The Specious Love Of God

[mwc]

in the first part of the sentence, it says the Lord was angry with isreal. so i don't think they were innocent, which leads me to believe he was testing david, and was going to punish them anyway. think about it, he knew what david would do before he even did it.

Okay. I'm not going to put all the verses. Just the ones to help move things along (even though it's still a lot):

2 Samuel

So, as we know David orders the census because god or Satan moves him to do so.

 

24:10 Now David's heart troubled him after * he had numbered the people . So David said to the LORD, "I have sinned greatly in what I have done . But now, O LORD, please take away the iniquity of Your servant, for I have acted very foolishly."

...

24:12

"Go and speak to David, 'Thus the LORD says, "I am offering you three things; choose for yourself one of them, which I will do to you.""'

 

24:13 So Gad came to David and told him, and said to him, "Shall seven years of famine come to you in your land ? Or will you flee three months before your foes while they pursue you? Or shall there be three days' pestilence in your land ? Now consider and see what answer I shall return to Him who sent me."

 

God offers three options to David for his "crime." Strangely, only one (the option to flee) is the only real option that is personal (ie. David could bear on his own).

 

24:14 Then David said to Gad, "I am in great distress . Let us now fall into the hand of the LORD for His mercies are great , but do not let me fall into the hand of man."

 

The mighty David can't decide which punishment to choose other than he doesn't want to be captured by anyone.

 

24:15 So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning until the appointed time, and seventy thousand men of the people from Dan to Beersheba died.

 

24:16 When the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD relented from the calamity and said to the angel who destroyed the people , "It is enough ! Now relax your hand !" And the angel of the LORD was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.

 

God killed 70,000 men (there's no mass graves dating to that period but the bible says it happened so it must have) but when it was Jerusalem's turn he'd had enough and called it off.

 

24:17 Then David spoke to the LORD when he saw the angel who was striking down the people , and said, "Behold, it is I who have sinned, and it is I who have done wrong ; but these sheep, what have they done ? Please let Your hand be against me and against my father's house."

 

David can see the injustice with god killing the men of Israel for HIS crime and questions god about it.

...

[Gad tells David to build an alter and offer sacrifices on the threshing floor of Araunah.]

 

24:25 David built there an altar to the LORD and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings. Thus the LORD was moved by prayer for the land, and the plague was held back from Israel.

 

And it all ends.

So the sequence of events is pretty typical. God is pissed. He makes David do something he shouldn't do. David is sorry. God punishes a bunch of people. The person who did the crime, David, makes ammends but is not punished. The punishment ends. How is that fair? This plays out in similar ways time and again throughout the bible. As someone else pointed out David gets away with this kind of thing more than once (his own baby pays the price for example).

 

i am sorry you look at his judgement this way, if you are to believe him to be the creator, then he has the authority to judge.

One does not follow the other.

 

mwc

[freeday]

So the sequence of events is pretty typical. God is pissed. He makes David do something he shouldn't do. David is sorry. God punishes a bunch of people. The person who did the crime, David, makes ammends but is not punished. The punishment ends. How is that fair? This plays out in similar ways time and again throughout the bible. As someone else pointed out David gets away with this kind of thing more than once (his own baby pays the price for example).

 

i am sorry you look at his judgement this way, if you are to believe him to be the creator, then he has the authority to judge.

One does not follow the other.

 

mwc

God did not cause david to do wrong, he was capable of choosing right or wrong, God permitted david to pursue his sinful choice, satan was the immediate temptation behind davids decision.

 

in thier culture the tradition was were the head of a family, tribe or nation represented the people under them. the members where treated as a whole, sharing in the blessings or punishments resulting from the actions of their leaders. it may have been isreals sin that led to david's sin. the Lord was angry at isreal before david was inticed to take a census. which is why i believe this plague was put upon the nation. although david's sin deserved personal punishment, his death might have been worse for the nation than the plague. political turmoil could have brought invading armies that owuld have killed even more people. in the end david suffered remorse and repented, God forgave him and intervened to spare jerusalem. i don't think it is accurate to say the people died for david's sin alone.

[Mythra]

in the first one, it says God is angry at the people, the second says satan has caused the reason for the first one. the latter part of the sentence i will work backwards, satan intices david to number, and the Lord is moving david against the people because he is angry with them.

 

C'mon Grinchy. You should know by now that in order to properly understand the Bible, you have to accurately interpret the passages that aren't there.

[Vigile]

And there shall come a day, when light shall shine upon their heads. And they shall be retards no more. - Fwee-sixteen

 

But low, the light of reason has shineth upon many. Yea, but many are too thick to see. So shall it be that they are destined to bear the scarlet F upon their breasts and shall surely be known as fools.

Vigile 3:16

[DanInPA]

"You can lead a Christian to rational thought, but you can't make them think."

 

 

 

I need that on a bumper sticker, magnet and T-shirt!

[mwc]

God did not cause david to do wrong, he was capable of choosing right or wrong, God permitted david to pursue his sinful choice, satan was the immediate temptation behind davids decision.

You're right. I don't know where I got my idea from:

24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

 

The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon:

to incite, allure, instigate, entice

1. (Hiphil)

1. to incite (to a request)

2. to allure, lure

3. to instigate (bad sense)

I guess when god incites, lures or instigates you to something and you refuse it only good things will come of it.

 

in thier culture the tradition was were the head of a family, tribe or nation represented the people under them. the members where treated as a whole, sharing in the blessings or punishments resulting from the actions of their leaders. it may have been isreals sin that led to david's sin. the Lord was angry at isreal before david was inticed to take a census. which is why i believe this plague was put upon the nation. although david's sin deserved personal punishment, his death might have been worse for the nation than the plague. political turmoil could have brought invading armies that owuld have killed even more people. in the end david suffered remorse and repented, God forgave him and intervened to spare jerusalem. i don't think it is accurate to say the people died for david's sin alone.

To address your point directly we can see god was angry at the people. Did he punish the people? No. He could have just brought the plague but he didn't. So what happened? He compounded the problem by leading David into temptation. Of course another thread that you waled out of said that god doesn't do that. Your "out" here shows that god/Satan are involved in this game. Equals in this crime. So another sin is done. God gets his "wish" and Israel is punished for whatever "sin" he was angry and them for (the bible doesn't say so it's all just speculation...god is just angry for no reason at all like the dick he is). Now. IS DAVID PUNISHED FOR HIS SIN? You assumed, and that's the key phrase here, that Israel did something to piss of god because he's angry but the bible is silent (in 2 Samuel...I didn't read the other passage). We KNOW David did something wrong because the bible spells out that something and we KNOW David is sorry and we KNOW is wants to be punished and we KNOW he never is. He sins and gets away with it. That's the point. Should you be able to "sin" and have your mother/father/spouse/dog whatever take the punishment? Is that fair? Are you the kind of ass that would let that happen? David was clearly upset by this but god didn't care. All god cared about that David gave that offering. That's it. As long as god got his. He killed 70,000 men so David would "get the message." They were fodder. So how many will die if some day god decides freeday isn't "getting the message?" One? Two? Ten? A hundred? You're not that important? You might be surprised. Then what? Once you worship and "get it" Will you care or like all the rest of "god's fodder" in the OT will you praise god and forget those people ever existed? Because even though David was upset he sacrificed, the plague ended with him as the "hero" and the book ends. Yay! Never mind the crying widows and children and families out there with the dead men that "proved that point" to David that he should kiss god's ass or else (with the or else being more innocents will die).

 

So, as a nation, we should be punished for a errors of our leaders? Bush is doing some not so good things so better to bring on the plagues than take him out of the way (just vote him out even). The whole each man paying for his own sins concept only applies sometimes? When and where is it applied? What are the rules to this? Are the rulers and countries judged en masse and on down through states and counties until you get to individuals? So my wife (and children if we had any) can be punished for me but since she's my property I'm not punished for her (and likewise and children)? If this is true then the people of Iraq deserve to be punished for the "sins" of Saddam. We shouldn't be trying to help them (as badly as that effort is going) but we should be trying to make sure that they pay for his "sins" against humanity. This is the logic being employed is it not?

 

But you said culture so the rules change so I can be punished for the sins of my wife and children now. In our modern culture we don't believe that our "king" is above the law...even though he very much acts like it and gets away with it. The facts are in our culture we don't believe that we should be punished because our leaders "sin." We don't believe that "might makes right." We don't believe these tribal rules. Many of the very things that give god his powers we no longer believe in. Since you have argued the fluidity of the laws based on cultural beliefs then you have argued the laws are effectively become nullified by our modern standards.

 

mwc

[Bluescreen]

mwc - Excellently put!

 

freeday - No, freeday, being the creator does not give one a right to judge any way they like. Arguably, the only right conferred is the right to judge JUSTLY. Is it just to punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty?

 

Note the language of 2 Samuel 24:10 - 24:13. The language there makes it clear that the slaughter of the 70,000 Israelites is punishment for DAVID'S sin of taking the census. There is no mention whatsoever of it being for the unspecified sin of the people that pissed off god in the other section. Your speculation that the angel of death's killing spree was really a punishment of the people isn't supported by the text itself.

 

If god's killing the people for their own sin, he sure could've been more clear about it - how would the people know why they are being punished and what they should stop doing if it looks like they're getting butchered because the king decided to count them? After all, the Bible indicates that when god punishes his own people, it's "chastisement" intended to purify them and make them stop doing evil.

 

in thier culture the tradition was were the head of a family, tribe or nation represented the people under them. the members where treated as a whole, sharing in the blessings or punishments resulting from the actions of their leaders. it may have been isreals sin that led to david's sin. the Lord was angry at isreal before david was inticed to take a census. which is why i believe this plague was put upon the nation. although david's sin deserved personal punishment, his death might have been worse for the nation than the plague. political turmoil could have brought invading armies that owuld have killed even more people. in the end david suffered remorse and repented, God forgave him and intervened to spare jerusalem. i don't think it is accurate to say the people died for david's sin alone.

 

Yet more speculation, and an accidental nugget of truth. You just hit the old "collective society" idea, that the group could be punished for the crimes of the leader. Nowadays, we find this concept to be utterly abhorrent - we think that the guilty man should be punished for his OWN crime, not his family, not his neighbor, and not his town. When a city mayor takes a bribe, we put HIM in jail, we don't lock up the rest of the city. Get it? But 4000 years ago, people thought that the collective model was fair. So shit like the people being punished for David's sin or the Egyptians suffering for Pharao's evil in the plagues makes perfect sense... if the Bible is written by men and Yahweh is just another mythical deity.

[freeday]

mwc - Excellently put!

 

freeday - No, freeday, being the creator does not give one a right to judge any way they like. Arguably, the only right conferred is the right to judge JUSTLY. Is it just to punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty?

 

Note the language of 2 Samuel 24:10 - 24:13. The language there makes it clear that the slaughter of the 70,000 Israelites is punishment for DAVID'S sin of taking the census. There is no mention whatsoever of it being for the unspecified sin of the people that pissed off god in the other section. Your speculation that the angel of death's killing spree was really a punishment of the people isn't supported by the text itself.

 

If god's killing the people for their own sin, he sure could've been more clear about it - how would the people know why they are being punished and what they should stop doing if it looks like they're getting butchered because the king decided to count them? After all, the Bible indicates that when god punishes his own people, it's "chastisement" intended to purify them and make them stop doing evil.

 

in thier culture the tradition was were the head of a family, tribe or nation represented the people under them. the members where treated as a whole, sharing in the blessings or punishments resulting from the actions of their leaders. it may have been isreals sin that led to david's sin. the Lord was angry at isreal before david was inticed to take a census. which is why i believe this plague was put upon the nation. although david's sin deserved personal punishment, his death might have been worse for the nation than the plague. political turmoil could have brought invading armies that owuld have killed even more people. in the end david suffered remorse and repented, God forgave him and intervened to spare jerusalem. i don't think it is accurate to say the people died for david's sin alone.

 

Yet more speculation, and an accidental nugget of truth. You just hit the old "collective society" idea, that the group could be punished for the crimes of the leader. Nowadays, we find this concept to be utterly abhorrent - we think that the guilty man should be punished for his OWN crime, not his family, not his neighbor, and not his town. When a city mayor takes a bribe, we put HIM in jail, we don't lock up the rest of the city. Get it? But 4000 years ago, people thought that the collective model was fair. So shit like the people being punished for David's sin or the Egyptians suffering for Pharao's evil in the plagues makes perfect sense... if the Bible is written by men and Yahweh is just another mythical deity.

 

you are very right, we live in a society that is very individualized, the person pays for the crime. but the point i was making, was in thier society, members were treated as a whole, ussually represented by one higher individual.

[SkepticOfBible]

 

in the first part of the sentence, it says the Lord was angry with isreal. so i don't think they were innocent, which leads me to believe he was testing david, and was going to punish them anyway. think about it, he knew what david would do before he even did it.

 

i am sorry you look at his judgement this way, if you are to believe him to be the creator, then he has the authority to judge.

 

But satan is not doing anything on his own, is he?

 

God asked David to number the levitical priest so that he could punish Isreal Num 1:49,Num 26:62, 1 Chron 21 . If David did not take the census, God had no reason to punish Isreal.

 

God willed that David take a census and used Satan to deliver the divine mandate which caused David to sin. Satan isn't even in the responsibility loop here.

 

God willed it, Satan delivered it, and David did it.

 

God willed that an evil act be performed via David.

 

So where is satan working outside his jurisdiction?

 

also from

 

Let's Take A Look At Satan

 

Of course, Christian apologists will claim that it was David who committed the sin, so God's hands are clean.

However, the Bible elsewhere states that David had always done what was right in the eyes of the Lord all the days of his life, except in one matter(adultery) which is unrelated to this census issue:

 

1 Kings 15:5

Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.

 

If, as this verse proclaims, David obeyed God and did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord and turned not aside from any thing that God commanded him, except in one matter unrelated to the census, then he did not sin in the matter of the census. David was manipulated by God to "sin" when David ordered an improper census.

 

And if he sinned by carrying out God's will, what do you suppose would have happened if he had disobeyed and decided not to take a census?

 

As 2 Sam 24:10-15 shows, the Bible God then sinks deeper into psychosis by offering David three "options" of punishment for his "sin". David turns the decision over to God after declaring that he doesn't want to fall into the hands of men and God proceeds to kill 70,000 people by using a plague on them.

 

The Bible God has incited a man to do his bidding, then establishes that by following his instructions, the man has sinned. God then exterminates 70,000 innocent people for the "sin" of a man who was following God's instructions in the first place. This is the same God Christians claim is all holy, all righteous, all loving, who cannot tolerate sin, deserving of all praise and worship, and who holds the moral high ground of the universe. These same Christians chirp about how loving their God is, while decrying Satan as the epitome of "evil" who is responsible for all the ills of mankind and the world.

 

In light of the behavior demonstrated by God and not by Satan, it would be hard to find a verse more absurd than the following often quoted verse used by Christians to inspire their faith in God:

Eph 6:11

Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil(Satan).

 

In reality, the evidence from the Bible indicates that it's God who is the schemer and not Satan.

 

This is the type of theological swamp in which Christianity has laid it's foundations . The next time you hear a Christian attempt to tap dance around these types of disturbing issues relating to their God and their arch enemy Satan, the response should be: If you really believe the Bible is the word of a God worthy of your worship, then you're stuck with exactly the type God you deserve.

 

was in thier society, members were treated as a whole, ussually represented by one higher individual.

 

So whatever happened to the system of justice that was established by this god

 

Ezek 18:20-22

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

 

That says it all, doesn't it. God pretty much violated his rules that he setup for his people.

[mwc]

you are very right, we live in a society that is very individualized, the person pays for the crime. but the point i was making, was in thier society, members were treated as a whole, ussually represented by one higher individual.

And rather than avoid the issue let's meet it head on. If our leaders do something wrong today. If they "sin" against "god" in some horrible fashion (I'm not even going to speculate as to what but something BIG). Should the leader ALONE be punished by god OR should the leader be held aside while while the people of the country are punished? In our specific case if President Bush did something so sinful should god punish Bush and Bush alone or should Bush watch, but nothing happen to him, as the people of the United States suffer as god punishes them until Bush makes ammends to god? Which is justice based on your quote above?

 

mwc

[Bluescreen]

<stares at freeday's response in stunned silence at the utter lack of comprehension>

<sound of forehead slamming into keyboard in frustration>

 

You still haven't answered my question of how punishing the people as a whole for the sins of one man is fair and loving, Freeday. Hell, if anything, it's the exact opposite of Jesus suffering for the sins of the world! Hmm... so Yahweh can't make up his mind if he'd rather punish one person to save the many, or punish the many to spare the one....

[freeday]

skeptic: i think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

blue screen: that was thier culture, not ours. but a good example of it would be. everyone blames bush for the war on iraq, but the people are to blame for electing him, which put him in a position to make the decision to go to war. so should we be punished or should he be punished. wether you agree with his policy, it is us who elected him to represent us.

[Dhampir]

that was thier culture, not ours

So you admit that the cultural constructs of the time influenced the scripture?

 

everyone blames bush for the war on iraq, but the people are to blame for electing him, which put him in a position to make the decision to go to war.

Absolutely not. We are not responsible for Bush's actions (and by we I mean the people that voted for him, as I certainly wasn't one of them), as those voters could not have known about the events that would come to pass. Responsible for him, yes, but that is punishment in itself with the obvious course of taking action based on that, and we are in no way responsible for Iraq.

[freeday]

that was thier culture, not ours

So you admit that the cultural constructs of the time influenced the scripture?

 

not sure i would say the culture affected the scripture, just how God dealt with them.

 

everyone blames bush for the war on iraq, but the people are to blame for electing him, which put him in a position to make the decision to go to war.

Absolutely not. We are not responsible for Bush's actions (and by we I mean the people that voted for him, as I certainly wasn't one of them), as those voters could not have known about the events that would come to pass. Responsible for him, yes, but that is punishment in itself with the obvious course of taking action based on that, and we are in no way responsible for Iraq.

 

not the greatest exp. but the best i could think of at the time. but yet we are the ones being punished for his decision. it is the people who are going over and fighting and dieing, for his desicion. and we are the people who elected him to make the decision and represent us. it is a circular argument.

[Dhampir]

this is talking about our deservedness to be punished, for our choice, and whether or not the punishment is a conscious one. We don't deserve punishment, but we are being punished nonetheless, in an unconscious way, by the events that proceed out from our initial one. God consciously punished the people, so the situation is defininely not the same.

[crazy-tiger]

how could i prove that God loves you, i can't prove God's existence nor can i prove he loves you. you just have to have faith. but if you even believe the first sentence of the bible, why would a higher power create something he didn't care about. when i was in college, i made potery, when i made a particularly good peice, i was very proud of it. i won't say i love it, but you get the point.

Ever played The Sims? I can guarantee that just about everyone will have created a Sim, then proceeded to see how they could kill it...

 

So, yes... a higher power CAN create something that it doesn't care about. (and before you start on about the whole "but humans aren't god" just remember that we were made in his image and after eating from the tree of knowledge, humans gained the only thing that made us mentally different from God... the knowledge of right and wrong. If humans with the mentality of God can do that, SO CAN GOD!)

 

 

*waits for someone to try to prove Genesis wrong...*

actually they made a great movie about it. if you have faith in Jesus, it really shows you how much he loves us. you may have heard of it, it is the 10th highest grossing movie ever, subject to change, depending on what pirates does.

Yes, it was a very interesting gore flick... If you have faith in Jesus, it shows just how sick you are...

 

 

 

On one further note, and I know it's late... why do some christians try to remove the laws and events in the OT from the Bible? According to their beliefs, Jesus was the result of all the garbage in the OT and without the OT you just have some poor shmuck who got himself crucified by the Romans.

 

Get the message will you... Drop the OT and your religion has no basis... and Jesus had no reason at all to be crucified to save us.

 

i can't prove God is Love. it states it in the bible, and i have fiath that it is the word of God. so i believe it to be true.

The Bible also states that God is Jealous...

 

 

So, jealous and love... the kind of combination that results in rabbits being boiled...

[SkepticOfBible]

skeptic: i think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

That's ok

 

But I see you did not show me any verse from the Old testament to support that Satan is adversory of the Hebrew God.

[Checkmate]

skeptic: i think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

That's ok.

Sorry Skeptic, but it is NOT "ok". I refuse to allow yet another Christian to bail out of a discussion THAT THEY HAVE LOST, with this "we must agree to disagree" cop-out.

 

freeday, YOU LOST the debate/discussion. You just lack the decency to admit that you've been skunked. And THIS is why I hate Christians. We skeptics bring MOUNTAINS of evidence to support our position, thus proving our argument. You Christians bring NOTHING to support yours. And then when you've been buried and overwhelmed with our logic, you retreat from the battlefield claiming a "draw."

 

(Much like the "Black Knight" in Monty Python and the Holy Grail™. King Arthur: "Look you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "I've had worse!" Then once Arthur has rendered the Black Knight a quadrapalegic, the Knight says, "Alright, we'll call it a draw." )

 

freeday, YOU LOST. You have LOST every single point and discussion you have had on these boards. YOU ARE A LOSER. NOT proving your case, while the other sides DOES, is the very definition of LOSING.

 

Now, why don't you show some integrity and just admit it? Stop adding LIAR to your distinguished resume.

[freeday]

skeptic: i think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

That's ok

 

But I see you did not show me any verse from the Old testament to support that Satan is adversory of the Hebrew God.

 

 

i don't think there is a verse that specifically says that. in job God says Job is blameless and upright. why, because he fears God and shuns evil (satan). so God agreed with his actions.

 

also in gen 3, he says to the serpant (satan) "cursed are you above all"

 

both are implied statements, but i think it provides a convincing arguement that God and Satan are advisaries. but have a strange relationship to say the least. as the discussion above, God can use satan, he can limit his powers as in Job. or can simply cast him away as Jesus ran out many evil spirits. but even Satan recognizes his authority.

[Antlerman]

And don't say that the 70,000 people weren't innocent - David himself admits they were innocent and he was guilty. See 2 Samuel 24:17. The jerk offers his innocent family up to be punished with him as a bonus. What a great king.

 

Incidentally, don't forget that this isn't the first time that Yahweh lets David off the hook for doing something bad - David murders Uriah and takes his wife, Bathsheba. Then Yahweh kills their innocent son years later as punishment for *David's* murder. Thus, the dead kid is slapped with capital punishment, David gets away with sin again. A sin that he never made an offering to atone for (check 2 Samuel 12:1 - 12:22).

 

Hey! In rereading the Uriah/Bathsheba story, it's worse than I thought. The reason given for the little kid's death is that David's wicked act "has given the enemies of the LORD great opportunity to despise and blaspheme Him, so your child will die." (2 Samuel 12:13) So no one seems to give a shit that Uriah was murdered, Yahweh's just pissed that David made him look bad. Nice!

 

So Freeday, how is this loving or just?

I think the problem with modern fundamentalists, is they are too far removed from the original cultural mindset to really adhere to the original believers views of God. If they simply accepted these texts as being a factual, literal representation of how the believers really in fact did believe, then shape their understandings of justice and truth today backwards into this desert people's mindset from 3000 years ago instead of trying to explain these notions of God in the light of today's notions of God, they wouldn't seem nearly so ridiculous and intellectually dishonest.

 

Instead of pulling our hair out at how silly their trying to make ancient ideas of God fit into our modern values is, they should just say this is what God really is like today too. Then we could just call them crazy for actually believing this primitive tribal mindset. Of course, the reason they make the excuses instead, is because they know it doesn't square with their own values of today's culture, yet don't want to admit the whole book is about man's ideas of God, rather than God's direct truth about himself to us.

 

That's the whole problem, believing the bible is God's word, versus believing it's man's word about their ideas of a God.

[ricky18]

Couldn't god have just converted the infants and pagans instead of killing them.Glorifying himself above other gods was all man needed to repent to him, but he chooses not to so that peopl so may go to hell. He loves us enough to die for us,to make us believe.yet we dont. would have been easier if all knew for sure he was god. Sometimes i think that its destined that there should be rejecters of the faith so that god might receive glori. if all accepted the faith there would be know fun. How can u test ur children and condemn them if they failed. Is a stupid test more in portant then our eternal souls. How is that love. Is a stupid test more important then god's sons (jesus) life. Where is the love?

[mwc]

Okay, so since the choice was made to not address my message (and, yes, it was a conscience choice) I'll go ahead and finish up my thoughts. Freeday knows his argument all comes down to culteral relativism and that's not a good place to end up if you're him. That means god's rules and judgements change according to the culture. So, back in David's day he judged the "group" for the (mis)deeds of the leader. Today, he should judge the leader alone. The tap dancing on the issue shows he can't reconcile the problems with this.

 

But this raises all sorts of other problems. Taking slaves is out but homosexuality is (almost) in. God's rules in the bible did not change but the culture did. So we can either take up slavery and denounce gays, to be back on the side of god, or god can "go with the flow" and accept our ways and judge us accordingly. Of course the gay issue is just the obvious example but there are others that have been offered up. It has changed in the past and it will change again in the future.

 

God is simply a "mirror" that reflects our ideal self back on to ourselves. Is it any wonder it changes? This is why there is so much disparity between what god is in the written word and what god is in peoples minds.

 

mwc

[RankStranger]

This is for you, Freeday- since it looks like you've put the Grinch on your ignore list:

 

skeptic: i think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

That's ok.

Sorry Skeptic, but it is NOT "ok". I refuse to allow yet another Christian to bail out of a discussion THAT THEY HAVE LOST, with this "we must agree to disagree" cop-out.

 

freeday, YOU LOST the debate/discussion. You just lack the decency to admit that you've been skunked. And THIS is why I hate Christians. We skeptics bring MOUNTAINS of evidence to support our position, thus proving our argument. You Christians bring NOTHING to support yours. And then when you've been buried and overwhelmed with our logic, you retreat from the battlefield claiming a "draw."

 

(Much like the "Black Knight" in Monty Python and the Holy Grail™. King Arthur: "Look you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "I've had worse!" Then once Arthur has rendered the Black Knight a quadrapalegic, the Knight says, "Alright, we'll call it a draw." )

 

freeday, YOU LOST. You have LOST every single point and discussion you have had on these boards. YOU ARE A LOSER. NOT proving your case, while the other sides DOES, is the very definition of LOSING.

 

Now, why don't you show some integrity and just admit it? Stop adding LIAR to your distinguished resume.

 

 

Couldn't god have just converted the infants and pagans instead of killing them.Glorifying himself above other gods was all man needed to repent to him, but he chooses not to so that peopl so may go to hell. He loves us enough to die for us,to make us believe.yet we dont. would have been easier if all knew for sure he was god. Sometimes i think that its destined that there should be rejecters of the faith so that god might receive glori. if all accepted the faith there would be know fun. How can u test ur children and condemn them if they failed. Is a stupid test more in portant then our eternal souls. How is that love. Is a stupid test more important then god's sons (jesus) life. Where is the love?

 

Ricky- Why does he need animal sacrifices all through the old testament? Why did Gawd have to kill himself to save us from himself? Why must we practice figurative ritualistic cannibalism to be in Gawd's good graces? I'll tell you why- God LOVES blood and gore. I can't tell you why... who am I to ponder the mind of Gawd?

[SkepticOfBible]

Freeday,

 

In Hermeneutic, the science and art of biblical interpretation, theologans are taught the fundamentals of interpreting a text

 

The passage or words must be studied in context.

 

The first context is the material that immediately precedes and follows the passage under consideration. "A text without a context is a pretext."

 

[Rev. E.P.] Barrows stated, "To interpret without regard to the context is to interpret at random; to interpret contrary to the context is to teach falsehood for truth" (Barrows, Companion to the Bible, 531). [barrows, a professor of theology at Oberlin Seminary, wrote in 1868.]

 

Do you agree with the above?

 

If you do, please practice it.

 

I don't think there is a verse that specifically says that.

However there is verse which says the complete opposite

 

also in gen 3, he says to the serpant (satan) "cursed are you above all"

Where does Genesis 3 mention about Satan? Where does it say anywhere in the Old testament that the talking servant in the garden of Eden was Satan?

 

in job God says Job is blameless and upright. why, because he fears God and shuns evil (satan). so God agreed with his actions.

 

Where does it say Job resisted the Satan?.

 

It is god who offered Job for the test. Not once but twice.

 

It is god who sets the parameter of the test, not Satan. Satan follows the guidelines which God gave to him

 

It is God that gives permission for Satan to begin the torment of Job: Job 1:12

 

Please show me one instance in the book of Job(or the entire OT) where Satan disobeys a command from God

 

Oh btw, read Job carefully?

 

Job 1:6-7

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

 

Why would the rebelious angel,who was cast down from heaven, present himself to God, just like the other faithful angels? Where is the rebellion here?

 

You asserted that Gen 3 talks about Satan, however here the no mention that a talking serpent also presented himself before God. Satan says he has been roaming the earth, going back and forth in it. This would have taken a great deal of time if Satan was crawling on his belly, occasionally stopping from time to time to eat some dust. In other words, there is no reason to believe that God EVER cursed Satan with the same curse that he used on the talking serpent in the Garden of Eden.

 

Here is the Jewish position on Satan.

 

http://whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation07.html

 

The Satan is described in only a few places in the Hebrew Scriptures. In every instance, he is an angel who works FOR God, not against God, and must get permission from God for everything that he does. Chronicles, Job, Psalms, and Zechariah are the only places where The Satan is mentioned. In each instance, the job description of The Satan is to act like what we now call a Prosecuting Attorney, or District Attorney, and accuse and show evidence against the defendant. Furthermore, like a D.A., The Satan must obtain permission from God, The Judge, to begin a sting operation.

 

In the following quotation from the Biblical Book of Job, please take note of who is doing the talking, as The Satan asks God for permission to conduct a sting operation against Job:[Job 2:3-6]

 

.......

 

In the above verses, The Satan must get permission from God to perform this "sting operation" on Job. The Satan has no power or authority of his own, like a District Attorney who must also obtain permission from The Judge for anything he does.

 

Furthermore, the Biblical text paints this same picture of the Satan, when it uses the character of The Satan in what appears to be the end of a court scene. In the following two quotations, The Satan is standing near the accused like the D.A. stands at the end of a court drama on television.

 

And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Eternal, and <the>Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the Eternal said unto Satan, "The Eternal rebuke thee, O Satan; even the Eternal that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" [Zechariah 3:1-2]

 

Set thou a wicked man over him, and let Satan stand at his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned, and let his prayer become sin. [Psalm 109:6-7]

 

In the Bible there is also verses which show that it is God, the Creator and Ruler of the whole universe, who is responsible for both the Good and the Bad, and not a devil or god of the underworld:

 

I am the Eternal, and there is none else, there is no god beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Eternal, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Eternal do all these things. [isaiah 45:5-7]

 

For God, the Bible, and for Judaism, to have an entity that competes with God, that has power and authority of his own in opposition to God, is to violate the basic idea of monotheism.

 

As said above Satan is simply one of God's court of angels, whose function is to find fault in man and to be his accuser. Satan was created by God and serves Gods purpose. Unlike you, they have scriptures to back up their claims.

 

Please show text which shows that a character called Satan is a rebellious angel who defies God's authority instead of a tool in the court f God.

 

both are implied statements, but i think it provides a convincing arguement that God and Satan are advisaries.

 

Mere assertion and scriptures taken out of context, do not imply anything. If all your claims about Satan are valid, you should have no problem providing the Old Testament scriptural proof of your claims.

 

 

but have a strange relationship to say the least. as the discussion above, God can use satan, he can limit his powers as in Job. But even Satan recognizes his authority.

 

Yes, that's what the Jews and us, skeptics are saying

 

The character called "Satan" is merely one of God's tools which he uses to carry out various functions in his little drama on earth.

 

The concept of Devil is taken from the Pagan religion, amongst others such as demons and hell. It is not found ANYWHERE in the Hebrew Bible

[freeday]

Okay, so since the choice was made to not address my message (and, yes, it was a conscience choice) I'll go ahead and finish up my thoughts. Freeday knows his argument all comes down to culteral relativism and that's not a good place to end up if you're him. That means god's rules and judgements change according to the culture. So, back in David's day he judged the "group" for the (mis)deeds of the leader. Today, he should judge the leader alone. The tap dancing on the issue shows he can't reconcile the problems with this.

 

i am not tap dancing over the issue. i almost agree with you to a certian extent. i think that man interprets the bible to a certian extent to reflect thier own culture. but i think God may have incorparated this into his plan so that his word would be relavant to everyone. no two people will think alike.

 

But this raises all sorts of other problems. Taking slaves is out but homosexuality is (almost) in. God's rules in the bible did not change but the culture did. So we can either take up slavery and denounce gays, to be back on the side of god, or god can "go with the flow" and accept our ways and judge us accordingly. Of course the gay issue is just the obvious example but there are others that have been offered up. It has changed in the past and it will change again in the future.

 

God is simply a "mirror" that reflects our ideal self back on to ourselves. Is it any wonder it changes? This is why there is so much disparity between what god is in the written word and what god is in peoples minds.

 

mwc

 

i am not tap dancing over the issue. i almost agree with you to a certian extent. i think that man interprets the bible to a certian extent to reflect thier own culture. but i think God may have incorparated this into his plan so that his word would be relavant to everyone for all generations. no two people will think alike.

 

i always try to respond to your replies, you always offer a very valid point. i truely respect your opinion and most everyones on here. it is really bringing out the different view points of my beliefs.

 

 

and the above is the reason i am asking the adm. for the use of the edit button. i always seem to make a mistake.