Why Are You Christians So Insincere With Your Hell Beliefs?

[Thumbelina]

Christianity will never die but atheism would.

But that doesn't say anything about Christianity never dying.

Rom 14:11

For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

 

The God of mainstream Christianity is not Yahweh or Jehovah, and that's the deity this verse refers to.

<snip>

 

I get to be scissor hands this time

 

Hey you Centauri, you're being R2D2-ish again, both Jews and non conformist Christians believe in a Creator God. Atheists do not believe in any God. That text says that EVERY knee will bow to God and that includes the knees of atheists, ergo atheism will be obsolete.

I'm holding a mirror up so you can view your own robotic behavior.

 

 

Eh, I think my bothering you is making you less robotic

You're still missing the point about why I wrote that. Unbelief is the WORST type of sin, even worse than satanism.

 

You realize that most who are considered Satanists are atheists that are making a mockery of Christianity right? That's not to say there aren't serious ones out there, but most followers of Anton LaVey were atheistic/deistic satanists.

 

http://en.wikipedia....aVeyan_Satanism

 

Yeah, there are fake Satanists who are really Satanists by default because they are not actively following God and there are the real Satanists, some of whom sacrifice humans.

[mymistake]

not willing that any should perish

 

but if they do, that's cool too.

 

I don't agree. I think you'd do alright in heaven.

 

Then why does God allow billions of people to perish?

 

Your invisible friend doesn't add up. He has the power to do anything. He is everywhere. He knows everything. He desires than none go to hell. He has a plan that results in billions of people to going to hell. And God knows that all God would have to do is provide enough objective evidence. But God doesn't because God doesn't want to violate "free will" even though God did violate "free will" when God made all these people in the first place. And apparently God has no problem providing plenty of objective evidence that the book of Genesis is wrong. It's not a violation of free will for God to deceive us. If People were given a choice between having their free will violated again and being horribly tortured they would all choose to give up their free will.

 

But there is a simpler explanation. Your God doesn't make sense because he was made up by men. That is why there is no objective evidence for any of this.

[ConureDelSol]

Christianity will never die but atheism would.

But that doesn't say anything about Christianity never dying.

Rom 14:11

For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

 

The God of mainstream Christianity is not Yahweh or Jehovah, and that's the deity this verse refers to.

<snip>

 

I get to be scissor hands this time

 

Hey you Centauri, you're being R2D2-ish again, both Jews and non conformist Christians believe in a Creator God. Atheists do not believe in any God. That text says that EVERY knee will bow to God and that includes the knees of atheists, ergo atheism will be obsolete.

I'm holding a mirror up so you can view your own robotic behavior.

 

 

Eh, I think my bothering you is making you less robotic

You're still missing the point about why I wrote that. Unbelief is the WORST type of sin, even worse than satanism.

 

You realize that most who are considered Satanists are atheists that are making a mockery of Christianity right? That's not to say there aren't serious ones out there, but most followers of Anton LaVey were atheistic/deistic satanists.

 

http://en.wikipedia....aVeyan_Satanism

 

Yeah, there are fake Satanists who are really Satanists by default because they are not actively following God and there are the real Satanists, some of whom sacrifice humans.

 

By that logic you are calling all of us Satanists.

[Thumbelina]

If a person genuinely misunderstands God's character and comandments God will not hold it against them.

So the sin of unbelief is acceptable if a person is genuine in their "misunderstanding" of God.

If someone is sincere about rejecting your version of God, are they being genuine?

Who determines what "misunderstanding" is?

 

Thumb: God knows if someone is ignorant or willfully ignorant.

 

 

As an aside, when God killed David's first child with Bathesheba, what was the child's understanding about God?

Thumb: The child had nothing to do with it, maybe God did not want that child to be another Absalom. David and his dang polygamy messed up his household.

 

Also, when God killed Uzzah for attempting to steady the ark when the oxen stumbled, do you consider that an act of divine overkill?

Seems like Uzzah reacted as any devoted believer would have done.

 

Thumb: Uzzah KNEW the rules, to whom much is given much is required. If God says He will punish such and such and He does not do it then nobody will take His rules seriously. The heathens did not drop dead when they touched the ark because unlike Uzzah, they were ignorant about its significance.*snicker* the heathens got the plague

 

 

 

What do you suppose God would have done to Uzzah if he had let it fall?

Thumb: He would not have keeled over and died, that's for sure.

 

In this case, didn't Uzzah genuinely have good intentions by trying to keep the ark from tipping over and smashing to the ground?

Even though touching the ark was forbidden, one would think a loving God would understand the instinctive reaction to keep such a holy object from being desecrated by falling to the ground.

 

Thumb: Those disobedient people were not supposed to put the ark on a cart in the first place, they were running ahead of God and NOT doing His will which caused all the trouble. Intention what? OBEDIENCE is BETTER than sacrifice, don't you know?

 

 

 

Also, when David performed an illegal census at the urging of God, why did God subsequently kill 70.000 people for the sin that David committed?

Since God incited David to perform this illegal census, didn't David genuinely think God wanted it done?

 

Thumb: Forgive me but I haven't looked at this in awhile but why did God let the Egyptians get the plague when it was Pharaoh was oppressing the Israelites? Is one man an army? People do not STAND up for what is right, therefore they give tacit approval to wrong acts. If they care about this temporal life more than their eternal life they will lose it (both testaments harmonize). There are basic priciples that believers need to adhere to. Eg. Nathan knew that it is better to obey God rather than men so he was not afraid to confront King David about his adultery; David could have had him killed. A believer is supposed to stand up for the right no matter what. People need to speak up and protest when they see lawlessness.

 

God winks at ignorance therefore God will not hold ignorance against unbelievers.

 

centauri:

Acts 17:30 states that "in the past" God winked at ignorance, and that was written some 2,000 years ago.

Rom 1:20 states that is God so obvious that nobody has an excuse.

On what basis are you saying that God will not hold ignorance against unbelievers?

 

Thumbelina:

True, but some people were indoctrinated to think that God is a big bully waiting to zap people and that caused them to not want to get close to Him. Now, if they continue being doubtful and they don't respond to that yearning for God that He placed in all of us then that will be wrong.

 

 

 

Well, I don't see your qualifiers actually in the text of either Acts 17:30 or Romans 1:20.

You've added extra-biblical exemptions.

Also, in 2 Thess 2:10-11 it says that God will send delusions to people ensuring that they believe lies.

If these people were already genuinely damned, there wouldn't be any need for God to pile on more lies.

It seems that God does indeed hold unbelief against people regardless of whether it's sincere or not.

Also, Jesus claimed to speak in parables with the intention of confusing members of his audience so that they would not be saved.

 

Thumb: That's what you get from building doctrines from one text, you do not see all the inseparable truths in the Word. I did not put all the texts that show my position, that takles a lot of time. In both testaments it says that God overlooks sins of ignorance, in the OT people had to give offerings for their ignorant sins, in the NT it says God winks at ignorance. The bible says that God will reject the willfully ignorant though. Hosea 4:6

 

If you would STOP reading the texts in a way that is not stipulated by the bible you would see that when God sends strong delusion to people it means He permits them to believe what they CHOOSE to believe. They grieved away the HS.

 

A lot of unbelievers do not even know what this text means: "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:" Acts 10:34

They use 21st Century language to interpret the text. This is what it means: "Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism" NIV

 

 

centauri:

But God does show favoritism.

He makes promises to a group of people he calls "chosen", elevating them to a higher status than other groups of people based on whim, even when the "chosen" people commited sins that were worse than the nations they invaded.

 

Thumbelina: He chose them because they ALLOWED Him to work in their life. He found their faith to be genuine.

 

They were chosen because of Abraham, who lived long before the Exodus.

Their faith was not even genuine according God, who repeatedly declared them stiff necked and rebellious.

They did sins that were worse than the "heathen" countries they invaded.

 

Thumb: God made His plan before the foundation of the world. People are saved by GRACE through FAITH. Noah was NOT an Israelite but He found GRACE in the sight of the Lord. Noah was WILLING to obey God, he had FAITH in God. God made an everlasting covenant with different people.

 

Abraham was not even Jewish, he was Chaldean. Adam and Eve received a promise too: "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Gen 3:15

 

Willing people received the promise, Abraham was a faithful man and God was able to continue His covenant with Abraham and His descendants. However, God's promise is not about nationaity but about FAITH.

 

 

This just goes to show that unbelievers need believers to pray a "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" prayer for them.

 

centauri:

The prayers of Christians won't do a bit of good.

Prov 28:9

He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.

 

If you think the God of the Old Testament is going to listen to you, you're seriously mistaken.

 

Thumbelina: There you go again, being a main arbiter.

 

 

But that job has already been claimed by you.

I'm not in Christian forums telling people that they have to believe in my reality in order to be saved.

You're here doing just that.

 

Thumb: Hey you sassy man *chuckle* I'm just discussing the word, OK.

 

God winks at ignorance therefore God will not hold ignorance against unbelievers.

 

Centauri said: Acts 17:30 states that "in the past" God winked at ignorance, and that was written some 2,000 years ago.

Rom 1:20 states that is God so obvious that nobody has an excuse.

On what basis are you saying that God will not hold ignorance against unbelievers?

 

Thumbelina: When they sincerely misunderstand Him or His teachings even though they tried to understand.

Once again, you've rewritten the scripture to make exceptions.

It doesn't say anything about sincerely misunderstanding.

It flatly says they have no excuse.

 

Thumb: Yeah but you are judging them before the time, if they don't search for truth or respond to the truths God already gave them THEN they will have no excuse.

[mymistake]

 

Thumb: Yeah but you are judging them before the time, if they don't search for truth or respond to the truths God already gave them THEN they will have no excuse.

 

The truth is that there was never a Garden of Eden, there was never an Adam and Eve, there was never a Global Flood, There was never a Israeli conquest of Canaan and there was never a nation of two million people wandering in the desert. That is the truth. From that truth we know there is no original sin. So there is nothing to save us from. There is no need for a human sacrifice to atone for all humanity. There is nothing to forgive.

 

Why is the Bible in opposition to the truth?

[★ Citsonga ★]

To Citsonga:

 

You still want to try and get a simple Yes or No from Thumbelina?

 

If so, why not ask her this?

 

"Do you accept that I'm an Ex-Christian who's freely chosen to fully and finally reject Jesus - Yes or No?"

 

I wonder if she'll dodge that one too?

 

I'm not sure where you would want to go with that, but the actual answer would be "No." I have not chosen to reject Jesus; I simply came to the realization that it's simply not true. It's kind of like having a childhood of believing in Santa and then finding out that it's not true; no reasonable person would say that such a person chose to reject Santa.

 

An unbeliever or a disbeliever?

 

I for one could never say I was an unbeliever. An unbeliever is someone who claims they don't believe, but deep down they do, but will do anything to avoid having to face the responsibility that comes with belief. That's what I've been taught in my many years as a Christian. By claiming to be an unbeliever, you are just giving people like Thumb more fuel to add to the fire. They will see you as someone they can reconvert... someone who has deliberately rebelled against God and simply wants to sin rather than live a Godly life.

 

A disbeliever on the other hand is someone who is simply UNABLE to believe. It's something that can't be helped and can't be changed unless adequate evidence OR logical argument is presented to enable you to believe.

 

Disbelief is NOT a choice. Unbelief IS a choice. Unbelief is a willful act of rebellion against God, whereas Disbelief is not.

 

I actually find the term "unbeliever" highly offensive. It's like calling a woman or "twat" or a black African a "nigger".

 

What about those of us who refer to ourselves as "nonbelievers"?

 

Anyway, I don't recall ever hearing the specific distinction you're making there, though I don't doubt that there are some who resort to such semantics. In my experience, a lot of Christians think that all (or at least most) un-/dis-/non-believers are in denial of what they know deep down to be true, regardless of whatever label one puts on it. No matter how you refer to yourself, such believers will twist it into whatever they want.

 

As a prime example:

 

 

Yeah, there are fake Satanists who are really Satanists by default because they are not actively following God and there are the real Satanists, some of whom sacrifice humans.

 

By that logic you are calling all of us Satanists.

 

Anyone who can, with a straight face, call us nonbelievers "Satanists" is someone who canNOT be reasoned with.

 

There's no real difference between Christians like that and Muslims who call all nonbelievers of Islam "infidels" in rebellion against Allah. It's simply projecting misconceptions onto people they don't understand.

 

The irony here is that Jesus supposedly said that nonbelievers would make false accusations against his disciples, while in my experience it's the religious (including Christians) who are the most guilty of making false accusations against others.

[agnosticator]

I for one could never say I was an unbeliever. An unbeliever is someone who claims they don't believe, but deep down they do, but will do anything to avoid having to face the responsibility that comes with belief. That's what I've been taught in my many years as a Christian. By claiming to be an unbeliever, you are just giving people like Thumb more fuel to add to the fire. They will see you as someone they can reconvert... someone who has deliberately rebelled against God and simply wants to sin rather than live a Godly life.

 

A disbeliever on the other hand is someone who is simply UNABLE to believe. It's something that can't be helped and can't be changed unless adequate evidence OR logical argument is presented to enable you to believe.

 

Disbelief is NOT a choice. Unbelief IS a choice. Unbelief is a willful act of rebellion against God, whereas Disbelief is not.

 

I actually find the term "unbeliever" highly offensive. It's like calling a woman or "twat" or a black African a "nigger".

 

Interesting! I wasn't taught that, and after looking the terms up, definitions seem to be all over the place. Many times they are treated as synonyms. I hadn't given this much thought up until now. Thanks for pointing it out!

 

I think of disbeliever and unbeliever as negative terms. They are no different than calling us infidels. Religions use these as insults towards outsiders. So you are right in that unbeliever is a dirty word. But I would add that labeling outsiders as not believing, is a symptom of something ethically very wrong with the religion. All these terms are purposely divisive. Christians are proud of being sheep, but it doesn't give them (and especially the meek and mild Jesus) the right to label everyone else as goats.

 

 

 

You are right,definitions seem to be all over the place, many times they are used interchangeably (I tend to do this too). This is what I meant at the time I wrote my post:

 

unbeliever definition

a person who does not accept any, or any particular, religious belief <--- That was so my definition

 

disbeliever definition:

doubter, questioner, agnostic; see critic 1, skeptic.

 

Even the above definitions basically use those terms interchangeably. I don't want to nor am I going to quibble over definitions. To a believer, unbeliever/ disbeliever is one who does not believe in God, whether it is consciously or unconsciously is another matter.

 

.........

 

About "all" people being rebellious, all people cannot be painted with one stroke of a brush. Different people have different personalities and paths so (as I am learning) believers cannot condemn others.

 

It's a belated Christmas miracle!!!! Agi agrees with Thumbi!!!!

[centauri]

Thumbelina- if a person genuinely misunderstands God's character and comandments God will not hold it against them.

 

centauri:

So the sin of unbelief is acceptable if a person is genuine in their "misunderstanding" of God.

If someone is sincere about rejecting your version of God, are they being genuine?

Who determines what "misunderstanding" is?

 

Thumb: God knows if someone is ignorant or willfully ignorant.

So innocent ignorance and denial is excused while willful ignorance is condemned even though God doesn't excuse ignorance at all, per Rom 1:20.

And if innocent ignornance is given a pass, then Christians are putting people at risk by proselytizing to them.

Christian targets would be better off left alone rather than exposing them to possible damnation.

 

centauri:

As an aside, when God killed David's first child with Bathesheba, what was the child's understanding about God?

 

Thumb: The child had nothing to do with it, maybe God did not want that child to be another Absalom. David and his dang polygamy messed up his household.

So God respected David, kept him alive, and killed his son instead even though scripture says he will not punish children for the sins of their fathers.

[centauri]

centauri:

Also, when David performed an illegal census at the urging of God, why did God subsequently kill 70.000 people for the sin that David committed?

Since God incited David to perform this illegal census, didn't David genuinely think God wanted it done?

 

Thumb: Forgive me but I haven't looked at this in awhile but why did God let the Egyptians get the plague when it was Pharaoh was oppressing the Israelites? Is one man an army? People do not STAND up for what is right, therefore they give tacit approval to wrong acts. If they care about this temporal life more than their eternal life they will lose it (both testaments harmonize). There are basic priciples that believers need to adhere to. Eg. Nathan knew that it is better to obey God rather than men so he was not afraid to confront King David about his adultery; David could have had him killed. A believer is supposed to stand up for the right no matter what. People need to speak up and protest when they see lawlessness.

So your recommendation to soldiers of the king is to disobey the king, whom God has placed on the throne.

In other words, David's sin (incited by God) merits killing 70,000 people because nobody defied the order given by David.

 

God winks at ignorance therefore God will not hold ignorance against unbelievers.

 

centauri:

Acts 17:30 states that "in the past" God winked at ignorance, and that was written some 2,000 years ago.

Rom 1:20 states that is God so obvious that nobody has an excuse.

On what basis are you saying that God will not hold ignorance against unbelievers?

 

Thumbelina:

True, but some people were indoctrinated to think that God is a big bully waiting to zap people and that caused them to not want to get close to Him. Now, if they continue being doubtful and they don't respond to that yearning for God that He placed in all of us then that will be wrong.

 

centauri:

Well, I don't see your qualifiers actually in the text of either Acts 17:30 or Romans 1:20.

You've added extra-biblical exemptions.

Also, in 2 Thess 2:10-11 it says that God will send delusions to people ensuring that they believe lies.

If these people were already genuinely damned, there wouldn't be any need for God to pile on more lies.

It seems that God does indeed hold unbelief against people regardless of whether it's sincere or not.

Also, Jesus claimed to speak in parables with the intention of confusing members of his audience so that they would not be saved.

 

Thumb: That's what you get from building doctrines from one text, you do not see all the inseparable truths in the Word. I did not put all the texts that show my position, that takles a lot of time. In both testaments it says that God overlooks sins of ignorance, in the OT people had to give offerings for their ignorant sins, in the NT it says God winks at ignorance. The bible says that God will reject the willfully ignorant though. Hosea 4:6

Rom 1:20 says people have no excuse and Acts 17 says God now commands that all people believe in him.

That command was given 2,000 years ago.

So according to you, that command was optional.

God will still wink at unbelief as long it's ignorant unbelief.

And Jesus spoke in parables to confuse his audience, so does that qualify as ignorant unbelief on their part?

 

If you would STOP reading the texts in a way that is not stipulated by the bible you would see that when God sends strong delusion to people it means He permits them to believe what they CHOOSE to believe. They grieved away the HS.

No, you're rewriting the scripture.

The text indicates an affirmative action by God, not passive non-action.

 

2 Thess 2:11

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

 

God ensures their doom by his action.

[centauri]

A lot of unbelievers do not even know what this text means: "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:" Acts 10:34

They use 21st Century language to interpret the text. This is what it means: "Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism" NIV

 

centauri:

But God does show favoritism.

He makes promises to a group of people he calls "chosen", elevating them to a higher status than other groups of people based on whim, even when the "chosen" people commited sins that were worse than the nations they invaded.

 

Thumbelina: He chose them because they ALLOWED Him to work in their life. He found their faith to be genuine.

 

centauri:

They were chosen because of Abraham, who lived long before the Exodus.

Their faith was not even genuine according God, who repeatedly declared them stiff necked and rebellious.

They did sins that were worse than the "heathen" countries they invaded.

 

Thumb: God made His plan before the foundation of the world. People are saved by GRACE through FAITH. Noah was NOT an Israelite but He found GRACE in the sight of the Lord. Noah was WILLING to obey God, he had FAITH in God. God made an everlasting covenant with different people.

So God's plans allow him to show favoritism even though he isn't supposed to do that.

 

Abraham was not even Jewish, he was Chaldean. Adam and Eve received a promise too: "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Gen 3:15

 

Willing people received the promise, Abraham was a faithful man and God was able to continue His covenant with Abraham and His descendants. However, God's promise is not about nationaity but about FAITH.

And God advocated genocide for some groups while ensuring the success of another group even though they did more evil than the nations they were told to destroy.

 

God winks at ignorance therefore God will not hold ignorance against unbelievers.

 

Centauri said: Acts 17:30 states that "in the past" God winked at ignorance, and that was written some 2,000 years ago.

Rom 1:20 states that is God so obvious that nobody has an excuse.

On what basis are you saying that God will not hold ignorance against unbelievers?

 

Thumbelina: When they sincerely misunderstand Him or His teachings even though they tried to understand.

 

centauri

Once again, you've rewritten the scripture to make exceptions.

It doesn't say anything about sincerely misunderstanding.

It flatly says they have no excuse.

 

Thumb: Yeah but you are judging them before the time, if they don't search for truth or respond to the truths God already gave them THEN they will have no excuse.

Acts 17 states that God now commands belief.

That was 2,000 years ago.

Rom 1:20 states that people have no excuse.

The time for winking at ignorance expired.

[centauri]

centauri:

Also, when God killed Uzzah for attempting to steady the ark when the oxen stumbled, do you consider that an act of divine overkill?

Seems like Uzzah reacted as any devoted believer would have done.

 

Thumb: Uzzah KNEW the rules, to whom much is given much is required. If God says He will punish such and such and He does not do it then nobody will take His rules seriously. The heathens did not drop dead when they touched the ark because unlike Uzzah, they were ignorant about its significance.*snicker* the heathens got the plague

But Christians don't take God rules seriously and they aren't dropping dead.

Christian routinely ignore the dietary restrictions, the sabbath day, and a host of other statutes and regulations.

And unlike Uzzah, they aren't simply reacting to a potential calamity, they're intentionally ignoring those laws because they think they're exempt from them.

That's a far greater act of disobedience than what Uzzah did.

 

What do you suppose God would have done to Uzzah if he had let it fall?

 

Thumb: He would not have keeled over and died, that's for sure.

How do you know that for sure?

God killed two of Aaron's sons for burning the wrong incense.

Letting the ark fall on the ground would be a far bigger desecration.

 

In this case, didn't Uzzah genuinely have good intentions by trying to keep the ark from tipping over and smashing to the ground?

Even though touching the ark was forbidden, one would think a loving God would understand the instinctive reaction to keep such a holy object from being desecrated by falling to the ground.

 

Thumb: Those disobedient people were not supposed to put the ark on a cart in the first place, they were running ahead of God and NOT doing His will which caused all the trouble. Intention what? OBEDIENCE is BETTER than sacrifice, don't you know?

It doesn't square at all with the Christian claims about God being loving and long suffering.

And as king, David was in charge of the operation..

Killing Uzzah shows signs of a God that has fits of temper, just like humans.

[Thumbelina]

Thumbelina- if a person genuinely misunderstands God's character and comandments God will not hold it against them.

 

centauri:

So the sin of unbelief is acceptable if a person is genuine in their "misunderstanding" of God.

If someone is sincere about rejecting your version of God, are they being genuine?

Who determines what "misunderstanding" is?

 

Thumb: God knows if someone is ignorant or willfully ignorant.

 

So innocent ignorance and denial is excused while willful ignorance is condemned even though God doesn't excuse ignorance at all, per Rom 1:20.

And if innocent ignornance is given a pass, then Christians are putting people at risk by proselytizing to them.

Christian targets would be better off left alone rather than exposing them to possible damnation.

 

God will and can pardon ignorance, I mean, look at those people in the OT and their polygamy. If someone has a little faith God can work with them, they can be teachable. Abraham, David, Solomon et al had faith so God was able to work with them. Some people are atheist because their view of God is horrible so then cognitive dissonance sets in; that's why believers are supposed to witness to them about how good God is. God is longsuffering, Centauri, the text says God winked at the ignorance when the people did not know but when they do know they should repent. Ultimately people are without excuse when it comes to knowing about God's existence for He put eternity in our hearts. If death is natural then why is it dreaded so, people who do not believe in God should be quite cavalier about it when it occurs, no?

 

I am not disagreeing with you, what I am saying is that atheists and others are confused and maybe frightened and that is why some block out God, God gives them chances and believers need to care about them.

 

 

centauri:

As an aside, when God killed David's first child with Bathesheba, what was the child's understanding about God?

 

Thumb: The child had nothing to do with it, maybe God did not want that child to be another Absalom. David and his dang polygamy messed up his household.

 

Centauri: So God respected David, kept him alive, and killed his son instead even though scripture says he will not punish children for the sins of their fathers.

 

God had a purpose for David, David had great faith in and love for God even though he messed up. God knows the beginning from the end. What if the kingdom would have been divided further by having that child of adultery and murder around?

God did not judge the baby to go to hell, with the texts I gave, it would seem that David expects to go with the baby to heaven.

[Thumbelina]

centauri:

Also, when David performed an illegal census at the urging of God, why did God subsequently kill 70.000 people for the sin that David committed?

Since God incited David to perform this illegal census, didn't David genuinely think God wanted it done?

 

Thumb: Forgive me but I haven't looked at this in awhile but why did God let the Egyptians get the plague when it was Pharaoh was oppressing the Israelites? Is one man an army? People do not STAND up for what is right, therefore they give tacit approval to wrong acts. If they care about this temporal life more than their eternal life they will lose it (both testaments harmonize). There are basic priciples that believers need to adhere to. Eg. Nathan knew that it is better to obey God rather than men so he was not afraid to confront King David about his adultery; David could have had him killed. A believer is supposed to stand up for the right no matter what. People need to speak up and protest when they see lawlessness.

 

 

So your recommendation to soldiers of the king is to disobey the king, whom God has placed on the throne.

In other words, David's sin (incited by God) merits killing 70,000 people because nobody defied the order given by David.

 

 

 

God does not tempt with evil, David got prideful and ran ahead of God. The soldiers could have consulted with God and ask Him what to do about the situation, they did not have to try to kill him. David had an open mind, Abigail persuaded him to refrain fronm sinning and he listened to her.

I still did not read this for the context though but I do remember that David sinned by his own self. God allowed these things to be recorded so we can see that there is none good but God.

 

God winks at ignorance therefore God will not hold ignorance against unbelievers.

 

centauri:

Acts 17:30 states that "in the past" God winked at ignorance, and that was written some 2,000 years ago.

Rom 1:20 states that is God so obvious that nobody has an excuse.

On what basis are you saying that God will not hold ignorance against unbelievers?

 

Thumbelina:

True, but some people were indoctrinated to think that God is a big bully waiting to zap people and that caused them to not want to get close to Him. Now, if they continue being doubtful and they don't respond to that yearning for God that He placed in all of us then that will be wrong.

 

centauri:

Well, I don't see your qualifiers actually in the text of either Acts 17:30 or Romans 1:20.

You've added extra-biblical exemptions.

Also, in 2 Thess 2:10-11 it says that God will send delusions to people ensuring that they believe lies.

If these people were already genuinely damned, there wouldn't be any need for God to pile on more lies.

It seems that God does indeed hold unbelief against people regardless of whether it's sincere or not.

Also, Jesus claimed to speak in parables with the intention of confusing members of his audience so that they would not be saved.

 

Thumb: That's what you get from building doctrines from one text, you do not see all the inseparable truths in the Word. I did not put all the texts that show my position, that takles a lot of time. In both testaments it says that God overlooks sins of ignorance, in the OT people had to give offerings for their ignorant sins, in the NT it says God winks at ignorance. The bible says that God will reject the willfully ignorant though. Hosea 4:6

 

 

Centauri: Rom 1:20 says people have no excuse and Acts 17 says God now commands that all people believe in him.

That command was given 2,000 years ago.

So according to you, that command was optional.

God will still wink at unbelief as long it's ignorant unbelief.

And Jesus spoke in parables to confuse his audience, so does that qualify as ignorant unbelief on their part?

 

I explained some of this previously. The people did not want to sincerely understand the parables which is why they did not understand them, their hearts were hard.

 

Thumb: If you would STOP reading the texts in a way that is not stipulated by the bible you would see that when God sends strong delusion to people it means He permits them to believe what they CHOOSE to believe. They grieved away the HS.

 

Centauri: No, you're rewriting the scripture.

The text indicates an affirmative action by God, not passive non-action.

 

2 Thess 2:11

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

 

God ensures their doom by his action.

 

Centauri, learn how to put line upon line, line upon line and you will see that God is wonderful and just.

[Thumbelina]

A lot of unbelievers do not even know what this text means: "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:" Acts 10:34

They use 21st Century language to interpret the text. This is what it means: "Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism" NIV

 

centauri:

But God does show favoritism.

He makes promises to a group of people he calls "chosen", elevating them to a higher status than other groups of people based on whim, even when the "chosen" people commited sins that were worse than the nations they invaded.

 

Thumbelina: He chose them because they ALLOWED Him to work in their life. He found their faith to be genuine.

 

centauri:

They were chosen because of Abraham, who lived long before the Exodus.

Their faith was not even genuine according God, who repeatedly declared them stiff necked and rebellious.

They did sins that were worse than the "heathen" countries they invaded.

 

Thumb: God made His plan before the foundation of the world. People are saved by GRACE through FAITH. Noah was NOT an Israelite but He found GRACE in the sight of the Lord. Noah was WILLING to obey God, he had FAITH in God. God made an everlasting covenant with different people.

So God's plans allow him to show favoritism even though he isn't supposed to do that.

 

God has a purpose and that is to save whomever is willing to be saved.

 

 

Abraham was not even Jewish, he was Chaldean. Adam and Eve received a promise too: "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Gen 3:15

 

Willing people received the promise, Abraham was a faithful man and God was able to continue His covenant with Abraham and His descendants. However, God's promise is not about nationaity but about FAITH.

 

Centauri: And God advocated genocide for some groups while ensuring the success of another group even though they did more evil than the nations they were told to destroy.

 

Faith is the victory, there was always a remnant that held on.

 

 

God winks at ignorance therefore God will not hold ignorance against unbelievers.

 

Centauri said: Acts 17:30 states that "in the past" God winked at ignorance, and that was written some 2,000 years ago.

Rom 1:20 states that is God so obvious that nobody has an excuse.

On what basis are you saying that God will not hold ignorance against unbelievers?

 

Thumbelina: When they sincerely misunderstand Him or His teachings even though they tried to understand.

 

centauri

Once again, you've rewritten the scripture to make exceptions.

It doesn't say anything about sincerely misunderstanding.

It flatly says they have no excuse.

 

Thumb: Yeah but you are judging them before the time, if they don't search for truth or respond to the truths God already gave them THEN they will have no excuse.

 

Centauri: Acts 17 states that God now commands belief.

That was 2,000 years ago.

Rom 1:20 states that people have no excuse.

The time for winking at ignorance expired.

 

There's a text that says that when God does not bring speedy justice people get bolder in their sins. Maybe God is letting angels and men see that this sin thing will never dwindle and that is why He has to destroy sin and perpetual sinners. We don't know what is going on behind the scenes. God is longsuffering and merciful and believers should be too.

[centauri]

Thumbelina- if a person genuinely misunderstands God's character and comandments God will not hold it against them.

 

centauri:

So the sin of unbelief is acceptable if a person is genuine in their "misunderstanding" of God.

If someone is sincere about rejecting your version of God, are they being genuine?

Who determines what "misunderstanding" is?

 

Thumb: God knows if someone is ignorant or willfully ignorant.

 

centauri-

So innocent ignorance and denial is excused while willful ignorance is condemned even though God doesn't excuse ignorance at all, per Rom 1:20.

And if innocent ignornance is given a pass, then Christians are putting people at risk by proselytizing to them.

Christian targets would be better off left alone rather than exposing them to possible damnation.

 

Thumbelina-

God will and can pardon ignorance, I mean, look at those people in the OT and their polygamy. If someone has a little faith God can work with them, they can be teachable. Abraham, David, Solomon et al had faith so God was able to work with them.

Where does God's law ban polygamy?

 

Some people are atheist because their view of God is horrible so then cognitive dissonance sets in; that's why believers are supposed to witness to them about how good God is. God is longsuffering, Centauri, the text says God winked at the ignorance when the people did not know but when they do know they should repent. Ultimately people are without excuse when it comes to knowing about God's existence for He put eternity in our hearts. If death is natural then why is it dreaded so, people who do not believe in God should be quite cavalier about it when it occurs, no?

 

I am not disagreeing with you, what I am saying is that atheists and others are confused and maybe frightened and that is why some block out God, God gives them chances and believers need to care about them.

Specifically, which set of believers follow the one true God?

 

centauri:

As an aside, when God killed David's first child with Bathesheba, what was the child's understanding about God?

 

Thumb: The child had nothing to do with it, maybe God did not want that child to be another Absalom. David and his dang polygamy messed up his household.

 

Centauri: So God respected David, kept him alive, and killed his son instead even though scripture says he will not punish children for the sins of their fathers.

 

Thumbelina-

God had a purpose for David, David had great faith in and love for God even though he messed up. God knows the beginning from the end. What if the kingdom would have been divided further by having that child of adultery and murder around?

God did not judge the baby to go to hell, with the texts I gave, it would seem that David expects to go with the baby to heaven.

So God practices moral relativism.

[Thumbelina]

centauri:

Also, when God killed Uzzah for attempting to steady the ark when the oxen stumbled, do you consider that an act of divine overkill?

Seems like Uzzah reacted as any devoted believer would have done.

 

Thumb: Uzzah KNEW the rules, to whom much is given much is required. If God says He will punish such and such and He does not do it then nobody will take His rules seriously. The heathens did not drop dead when they touched the ark because unlike Uzzah, they were ignorant about its significance.*snicker* the heathens got the plague

 

 

But Christians don't take God rules seriously and they aren't dropping dead.

Christian routinely ignore the dietary restrictions, the sabbath day, and a host of other statutes and regulations.

And unlike Uzzah, they aren't simply reacting to a potential calamity, they're intentionally ignoring those laws because they think they're exempt from them.

That's a far greater act of disobedience than what Uzzah did.

 

 

There was an OT theocracy and then there was the time of the judges. Messiah had to come, after he came then God did not have to be so swift with justice. You know that history matches what happened. Christ came and those laws were not enforced within Christianity. Jews have not been able to get their temple up and running in how long?

 

What do you suppose God would have done to Uzzah if he had let it fall?

 

Thumb: He would not have keeled over and died, that's for sure.

How do you know that for sure?

 

Centauri: God killed two of Aaron's sons for burning the wrong incense.

Letting the ark fall on the ground would be a far bigger desecration..

 

 

Ha, those nincompoops got drunk and desecrated God's temple, they KNEW BETTER. As I said before Uzzah KNEW BETTER too. They had great responsibilities and God expected better of them. I am sure some people learned from their examples.

 

Centauri: In this case, didn't Uzzah genuinely have good intentions by trying to keep the ark from tipping over and smashing to the ground?

Even though touching the ark was forbidden, one would think a loving God would understand the instinctive reaction to keep such a holy object from being desecrated by falling to the ground.

 

Thumb: Those disobedient people were not supposed to put the ark on a cart in the first place, they were running ahead of God and NOT doing His will which caused all the trouble. Intention what? OBEDIENCE is BETTER than sacrifice, don't you know?

 

Centauri: It doesn't square at all with the Christian claims about God being loving and long suffering.

And as king, David was in charge of the operation..

Killing Uzzah shows signs of a God that has fits of temper, just like humans.

 

How do you know God wasn't longsuffering with Uzzah? When I am disobedient I know God gives me warnings and sometimes He has to let me fall flat so I can learn. God has a purpose for everything He does.

[Thumbelina]

Where does God's law ban polygamy?

 

Did He make Adam and Eve, Jane, Mary, Rita ...?

Jesus said from the beginning God made male and female NOT male and females.

 

Specifically, which set of believers follow the one true God?

Many people follow the one true God but many don't understand the specifics.

 

 

So God practices moral relativism.

 

No, we all deserve death but He leans on His compassionate and merciful nature to pardon us because Jesus paid the penalty that we deserve.

[mymistake]

Thumb: The child had nothing to do with it, maybe God did not want that child to be another Absalom. David and his dang polygamy messed up his household.

 

Centauri: So God respected David, kept him alive, and killed his son instead even though scripture says he will not punish children for the sins of their fathers.

 

Thumbelina-

God had a purpose for David, David had great faith in and love for God even though he messed up. God knows the beginning from the end. What if the kingdom would have been divided further by having that child of adultery and murder around?

God did not judge the baby to go to hell, with the texts I gave, it would seem that David expects to go with the baby to heaven.

So God practices moral relativism.

 

 

It's the special pleading fallacy. When God kills a baby then there must have been a very special reason for that even though the text doesn't mention any special reason. And what excuse does Thumb dream up? Why that baby was gonna divide the kingdom. Just like how the bad kings that God allowed to be born divided the kingdom that eventually was destroyed. The Bible goes through all the bad kings in Israeli history and all the horrible things they did and how it finally led to the destruction of the kingdom. And in modern times God allowed Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Husane and various other evil dictators to be born and rise to power. But when the Bible says that God killed a baby and the Bible's reason doesn't match Christian theology well there must be a special reason not mentioned.

 

Thumb is just going to keep dreaming up nonsense answers because she is not ready to give up her delusion.

[mymistake]

Where does God's law ban polygamy?

 

Did He make Adam and Eve, Jane, Mary, Rita ...?

Jesus said from the beginning God made male and female NOT male and females.

 

Specifically, which set of believers follow the one true God?

Many people follow the one true God but many don't understand the specifics.

 

 

So God practices moral relativism.

 

No, we all deserve death but He leans on His compassionate and merciful nature to pardon us because Jesus paid the penalty that we deserve.

 

Why does a baby deserve to die? Because you have a delusion where some woman who never existed was fooled by a talking snake into eating fruit when she did not understand the consequences? The Garden of Eden never existed. Six to ten thousand years ago we lived in stone age cities. Thousands of years before that we lived in caves. We can use objective evidence to trace our origins back for millions of years. We know there never was a Garden of Eden. We know this. Meanwhile you have no objective evidence of God so you don't know anything about God. You just have beliefs and the true ones feel just as real to your as the delusions. That is the problem with subjective experience.

[centauri]

centauri:

Also, when David performed an illegal census at the urging of God, why did God subsequently kill 70.000 people for the sin that David committed?

Since God incited David to perform this illegal census, didn't David genuinely think God wanted it done?

 

Thumb: Forgive me but I haven't looked at this in awhile but why did God let the Egyptians get the plague when it was Pharaoh was oppressing the Israelites? Is one man an army? People do not STAND up for what is right, therefore they give tacit approval to wrong acts. If they care about this temporal life more than their eternal life they will lose it (both testaments harmonize). There are basic priciples that believers need to adhere to. Eg. Nathan knew that it is better to obey God rather than men so he was not afraid to confront King David about his adultery; David could have had him killed. A believer is supposed to stand up for the right no matter what. People need to speak up and protest when they see lawlessness.

 

centauri-

So your recommendation to soldiers of the king is to disobey the king, whom God has placed on the throne.

In other words, David's sin (incited by God) merits killing 70,000 people because nobody defied the order given by David.

 

Thumbelina-

God does not tempt with evil, David got prideful and ran ahead of God.

David took a census because God incited him to do it.

This was then used as a vehicle to pour out wrath on Israel.

 

The soldiers could have consulted with God and ask Him what to do about the situation, they did not have to try to kill him. David had an open mind, Abigail persuaded him to refrain fronm sinning and he listened to her.

I still did not read this for the context though but I do remember that David sinned by his own self. God allowed these things to be recorded so we can see that there is none good but God.

So your position is that whatever happens, it's all good.

Nothing can ever be subjected to any type of scrutiny because everything is perfect by definition.

 

Centauri: Rom 1:20 says people have no excuse and Acts 17 says God now commands that all people believe in him.

That command was given 2,000 years ago.

So according to you, that command was optional.

God will still wink at unbelief as long it's ignorant unbelief.

And Jesus spoke in parables to confuse his audience, so does that qualify as ignorant unbelief on their part?

 

Thumbelina-

I explained some of this previously. The people did not want to sincerely understand the parables which is why they did not understand them, their hearts were hard.

That's not what the text says.

It says that Jesus spoke to them in parables in order to create confusion.

It has nothing to do with people's not wanting to understand.

 

Thumb: If you would STOP reading the texts in a way that is not stipulated by the bible you would see that when God sends strong delusion to people it means He permits them to believe what they CHOOSE to believe. They grieved away the HS.

 

Centauri: No, you're rewriting the scripture.

The text indicates an affirmative action by God, not passive non-action.

 

2 Thess 2:11

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

 

God ensures their doom by his action.

 

Centauri, learn how to put line upon line, line upon line and you will see that God is wonderful and just.

And there are pink unicorns that crap pretty colored candies.

You just have to believe.

[centauri]

centauri:

Also, when God killed Uzzah for attempting to steady the ark when the oxen stumbled, do you consider that an act of divine overkill?

Seems like Uzzah reacted as any devoted believer would have done.

 

Thumb: Uzzah KNEW the rules, to whom much is given much is required. If God says He will punish such and such and He does not do it then nobody will take His rules seriously. The heathens did not drop dead when they touched the ark because unlike Uzzah, they were ignorant about its significance.*snicker* the heathens got the plague

 

centauri-

But Christians don't take God rules seriously and they aren't dropping dead.

Christian routinely ignore the dietary restrictions, the sabbath day, and a host of other statutes and regulations.

And unlike Uzzah, they aren't simply reacting to a potential calamity, they're intentionally ignoring those laws because they think they're exempt from them.

That's a far greater act of disobedience than what Uzzah did.

 

 

Thumbelina-

There was an OT theocracy and then there was the time of the judges. Messiah had to come, after he came then God did not have to be so swift with justice. You know that history matches what happened. Christ came and those laws were not enforced within Christianity. Jews have not been able to get their temple up and running in how long?

A king messiah was supposed to lead people into great compliance with the law.

Jesus didn't do that.

There's still no excuse for God not enforcing his laws in an equal way.

 

What do you suppose God would have done to Uzzah if he had let it fall?

 

Thumb: He would not have keeled over and died, that's for sure.

How do you know that for sure?

 

Centauri: God killed two of Aaron's sons for burning the wrong incense.

Letting the ark fall on the ground would be a far bigger desecration..

 

thumbelina-

Ha, those nincompoops got drunk and desecrated God's temple, they KNEW BETTER. As I said before Uzzah KNEW BETTER too. They had great responsibilities and God expected better of them. I am sure some people learned from their examples.

And David certainly KNEW BETTER, and had even greater responsibilities, but he didn't get killed on the spot.

 

Centauri: In this case, didn't Uzzah genuinely have good intentions by trying to keep the ark from tipping over and smashing to the ground?

Even though touching the ark was forbidden, one would think a loving God would understand the instinctive reaction to keep such a holy object from being desecrated by falling to the ground.

 

Thumb: Those disobedient people were not supposed to put the ark on a cart in the first place, they were running ahead of God and NOT doing His will which caused all the trouble. Intention what? OBEDIENCE is BETTER than sacrifice, don't you know?

 

Centauri: It doesn't square at all with the Christian claims about God being loving and long suffering.

And as king, David was in charge of the operation..

Killing Uzzah shows signs of a God that has fits of temper, just like humans.

 

Thumbelina-

How do you know God wasn't longsuffering with Uzzah? When I am disobedient I know God gives me warnings and sometimes He has to let me fall flat so I can learn. God has a purpose for everything He does.

How long was Uzzah escorting the ark?

I see you're back to the "everything is perfect" so don't think about it routine.

[mymistake]

Where does God's law ban polygamy?

 

Did He make Adam and Eve, Jane, Mary, Rita ...?

Jesus said from the beginning God made male and female NOT male and females.

 

Okay let's go with that. Let's say Eve was the only female on Earth. Then Eve has sons. Then Eve's sons suddenly had wives. Did Cain marry is own sister? If Eve is the mother of Cain and the mother of Cain's wife then who was the father of Cain's wife? Perhaps Adam was the father of both Cain and Cain's wife. Maybe Cain was the father of Cain's wife.

 

See the problems you create when you try to use a myth as a blueprint for reality? But you don't see.

 

 

No, we all deserve death but He leans on His compassionate and merciful nature to pardon us because Jesus paid the penalty that we deserve.

 

A modern human can forgive without needing a blood sacrifice let alone a human sacrifice. Why is God inferior to some humans when it comes to forgiveness? You see the men who invented God could not imagine a God who was superior in ways they could not imagine. That is why God in the Bible is so much like a Bronze Age dictator.

[★ Citsonga ★]

That's not what the text says.

 

Haven't you learned yet? What the text says only matters when it says what she wants it to say. When it opposes her preconceived views, what it says no longer matters and it can be twisted and manipulated into something different. That's standard apologetics, my friend.

 

 

[Of course, I know you know that; I was just having a little fun with it....]

[agnosticator]

And there are pink unicorns that crap pretty colored candies.

You just have to believe.

 

I believe, I believe.....I BELIEVE! Damn! Now there's a mess on my front lawn....but it's pretty!

[Sirelien]

 

Did He make Adam and Eve, Jane, Mary, Rita ...?

Jesus said from the beginning God made male and female NOT male and females.

 

 

Using the exact same logic, every male on the planet should be called Adam and every female Eve. After all, if it were acceptable to use names such as Jane, Mary and Rita, God would have created a Jane, Mary and Rita...