" and came up short. The verses contradict each other, your opinions don't change the fact.

 

Ah, I'm so glad you asked. I'll rephrase and provide the proper evidence. My question, reworded, is how does "progressive revelation (a word you used)" explain how god changes his opinion on rape and slavery for example? See verses on god's commands to his people and then explain why you don't do the same as obedience to god.

 

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."

Deuteronomy 22:20-21 "20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death."

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 "If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you."

Exodus 22:16-17 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride price for virgins."

 

Leviticus 25:44-45 "And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have — from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property."

Exodus 21:20-21 "“And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property."

 

If this is the first time you've heard these passages, I'd save "Judges 19:25-28" and "Genesis 34" for another time.

[midniterider]

 

Some people still argue that Christianity is not a cult. I offer in evidence this thread.

 

Not that I really like any Christian sales tactics, the uncompromising hard-sell tactic grosses me out. I'm glad though that Stranger is here to remind us all about the crazy of Christianity. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

What would be the 'good'.  What would be the abuse?

 

Stranger

Really?  Does that matter?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

I did.  

 

Stranger

No.  You showed me verses that were written thousands of years later.  The verses I am looking for should be somewhere within the first three chapters of Genesis. Where god actually explains to Adam what death is and that spiritual death is what he really means when he says, "thou shalt surely die".  Are you just pretending to be too thick to understand this because you don't want to admit that god never did explain any of it to Adam?

[Stranger]

 

 

Then can I please have your word that you will do so at your soonest opportunity?

 

Btw, you don't need to be a scientist to understand it.  

The writer has pitched the article for the general public and therefore no specialized knowledge or training is required to understand what is being said.   A high school student could do so.  But, if you need help Stranger, just say so and I will gladly explain.  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

You have been very cordial.  I give you my word I will read it.  Though I do dislike going to links.  I expect if I ask you to read something later, that you will oblige.

 

Stranger

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

You have been very cordial.  I give you my word I will read it.  Though I do dislike going to links.  I expect if I ask you to read something later, that you will oblige.

 

Stranger

 

Indeed I will, Stranger.

 

If you'd like to avoid following the link in question, there are two options open to us.

It should be possible for me to copy-and-paste the full content of that page and post it in this thread.  Then you can read it at your leisure, without having to risk following the link.  Or, I could message the full content to you privately (there should be an envelope symbol for this at the top, right hand corner of your screen) so that you can read it in your own time at home.  Please let me know what suits you.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

[Stranger]

 

 

But if "God did it correctly" then why did "God regret it?" Why would anyone regret anything done correctly?

 

Apparently reading the same books produces very different results. Moses hits a rock and gets "grounded" for 40 years. That is impatient, unkind, and quick to anger.

 

The fact that you say "The word 'kill' speaks to murder" proves my point. God did not say, "Thou shalt not murder" nor did he say, "Thou shalt not kill, and to be clear I'm speaking about murder here." Definition of "kill": "cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing)." 

 

For the record, Stranger, I do not want your ridiculous exegesis of the text and I did not ask for your personal, "fallen" interpretation of the verse. I want you explain why god says "Don't Lie.....unless I compel you to." Do you not see how one could make the argument that any lie came from god?

 

Your salvation bit is a load of horseshit. You are referring to the process of sanctification, not salvation. Sanctification is the christianese word for those who are already "saved" and are being constantly made more righteous though their "walk with god." "Salvation" is defined as "preservation or deliverance from harm, ruin, or loss." What are we being saved from? Your god, specifically hell.  As for the James/Romans contradiction, this is categorically untrue. James and Paul argued with each other off and on through these letters" and they warned believers of each other's theology. The James verse you quoted refutes itself in the verse right before that when it says, "You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?" You took James 2:21 out of context where James is asking incredulously if you think that Abraham was saved by righteousness, a direct contraction with Romans. God is apparently speaking to you through his word, stranger, he called you a fool.

 

No you didn't. You "tried to explain it" and came up short. The verses contradict each other, your opinions don't change the fact.

 

Ah, I'm so glad you asked. I'll rephrase and provide the proper evidence. My question, reworded, is how does "progressive revelation (a word you used)" explain how god changes his opinion on rape and slavery for example? See verses on god's commands to his people and then explain why you don't do the same as obedience to god.

 

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."

Deuteronomy 22:20-21 "20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death."

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 "If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you."

Exodus 22:16-17 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride price for virgins."

 

Leviticus 25:44-45 "And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have — from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property."

Exodus 21:20-21 "“And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property."

 

If this is the first time you've heard these passages, I'd save "Judges 19:25-28" and "Genesis 34" for another time.

 

Just because God feels doesn't mean He didn't do it correctly.  God gave His Son as a sacrifice.   He felt it.   But it was the correct decision.  

 

Apparently you didn't read what I asked.  I will get back with you later and show you what you missed.

 

For the record, you asked.  I explained giving you Scripture.   Which you now say you don't want.   God gives a lying spirit to lying prophets to speak to those who want a lie.   

 

Again, you ignore the salvation that James and Paul are addressing.  The examples they give of that salvation show the salvation they speak of.  Do I have to show the examples also or are they not plain to see?   I gave you the verses.  Do you not see the difference.?

 

There is no contradiction in (Gal. 6:2-6).  Unless you just want to see one.  

 

God has not changed concerning rape or slavery.  Where do you see God has changed?

 

Stranger

 

 

[Stranger]

 

Really?  Does that matter?

 

Perhaps I have a daughter of 4 to 8 years old.    She is disobedient in public.  I spank her.  I don't beat her.  I spank her with a swat.   Guess what?  To many I am an abusive father to my daughter.  

 

Yes it matters.

 

Stranger

[LogicalFallacy]

 

This thread is degenerating into territory known all too well from other threads. A succession of assertions cum Bible verses becomes a waste of time.

 

Yep, I was thinking that. There is either an inability to properly discuss the points raised, or he simply doesn't want to. Or possibly both.

 

We can't even get past the "go" mark which is don't engage in circular reasoning.

 

When presented with a problem from the bible, Stranger says that not so because the bible!

[LogicalFallacy]

 

 

Well, isn't your entire argument that God didn't do it?

 

God of the Bible is not the god or gods of the Canaanites. (Deut. 7:1-6, 16)

 

Stranger

 

No. That is the end conclusion of my argument. I look at all the evidence, look at the claims of the bible, look at arguments for and against, and conclude god didn't do it. On the other hand you start your argument that god did it. THAT is your argument. Trust you can see the difference?

 

You are 'proving' god of the bible is not derived from the Canaanite gods because the bible that says such says so? We have a name for this kind of reasoning, I have pointed it out many times.... what kind of reasoning do you think you just engaged in?

[Stranger]

 

No.  You showed me verses that were written thousands of years later.  The verses I am looking for should be somewhere within the first three chapters of Genesis. Where god actually explains to Adam what death is and that spiritual death is what he really means when he says, "thou shalt surely die".  Are you just pretending to be too thick to understand this because you don't want to admit that god never did explain any of it to Adam?

 

I showed you verses that Adam knew he would die.   I showed you verses that showed Adam knew redemption was promised by God.   How much Adam knew of body, soul, and spirit, is immaterial.   I believe in Adams unfallen state he knew it all.  

 

We know, due to further revelation of God, that death involved body, soul, and spirit.   Adam knew as much as he needed to know about death.  He knew he would die.  He knew he would go back to the ground from which he came.   He knew he would be redeemed.  

 

Stranger

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

 

As I said, I am not interested in writing a book.  

 

I could say just as easily, Go read Genesis thru Revelation as that should explain all your doubts.  Then get back with me.   If you say you have read it, then read it again, because you apparently missed it. 

 

Stranger

 

For your information, I have read the entire Bible multiple times in two different translations. I also did a lot of other reading and studying that wasn't straight-through, and I also memorized a lot of passages, including three whole books of the Bible. I was so brainwashed (just like you are now) that it took a long time, but studying the Bible is precisely what ended up making me see that there really are serious problems with the Bible.

 

I spelled out many of those problems in detail in the posts that you're completely ignoring. I wouldn't be surprised if you were either too afraid or too lazy to even read what I posted. Perhaps both?

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

 

But all of his points are very important because they expose everything that is wrong in the Bible, demonstrating that it is NOT the "Word of God", but only of men. If you truly knew "the truth" as you claim to, then you would have a response and be able to demonstrate to us how Citsonga's points are wrong.

 

Very true, except that I didn't cover everything that's wrong with the Bible. There is more.

 

[Stranger]

 

 

No. That is the end conclusion of my argument. I look at all the evidence, look at the claims of the bible, look at arguments for and against, and conclude god didn't do it. On the other hand you start your argument that god did it. THAT is your argument. Trust you can see the difference?

 

You are 'proving' god of the bible is not derived from the Canaanite gods because the bible that says such says so? We have a name for this kind of reasoning, I have pointed it out many times.... what kind of reasoning do you think you just engaged in?

 

I doubt it.   I believe you start with 'God didn't do it'.   Then you proceed. No one starts with an unbias.   I don't.   And neither do you, or anyone else.  

 

The Bible is what I believe.   I have a name for your kind of reasoning also.  Do you want to hear it?

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

For your information, I have read the entire Bible multiple times in two different translations. I also did a lot of other reading and studying that wasn't straight-through, and I also memorized a lot of passages, including three whole books of the Bible. I was so brainwashed (just like you are now) that it took a long time, but studying the Bible is precisely what ended up making me see that there really are serious problems with the Bible.

 

I spelled out many of those problems in detail in the posts that you're completely ignoring. I wouldn't be surprised if you were either too afraid or too lazy to even read what I posted. Perhaps both?

 

 

Well, as I said, read it again.  Cause you must have missed it.  

 

Again, I am not interested in writing or reading a book.   If you have something you can produce in a brief form, then do so.  I will respond.    

 

Usually voluminous material is given as a 'smokescreen' .  Makes one appear knowledgeable when they are not.   Is this all your writing?   Or is this a copy of something?    Do you even know what it says?  Google makes Einsteins of many.  

 

Stranger

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

 

 

I doubt it.   I believe you start with God didn't do it.   Then you proceed. No one starts with an unbias.   I don't.   And neither do you, or anyone else.  

 

The Bible is what I believe.   I have a name for your kind of reasoning also.  Do you want to hear it?

 

Stranger

 

Sure what is it?

 

You, my dear sir, can believe whatever you like. That is your right. However it doesn't mean your belief is true.

 

I started with the belief in god... for 32 years in fact. That was my bias... and it frustrates me to say you remind me very much of me when I was a Christian.

 

Everyone has biases, that is true, so once aware of what biases are one can take steps to eliminate, as far as possible, the effect biases has on ones beliefs. So I start from one major presupposition, something I consider true even though I can't prove it. I believe the reality we live in an experience is real. That is my one starting point for any belief. I don't believe we are in a matrix, I don't think we are brains in a vat. The reality you and I experience is real.

 

This is where we now differ. You say look, reality, ah ha god did it. And you need no evidence of such. I look, and say look, reality, here are claims in a book I used to believe, but they don't match up to reality - which therefore is true? And because my starting position is reality is real, I err on the side of reality is correct until it can be shown otherwise.