Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is God Self-Evident
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 106 of 155 (522927)
09-06-2009 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Hyroglyphx
09-05-2009 2:26 PM


Re: Absolutism versus relativism
HG writes:
To plunder their enemies for riches and to rid themselves of competition.
So in your view there is moral release or obligation release when they commit such actions. They dont feel justified morally in these actions, they feel nothing at all, correct
EMA writes:
apart from God. Do you think they think (or you) thier actions are evil or monstorous when they commit these actions against say, animals
HG writes:
Depends on the method.
How would the method have anything to do with the fact that you are taking thier life, seemingly unwarrentedly?
E writes:
Do you think God would direct the painful death and sacrifice of his own son?
H wreites
Seems like a self-righteous suicide since God could have simply forgiven all without butchering his son/himself.
Great. At this point would it would be a good place to ask again the question, what principle or moral or whatever ALLOWS you to swiftly inflict, buthcer, eradicate anything other than you species. I appreciate your answers like the one above, but you KNOW that is not what I am asking.
Would the actions of lethal injection be justified (Morally correct) if there were a reason for it? Couldnt we just overlook the persons actions. Am I as an agent of the state justified in these actions in such instances?
No, because he forced a perfect being without sin to die on behalf of all sinners. Remember, Jesus didn't want to do it, but did so out of obedience.
True, but if he is the one that gave the life in the first place doesnt he have the RIGHT to take it back, because there may be principles in existence that superceed even physical life itself., ie "greater love hath no man than this that he lay down his life for another", then it is logical that even the taking of life is justified in such instances. In other words, there is nothing illogical in it.
E writes:
You say, there is no moral principle in your actions, yet God is blameworthy or a monster for his. Do you believe the little creatures agony and pain in eradication is deminished by your lack of moral principle?
HG writes:
You keep overlooking one hugely critical factor here. According to your beliefs, God is the Creator of all, that includes our own nature. That logically makes God responsible for our actions since he all but forced man to be sinful and then turns around and punishes man for something he never chose and can't even control! The bible says that none are without sin. If that's the case, then it is impossible NOT to sin. So how then would God not be culpable?
You have simply restated that God is guilty and I appreciate your response here and it is certainly a question that I am happy to entertain, but it is more evasion on your part to describe your actions in such instances. If God is blameworthy for whatever ASPECT, why is there no moral principle in your actions. Are you immoral in such cases , yes or no?
Are you calling a "Moral Imparative" a moral principle?
I've never said that there no moral imperative, I simply said in response to your quesiton of moral I'm following when I kill an insect, that I am not thinking of any moral when it comes to the life of an insect.
Beg to differ, you said, there is NO Moral principle. Your actions, not what you are thinking at the time are what are in question.
E writes:
You ascribe them to God, why not you? are you a monster, or will you still maintain there is no moral principle. You cant eat you cake and have it.
H writes:
I didn't create the capacity for death, suffering, hatred, sin, or any negative connotation you can think of. God did! I am an imperfect being with limited knowledge. He is a flawless, perfect, ominipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient Being who has the luxury of knowing everything.
At ANY point God could put a stop to all of this misery and suffering and create a perfect world, or simply be content within Himself. But he doesn't do that, does he? He wants it like this so that he can be worshiped.
The world you describe above as perfect is the one he created and desired. Should he simply overlook Satans and mans disobedience, wouldnt this make him a spinless unjust God? Exacally how much disobedience should he overlooked or LET GO, before he decides to take action. Now remember your imperfect and he is all the wonderful things you describe above. Wouldnt his wonderful qualites described above be a better MEASURING ROD than your imperfection.
If God is blameworthy in such instances, shouldnt he be blamed for us not being created perfect to live forever, OR DID HE?
H writes:
You defend God no matter what. Why? Why can't you question why things are the way they are because theoretically God is perfect?
I guarentee you I have questioned all of these matters and more, probaly more than yourself . I was where you seem to be presently, but the logic is beeter on this side, given all the facts in the source
So then we'll assume that the entirety of the bible is infallible. That being the case, how do you reconcile the ordered slaughter of infants with compassion, love, justice, or mercy? Give me any verse in the bible that points to the notion that infants are full of sin, deserving of death.
No infant has any Sin, Original or otherwise. You reconcile these actions for the reasons already stated by the Word of God, OVERALL and reason
I look forward to your next response, if you so desire.
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-05-2009 2:26 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-07-2009 2:44 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 107 of 155 (522928)
09-06-2009 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by purpledawn
09-06-2009 3:36 AM


Re: Plan is Not Self-Evident
PD writes:
Why not use the actual definition of the English word "good"?
It's too subjective. One mans good soil is another mans marsh. Anyway, the definiton given is the one being used by the mechanism of salvation posed
If actions of each inevident god are always considered good just because they are actions of a god and anything contrary is bad, then humans will always be caught in the middle.
So while humans are trying to do their respective god's will, they are also going against the will of another god.
All of which is completely beside the point. The mechanism of salvation posed assumes God of the Bible, thus there are no other gods to be caught between.
Within their own respective holy writings the situation is explained by saying that when they win, their god is with them and when they lose, their god isn't with them and he uses others to chastise us.
This really just sets humans up as chess pieces when the inevident gods instruct their people to retaliate. People die at the whim of the gods. How is that good?
Again, your following a line of enquiry that has nothing (that I can see) to do with the point I've been making in response to the OP - namely, that God doesn't have to self-evidence himself in order to apply a just mechanism of salvation.
But there is no mechanism. You said yourself you can't prove the existence of it. So you're supposing (guessing) based on writings over 2000 years old, which contain as much, if not more, fiction as fact.
You can't say there's no mechanism.
The mechanism posed accomodates people believing there is no mechanism/no gods/other gods and deals with them nonetheless. The point isn't to prove it but to explain it. If God then this mechanism (I'm suggesting, if not or there's another god then not. The OP's objection is thus dealt with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by purpledawn, posted 09-06-2009 3:36 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 108 of 155 (522929)
09-06-2009 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Hyroglyphx
09-06-2009 9:06 AM


Re: Bump for IANO
hyroglyphx writes:
So are you saying that God is not self-evident?
Yes. This from my first post in this thread.
quote:
Perhaps it's because he choses not to be self-evident? A common enough view of the Christian God is that he does precisely this as part of an overall plan in which folk are given the opportunity to decide whether they want to spend eternity with God and what he represents or whether they don't. If they could see God exactly as he is then their ability not to believe what he says would be fatally compromised. And along with it, their ability to chose not to spend eternity with him and what he represents.
Biblical faith is based on evidence: God reveals his existance to the person that he exists so his existance becomes fact.
Therein lies the problem though, as I stated earlier. If you rely on two assumptions, namely that the bible is infallible and that God is perfect, there leaves a void of reason. Allah is also the definition of goodness. The Qu'ran is also supposed to be infallible. Both texts require that it is by faith we come to know and believe these ideals as true. But both contradict one another. So who's right? How are we supposed to honestly know either way?
The mechanism of salvation posed doesn't require that faith of the blind belief type be expressed. What you'd believe at that point is Gods argument - and thae belief would be a conclusion you'd arrive at based on evidence - but you don't believe in God/God perfect/Bible his word at that point.
I'm just posing what I believe to be the Christian mechanism, stating that it doesn't require Gods self-evidency in order to work. In that fashion I've dealt with the OP's objection to the Christian God. I'm not trying to prove God here.
Society has a standard which, admittedly, is often flexible and constantly evolving. Nonetheless, by today's standards, if a soldier were to pick up an infant and smash their heads on the rocks, the world would be outraged. That much is transparent.
We've not established that God approved of such a thing. That said, death by flood can hardly be considered fun and there is little doubt that God approved of that (remembering that we're assuming God exists and the Bible is his word).
What we can conclude is that God has a wrathful aspect as well as the oft-promoted loving aspect. Society might consider God cruel but given that society is a hornets nest of sin and depravity one wonders what they should expect of a holy God? It's not as if the hand of mercy isn't extended to all - one can hardly say fairer than that I would have thought?
Laws only make sense in black and white, as there he has to be some absolute sense of legal and illegal. Seldom, though, do we apply them so rigidly as every case has to look at the overall circumstances involved.
I'm sure God, who sees the heart, knows the difference between stealing food for your children and stealing the shirt off anothers back. The law is rigid only with that portion of the heart which has transgressed it.
This goes back to that great paradox I was referring to earlier concerning truth.
"Every experience is a paradox in that it means to be absolute, and yet is relative; in that it somehow always goes beyond itself and yet never escapes itself." -T.S. Eliot
I'm not that bright. Could you tease it out a little bit?
Meaning, by the assumptions you hold to (that God exists exactly as the bible describes and that the bible is infallible) you set yourself up for absolute success. That does nothing, however, to advance the belief of God or the bible since it requires no evidence to prove itself.
Your logic is therefore circular.
Aah. Thanks. There appears to be a confusion which I've hopefully addressed earlier. I'm explaining a mechanism. Not proving it.
Would you care if God ordered someone to smash your infant son or daughter's head on some rocks?
Of course. And it might cause me to be angry with God or doubt his good intentions.
Even if we are beholden to God, what purpose does it serve? What purpose does it serve God or humankind to kill Job's family, inflict him with disease, just to teach him about obedience to God? What valuable moral lesson was learned for Job's family members?
It has served millions of Gods other children when their own faith has been tested to look at such a pillar. It would cause the powers of darkness to quiver in their boots when they see what God-suppled faith in God can achieve. It would cause delight to well up in any who loved God that such faith could be expressed.
I trust God absolutely and at root (though I would complain on the way) would have that he do what he want with me. For his glory. Have you any idea of how magnificent God would be if he actually existed (I speak from your perspective, I already know that he does)
Why create us at all then? You know that's the one question never answered by the bible -- the reason he created us?
Er... it is. Luke, Chap 3. The geneology terminates in ".. son of Adam, son of God". Adam, son of God. God decided to have kids in other words. And why do people typically decide to have kids? So they can love them of course. Love is something that likes to express itself and what better way to do that than express it to your own children? Everyday people are born (again) and become (adopted) children of God. That's the biblical answer to your question - it litters the pages of the Bible in fact.
Why force us to be weak and then blame us on our weaknesses? He gave us the capacity to sin and then says, "Oh, now look what you've done," and then punishes us for the very thing he imparted.
The mechanism of salvation involves choice. Sin is choice in one direction and is a critical element fueling a persons salvation. Don't knock sin - it can save you as well as damn you. Your choice.
Didn't I read somewhere that you were once a Christian? If so, didn't you learn that "the law (and the breaking of it) is a schoolteacher to lead you to Christ"?
That just may very well be your conditioned response, as captives often suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.
Not applicable. I stepped into God's arms by choice. If at all taken captive is was by the beauty (and pain) of the truth. The truth was, I was as lost and hopeless as lost and hopeless could be (to my mind). Once believing that I believed I needed God to exist - because if he didn't exist then there was no place left to go.
EvC Forum: The experience of converting
..and scroll down a few inches.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-06-2009 9:06 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 09-06-2009 3:38 PM iano has replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4888 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 109 of 155 (522932)
09-06-2009 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by iano
09-06-2009 2:27 PM


Re: Bump for IANO
Hi iano,
iano writes:
hyroglyphx writes:
So are you saying that God is not self-evident?
Yes. This from my first post in this thread.
quote:
Perhaps it's because he choses not to be self-evident? A common enough view of the Christian God is that he does precisely this as part of an overall plan in which folk are given the opportunity to decide whether they want to spend eternity with God and what he represents or whether they don't. If they could see God exactly as he is then their ability not to believe what he says would be fatally compromised. And along with it, their ability to chose not to spend eternity with him and what he represents.
Biblical faith is based on evidence: God reveals his existance to the person that he exists so his existance becomes fact.
Alright, iano, God is not self-evident. Now please explain why, and how that is fair.
iano writes:
Therein lies the problem though, as I stated earlier. If you rely on two assumptions, namely that the bible is infallible and that God is perfect, there leaves a void of reason. Allah is also the definition of goodness. The Qu'ran is also supposed to be infallible. Both texts require that it is by faith we come to know and believe these ideals as true. But both contradict one another. So who's right? How are we supposed to honestly know either way?
The mechanism of salvation posed doesn't require that faith of the blind belief type be expressed. What you'd believe at that point is Gods argument - and thae belief would be a conclusion you'd arrive at based on evidence - but you don't believe in God/God perfect/Bible his word at that point.
I'm just posing what I believe to be the Christian mechanism, stating that it doesn't require Gods self-evidency in order to work. In that fashion I've dealt with the OP's objection to the Christian God. I'm not trying to prove God here.
iano, if there was evidence for God, then his existence would be a) fact and b) self-evident. There is a reason that it is called "Faith." Oh, and have you heard of the "Cosmic Shell Game?" I could give you a link if you want.
iano writes:
Society has a standard which, admittedly, is often flexible and constantly evolving. Nonetheless, by today's standards, if a soldier were to pick up an infant and smash their heads on the rocks, the world would be outraged. That much is transparent.
We've not established that God approved of such a thing. That said, death by flood can hardly be considered fun and there is little doubt that God approved of that (remembering that we're assuming God exists and the Bible is his word).
What we can conclude is that God has a wrathful aspect as well as the oft-promoted loving aspect. Society might consider God cruel but given that society is a hornets nest of sin and depravity one wonders what they should expect of a holy God? It's not as if the hand of mercy isn't extended to all - one can hardly say fairer than that I would have thought?
As per the flood, one wonders why he just didn't send Jesus a while ago, hmm? And just because society is a "nest of sin and deprativity" doesn't mean that it doesn't reflect the more positive aspects of mankind as well. (Please don't attribute all those good things to God).
With regard to the "hand of mercy," how exactly does it work and how are people supposed to recognize any supposed "mercy" when they see it?
Laws only make sense in black and white, as there he has to be some absolute sense of legal and illegal. Seldom, though, do we apply them so rigidly as every case has to look at the overall circumstances involved.
I'm sure God, who sees the heart, knows the difference between stealing food for your children and stealing the shirt off anothers back. The law is rigid only with that portion of the heart which has transgressed it.
You do have some kind of a point- that's where pleading innocence/guilt comes in.
Meaning, by the assumptions you hold to (that God exists exactly as the bible describes and that the bible is infallible) you set yourself up for absolute success. That does nothing, however, to advance the belief of God or the bible since it requires no evidence to prove itself.
Your logic is therefore circular.
Aah. Thanks. There appears to be a confusion which I've hopefully addressed earlier. I'm explaining a mechanism. Not proving it.
In order to explain a mechanism, you must show how it is relevant (i.e. proof).
Would you care if God ordered someone to smash your infant son or daughter's head on some rocks?
Of course. And it might cause me to be angry with God or doubt his good intentions.
I thought that God could do whatever he wanted with you? Is there a difference between idea and actually doing it?
Even if we are beholden to God, what purpose does it serve? What purpose does it serve God or humankind to kill Job's family, inflict him with disease, just to teach him about obedience to God? What valuable moral lesson was learned for Job's family members?
It has served millions of Gods other children when their own faith has been tested to look at such a pillar. It would cause the powers of darkness to quiver in their boots when they see what God-suppled faith in God can achieve. It would cause delight to well up in any who loved God that such faith could be expressed.
I trust God absolutely and at root (though I would complain on the way) would have that he do what he want with me. For his glory. Have you any idea of how magnificent God would be if he actually existed (I speak from your perspective, I already know that he does)
First, exactly how has such an event helped anyone?
Second, if you trust and obey God absolutely, then how can the above quote make sense (with the baby-smashing)?
Third, why does God need glory? "Thank you, we're alive. Now can we get on with it instead of worshiping you all the time?
Why create us at all then? You know that's the one question never answered by the bible -- the reason he created us?
Er... it is. Luke, Chap 3. The geneology terminates in ".. son of Adam, son of God". Adam, son of God. God decided to have kids in other words. And why do people typically decide to have kids? So they can love them of course. Love is something that likes to express itself and what better way to do that than express it to your own children? Everyday people are born (again) and become (adopted) children of God. That's the biblical answer to your question - it litters the pages of the Bible in fact.
You don't have kids for them to love you. You have them so they can become their own people and eventually grow out of needing you while you can love them along the way. You don't have kids for yourself.
Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.
Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts
I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes
"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by iano, posted 09-06-2009 2:27 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by iano, posted 09-06-2009 5:20 PM Teapots&unicorns has seen this message but not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 110 of 155 (522935)
09-06-2009 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Teapots&unicorns
09-06-2009 3:38 PM


Re: Bump for IANO
T&u writes:
Alright, iano, God is not self-evident. Now please explain why, and how that is fair.
I already have explained why in my first reponse to you in this thread. And if the mechanism of salvation/damnation is fair - without God being self-evident then that's how it's fair.
iano, if there was evidence for God, then his existence would be a) fact and b) self-evident. There is a reason that it is called "Faith." Oh, and have you heard of the "Cosmic Shell Game?" I could give you a link if you want.
Assume God exists for a minute. Now a question: could God evidence his existance to someone in a personal-to-them only way?
Assuming you answer in the affirmative then you have the Bibles definition of faith - not the dictionaries.
As per the flood, one wonders why he just didn't send Jesus a while ago, hmm? And just because society is a "nest of sin and deprativity" doesn't mean that it doesn't reflect the more positive aspects of mankind as well. (Please don't attribute all those good things to God).
Good occurs whenever people don't choose the evil option instead. The reason they don't is that goodness beckons via conscience. God is the source of that.
One mainstream Biblical viewpoint denies we've a free will. Meaning we don't choose to do good - we can only choose to do evil or else be drawn to good by God-conscience.
Sorry.
With regard to the "hand of mercy," how exactly does it work and how are people supposed to recognize any supposed "mercy" when they see it?
See earlier posts detailing a mechanism of salvation
In order to explain a mechanism, you must show how it is relevant (i.e. proof).
Where did you get that idea?
I thought that God could do whatever he wanted with you? Is there a difference between idea and actually doing it?
He can do anything he wants. It doesn't mean I necessarily enjoy it. I accept I need to be dsciplined for example. But discipline isn't fun.
Oops battery low. Ciao.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 09-06-2009 3:38 PM Teapots&unicorns has seen this message but not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 155 (522961)
09-07-2009 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by purpledawn
09-06-2009 11:34 AM


Re: Perspective
So how much of what the Bible writers say about another religion is true and how much is just bad mouthing?
The bible has a lot of historical accuracy in it, I will certainly give it that much credit. It is also one of the most important collections of antiquity in the middle east. But there is no telling how much exaggeration, hyperbole, allegory, or falsified information is interjected. In other words, how much biased information was annotated by the Israelites?
If we simply assume a priori that the bible is the authoritative and inspired word of God a priori, there is no way to approach it objectively.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by purpledawn, posted 09-06-2009 11:34 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 155 (522964)
09-07-2009 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Dawn Bertot
09-06-2009 12:44 PM


Re: Absolutism versus relativism
So in your view there is moral release or obligation release when they commit such actions. They dont feel justified morally in these actions, they feel nothing at all, correct
No, the scriptures allude to that at least some of the writers objected to the carnage. I assume like the rest of them, they were finally guilted in to it and feared godly retribution for disobedience.
apart from God. Do you think they think (or you) thier actions are evil or monstorous when they commit these actions against say, animals
Probably not considering there were rivers of blood during the time when they ritually sacrificed animals on the alter. I'm sure there were some people who objected to it, but they were possibly labelled as "heretics."
How would the method have anything to do with the fact that you are taking thier life, seemingly unwarrentedly?
Torturing an animal versus a swift killing was what I was alluding to.
At this point would it would be a good place to ask again the question, what principle or moral or whatever ALLOWS you to swiftly inflict, buthcer, eradicate anything other than you species. I appreciate your answers like the one above, but you KNOW that is not what I am asking.
I already told you, if I kill an insect there is no moral in my mind. And I've never killed a mammal and don't think that I would feel good doing so because of the emotion of empathy.
There is an interesting thing with humans that the further down on the food chain one goes, and partly based on the intelligence of the animal, one finds it more difficult to kill an animal moreclosely related to themselves.
Would the actions of lethal injection be justified (Morally correct) if there were a reason for it? Couldnt we just overlook the persons actions. Am I as an agent of the state justified in these actions in such instances?
I don't personally think so, but that is my morality. I don't agree with vengence killings, even if the person being executed has committed heinous crimes. However, I have no moral qualms with killing someone who presents an imminent threat to my life or someone else.
I suppose you are going to ask where that moral comes from. I don't know. All I know is that some things for morality are conditioned responses and some do feel intrinsic or innate. Is that God? Is that biological? I have no way of knowing for sure at this point in time.
if he is the one that gave the life in the first place doesnt he have the RIGHT to take it back, because there may be principles in existence that superceed even physical life itself., ie "greater love hath no man than this that he lay down his life for another", then it is logical that even the taking of life is justified in such instances. In other words, there is nothing illogical in it.
My wife and I gave our son and daughter life. Does that give us the right to control their life or take their life? Does that sound logical or moral to you?
You say, there is no moral principle in your actions
Whoa, hang on there. Let's look at it in context, please. You asked a question about what moral in me allows me to kill an insect. I didn't say that I live life without morals.
yet God is blameworthy or a monster for his. Do you believe the little creatures agony and pain in eradication is deminished by your lack of moral principle?
Insects don't show anything resembling agony or pain, so no. But would I feel empathy towards other animals? Of course.
What makes your equivocation null and void is the simple fact that God, according to you, controls everything and wrote the schematics of life, even evil. How could it be ANY other way? Think about it.
"I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things." -Isaiah 45:7
God wrote the template for this entire facade. If the devil tempts you, it's because God allowed it. According to this passage, if you are prosperous, it's because He made it happened. If bad things happen, according to this passage, He not only allows it but makes it happen.
According to the Book of Job it's not beyond him to get in to a pissing contest with Satan, use Job and his loved one's as collateral just to prove a point. In your mind, God can do things like that just because he is God, yet somehow his morality never changes even though in one instance he says one thing and then in another the exact opposite.
"I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me" - Exodus 20:5
"The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. - Ezekiel 18:20
Well, which is it, LORD? Do we pay for the sins of the father or not?
But his morality doesn't change?
You have simply restated that God is guilty and I appreciate your response here and it is certainly a question that I am happy to entertain, but it is more evasion on your part to describe your actions in such instances. If God is blameworthy for whatever ASPECT, why is there no moral principle in your actions. Are you immoral in such cases , yes or no?
I don't think God is guilty. I just think the God described in the bible simply does not exist. He, like all other fables are but pagan tales that have synthesized from different beliefs, having been assimilated in to different cultures, each adding and blending their own beliefs until you have a Mr. Potato Head for a God.
Christmas, with all its Norse and Roman influence. Easter, with its Babylonian influence. It's just like that.
Does an actual God exist? I think there is some justification to assume that something beyond the physical realm exists. I have been privvy to glimpses, but I can in no way make any kind of solid determination based on such infrequency.
Are you calling a "Moral Imparative" a moral principle?
Yes, essentially the same thing.
Beg to differ, you said, there is NO Moral principle.
No I did not. Please substantiate your claim. Again, I said I feel no moral principle when I kill an insect. Please look at it in context.
You ascribe them to God, why not you? are you a monster
That's all subjective. Some people would think I'm a monster and others would consider me quite normal. I'm not the arbiter of such things and I doubt the God of the bible is either. I know one thing though. I'm not making excuses for why it's okay to kill infants.
The world you describe above as perfect is the one he created and desired. Should he simply overlook Satans and mans disobedience, wouldnt this make him a spinless unjust God? Exacally how much disobedience should he overlooked or LET GO, before he decides to take action.
Talk about overlooking and letting go disobedience! He seems quite longsuffering with the one who he knows will never repent, and yet so short-tempered with the Amalekites.
He slaughters innocent infants, but he can't slaughter the ultimate sinner, the FATHER of SIN??? According to the Book he allows Satan to roam free, tormenting all of humanity and then punishes US when we're enticed by HIS own creation! That really doesn't make you question a thing or two?
He seemingly has no problem dealing with the iniquities of men, but not of his fallen angels? During the Judgment Satan will be thrown in to the abyss for exactly 1,000 years (a convenient number), where the lion will lay down with the lamb, we'll beat our weapons in to plowshares and fish hooks, but then he'll be loosed again to infect the world some more.
God can stop all of this from ever happening. He can take us up to heaven right now and forgive us our sins. There's not a person on earth that wouldn't opt to bask in his glory forever and forever, if only everyone was given an unambiguous knowledge of his existence.
Why are we even here? What great purpose does this serve to have us languish in the physical realm? The bible is completely silent on that matter. There is no reason described for why he chose this path.
That leaves one to wonder: Did God create us, or did we create God to fill the void for questions we don't know the answer to and may never know?
Now remember your imperfect and he is all the wonderful things you describe above. Wouldnt his wonderful qualites described above be a better MEASURING ROD than your imperfection.
Sure, in theory he's the measuring rod. But 1. It doesn't make it so just because a book says he's the measuring rod, and 2. The measuring rod often has a change of heart. *See passages above*
I guarentee you I have questioned all of these matters and more, probaly more than yourself . I was where you seem to be presently, but the logic is beeter on this side, given all the facts in the source
No, not really. It just adds more confusion.
No infant has any Sin, Original or otherwise.
Then why are we paying for Adam and Eve's sin? You stated that God had in mind for mankind to live in perfect harmony with God with no strife or turmoil. But read the opening chapters of Genesis and it goes in to detail about how mankind gets to pay the price for their sins.
You reconcile these actions for the reasons already stated by the Word of God, OVERALL and reason
That's not an answer, that's a diversion. You can't answer it because there is no good reason. It's genocide, plain and simple.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-06-2009 12:44 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-07-2009 3:41 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 114 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-07-2009 10:41 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 113 of 155 (522966)
09-07-2009 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Hyroglyphx
09-07-2009 2:44 AM


Re: Absolutism versus relativism
HG this is a very nice response and I will get to it as quickly as I can tommorrow. You brought up some very good points which I am happy to address, thanks again and thanks for the scriptures.
EAM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-07-2009 2:44 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 114 of 155 (522986)
09-07-2009 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Hyroglyphx
09-07-2009 2:44 AM


Re: Absolutism versus relativism
HG writes
According to the Book of Job it's not beyond him to get in to a pissing contest with Satan, use Job and his loved one's as collateral just to prove a point. In your mind, God can do things like that just because he is God, yet somehow his morality never changes even though in one instance he says one thing and then in another the exact opposite.
"I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me" - Exodus 20:5
"The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. - Ezekiel 18:20
Well, which is it, LORD? Do we pay for the sins of the father or not?
But his morality doesn't change?
Lets start with the verses first today.
I remember a discussion but not a pissing contest with Job, but you types do always have a way of misrepresenting Gods Word anyway, ha ha
Trust me there is no contradiction in God or these verses. Ezekiel was exacally correct through inspiration not surprisingly. Sins is an act that seperates one from God, an action that involves both reason and on ones part only.
John says, "Sin is transgression of the Law" and Calvinism notwithstanding, one needs to comprehend the law to transgress it, children do not, they therefore cannot sin. I do not share in the actual Sin of Adam, for when I was born I was sinless until accountability. I did however share in the results of Adams sin by being born into sinful world., IE, "We are by nature the children of wrath."
Secondly, what a omnipotent judge decides to do in response to sin or its consequences is his decision based on perfect knowledge. While the SINS may have separated the adults from God eternall y, there is no reason believe the children were, even though they died
The soul that sins will die SPIRITUALLY, not always physically. Adam died Siritually first and immediately and not physically, but later as a result of the SAME sin he died physicaaly as well. The sin was twofold.
God visits punishment on the generations physically immediatley at times and over time as he sees fit as a divine judge. I am not spiritually and eternally responsible for my fathers sins, nor he mine. But I can CERTAINLY share the consequences of his sin, whether he violates Gods laws of SIN or drinks all the rent money away.
Surely you can see this simple point and that there is no copntradiction in these verse. NO, Gods morality does not change. He always punishes SIN SPIRITUALLY and then physically, but not always with death, take cain for example, his punishment was not met with physical death immediatley
What makes your equivocation null and void is the simple fact that God, according to you, controls everything and wrote the schematics of life, even evil. How could it be ANY other way? Think about it.
"I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things." -Isaiah 45:7
You are assuming that the physical act of disaster is an EVIL thing, it is not. The only true evil (immorality) is intrinsic evil, that which is produced by the mind and heart from a human. This why Jesus said
"It is not that which goes into a mant that DEFILES him, but that which prooceeds out of his heart"(mind)
Paul said, "Nothing (physical) is evil in and of iteself". The physical act of a tree falling on someone and killing them is not evil, its very unfortunate but not evil.
Jesus said, "I have not come to bring PEACE, but a Sword" I dont think Jesus ever used a sword but his teachings would arose evil out of a freewill heart when it disobeyed him and his words.
Indirectly being involved in something where freewill is involved is not the same as being guily for that persons actions of the heart or mind.
Then why are we paying for Adam and Eve's sin? You stated that God had in mind for mankind to live in perfect harmony with God with no strife or turmoil. But read the opening chapters of Genesis and it goes in to detail about how mankind gets to pay the price for their sins
.
In argumentation or debate one cannot simply ignore or override a point with the "wave of the Hand". I know you dont like the answer that God is the omnipotent judge, but you must deal with this point logically to demonstrate it is not true, or that it is logically inconsistent. Think about it, how can an omnipotent all knowing, omniscient God be wrong about anything, atleast from a logical standpoint.
My wife and I gave our son and daughter life. Does that give us the right to control their life or take their life? Does that sound logical or moral to you?
You are only part of the equation as judges. Now lets say, that you son or daughter commits murder, does the judge have the right to control thier life or TAKE THIER LIFE, I think so.
EMA writes:
Are you calling a "Moral Imparative" a moral principle?
HG writes:
Yes, essentially the same thing.
Could you explain the difference please
Ill get to the rest of this later this evening, Labor day and all that you understand
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-07-2009 2:44 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-07-2009 11:41 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 117 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-07-2009 4:09 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 155 (522990)
09-07-2009 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Dawn Bertot
09-07-2009 10:41 AM


Re: Absolutism versus relativism
not a pissing contest with Job, but you types do always have a way of misrepresenting Gods Word anyway
What type am I?
Trust me there is no contradiction in God or these verses. Ezekiel was exacally correct through inspiration not surprisingly. Sins is an act that seperates one from God, an action that involves both reason and on ones part only.
So then you can answer why we suffer separation from God because of Adam and Eve and why Moses said in Exodus that sin follows up to the 3rd and 4th generation, which is in contradiction with the verse in Ezekiel?
The soul that sins will die SPIRITUALLY
But everybody is a sinner, before and after salvation.
Adam died Siritually first and immediately and not physically, but later as a result of the SAME sin he died physicaaly as well.
Oh, yeah, that brings up yet another contradiction.
"But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." - Genesis 2:17
"And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. " - Genesis 5:5
God visits punishment on the generations physically immediatley at times and over time as he sees fit as a divine judge. I am not spiritually and eternally responsible for my fathers sins, nor he mine. But I can CERTAINLY share the consequences of his sin, whether he violates Gods laws of SIN or drinks all the rent money away.
That is not at all what it says in Exodus at all. God says, specifically, that he will punish up to the 3rd and 4th generations for the sins of the father because he's jealous.
"I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me" - Exodus 20:5
That is in complete contradiction to Ezekiel's passage.
Surely you can see this simple point and that there is no copntradiction in these verse. NO, Gods morality does not change.
Read the passages clearly and not what apologetic websites say to try and defend a defenseless position. It's way too clear.
I have to go, answer the rest later.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-07-2009 10:41 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-08-2009 11:55 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 4733 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 116 of 155 (523003)
09-07-2009 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by iano
09-04-2009 1:31 PM


quote:
Do people have different consciences? If so, how would we tell*?
One way we can tell is that different people say different things are wrong. In order to say their consciences differ, we have to assume that the things they say are wrong would trouble their own consciences. I think that's a reasonable assumption.
There's good evidence that some people lack conscience, pshychopaths for example.
Here's a link
http://findarticles.com/...s/mi_qa3711/is_200005/ai_n8895854

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by iano, posted 09-04-2009 1:31 PM iano has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 155 (523009)
09-07-2009 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Dawn Bertot
09-07-2009 10:41 AM


Re: Absolutism versus relativism
"It is not that which goes into a mant that DEFILES him, but that which prooceeds out of his heart"(mind)
What difference does any of that make? I don't know where you are going with this.
Indirectly being involved in something where freewill is involved is not the same as being guily for that persons actions of the heart or mind.
That doesn't much matter since Exodus is very clear that they were specifically punished for being related, not a victim of someone else's bad choices.
In argumentation or debate one cannot simply ignore or override a point with the "wave of the Hand". I know you dont like the answer that God is the omnipotent judge, but you must deal with this point logically to demonstrate it is not true, or that it is logically inconsistent. Think about it, how can an omnipotent all knowing, omniscient God be wrong about anything, atleast from a logical standpoint.
Well, you're getting warmer. See theoretically what you say is true. So if I show you were the bible is fallible, then you can't call it infallible. If I show you where the bible says one things and then contradicts somewhere else, then what does that say about God?
You add it all up and you begin to realize that it's altogether not true or mostly untrue. The simple deduction is that it's not what it represents itself to be.
You are only part of the equation as judges. Now lets say, that you son or daughter commits murder, does the judge have the right to control thier life or TAKE THIER LIFE, I think so.
Yes, but that does nothing to advance God.
Could you explain the difference please
I said they were the same, not different.
Ill get to the rest of this later this evening, Labor day and all that you understand
No worries, enjoy your weekend!

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-07-2009 10:41 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-08-2009 1:28 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 118 of 155 (523093)
09-08-2009 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Hyroglyphx
09-06-2009 9:15 AM


Re: Regarding baby smashin' ...
Thanks for the exchange brutha hyro ...
Hope things are well with you & yours.
brutha hyro writes:
weary writes:
brutha hyro writes:
brutha iano writes:
brutha hyro writes:
brutha iano writes:
brutha hyro writes:
brutha iano writes:
I see no reason to skip over the righteousness of Gods actions. To repeat: God killing isn't murder (murder being defined as 'unrighteous taking of life') because the life belongs to him. Us killing without Gods say so is murder - the life isn't ours to take.
So it is God's righteousness to not only smash little babies on rocks, but to "delight" in the savage act as well? What ungodly affront is God "repaying" them for?
Where does this occur?
Psalm 137
Could you elaborate - regarding the bit about God's declaring of his rejoicing in the manner you suggested.
It's not that long of a psalm, plus I already posted it and am feeling too tired and lazy to go get the exact verbiage.
In the end, the text does not infer any god as the baby smasher, the speaker of the narrative/poem or even that one may have condoned such nonsense.
The baby smashin' refers to Edomite babies and it's being spoken by a pissed off jewish author, bent outta shape because the Edomites were talkin' shit.
So what???!!!
Ermm - soooo, you have been attempting to convince everyone that 'god' was advocating and encouraging baby smashin' somewhere within Psalms 137.
I just thought it good to point out that the text doesn't seem to support your contention, that is, unless you worship bitter Yisraeli nationalist authors.
I'm pretty pissed at the Taliban, but that doesn't mean that I would delight in taking their precious and innocent infants and smashing them on the rock.
And for that, I applaud you.
Now, would you ever, perhaps, condone laying waste to entire Aphgan, Taliban or Iraqi villages with their correlating infants snuggled into the population?
Wait, let me guess - that's different.
brutha hyro writes:
weary writes:
Apparently, not only were the Edomites not on the side of the captives, they were allegedly rooting for the destruction of Zion.
Infants don't root for the destruction of Zion, Bailey.
Afaik, I never asserted that any infants were ever rooting 'for the destruction of Zion' and, moreover, you seem to have gotten that one right this time.
However, it appears to me that it's the parents of the Edomite infants who are are charged with a recklessness of sorts in the preceding verse ...
quote:
Psalms 137:7
Remember, O Lord, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell. They said, Tear it down, tear it down, right to its very foundation!
8 ~ O daughter Babylon, soon to be devastated! How blessed will be the one who repays you for what you dished out to us!
And so, it seems the dangerously overwhelming bitterness and resentment displayed by the author of this specific Psalm ...
quote:
9 ~ How blessed will be the one who grabs your babies and smashes them on a rock!
... is the motivating impulse within the last stance of this sick ass poem, and so, not really 'god' at all - as you would have us think.
It is rather, the Edomites who assisted in facilitating this ancient 9-11 of sorts within Yerusalem, being charged by an angry nationalist.
Perhaps the author felt that no more Edomite babies somehow equivocates to no more 9-11's in Zion. I'd reckon that's some faulty reasoning at its best.
Again, my conscience does not provide for me to agree with you or them (or brutha iano, for that matter).
brutha hyro writes:
weary writes:
So then, the psalmist is dramatically anticipating and establishing a certain blessing for whoever may carry out the revenge.
"Vengence is mine, saith the Lord, I will repay."
If only the author of the Psalm believed that, maybe they wouldn't have written such drivel. Perhaps they too had a difficult time interpreting scripture ...
Great, except this is more like a mafia hit than a righteous killing.
I would quicker agree that it is a sad display of a very poor mentality captured within this author's writing. This sort of thing is common for a nationalist.
The description is of genocide, attempting to wipe out an entire people's regardless of whether or not they were directly involved or incidentally happened to be there.
There is the sense that you have not allowed yourself to perceive the full context of the injustice involved. I had the opportunity to write a lengthy paper on genocide not too long ago and while I find it quite easy to agree with the shortened definition you have provided, to a certain extent, I'd quicker say ...
This description is of a bitter nationalist who has been placed into slavery after having his homeland eradicated. He is, at this point, seeking revenge.
Sometimes people who are consumed with fury do and say things they, otherwise, would not have said and done.
Please refer back to the top of the page where I inquire ...
'Would you condone laying waste to entire Aphgan, Taliban or Iraqi villages with their correlating infants snuggled into the population?'. Simple question, right?
brutha hyro writes:
weary writes:
It seems as though somebody overlooked the power of forgiveness ...
Yeah... God.
I was thinking the bitter Yiraeli that penned the Psalm, but I suppose for one who worships such characters, your response is indeed justified.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
Edited by Bailey, : grammar
Edited by Bailey, : grammar

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-06-2009 9:15 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-08-2009 12:53 PM Bailey has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 119 of 155 (523095)
09-08-2009 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Hyroglyphx
09-07-2009 11:41 AM


Re: Absolutism versus relativism
H writes:
What type am I?
E writes:
I suppose the type that sees a discussion as a pissing contest, you know one looking for contradiction where ther is none
E writes
Trust me there is no contradiction in God or these verses. Ezekiel was exacally correct through inspiration not surprisingly. Sins is an act that seperates one from God, an action that involves both reason and on ones part only.
H writes:
So then you can answer why we suffer separation from God because of Adam and Eve and why Moses said in Exodus that sin follows up to the 3rd and 4th generation, which is in contradiction with the verse in Ezekiel?
I thought I had, but ok Ill try again. They are not in contradiction. Man is a twofold being. Spirit and physical. "fear not him that can destroy the body, but him that can destroy the body and the soul in hell" I thought I clearly stated with scriptural support that man immediatley dies spiritually when he sins, or separates himself from God. the physical death process started with Adam but was not immediate. Ezekiel was not speaking primarily about physical death, you notice he said the Soul that sins, that s the part of the thinking rational man, the body is something else.
We as humans only suffer separation from God When we Sin, regardless of what Adam did. Remember where I quoted the Apostle John in Chapter 3, where he states, Sin is transgression of the law. I am not responsible for Adams or Eves, specific sin, but he set in motion a sequence which now involves me, much in the same way a father that drinks, squanders away the rent and food money. Gods visits the iniquites of the fathers to the third and fourth generations, because sin is dealt with individually and from a judges standpoint collectively. Am I not now paying for the sins of my fathers through taxes that provide money and assistance to tribes and nations of native Americans, because of what my forefathers did?
I am not sure what your concept of debating is, but it is usually customary to actually deal with the material presented to you instead of crying contradiction, where it has clearly been shown not to exists. You seen to skip from one point to another, bring new accusations and never seem to deal with the specific arguments that relate to the so-called contradictions., IE,
E writes:
Adam died Siritually first and immediately and not physically, but later as a result of the SAME sin he died physicaaly as well.
Then H writes:
Oh, yeah, that brings up yet another contradiction.
Try and atleast deal with some of it. One would be forced to admit that there is no immediate contradiction between Ezekiel and Moses
E Writes:
The soul that sins will die SPIRITUALLY
H writes:
But everybody is a sinner, before and after salvation.
Yes we still sin after salvation, but listen to these verses: "If we (Christians) say we have no sin we decieve ourselves and make God a liar, but if we confess our sins he is faithful and just to (continuously) forgive our sins, because we have an advocate withthe father, Jesus Christ the righteous"...."For IF we walk in the light as he is in the light we have fellowship one with another and the blood of christ cleanses us from all sin"
It keeps on cleansing if we are trying to be faithful according to his word.
Paul puts it this way. "There is NOW (presently) no Condemnation (Spiritual death) to them that are in Christ Jesus (NOW WATCH), to them that walk NOT after the flesh but after the Spirit" Its a perfect plan but its not unconditional.
Paul makes it clear that even though Spiritual death is a result of individual sin, we presently have no sin overall through Jesus Christ. If you thought you were confused berfore watch this. He says at another point, "We are MADE perfect in Christ Jesus', that is presently. So now you have beings that are both PERFECT PRESENTLY, which still have the possibility and do sin. We are perfect and imperfect all at the saame time.
So do John and Paul contradict eachother, not at all. Both say we still have sin and both point to the way to be perfect at the same time. again no contradiction
E writes:
Adam died Siritually first and immediately and not physically, but later as a result of the SAME sin he died physicaaly as well.
H writes:
Oh, yeah, that brings up yet another contradiction.
"But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." - Genesis 2:17
"And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. " - Genesis 5:5.
Wrong again, no contradiction. They did die physically and Spiritually. The physical death was progressive and finally realized, the Spiritual death was immediate but was forgiven Jesus Christ, not universally with no conditions. Adam was much like a Gentile in that he operated much from the law of the heart, remember Romans 2:14-16, which i presented that you never dealt with. Adam was different from the Gentiles in that he had specific laws from God, but was not under the law of Moses. the law of Moses was fullfilled in Christ. Col 2:14-16. Paul further states, "there is niether Jew, nor Greek, bond or free, all are ONE in Christ".
Again, no contradiction is involved here if you are willing to look at the TOTALITY of what the source you are quoting has to say and offer. No cherry picking allowed.
God visits punishment on the generations physically immediatley at times and over time as he sees fit as a divine judge. I am not spiritually and eternally responsible for my fathers sins, nor he mine. But I can CERTAINLY share the consequences of his sin, whether he violates Gods laws of SIN or drinks all the rent money away.
H writes
That is not at all what it says in Exodus at all. God says, specifically, that he will punish up to the 3rd and 4th generations for the sins of the father because he's jealous.
"I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me" - Exodus 20:5
That is in complete contradiction to Ezekiel's passage.
The punishment in these verse is not a punishment of eternal separation from God, of which Ezekiel is speaking. think about it logically, If there are two types of death and two types of punishment which the Source clearly indicates and i have now demonstrated with scripture and reason and to which you pay no attention, then there is no contradiction in these passages, depending on what the writer is speaking about. As revelations states:
"death and hades were cast into the lake of fire along with the devil and his angels, which is the SECOND DEATH"
Surely you can see this simple point and that there is no copntradiction in these verse. NO, Gods morality does not change.
Read the passages clearly and not what apologetic websites say to try and defend a defenseless position. It's way too clear.
Your cherry picking and need to read what it says overall. primarily however, you need to deal with the passages and arguments attached to those arguments before you can be taken seriouly as a debater. saying I dont like that and repeating that is not what the passages says i not a legitamte response and cannot be taken serious
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-07-2009 11:41 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-08-2009 1:14 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 155 (523099)
09-08-2009 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Bailey
09-08-2009 11:08 AM


Re: Regarding baby smashin' ...
I just thought it good to point out that the text doesn't seem to support your contention, that is, unless you worship bitter Yisraeli nationalist authors.
Regardless of whom the human author is, the text clearly states that God commanded genocide. You therefore can't minimize it by saying that the author was an upset Israelite.
You don't get to cherry pick back and forth between infallible Word of God to pissed off author to suit a personal agenda.
Now, would you ever, perhaps, condone laying waste to entire Aphgan, Taliban or Iraqi villages with their correlating infants snuggled into the population?
No I wouldn't, not that it matters. We're not talking about hypothetical situations, we're talking about GOD and what HE did supposedly in actuality. Talking about me or an angry author is just distraction taking away from God's role in it.
However, it appears to me that it's the parents of the Edomite infants who are are charged with a recklessness of sorts in the preceding verse
Immaterial to the point at hand, which is the slaughtering of infants, elderly, women, and in general, non-combatants.
And so, it seems the dangerously overwhelming bitterness and resentment displayed by the author of this specific Psalm
Which is irrelevant to the point that God commanded it and delighted in the massacre.
is the motivating impulse within the last stance of this sick ass poem, and so, not really 'god' at all - as you would have us think.
It is God, Bailey! Read it again. He said how happy they [Israelites] would be if they smashed their enemies infants on the rocks. That is not the only instance I have of God commanding genocide, God commanding rape, and God commanding some of the most heinous things imaginable. This is really the tip of the iceberg.
Perhaps the author felt that no more Edomite babies somehow equivocates to no more 9-11's in Zion. I'd reckon that's some faulty reasoning at its best.
I already know what the author thought. The issue is whether or not this actually came from God. According to the story, it did.... directly... That in turn brings us to he deeper issue which is whether or not the bible is actually the infallible Word of God. If it is, then God certainly called for genocide. If it isn't infallible, then the scriptures have no power or authority, as how would we be able to tell what comes from God and what comes from man's own thoughts.
See the dilemma? No matter which you choose you have to concede at least one of them is true.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Bailey, posted 09-08-2009 11:08 AM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Bailey, posted 09-09-2009 6:53 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024