To All Of God's Critics

March 28, 2010

You simply rewrite any scripture that gets in the way of your wishful thinking and free will mythology.

You turn this:

Exo 4:21

And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

Into this:

Exo 4:21

And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will up the penalty every time he hardens his own heart, that he shall not let the people go.

Rewrite this one too, so people will clearly understand that it doesn’t mean what it says.

Deut 2:30

But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the LORD thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day.

Centauri, I admire your efforts to confront this balderdash, but Thumbelina is a liar. Everyone that has responded to her has pointed out her lies, and there is no point because she will continue to lie.

She "knows" what the bible says even if it doesn't say what she says it says, and she will continue to say what she thinks it should say no matter how many times you show her what it actually says.

And what sickens me is that she is pulling apologetics out of her ass (which is connected to a Christian Apologetic Web site) that are totally irrelevant and fail to even address the issues raised.

March 28, 2010

Centauri, I admire your efforts to confront this balderdash, but Thumbelina is a liar. Everyone that has responded to her has pointed out her lies, and there is no point because she will continue to lie.

She "knows" what the bible says even if it doesn't say what she says it says, and she will continue to say what she thinks it should say no matter how many times you show her what it actually says.

And what sickens me is that she is pulling apologetics out of her ass (which is connected to a Christian Apologetic Web site) that are totally irrelevant and fail to even address the issues raised.

Perhaps there are lurkers being subjected to the same subjective Christian theology displayed here.

For me, it brings back memories of having these types of excuses and rationalizations jammed in my face and shoved down my throat for years by assorted evangelical "holy men".

They pulled so many doctrines out of their buttocks that I realized Christianity was another feel-good religion, where believers concoct whatever they need to justify feeling good about their version of God.

March 29, 2010

Seems to be the new template for theists here: ignore everything that's said and just keep hammering your talking points.

March 29, 2010

Seems to be the new template for theists here: ignore everything that's said and just keep hammering your talking points.

Exactly. Isn't that irritating?

I think that there is almost an evolutionary trend in the meme that we are seeing. Throw out random apologetics and see which ones stick. Keep the ones that stick and try again. The "best" apologies" are being kept and the worst discarded.

Hence, we see the building of an algorithm for dealing with challenges to religion. Rules are set in place, and answers to questions or challenges are carefully screened to avoid pitfalls.

Have you wondered why the Christians don't engage in apologies for the Old Testament cruelties directly as often as they used to? That inevitably degenerates into supporting the cruelties which debases their entire "system" of morality. They tiptoe by the old apology of saying that the New Testament supplants the old because that degrades their assertion that God is unchanging.

You can also see Thumbelina trying to find answers to the questions we raise that carefully avoid stepping into the kinds of disturbing conclusions that must inevitably result. Unfortunately for Thumbelina, she is also failing to address the questions.

But perhaps that is the new apologetic strategy - avoid the questions entirely.

Hence, talking points that are irrelevent but "sound" like they are intended to answer some question. Superficial, irrelevent and verbose, it is basically Argumentum Verbosium.

Argumentum Verbosium (Proof by Intimidation or Proof by Verbosity)

The argument is so complex, so long-winded and so poorly presented that you are obliged to accept it, simply to avoid being forced to sift through its minute details.

“If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit.” This is common with scammers with pseudo-scientific products they are trying to sell. Conspiracy theorists can also fall back on this logical fallacy.

March 29, 2010

Seems to be the new template for theists here: ignore everything that's said and just keep hammering your talking points.

Exactly. Isn't that irritating?

Hence, talking points that are irrelevent but "sound" like they are intended to answer some question. Superficial, irrelevent and verbose, it is basically Argumentum Verbosium.

Argumentum Verbosium (Proof by Intimidation or Proof by Verbosity)

The argument is so complex, so long-winded and so poorly presented that you are obliged to accept it, simply to avoid being forced to sift through its minute details.

“If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit.” This is common with scammers with pseudo-scientific products they are trying to sell. Conspiracy theorists can also fall back on this logical fallacy.

Yes. This is exactly what Christians do. They NEVER seem to answer our questions directly and honestly. I once asked a believer about one of the Biblical contradictions and she said, "So how do you explain miracles?" Shit - that is a completely different issue. She would have been more accurate had she said, "I accept (or cannot argue) that there are contradictions in the Bible (thus answering my objection) but I believe in God because of other things - like miracles."

March 29, 2010

Yes. This is exactly what Christians do. They NEVER seem to answer our questions directly and honestly. I once asked a believer about one of the Biblical contradictions and she said, "So how do you explain miracles?" Shit - that is a completely different issue. She would have been more accurate had she said, "I accept (or cannot argue) that there are contradictions in the Bible (thus answering my objection) but I believe in God because of other things - like miracles."

One of the unwritten rules seems to be, "Never make a concession. It is a sign of weakness."

The concession was implied perhaps, but if confronted, I would imagine they might feign ignorance (or delay - "Let me get back to you on that.").

If you were to read some of the apologists' responses on this forum, you find that in their own estimation (as expressed in their replies) they never ever make a mistake, even when they make glaring mistakes.

March 29, 2010

One of the unwritten rules seems to be, "Never make a concession. It is a sign of weakness."

The concession was implied perhaps, but if confronted, I would imagine they might feign ignorance (or delay - "Let me get back to you on that.").

If you were to read some of the apologists' responses on this forum, you find that in their own estimation (as expressed in their replies) they never ever make a mistake, even when they make glaring mistakes.

Bliss is a powerful state of mind, especially when you're taught it is a virtue.

March 31, 2010

I tried reading through this thread. I got to the part with the Rock/Rap albums and the sex with the corpses and facepalmed myself.

Religion is perfect for people like Thumbilina, these are the kind of people who implode without a higher power to follow day in day out. God with his hell, locked and loaded pressed against his/her forehead keeps everything ticking over.

Sadly, this person is likely the victim of his/her parents upbringing, which in my opinion is akin to child abuse. Such a waste of a mind.

So sad, so sad.

March 31, 2010

Here's a challenge to all of God's critics. If you were God and you had to create beings:

1.Will the beings you create be equal to you or less powerful?

All earthly parents want their children to meet or better whatever they are.

To think that our great fatherly example would want any less for His children would be to give man higher morals than God.

Have ye forgotten that ye are Gods.----this and common sense says it all, for me.

2.What degree of free will will you allow to those beings?

All of it because as you will know freedom cannot be given, it can only be taken.

3.How will you prevent those beings from hurting you, each other and their creation?

We cannot hurt God and no other interferance is allowed unless god is an Indian giver of the free will you think He gives us.

4.What will you do with those beings who break your rules?

Cure them, not kill them as scripture shows God doing.

In other words, I would not change a thing of God's perfect works.

Thinks are just perfect here if you have the eyes to see and the logic that points to God.

Regards

DL

April 1, 2010

I tried reading through this thread. I got to the part with the Rock/Rap albums and the sex with the corpses and facepalmed myself.

Religion is perfect for people like Thumbilina, these are the kind of people who implode without a higher power to follow day in day out. God with his hell, locked and loaded pressed against his/her forehead keeps everything ticking over.

Sadly, this person is likely the victim of his/her parents upbringing, which in my opinion is akin to child abuse. Such a waste of a mind.

So sad, so sad.

So true, so true!

Thumbelina sounds like about 11 years old. She has obviously had her mind abused by either her parents, her school, or her friends.

She really needs to free herself from the delusional robot planted in her mind, to research and develop her own person. She is a Christian robitron, someone that Christianity absolutely adores, to perpetrate and elevate the myth, to keep the money rolling in, amoney.

April 1, 2010

I forgot that some people may be having emotional issues because they were taught that God is scary, so I'm sorry OK?

However, I do reserve the right to call a spade a spade and if an atheist tells me some hooey, I WILL tell them about it; especially when they're being disrespectful (raised eyebrow)!

P.S. It is my prerogative to believe in God if I want to.

Certainly you can believe what ever you want to. No one wants to take your faith away (why do you even make a statement like this?). But you have visited (for some reason) an ex-christian forum to discuss your faith. I know the bible, I know what you are talking about and I am convinced your faith is an illusion. I have used the same phrases, believed the same stuff, sang the same songs and looked at non-xians as you do now. I was convinced that I found the ultimate truth and behaved accordingly.

And this "they were taught that god is scary" reveals that you have no idea where the people in this forum come from. If you are not here to understand the people...Why are you here? To preach to the "lost"? Is this some weird service for your god? Do you want to test your faith? Do you think that "the truth will set them free"?

I have nothing against you (I do not know you). I just do not want people to preach at me. A discussion? Great! Preaching? No thanks. Sorry if I was grumpy.

From time to time during this week my thoughts kept going to this Michael dude from the ex Christian web site. Hey Michael I'm just saying what's up. Mr. Shyone, mr omniscient one NOT has already deemed me to be a Neanderthal or something so maybe I should talk to you like this: "Ug, me Thum-bel-ina and you be Mic-hael, we be friends. Though we be havin' different opinions we could possibly disagree without being disagreeable ug? lol. Sorry Michael, I'm just being silly; ain't that better than me being the typical religionist that tends to want to take over God's job and consign all atheists to hell?

Eh, I'm harmless, I'm more like a scrappy doo, you know he always says "Lemme at 'em! lemme at 'em!" However, I guess I can sometimes put my foot in my mouth for I am learning how to share with people who do not believe as I do. So if I put my foot in it, past or future, then I'm sorry cuz I'm a sinner.

Hope you're in a better mood this time.

April 1, 2010

Hey, I thank some ex- agnostic dude for those 4 questions for they sure do create interesting discussions.

1.Will the beings you create be equal to you or less powerful?

OnceConvinced: Less powerful.

Thumbelina: Check!

OnceConvinced: But I wouldn't treat them like scum like the God of the bible does. I'd value my creations and not just wipe out entire nations because they do stuff I don't like.

Thumbelina: So,if Hitler were around today and you know what Hitler did to all those people, you would just give him a slap on the wrist, ruffle his hair and just say " Naughty, naughty Hitler don't do that again OK." and then let him go? If you did that do you think Hitler would pay any attention to you; or what do you think others who saw Hitler get away with it would do?!

We would have bloody anarchy that's what! Survival of the fittest!

Those nations that were judged in the OT times were doing some horrific things such as child sacrifice; nations like the Canaanites engaged in human sacrifice, even offering their children to devil gods. (See Deuteronomy 12:31).

If left unrestrained, those nations would have plagued the world with such depravity so therefore they simply were not redeemable. It broke God's heart but he had to allow it.

"The Amalekites were a source of constant woe to Israel. Shortly after the Israelites left Egypt, the Amalekites attacked the weary people, slaughtering the weak and elderly (Deuteronomy 25:18). Even the Babylonians had a bad opinion of them, calling them “Khabbati,” or “plunderers.” The Amalekites and Caananites, among other nations, practiced child burning, torture as public entertainment, and sexual immorality as sport.

The Israelites later avenged the attack and defeated the Amalekites, but failed to completely eradicate the nation. Israel was then plagued with continuous Amalekite raids (Exodus 17; 1 Samuel 15:2; Numbers 14:45). We can safely assume that God knew Amalekite decedents would always bear rage against His people. In the book of Esther, Haman the son of the Agagite, who was an Amalekite king, sought to exterminate all the Jews. Even today, the name Amalek is a symbol for hatred against Jews. How different things might be had Israel obeyed God to the letter?

You should also remember the story of the Ninevites. God was warning them through Jonah to change their ways or be utterly destroyed, and they repented. God deals far more justly and mercifully than most people are willing to admit.

We also need to remember that God is omniscient and can see the future; He KNOWS exactly when to step in and when to lay low but He's watching. God

had to preserve Israel in order to preserve the SEED (Jesus) whose sacrificial death would ultimately save whomever WANTS to be saved.

When the bible is looked at RIGHTLY, you see portions where the Israelites were under a theocracy, God was training them and they sure gave Him A LOT of trouble. He had to give them different laws; He gave them the moral laws (The 10 Commandments, still binding), health laws (still binding), ceremonial laws (the ceremonial laws were temporary), God even taught them how to employ civil laws (he even had His own "War on terror") cuz He knew He would not continually be manifesting Himself as He had been; He was teaching them. God's people had to and have to go through a refining process, they must go through much tribulation

before they gain heaven.

OnceConvinced: If I made a mistake with one, I'd just make an adjustment of some kind and get rid of the flaw, after all that's what a good creator would do.

Thumbelina: If you made a mistake then you won't be much of a God.

The bible says God created everything good and very good.

Thumbelina:

2.What degree of free will will you allow to those beings?

OnceConvinced: I'd give them freewill, but I would put mechanisms in place to prevent them from doing evil. After all, there are already mechanisms in place like pain and fear to protect humans from physical danger and we don't accuse God of violating our freewill with those, so why not have mechanisms in place to prevent spiritual damage, which I'm sure you'd agree is more important than our physical wellbeing.

Thumbelina: Your Idea of free will: You create a spectacular being and that being looks at himself in the mirror and says "Daaaamn, I'm gorgeous!" You the creator are the MOST spectacular because duh, you're self-existent. So you're perfect and you made a perfect and yet finite sentient being (it can be destroyed because it is not self-existent). As long as that being is following you everything is hunky dory. At the appointed time that that being starts feeling those negative emotions you would just take away the emotions? How is that freedom; or how is that love?

Picture a parent doing that to their child, as soon as the child starts to misbehave the parent goes off to a neurosurgeon to take away the feeling; even if the surgery would be physically painless would that be called love? Or are you going to make the child have some sort of amnesia so they won't know what you did?

That sure would NOT be a loving relationship. It would be so much easier to have a discussion with the child and to explain to them why you don't want them to be covetous and selfish etc. If the child persists in the bad behavior you would bear with them for however long it takes but if the child would not turn away from a bad course then you will eventually have to let them go; let them be a prodigal and unfortunately a prodigal life can ultimately lead to the demise of the child.

Maybe you would just keep drugging the kid to keep them near huh? Picture someone doing that for years and then picture God doing that to His rebellious children for eternity.

How will that be eternal bliss?

3.How will you prevent those beings from hurting you, each other and their creation?

OnceConvinced: I'd put in mechanisms to prevent this, ie pain, fear. I would have them become physically sick (like on the movie Clockwork Orange) to prevent them. Doing evil would be a disgusting and appalling thing to them all, just as many things already are to 99.9% of humans, eg cannibalism, beastiality, eating faeces, sadomasachism. Seeing as things like fear and pain are not violations of freewill (because all humans have these mechanisms in them to prevent from physically harming themselves), then why not have such mechanisms in place to protect us from doing evil to others? In some ways these mechanisms are already there. I for instance could never deliberately harm another person because it would cause me too much guilt. In fact I can imagine the guilt I'd feel even before doing it. It would be horrible for me. So I'd make all humans have that same trait, but perhaps, make it more intense.

Thumbelina: Yeah but each time your creations get a REPRIEVE or respite (just like Pharaoh; hence the reason why this story was recorded), they think they're out of the woods and they go back to the same bad behavior. It's like Pinky and The Brain, they keep getting defeated and yet they keep trying to conquer the world.

That's what God had to deal with. I would guess that the devils felt fear when they started to shift away from God but they adjusted to that strange phenomena real fast and they continued on their downward spiral.

This verse explains what happened to God. Evil/sin was new to the creation if He had killed the devil immediately His other creatures would have most likely served Him out of fear and not love.

You said that as god you would make doing evil to be a disgusting and appalling thing to your creations just as many things already are to 99.9% of humans, eg cannibalism, beastiality, eating faeces, sadomasachisms; but there have been instances of those and God allowed them in order for His creatures to see how far sin can really take someone. Also the ones who engage in these activities tend to be the most vitriolic, the most vocal and are always compelling others to follow in their stead.They use subterfuge and the like, all behaviors that are the antithesis of a Holy God's character. Oh yeah a lot of babies eat or would eat their faecal matter if their parents or guardians don't watch 'em.

Because of the devil all of God's creatures became as gods, knowing good and evil. A loving God wanted to spare His creation but since sin did actuate He had to let it continue in order to show His creatures what the consequences would be.

4.What will you do with those beings who break your rules?

OnceConvinced: With my system in place nobody would be breaking the rules, because even the thought of doing evil would made them physically sick. But ok, there may be a few messed up individuals (although I'd make sure there would be no such things as mental illnesses) who may decide they love the pain, love the fear and love feeling physically sick). For them I would have some rehabilitation system in place. Being God I would easily be able to make an adjustment or two to prevent them from offending again. I'm sure that nobody would mind losing some freewill to avoid Hell. I know I'd gladly be God's puppet to avoid Hell.

Thumbelina: I'm sorry OnceConvinced but as a god your creations would be only animals at the best, you know just creatures of instinct? or mere machines at the worst; preprogrammed to do what you tell them without understanding that you love them with all your heart and then they would in turn choose to freely reciprocate that love. Maybe you aren't a loving god after all?

Seems to me, based on some of the comments on here, atheists want a Holy God to run the universe like the movie "The Highlander" with the battle of the immortals; there'll be constant quarels, immorality and the like with no type of consequences namely death/destruction.

...........

OnceConvinced: But if none of this is good enough for you, how about you ask God how he's going to solve these problems in Heaven? Then ask him why he didn't just employ those methods to begin with?

Thumbelina: After this planet's trial with lawlessness "Doing evil would be a disgusting and appalling thing to them all ..." ; them all, being all of creation including animals.

P.S. To all of those who said they would not create any beings, BOOOOORP! borr--iing! you guys are scaredy cats and won't be much of a god anyway! lol.

April 1, 2010

Thumbelina, on 25 March 2010 - 12:03 PM, said:

Anyway, I tend to address the hell topics from the perspective that God is not

a torturer without considering too much that people will ultimately end up in

hell and I realize it might come across as being indelicate.

OnceConvinced: This is a problem I see with most Christians and it was the same with me as

one. It's taking the automatic perspective that God is loving, merciful, kind

etc etc. It's putting on the old rose-colored sunglasses and refusing to accept

anything that violates that mindset. It's why Christians like yourself cannot

possibly see the evil in the God they worship. And as a result of that mindset

they have to make the horrible justifications like you have made for the

atrocities committed by God in the bible. As long as you hold the perspective

you do, you can never read the bible with an open mind and see what it's really

showing you. Your views will always be tainted.

Response:

OnceConvinced: "As long as you hold the perspective

you do, you can never read the bible with an open mind and see what it's really

showing you. Your views will always be tainted."

Thumbelina: I have to say ditto to you here but yours is with regard to your pessimistic attitude.

When I was secular and I looked at the bible I did think to myself that some of God's actions seem to be quite contradictory to what He's supposed to be (Eg. Hardening Pharaoh's heart). However, the attitude that I adopted at the time was that I just don't understand it. Actually, I was utterly misconstruing the biblical texts. I tried asking questions to certain believers about certain things some answers were beautiful but some of them I was not satisfied with; one time when I asked a Pastor's wife about why they worship on Sunday when I've been told that the bible says that Saturday is the Sabbath, she retorted with an ad hominem, she said something about my accent and did not answer my question. Well as providence would have it -- cuz God realized I was searching for truth -- a few months after that I learned about the dark ages and Constantine and the role the Catholic Church played in attempting to change what God has blessed. I was eventually able to find a people that followed the bible more closely and I must say I love it!

I am curious/concerned though, did you KNOW HIM personally?

....................

Thumbelina, on 25 March 2010 - 12:03 PM, said:

In the OT rapists were killed (See Deut.22:25-27) .

OnceConvinced: This is talking about married women being raped. A whole different ball game. A

married woman is protected under the law because of the fact they already

belong to someone else (once again a possession issue.). An unmarried woman

though, however is fair game because nobody owns her yet, so thus a man rapes

her, he then gets to own her. Horrible horrible morals. Disgusting treatment of

woman, which your God clearly endorses.

Response:

Thumbelina: Actually they were engaged (betrothed; and in those days it was as good as being married) women in Deut.22:25-27. When I read vs 28 -29 about "a damsel that is a virgin" that had been deflowered, my understanding of it was that it was somewhat consensual because of this part "and they be found", if it was the man alone that was forcing the girl the biblical writer would have said " and if he be found"

Eg. remember the story I mentioned about the 1- legged dude that was caught molesting the child when he was caught no one thought about blaming the kid, he was found and not them. Anyway, in the margin of my bible it shows a text that corresponds to the original and it gave Ex 22:16 -17 which says that the girl was ENTICED, again suggesting consent, or even if she was coerced into it via peer pressure tactics. Dude, God did not and won't force a woman to marry a beast of a man.

You had me digging even further you know, I always give God the benefit of the doubt and this is what I found :

Rape

"One area of protection is against violence, or rape. The texts citing the laws on rape and seduction are the following; rape, Deuteronomy 22: 23-29; seduction, Exodus 22: 16,17.

The penalty for the rape of a married woman, or of a betrothed woman, was death. The law specified that consent on the part of the woman was presumed if it occurred "in the city" and "she cried not," and she then was assumed to be a participant in the adultery rather than an act of rape. As Luther observed, "The city is mentioned here for the sake of an example, because in it there would be people available to help her. Therefore she who does not cry out reveals that she is being ravished by her own will." In other words, "the city" represents here available help; was it appealed to?

The cases classified as seduction are technically and realistically cases of rape also; the difference is that the girl in question is neither married nor betrothed. Why, in such cases, was not the death penalty invoked? In the former cases, marriage was already contracted; the offense was against both man and woman, therefore, and required death. In the case of a single girl, unbetrothed, the decision rested in the hands of the girl's father, and, in part, the girl. If the offender, cited simply as a seducer in Exodus 22:16, 17, and as a rapist in Deuteronomy 22:28, 29, is an acceptable husband, then he shall pay 50 shekels of silver as a dowry and marry her, without right of divorce "because he hath humbled her" (Deut. 22:29); but "If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins" (Ex. 22:17). If a man thus is rejected as a husband, the girl is compensated for the offense to make her an attractive wife to another man, coming as she will with a double dowry, his own and her compensation money.

To understand the background of this law, let us remember, first, that the Biblical law-order requires the death of incorrigible delinquents and criminals. The seducer and/or rapist of an unbetrothed girl was thus presumably not an incorrigible youth, although at this point clearly in guilt. No gain was possible from his offense. If he were allowed to marry the girl, he did so without right of divorce, and at the cost of a full dowry. If he were refused, he still had to pay a full dowry to the girl, a considerable loss to his own future."

R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), pp. 396-397.

Mr. OnceConvinced, you've been doing the TYPICAL atheistic pastime of saturating your mind with info. from those ws that show supposed atrocities committed by god, huh?

lol. You know Mr. OnceConvinced I have always praised God for not allowing me to be born during OT times or in a culture that reflected such inequality to women.

To the dude on here that mentioned about those knuckle -headed dudes in the book of Judges, God stepped back and allowed them to lean on their own understanding; they wanted to live a life of self- determination and the last verse in the last chapter of that book summed up the mess they made when it said: In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

Hmmmm, they were quite atheistic weren't they? David did the same thing with Bathsheba, David KNEW it was wrong but he was BLINDED by lust. I argued with God about that once; I basically said" God, if in the books of 1st and 2nd Samuel you told David to turn right here and to turn left there and David obeyed then why didn't you tell him not to lay with another man's wife and consequently cause the demise of the same man?" When I got to know God better I realized that David knew the 10 commandments, it was self- evident, David knew it was wrong.

God is the ABSOLUTE arbiter of what is right and wrong; fickle humans and fallen angels always mess stuff up.

Cory ten Boom forgave a former communist/ atheist for the horrible treatment he gave to women in the concentration camps; victims of rape seem to and can take council from Corrie's writings so they can cope.

Come to think of it lots of women were/are raped by atheists and it's not cuz "the bible instructed them to do it." People are just evil whether they're professed believers or not.

....................

Thumbelina, on 25 March 2010 - 12:03 PM, said:

It was the dudes that fornicated with the women that had to marry them (see

Deut22:28-29).

OnceConvinced: Nope, sorry, these passages here are clearly talking about rape not

fornication. Be consistent with the previous verses. Don't take it out of

context. Are you once again trying to twist scripture by changing the meaning

of words?

Response:

Thumbelina : ... and I suppose vs 30 is talking about rape too huh?

Hey Mister, why did I supposedly twist scripture? It's you blind ol' atheistic types that can't see the truth.

OnceConvinced: And let's just assume it is talking about fornication what sort of a stupid law

is that? Make two people who probably don't love each other get married? Once

again appalling on your God's part and just setting two people up for a life of

misery (not to mention their future kids), particularly the woman who becomes

the possession of the man. Cruel and vindictive laws.

Response:

Thumbelina : The father had to approve the marriage and if the girl didn't want to marry the dude then most likely the parent would not have to forced the issue; though some pig headed papa may have tried, who knows?

As I said before, God had to allow Moses to write those TEMPORARY laws cuz the Israelites were ALREADY breaking the 10 Commandments left and right and Jesus had to come through that lineage so He can save us. Those laws were a deterrent to them breaking the 10 Commandments.

OnceConvinced: BTW, I hope you looked early on in this chapter at this verse:

Deu 22:5

A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the

LORD your God detests anyone who does this.

I hope you always wear dresses, otherwise you're violating God's laws.

Response:

Thumbelina : Those verses were talking about people who were confusing the heck out of everyone ; they were cross dressers. There should be a distinction between the genders.

OnceConvinced: What do you think of this verse in that chapter.'

Deu 22:19

They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver[fn2] and give them to the

girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She

shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

Once again is shows women as a possession. This man has decided he doesn't

want her anymore and has slandered her. Now the woman must remain with this man

for the rest of her life. Yes! She is being forced to remain in a loveless

marriage with a man who has tried to have her condemned as a fornicator. What a

cruel act on behalf of your God, making this woman stay in this sham of a

marriage with a man who no longer wants her. Another example of God treating

humans like scum.

Response:

Thumbelina : Mr. OnceConvinced, you and I both know that in modern society there are A LOT of women who are STUCK in relationships with men whom they may not and do not love and they can leave but they don't; in a permissive age people may say otherwise but when a man and a woman are intimate it bonds them, they become one, that's why you see shows like Jerry Springer and society is full of broken families, broken people etc.

In the beginning, BEFORE SIN God made marriage for a husband and a wife who love each other; sin messed EVERYTHING UP!

April 1, 2010

Thumbelina, on 25 March 2010 - 12:03 PM, said:

You know the old saying that men give love to get sex and women give sex to

get love. Well, those Israelites were doing that too. Men in the bible did tend

to treat women like crap, that's one of the things I remember that pissed me

off when I started looking at the bible.

OnceConvinced: This is because women were treated like property back then and the writers of

the bible clearly believed that their God intended it that way. Even God's

supposed laws made it this way. That is why there is such a ridiculous law here

whether you see it as rape or as fornication.

I'm intrigued Thumbelina. The NT testament changed nothing with regards to

this. Women are still considered second class beings and intended to be

possessions of the men. Why do you violate this scripture here?

1 Timothy 2:11–15

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman

to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was

formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who

was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing–

if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety

Why are you violating God's law by coming here and preaching? According to the

bible you are not permitted to do this. I personally have no problem with it,

but as far as God is concerned you are simply a possession of man and have no

real rights. That is why you would be forced to marry any man that has sex with

you (even if he is a rapist) and why Lot so easily sent out his daughters to be

mob raped.

Response:

Thumbelina : I had this debate with an atheistic friend of mine over a year ago and here's what I sent him:

AN EXEGESIS OF A DIFFICULT TEXT

1 Timothy

"2:9,10 Women should preserve modestyin both dress and attitude. By contrast, they should avoid dressing ostentatiously and focus their attention on good works appropriate for godliness. Some women might have been dressing in a flashy, even sensual, manner acceptable in their former pagan lifestyle but out of place in the church.Others might have been dressing to reflect their higher social status. For the great majority, who were from the lower classes, this ostentatious attire could have proven a barrier to their sharing in the life of the church [see 1 Cor. 11:20,21].

2:11 Women should learn with an attitude of quiet submissiveness. Paul seemingly wanted to be certain the women were well - grounded in the Word of God [2 Tim.3:6,7]. This should be:

"In silence" [Gk. hesuchia}, meaning "quietness," a more appropriate meaning since women did normally speak in the worship assembly [1 Tim. 2:11,12; see 1 Cor. 11:5; 14:26];

"With a submission," suggesting that instruction was to be received respectfully.

Women were to receive instruction in the worship assembly with a heart of quiet receptivity to the Word.

2:12 Paul clarified his directive: Women were not "to teach or to have authority over a man." Paul spoke of a consistent practice of teaching or exercising authority, which would not preclude an occasional teaching situation to be done by a woman for men. In the NT the verb "teach" [Gk. didasko] nearly always refers to teaching in group settings. The teacher expounded the OT Scripture and the apostles' teachings [1 Cor.4:17; 2 Tim. 2:2] and presented the implications of that truth for daily living [see Matt. 28:19,20]. The verb translated "to have authority" [Gk. authenteo] occurs only here in the NT and is rarely used in ancient literature. Although it can possibly mean "to domineer" or to usurp authority," the meaning "to have authority" seems preferable. Third, although the grammar allows for this phrase to refer to a single activity [as "to teach authoritatively"],the word "or" makes it preferable to view these as two separate activities. Since authority and submission are important issues, teaching seems to be a subset of holding authority. That is, some women were violating God's pattern of authority and submission through their teaching in the assembly [1 Tim.2:13,14].

2:13,14 Paul gave theological reasons for his directive that women in the worship assembly learn in a quiet and submissive manner rather than having a position of teaching or exercising authority over men. Through the rabbinic method of summary citation, Paul used a summary statement [v. 13 and Gen. 2:4-24; 1 Tim. 2:14 and Gen. 3:1-25]. In both cases, Paul was making an implied application by analogy based on the Genesis account. Adam was created before Eve, implying that Adam's prior creation carried with it some degree of responsibility and authority. This authority is possibly based on the OT concept of primogeniture, through which the eldest son became the family head, a leader of family worship, and the recipient of a double portion of the inheritance {Deut. 21:15-17}.Paul may have been asserting that Adam's status as the eldest carried with it the leadership fitting a firstborn son. He was in no way teaching an essential superiority of the man over the woman; instead, he was showing how man's leadership in the church harmonized with the Creator's design for the home and community.Thus Paul's unstated application was that just as in creation the final responsibility rested with the man, so it also should in the church.Paul again was not suggesting that women were less intelligent or were more easily deceived than men. Instead, he used the account of the Fall to point out the role reversal that occurred when Adam knowingly allowed himself to be led into sin by his wife.God had originally instructed Adam concerning the forbidden fruit [Gen. 2:17], and the Lord clearly placed the ultimate responsibility with Adam [Rom. 5:12;see Gen. 3:17, where "heeded" has the sense of "obeyed"]. Thus Paul's application by analogy was that this role reversal that caused so much trouble in the beginning should not be repeated in the worship assembly through the consistent practice of the teaching of men by women.

2:15 Paul closed with an awesome challenge and worthy reward. Of many interpretations, the one that most adequately handles the textual data is that women will be saved [with the focus on salvation's future rewards] through faithfulness to their appointed role, summed up in the example of motherhood. Four key grammatical issues are involved in this verse. "Nevertheless" [Gk. de] both provides a contrast with verse 14 and introduces a conclusion about the results of women fulfilling their God -given roles. The phrase "she will be saved" [Gk. sozo], most commonly refers to some aspect of spiritual salvation. In this case, however, Paul's focus seems to be on the future aspect of salvation, when believers' works will be judged and rewards given [Rom.14:10; 1Cor.3:10-15;2 Cor.5:10].His use of the future tense of the verb as well as his stress on the need for women to keep living lives that are characterized by holiness and obedience and worthy of future rewards makes this clear."Childbearing" is one of the good works that is to be part of the godly woman's lifestyle [see 1 Tim. 2:10]. While the term can have the literal meaning of bearing or rearing children, it's use here is figurative [a synecdoche, in which a part of something represents the whole]. Thus Paul used child-rearing as a representative example of the activities in which Christian women of his day would likely be involved.This was especially appropriate since, with shortened age-spans, marriage and child-rearing typically encompassed much if not all of a woman's life and were activities highly valued by a 1st-century woman.

Paul closed his instructions to women by stressing the inner qualities that were to accompany this lifestyle: "faith," "love," "holiness," and "self-control." This last quality, actually the same Greek term earlier translated "moderation," served as a closing bracket for Paul's remarks to women [v.9]. In summary,Paul stated the expected result of women fulfilling their God-appointed role in life, with accompanying inner attitudes of godliness: They would experience the fullness of future salvation, including the judging of their works and the receiving of rewards [v.15]. Altogether these activities and attitudes comprised the "good works" with which she was to clothe herself [v.10]."

***************************

That was taken from The women's study bible.

I also knew that the Christian Jews still had the worship service where men and women were separated by a partition or something and those women were shouting out to their husbands and basically asking them:what the heck is going on? and yadda yadda. Those women were being noisy and disrupting the church meeting so Paul admonished them to be more quiet and to ask their husbands at home.

BTW, what are you intrigued by; it's Jesus isn't it?! lol.

April 1, 2010

Thumbelina, on 25 March 2010 - 12:03 PM, said:

Those Israeli men wanted to love 'em and leave 'em and in that culture that

woman would have been a ruined woman. She would not have been able to get a

husband to support her properly but the bigger reason for keeping such a tight

reign of those Israelites' morality was because Jesus had to come from a people

who basically had Godly values and it worked too. Mary was a God fearing and

beautiful young lady.

OnceConvinced: Even if this justification was correct and you are right about your assumptions

here, it still relegates a woman to possession status. And who says that the

woman would ever want to marry the man? Just because a woman has sex with a

man does not mean they want to marry them. And the fact that she would become

a "ruined" woman is all because of God's silly laws about adultery and

fornication. It is his rules that have turned any women who has sex outside of

marriage into a "harlot", whereis for a man, it's different. That is why women

were shunned like this. If God had been a loving and fair God he would have

made rules that prevented men from treating women in this way. Sorry, Thumb,

but all throughout the bible women are portrayed as men's possessions with no

real rights. And I think, based on your comment earlier you realise this. You

have allowed yourself to be conned into believing you are equals with men in

the bible God's eyes. Clearly it is not the case.

We live in a changed society. Men realise now they can't get away with that

sort of sexist crap. So now they try to manipulate scripture to keep women

happy. But if it's as you say and that God never changes, then your status has

not changed in God's eyes.

.........................................................

Response:

Thumbelina: As I said earlier, those Israelites were behaving LIKE THE EGYPTIANS and breaking God's 10 commandments, so God had to allow Moses to write TEMPORARY laws to help the Israelites keep their distinction which they had almost lost by being in Egypt. During Jesus' ministry those Jews wanted to stone the woman that was caught in adultery -- a woman whom they set up BTW and whom it would seem was molested by one of them when she was young hence

her reputation as a harlot for she became one to support herself (probably thought she couldn't do any better than that) -- and JESUS DID NOT LET THEM DO IT!

Jesus knew that those TEMPORARY laws were there to protect Him and His mission to save mankind so there was no need for those laws any more; those particular laws about stoning and women having to marry the men they fornicated with etc. would have been and were nailed to the cross! Jesus knew that by His death the new covenant would take effect.With the Old covenant the people were faulty, they promised God that they would keep His commandments and they kept breaking them but under the New Covenant when people saw the sacrifice Jesus made for them the laws would then be written in their hearts and thus they should be able to keep God's 10 Commandments out of love and not just mere human effort. I know this is deep and some of you probably came from churches that may not have taught this but that IS what the bible teaches.

Forget what those knuckle- headed men in the bible did; they did not follow God's commands which are: Ephesians 5:25

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

Husbands are SUPPOSED to be servant- leaders. In my church I've heard pastors say:" MEN, IF YOUR WIVES EVER LEAVE YOU, IT"S YOUR FAULT!!!!" Women generally would not mind submitting to men who treat them as queens and who would die rather than hurt them.

Um, about the rule of thou shalt not commit adultery etc. being a stupid rule, for the CHRISTIAN, those are considered to be EXCELLENT rules for they protect marriages and relationships and families on a whole. Imagine if every Christian were to actually follow that, there'll be no molestations and fornications cuz intimate relations will only be in the context of a marriage that is blessed by God; there won't be any adultery and heart breaks, no divorces etc. Children will grow up in stable homes and honesty would prevail around Christian communities and then maybe non Christians would sit up and take notice and would want to follow that type of lifestyle too. That's what those silly Israelites in the OT were supposed to do; evangelize the world. God was going to show His love and mercy through them IF they obeyed. Eh, though a lot of them messed up there are a lot that will be saved cuz Jesus still came despite the odds against Him; God's purposes WILL ALWAYS work out.

OnceConvinced: We live in a changed society. Men realise now they can't get away with that

sort of sexist crap.

Thumbelina: What imaginary society is that? There are still a lot of women that are treated like crap by men whether the man is a religionist or not. People have a knack for adapting to crap but those situations are certainly NOT ideal. God started off with perfection and He is eventually going to restore that perfection. His eternity was interrupted by a detour but it will be reestablished.

...........................................................................................................

Thumbelina, on 25 March 2010 - 12:03 PM, said:

Oh Mr. Once--Con--vinced?

OnceConvinced: Ha ha ha , Thum-belind-a. I notice how you have typed this. The only thing I

was ever conned into, was worshiping an imaginary genicidal deity for over 30

years of my life. Even then, I don't refer to it as being conned. I was

brainwashed and indoctrinated from an early age by people who genuinely

believed they were doing what God wanted. But I got wise to the BS and my

eyes have been opened. I am no longer living under that delusion anymore.

No one is conning me anymore.

It is you that has been conned, Thum-

belind-a into thinking that God sees you as an equal to man, when clearly he

intended you to be property of man, as shown throughout the bible. You are

blind if you can't see that. Modern Christian leaders have conned you into

believing you are their equal just to keep you around so that you can serve

them and give them sex.

...................

Response:

Thumbelina: I was just teasing ya, you seem to be a good sport so why not huh?

I beg to differ about you not being conned. If ya think that God does not exist then you are conned. Did you happen to belong to one of those churches that would not ALLOW you to read material from other sources?

About your eyes being opened, I could make a joke about that here but nah I'll save that for one of the ultra arrogant and obnoxious atheistic types; you at least seem to be one of the polite ones. Come to think of it, I'd better leave those ultra arrogant atheistic types alone; I'll just bug a crazy as a fruit bat atheist that I always bother with that joke; he's a lot of fun to tease and I love him too, want to see him saved

OnceConvinced: It is you that has been conned, Thum-

belind-a into thinking that God sees you as an equal to man, when clearly he

intended you to be property of man, as shown throughout the bible. You are

blind if you can't see that. Modern Christian leaders have conned you into

believing you are their equal just to keep you around so that you can serve

them and give them sex.

Thumbelina: Why are you judging all Christians alike; you wouldn't want believers to heap all atheists in the same category would you?

God is the ultimate judge; humans may be able to determine when others are doing wrong but a human cannot condemn another human. Besides, humans have a skewed sense of right and wrong so we therefore need to have a transcendent moral absolute for determining our moral ethics and behavior.

My church teaches what the bible teaches which is: " No ding ding without a ring." or for those amongst us who do not believe in wedding rings it should be "No contact without a contract."

April 1, 2010

Why are you judging all Christians alike; you wouldn't want believers to heap all atheists in the same category would you?
God is the ultimate judge; humans may be able to determine when others are doing wrong but a human cannot condemn another human.

Yes we can, judges do it all the time.

Besides, humans have a skewed sense of right and wrong so we therefore need to have a transcendent moral absolute for determining our moral ethics and behavior.

This such a horribly backwards way of looking at the world I do not even know where to start.

My church teaches what the bible teaches which is: " No ding ding without a ring." or for those amongst us who do not believe in wedding rings it should be "No contact without a contract."

.....how romantic.

April 1, 2010

OnceConvinced: "There is a scientific explanation for everything."

Thumbelina: Maybe science can explain the reason why humans TORTURE and kill THEIR OWN KIND sooooo much while the rest the animal kingdom barely does that.They at least kill other kinds. Hmmmm (raised eyebrow), I see some kind of racist connotation to that evolutionary THEORY of origins.You have to admit that evolutionists tend to be quite vitriolic with their attacks on creationists. *Sigh* All we want are for all scientists to just state the evidences and for both sides to state that their suppositions are based on FAITH.

Straw man. For one thing, just because Science does not have the answer for something does not mean there is not a scientific explanation for it. Remember that in biblical times, the ignorant people who wrote it attributed almost everything to God, eg weather patterns, natural disasters, disease etc etc. We now know that these things all have natural scientific explanations. As time goes by less and less is a mystery and more and more is explained as natural. The God of the gaps is shrinking. I see no reason to believe this trend won't continue. I do not chose to say "Goddidit" just because I don't understand something. That is showing ignorance, like primitive man did.

As for your question, humans torture and kill their own kind for the same reason many animals do (and there are many that do, so I don't know why you're saying there isn't! Hell, male lions will eat lion cubs just so they can have sex with the mother! Are you saying that's evil? Is Satan manipulating those lions?). It is a natural instinct. Humans are just another animal, except that most of us have the ability to reason and to think about the harm our actions cause. Most of us have evolved into compassionate beings. Some will continue to remain in a primitive mindset just like the animal kingdom. It all makes so much more sense when you look at it from the POV of evolution.

.................................................................................

Response:

Thumbelina: Oh pleaaaaase, god of the gaps is just atheistic propaganda nonsense.

Suuuure, animals after their own kind, get atomic bombs all the time and blow each to smithereens. If humans are supposedly evolving and getting better and better humph! then why is there no co-operation? The bible gives me satisfactory answers to these questions so therefore I am sticking with that.

We ain't animals! we may tend to behave like 'em or worse but humans have degenerated because of sin and prophecy says the sin situation is only going to get worse; Jesus WILL return to stop the mess.

...................

OnceConvinced: You can justify all the horrible stuff God does in the bible all you like. It doesn't change the fact that he is a sadistic, cruel, unforgiving, merciless tyrant. I have proven my point that God has treated mankind like scum if the book of myths, the bible is to be believed. If God had taken more care when he designed humans all this mess wouldn't have happened and God would not have needed to employ such horrible genicidal acts. If God was real and had taken some of the steps I suggested in my very first post on this thread, we would not have the mess we have now. So far you have done nothing to show how the suggestions I have made would not work. Perhaps now is the time to go back to that original post I made and try to refute my points rather than attempt to preach and quote bible verses which are meaningless to the majority of us here?

....................

Response:

Thumbelina: The nerve of you to JUDGE God! Do you know how teeeny tiny this lil' planet is compared to what's out there? This planet is but a speck on a speck on the back of a bug in a desert somewhere and for a mere human to question the creator like that well it's ...

lol . Actually Habakkuk kinda yelled at God too,see Habakkuk 1:13 ; I too question Him but not like that.

................................................

Thumblina:

The reason for the judgment against those disrespectful young people is explained here:"Had Elisha allowed the mockery to pass unnoticed, he would have continued to be ridiculed and reviled by the rabble, and his mission to instruct and save in a time of grave national peril might have been defeated. This one instance of terrible severity was sufficient to command respect throughout his life. For fifty years he went in and out of the gate of Bethel, and to and fro in the land, from city to city, passing through crowds of idle, rude, dissolute youth; but none mocked him or made light of his qualifications as the prophet of the Most High."

OnceConvinced: Oh my God, this is one of the worst and most appalling justifications I have ever heard for God's sadistic act against those children. This is just sick. This is worse than tummy rot. My God, what deluded rubbish. I just can't get over how stupid this justification is. If this was in any way shape or form the reason for this act, then that is even more proof that the God of the bible is a sick twisted fuck who in no way deserves worship. Did I say that this is a sick and twisted justification? Oh yeah, I did!

Response:

Thumblina: Ahem, I don't know why the translators put children, it should be translated young men, they(the young men) KNEW exactly what they were doing. That devil was running all over that OT inspiring humans to go up against Israel in order to prevent the SEED from coming; Well ya know what? He failed! Besides, they got mauled not killed, they probably had to hang up their legs for a couple of months.

........................................................

OnceConvinced:"... having Lot send his daughters out to be mob raped to save a couple of angels,..."

Thumbelina: This was Lot's tummy rot That stupid decision of his reflected the culture of hs time. God did not tell him to do that! That story was recorded to show what utterly stupid ideas finite humans come up with when they lean on their own understanding.

OnceConvinced: But of course God continued to let Lot do this horrible act. And the Angels stood by and did nothing too. What a loving God. These angels were lowlife scum bags to just let Lot do this. As they were working for God, then that makes their God a lowlife scumbag too.

No, this is not a story about Lot's evil. After all, why would God rescue such a horrible man who would hand over his daughters to be gang raped? That makes him worse than the people who God didn't rescue! No, he was doing exactly what God wanted him to do, that much is obvious. Once again you are simply trying to absolve God from his malevolence.

What we have here is a story of how women were considered objects for men to do whatever they want with. They were considered nothing but property, nothing but sex objects. I can't believe that you, a woman, would even want anything to do with a religion like this, really. Can you not see that from the bible perpective you are nothing but the property of man? Worthless? That is what your so-called God thinks of you.

Response:

Thumbelina: Read the account for yourself man and not the nonsense from those skeptics' ws; The angels DID NOT LET LOT FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THAT DUMB IDEA! They remained virgins but then they had their own tummy rot ideas and later got their father drunk and molested him. That's what they get for settling in such an evil place like Sodom and Gomorrah. I tell ya sin proliferates and contaminates and a Christian's only safety is to abide in Christ.

... and to any human that dare to condemn another, let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

.......................................................

OnceConvinced: "...stripping Job of everything he had and then having some crazy idea that giving him a new family would make up for the loss of the old one, etc etc etc. ..."

Thumbelina: Um, it was Satan that did that, God did permit it cuz the devil was accusing Job of being a timeserver. Ha! Job proved him wrong didn't he? and God told Job off!!!

OnceConvinced: Read the book again. Satan only did what God instructed him to do. He was God's puppet in all of this.

Did you read what the purpose of the book of Job is for? It's to give us HOPE. No human ever suffered or will ever suffer the agony that Jesus suffered; he took our place so we won't have to die eternally if we don't want to.

OnceConvinced: "If someone did stuff like that to you or your loved ones, would you feel you were being treated like scum?"

Thumbelina: Yeah, it's human nature; we don't have the vantage point that divinity has.That's why I need to shore up my faith now and claim those promises than God gives cuz He loves me.

This is a cop out and shows just how stupid many humans are to continue to worship such a horrible being. There is no justifications for the sort of acts God has done in the bible. I don't buy your argument that human's can't understand God. If God cannot impart understanding to humans, then that is a limitation on his part no ours. And I dare say you like to think you understand God. But you're not up there at that vantage point either, are you?

Response:

Thumbelina: You just don't know Him. I'd rather worship the Creator God than to worship lady gaga or some other human thank you.

Thumbelina: God can resurrect people!!!

OnceConvinced: Have you ever seen God resurrect someone? Of course not, because it never happens. Stories from an ancient book do not amount to proof, just as stories of Voldemort and Harry Potter do not amount to truth. Stories told second hand about things like this happening in far away places are just that - stories, with no evidence to back them up. If a resurrection happened we would see it on the 6 o'clock news. There is one thing that all TV companies want. That is ratings, because ratings equal money. If resurrections were happening, you can bet they'd be broadcasting it, because ratings would go through the roof. So please don't try to use the old excuse that the media is anti-Jesus, because that's a clearly a crock.

Response:

Thumbelina:Has any atheist seen the big bang happening or a fish growing legs and turning into a land dwelling mammal or seen an inanimate object turning into an animated one? No; it's called belief based on FAITH. The reason why atheists are hanging on to the fact that everything started from nothing is because as someone said, if there is no God then everything is permissible. Atheism gives humans an out to do what is right in their own eyes and please don't misunderstand me, I know a lot of atheists are and can be wonderful according to worldly standards but let's face it no human is without sin; WE ARE ALL selfish.

.....................................................................................................................

Thumbelina: Now, you do not seem to understand the biblical concept of free will. Free will has to do with WORSHIP. If you look at the bible from Genesis to Revelation you would NEVER see God forcing someone to worship Him. Forced Faith is a diabolical concept that the devil invented.

God can and do sometimes force people to physically submit to His power but He never lets them worship Him against their will. Even when that turncoat Balaam went against the Israelites, God forced Him to speak the truth but He did not force Him to remain His servant; God let Him go (see Num.22-24). Ya know what? I think Hollywood stole this concept for the movie Liar liar; about a man not being able to lie i.e.

Anyway that's why church and state need to be separated cuz mankind should be able to follow the dictates of their conscience with regards to worship, as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of their fellow man; namely, as long as the principles of the last 6 commandments are kept.

OnceConvinced: Not once have I suggested that God force anyone to do anything. My very first post talked of putting mechanisms in place to protect humans from sinning. This involves similar things to pain and fear, mechanisms that God has supposedly instilled in us to protect us from physical harm. I am suggesting putting in fear and pain to protect us from spiritual harm, ie, sinning. I have also given you a practical example of how this works for me. I could never ever commit an evil act on someone because my own conscience would never allow me to. So why did God make me like that? Was he violating my freewill by doing that? Of course not, so why not make everyone with a conscience like that? Why not put in pain and fear to prevent people from sinning. Pain and fear are not violations of freewill are they?

My argument keeps coming back to this. There is no violation of freewill when it comes to my suggestions. Please explain how my suggestions would not possibly work. Please explain how they are tummy rot. So far you have not been able to do this. All you have done is go off on a tangent, preaching a lot of crap which is pure conjecture and your own or other's interpretation of the bible.

OnceConvinced:"I would not need to even pick up a gun. I could just erase the crazy guy out of existance with a command."

Thumbelina: God won't have to pick up a gun either. All He has to do to erase evil once and for all is to be Himself; He will unveil His glory in the presence of all, and whomever remained evil will be consumed.

OnceConvinced: Too little too late. A smart designer would have prevented the problem of evil before it eventuated. That is what my solutions to the whole design problem would have done. If my design plan had been instigated there would be no evil that needed consuming. But so far you have not explained how my design plan cannot work. All you have done is call it tummy rot and then followed up with your own tummy rot.

OnceConvinced:"He hardens people's hearts, (eg Pharaoah), ..."

Thumbelina: Ahem, Pharaoah hardened his own dang heart!OnceConvinced: {Drastic reinterpretation of scripture thanks to God not getting good translators for his supposed word, which is supposed to be the most important book ever}

OnceConvinced:"Oh yeah, here we go, trying to change the meaning of scripture so that it no longer means what it says. As for the bible writers being adept. I don't see that. All I see is ignorance. Whether they were good writers is in no way proof of God inspiring them. And the twisting of their words is being done by you, not any great writers.

Response:

Thumbelina: My friend, it is you who are wresting the scripture to your own destruction

That's why one needs the Holy Spirit to help them.If a person's heart is closed then God can't help them.

April 1, 2010

Even if I believed the Big Book of Jewish Faery Tales, I wouldn't read the tome above. Can't you say "I'm another numbnuts for jebus" in less than an encyclopedia?

April 1, 2010

ack ack ack...

Lorem ipsum ...

April 1, 2010

Thumbelina

Do you believe the following?

If so then sin must be good since God is the one that names them or creates them through law.

If sin and evil are not good then are you saying that corruption can come from a good tree/God?

Deuteronomy 32:4

He is the Rock, his work is perfect:

Matthew 7:18

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

I was also wondering how literally you read the Bible? Do you believe in real talking animals and miracles of all kinds?

Regards

DL

April 1, 2010

ack ack ack...

Lorem ipsum ...

Lorem Ipsum Generator

April 2, 2010

Thumbelina: As I said earlier, those Israelites were behaving LIKE THE EGYPTIANS and breaking God's 10 commandments, so God had to allow Moses to write TEMPORARY laws to help the Israelites keep their distinction which they had almost lost by being in Egypt.

That’s quite a fairy tale.

I already asked you to cite the verses from the Old Testament showing that the laws given to Moses were only temporary.

You’ve provided nothing.

Your scenario that God had to allow Moses to write his own laws also contradicts scripture.

Moses got the law from God.

Moses did not make up his own laws, nor does an all-powerful being have to allow a human to do that, which is what you implied.

Deut 4:2,5-6,14

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it.

Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.

And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it.

Demonstrate from the above passage that Moses made up his own laws and that they were only temporary.

Until you do, the word of God is calling you a liar.

Jesus knew that those TEMPORARY laws were there to protect Him and His mission to save mankind so there was no need for those laws any more;

This time Jesus is calling you a liar.

Matt 5:18-20

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus says nothing about laws being temporary.

They are all binding until heaven and earth pass away.

Ezekiel also says you’re a liar.

An expected king messiah was to lead people into great compliance with the law.

This is one of the mission parameters of a real king messiah.

Ezek 37:24

And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

Where exactly does this say anything about laws being temporary?

When did Jesus fulfill this vital task?

Jesus knew that by His death the new covenant would take effect.

Where does the new convenant, as defined in Jer 31, state that laws would become obsolete and faith in a human sacrifice would replace keeping the law as a vehicle for salvation?

Where does it state in Jer 31 that a vicarious human sacrifice would be responsible for individual sins?

With the Old covenant the people were faulty, they promised God that they would keep His commandments and they kept breaking them but under the New Covenant when people saw the sacrifice Jesus made for them the laws would then be written in their hearts and thus they should be able to keep God's 10 Commandments out of love and not just mere human effort.

The new covenant says absolutely nothing about a human sacrifice dying for the sins of others.

It says that each person will die for their own sins.

Jer 31:30

But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

Where does verse 33 state that some laws were only temporary except for the 10 commandments?

Jer 31:33

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

God already told people in Deut 4:2 not to add or subtract from the law, so who authorized you to claim his laws were only temporary?

If the new covenant is really in effect as you claim, then the following must be true:

Jer 31:34

And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Does every person know God?

Why are Christians still running around trying to “teach” people about God?

God said he would forgive the sins of his people.

There is no need for Jesus, who according to the law of God, wasn’t even a valid sacrifice for sin in the first place.

I know this is deep and some of you probably came from churches that may not have taught this but that IS what the bible teaches.

Apparently you think people in this forum are too stupid or too bored to grasp the extent of your contradictions.

If the Bible is to be taken seriously, your claims regarding the law have more holes in them than a swiss cheese.

If you think otherwise, then specifically address the points outlined.

April 2, 2010

OnceConvinced: But I wouldn't treat them like scum like the God of the bible does. I'd value my creations and not just wipe out entire nations because they do stuff I don't like]

Thumbelina: So,if Hitler were around today and you know what Hitler did to all those people, you would just give him a slap on the wrist, ruffle his hair and just say " Naughty, naughty Hitler don't do that again OK." and then let him go? If you did that do you think Hitler would pay any attention to you; or what do you think others who saw Hitler get away with it would do?!

We would have bloody anarchy that's what! Survival of the fittest! .

Ok, so you’re comparing your God to Hitler. Apt comparison. But I see you God as a lot worse than Hitler. Hitler deserves to suffer for what he did. But your God treats people far worse than Hitler ever did. So what punishment should God get? One things for certain, he definitely doesn’t deserve worship. Would you worship Hitler?

BTW the average Joe Bloggs who sins can’t be compared to Hitler. Let’s look at a more realistic scenario. Your God would have someone brutally slaughtered for telling lies. So what if your child told a lie. Would you have them slaughtered? Would you praise any parent for treating their child in such a horrible manner? Yet you would praise God for doing a similar act.

Thumbelina:

Those nations that were judged in the OT times were doing some horrific things such as child sacrifice; nations like the Canaanites engaged in human sacrifice, even offering their children to devil gods. (See Deuteronomy 12:31).

If left unrestrained, those nations would have plagued the world with such depravity so therefore they simply were not redeemable. It broke God's heart but he had to allow it.

Oh yeah, and the babies and children, they were guilty by association will they? Oh and those kids that God had mauled to death by a bear. They were conducting acts of human sacrifice too, were they? And the women who had to marry their rapists? They did too? What about the guy who picked up sticks during the Sabbath? I suppose he was conducting human sacrifices on the side? Those Sodomites. They weren’t just having gay sex, they were also conducting human sacrifices. Get real, Thumbelina! Sheesh, if God was to wipe out anyone for trying to conduct human sacrifices, he should have been enraged by Abraham attempting to sacrifice his son. And what sort of example is it to send his own son as a human sacrifice.

Thumbelina: We also need to remember that God is omniscient and can see the future;

And this is a point I have been trying to make to you all along. God is omniscient, but yet put no contingencies in place to deal with any of the problems that he knew were coming. But he did nothing. What a complacent and apathetic God you worship. Instead of preventing all the shit before it happens, he waits until it happens then takes action. That’s pretty slack. I would not deem such a God worthy of worship.

OnceConvinced: If I made a mistake with one, I'd just make an adjustment of some kind and get rid of the flaw, after all that's what a good creator would do.

Thumbelina: If you made a mistake then you won't be much of a God.

Indeed not. Your God is not much of a God is he?

The bible says God created everything good and very good.

But he didn’t, that’s the point. He created the world and put no contingencies in place to prevent sin from happening. A real God who is omniscient would have allowed for such eventualities. Your God made serious mistakes by not allowing for the mess that was about to eventuate. Now he has to deal with the mess he has allowed to happen. However his method is to wipe out everything and generally treat his creations like scum. A true God would have set systems in place similar to the ones I suggested, but he didn’t. He allowed it all to go to shit. Anyway, weren’t you saying earlier that God would be making adjustments? If he had made it good, none of it would need adjustments would it?

Thumbelina: Your Idea of free will: You create a spectacular being and that being looks at himself in the mirror and says "Daaaamn, I'm gorgeous!" You the creator are the MOST spectacular because duh, you're self-existent. So you're perfect and you made a perfect and yet finite sentient being (it can be destroyed because it is not self-existent). As long as that being is following you everything is hunky dory. At the appointed time that that being starts feeling those negative emotions you would just take away the emotions? How is that freedom; or how is that love?

How is my suggestions taking away emotions? In no way am I suggesting any of that. Nothing I have suggested means taking away any emotions. Please explain how instilling pain, guilt or fear into your creation is removing emotions? Is it considered taking away emotions when it comes to pain and fear when it comes to physical health? Can you not see I am suggesting exactly the same sort of thing? It’s nothing different to what’s already incorporated into human beings already.

3.How will you prevent those beings from hurting you, each other and their creation?

OnceConvinced: I'd put in mechanisms to prevent this, ie pain, fear. I would have them become physically sick (like on the movie Clockwork Orange) to prevent them. Doing evil would be a disgusting and appalling thing to them all, just as many things already are to 99.9% of humans, eg cannibalism, beastiality, eating faeces, sadomasachism. Seeing as things like fear and pain are not violations of freewill (because all humans have these mechanisms in them to prevent from physically harming themselves), then why not have such mechanisms in place to protect us from doing evil to others? In some ways these mechanisms are already there. I for instance could never deliberately harm another person because it would cause me too much guilt. In fact I can imagine the guilt I'd feel even before doing it. It would be horrible for me. So I'd make all humans have that same trait, but perhaps, make it more intense.

Thumbelina: Yeah but each time your creations get a REPRIEVE or respite (just like Pharaoh; hence the reason why this story was recorded), they think they're out of the woods and they go back to the same bad behavior.

But they won’t, that’s just it, unless they are sadomasochists. If you suffered pain every time you committed a sin, would you continue to sin? I doubt it. It would act as a deterrent.

Thumbelina: if He had killed the devil immediately His other creatures would have most likely served Him out of fear and not love.

Says who? That's a huge assumption. For me it would show a loving and just God, not one to be feared. Besides, most Christians are already serving him out of fear, rather than love with the threat of Hell. How is wiping out Satan any different from the threat of Hell in this respect? (at least wiping out Satan would show love ot his creations) A loving parent would remove the root of evil, rather than allow their child to be influenced by it.

Are you a parent? If you are you will understand this. A loving parent wishes to protect their child from evil. God cannot be considered a loving parent if he allows his creations to suffer due to the evil he allows to run rampant. And let’s also realise that he created that evil to begin with, knowing what he was unleashing (being omniscient). That does not show a loving God, but a malevolent God. Why would you worship such a being? Why would you love such a being?

I would more likely praise a God and love a God who took away the evil that was threatening me, than let it continue to fester, wouldn’t you? I would respect a God who got rid of Satan from the word go. I would have faith in such a God. Think about a hardened criminal Thumb, who goes through our court systems. Doesn't it actually increase your faith and trust in a court if it convicts the felon? Doesn't it make you respect it? As opposed to a court that would allow a felon to walk free? Wouldn't you then fear the court? Wouldn't you be distrustful of it? Would you be praising its decision to let the felon walk free?

A God who would allow Satan to run rampant is one to be feared. It shows one who is probably worse than Satan himself.

Another thing here is that you contradict yourself. In a previous post you are praising God for wiping out evil people on the planet. You honor him for not allowing evil to run rampant. Now you are honoring God for allowing evil to run rampant in the form of Satan. Where is the consistency in your logic? You are trying so hard to justify every thing that you don't realise that one justification contradicts another. Is not wiping out people for doing evil encouraging humans to worship him out of fear not love? Why the double standards, Thumb? Why is it ok for God to let Satan do whatever the hell he wants without stepping in and taking action, but when it comes to humans then suddenly he steps in to brutally wipe out the perpetrators?

Thumelina: but there have been instances of those and God allowed them in order for His creatures to see how far sin can really take someone.

How is that loving or merciful? We’d be in trouble as a human race, if parents started to act like this. Allow their kids to do horrible things just so the kid can see how far they’d go. That would be considered appalling parenting. Such a person would not deserve to be a parent. Your God can hardly be considered worthy of worship.

4.What will you do with those beings who break your rules?

OnceConvinced: With my system in place nobody would be breaking the rules, because even the thought of doing evil would made them physically sick. But ok, there may be a few messed up individuals (although I'd make sure there would be no such things as mental illnesses) who may decide they love the pain, love the fear and love feeling physically sick). For them I would have some rehabilitation system in place. Being God I would easily be able to make an adjustment or two to prevent them from offending again. I'm sure that nobody would mind losing some freewill to avoid Hell. I know I'd gladly be God's puppet to avoid Hell

Thumbelina: I'm sorry OnceConvinced but as a god your creations would be only animals at the best, you know just creatures of instinct? or mere machines at the worst; preprogrammed to do what you tell them without understanding that you love them with all your heart and then they would in turn choose to freely reciprocate that love. Maybe you aren't a loving god after all? .

I’ve already shown you that we as humans have pain and fear when it comes to our physical wellbeing. Would you consider us animals because of that? All I am suggesting is to apply that pain and fear to our spiritual wellbeing. I have also given you an example of myself how I have overwhelming guilt at even the though of inflicting suffering on an other human being. I am certainly not a robot or an animal and my freewill isn’t being violated is it?

Preprogramming? If you are going to insist that fear and pain is this when it comes to sin, then it also must be considered that when it comes to our physical wellbeing. Do you feel your freewill is violated when you are afraid to touch a hot element? Would you feel your freewill was violated when you felt fear at the thought of climbing up a cliff without safety equipment? Is that considered preprogrammming to you? So what’s the difference if that same fear is applied when it comes to sin?

OnceConvinced: But if none of this is good enough for you, how about you ask God how he's going to solve these problems in Heaven? Then ask him why he didn't just employ those methods to begin with?

Thumbelina: After this planet's trial with lawlessness "Doing evil would be a disgusting and appalling thing to them all ..." ; them all, being all of creation including animals.

Why not just instil that disgust from the word go? What sort of God would allow billions upon billions of his creations to suffer in Hell just to prove a point? Certainly not a loving, just or merciful God. A malevolent God, sure, but certainly not one worthy of worship.

April 2, 2010

With regards to perspectives on God being loving merciful etc.

OnceConvinced: "As long as you hold the perspective

you do, you can never read the bible with an open mind and see what it's really

showing you. Your views will always be tainted."

Thumbelina: I have to say ditto to you here but yours is with regard to your pessimistic attitude.

But you forget, I was a Christian for many many years and held that same perspective as you. It was removing those rose-colored sun glasses a few years ago that allowed me to open my mind and not have a mindset. My views now have evolved from that. I judge it by what it says, I am not tainted by any preconceived notions of God being loving, merciful or hateful and nasty.

Thumb:

When I was secular and I looked at the bible I did think to myself that some of God's actions seem to be quite contradictory to what He's supposed to be (Eg. Hardening Pharaoh's heart). However, the attitude that I adopted at the time was that I just don't understand it. Actually, I was utterly misconstruing the biblical texts. I tried asking questions to certain believers about certain things some answers were beautiful but some of them I was not satisfied with; one time when I asked a Pastor's wife about why they worship on Sunday when I've been told that the bible says that Saturday is the Sabbath, she retorted with an ad hominem, she said something about my accent and did not answer my question. Well as providence would have it -- cuz God realized I was searching for truth -- a few months after that I learned about the dark ages and Constantine and the role the Catholic Church played in attempting to change what God has blessed. I was eventually able to find a people that followed the bible more closely and I must say I love it!

See, you could see that God was not all he was cracked up to be! So what did you do? You decided to take it all on faith. You decided in your mind that God just had to be loving, merciful, just and everything else, because you could not accept otherwise. All critical thought was shoved aside and now you reject anything that doesn’t line up with that mindset and attempt to find any silly justification you can that supports it. You had trouble understanding. So to hell with all critical thought. To hell with challenging what you were reading in the bible.

Thumb:

, I always give God the benefit of the doubt

Once again, you show that mindset. I will call a spade a spade.

Thumb:

I am curious/concerned though, did you KNOW HIM personally?

So I sincerely believed. All my life up until about 4-5 years ago, thus my name, “OnceConvinced”. I believed I had a relationship with him. But now I realise I was simply living in a delusion.

Thum:

Mr. OnceConvinced, you've been doing the TYPICAL atheistic pastime of saturating your mind with info. from those ws that show supposed atrocities committed by god, huh?

I’m not an atheist.

I saturate my mind with facts. You however prefer to saturate your mind with references from a book written by ignorant bronze aged tribesman. You also take any thing written by other Christians (eg references in the bible, studies from other Christians etc) I don’t need to go to other sources, I can see the atrocities committed by God in your own book. I don’t need to try to rationalise them away or justify them. I’m not trying to convince myself of anything. I come to my own conclusions based on what I read. I don’t need to be influenced by other sources.

Thum:

lol. You know Mr. OnceConvinced I have always praised God for not allowing me to be born during OT times or in a culture that reflected such inequality to women.

God created the laws back then, the same guy you worship now. Doesn’t it bother you that he created such laws? All those ways were supposedly God’s ways. If they weren’t and were the way of the guys at the time, what makes you so sure it’s not the same with the NT? Don’t you believe that God never changes? Also that scripture I showed you about women not preaching was a NT scripture. Why do you continue to ignore your God’s laws?

Thum:

It was the dudes that fornicated with the women that had to marry them (see

Deut22:28-29).

OnceConvinced: Nope, sorry, these passages here are clearly talking about rape not

fornication. Be consistent with the previous verses. Don't take it out of

context. Are you once again trying to twist scripture by changing the meaning

of words?

Thumbelina : ... and I suppose vs 30 is talking about rape too huh?

Of course. It refers to “taking” your father’s wife. Looks like rape to me.

Thum:

Hey Mister, why did I supposedly twist scripture? It's you blind ol' atheistic types that can't see the truth.

I can’t speak for atheists, but I just take scripture at face value. I don’t see any need to twist it or justify it like you do.

OnceConvinced: And let's just assume it is talking about fornication what sort of a stupid law

is that? Make two people who probably don't love each other get married? Once

again appalling on your God's part and just setting two people up for a life of

misery (not to mention their future kids), particularly the woman who becomes

the possession of the man. Cruel and vindictive laws.

Response:

Thumbelina : The father had to approve the marriage and if the girl didn't want to marry the dude then most likely the parent would not have to forced the issue; though some pig headed papa may have tried, who knows?

As I said before, God had to allow Moses to write those TEMPORARY laws cuz the Israelites were ALREADY breaking the 10 Commandments left and right and Jesus had to come through that lineage so He can save us. Those laws were a deterrent to them breaking the 10 Commandments.

You make an awful lot of assumptions. How can you know what God was intending or why he did things a certain way. Are you now saying you understand God’s methods and ways?

It amuses me the way you shuck and jive to try to justify the bible.

The fact remains, your God is an appalling God, not loving, not merciful, just or worthy of worship.

OnceConvinced: BTW, I hope you looked early on in this chapter at this verse:

Deu 22:5

A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the

LORD your God detests anyone who does this.

I hope you always wear dresses, otherwise you're violating God's laws

Response:

Thumbelina : Those verses were talking about people who were confusing the heck out of everyone ; they were cross dressers. There should be a distinction between the genders. .

So how is a woman deemed to be a cross dresser? And what’s so bad about confusing people? And where do you get this justification? Once again sounds like assumptions on your part. I guess as long as you can convince yourself…