PDA

View Full Version : Abortion Discussion moved from Bible Chat



mikebr
Oct 10th 2007, 08:08 PM
Shouldn't we then give everyone brain damage at birth so as to make their salvation more likely?

Or kill them before the age of accountability. I've said before if innocence gets us to heaven then abortion is the most evangelical tool around.

punk
Oct 10th 2007, 08:25 PM
Or kill them before the age of accountability. I've said before if innocence gets us to heaven then abortion is the most evangelical tool around.

Yeah, I've argued that before.

The problem is that it reveals such a telling contradiction in the mainstream Christian position that people will react by assuming you must be joking.

mikebr
Oct 10th 2007, 09:24 PM
Yeah, I've argued that before.

The problem is that it reveals such a telling contradiction in the mainstream Christian position that people will react by assuming you must be joking.


Nah. Its absolutely nothing to joke about.

punk
Oct 10th 2007, 10:04 PM
Nah. Its absolutely nothing to joke about.

Well very few want to consider the very hard alternatives that are needed to resolve the issue (assuming one wants to keep the propositions that abortion and infanticide are evils).

mikebr
Oct 10th 2007, 10:13 PM
Well very few want to consider the very hard alternatives that are needed to resolve the issue (assuming one wants to keep the propositions that abortion and infanticide are evils).

Yeah, we are stuck in our comfortable beliefs that don't require a lot of study or thought. We are simply afraid that what we have always believed or been taught may be wrong. God is a tad bit bigger than that though. He can handle our questions.

Brother Mark
Oct 10th 2007, 10:31 PM
Yeah, I've argued that before.

The problem is that it reveals such a telling contradiction in the mainstream Christian position that people will react by assuming you must be joking.

There's no contradiction there. God doesn't want murder to happen. The end really never has justified the means.

punk
Oct 10th 2007, 10:40 PM
There's no contradiction there. God doesn't want murder to happen. The end really never has justified the means.

I thought God wanted everyone to be saved and dwell with Him in eternity.

If we can do that by killing babies, why wouldn't God approve?

I mean we evangelize to get as many people to heaven as possible, why not just do it earlier and more efficiently....

Brother Mark
Oct 10th 2007, 10:47 PM
I thought God wanted everyone to be saved and dwell with Him in eternity.

If we can do that by killing babies, why wouldn't God approve?

I mean we evangelize to get as many people to heaven as possible, why not just do it earlier and more efficiently....

You know the answer to that. "Thou shalt not murder". God could just zap everyone and get them in heaven, but he doesn't.

punk
Oct 10th 2007, 10:58 PM
You know the answer to that. "Thou shalt not murder". God could just zap everyone and get them in heaven, but he doesn't.

Ah yes, so the victim gets a free ticket to heaven, and the perpetrator gets condemned.

Aye, there's an interesting story there: a person who is willing to go to Hell personally to get as many innocents into Heaven as possible by murdering infants.

Of course if the sole motive of the person is to help more souls to God, it is hard to see them as genuinely villainous.

And of course the last bit is also a very interesting question which is never really adequately answered: Why all the theater of the crucifixion and so on when God could just as well save everyone without it?

Let us note as well:

When people condemn abortion and infanticide, they do so out of sympathy for the victim (which is odd since the victim is going straight to heaven), and not out of sympathy for the perpetrator (who in fact is the person in danger of going to hell for committing murder).

I've never once heard an pro-lifer be overcome with concern for the welfare of the soul of the abortionist, only for concern for the innocent child victim.

Brother Mark
Oct 10th 2007, 11:41 PM
Ah yes, so the victim gets a free ticket to heaven, and the perpetrator gets condemned.

Aye, there's an interesting story there: a person who is willing to go to Hell personally to get as many innocents into Heaven as possible by murdering infants.

Of course if the sole motive of the person is to help more souls to God, it is hard to see them as genuinely villainous.

And of course the last bit is also a very interesting question which is never really adequately answered: Why all the theater of the crucifixion and so on when God could just as well save everyone without it?

Let us note as well:

When people condemn abortion and infanticide, they do so out of sympathy for the victim (which is odd since the victim is going straight to heaven), and not out of sympathy for the perpetrator (who in fact is the person in danger of going to hell for committing murder).

I've never once heard an pro-lifer be overcome with concern for the welfare of the soul of the abortionist, only for concern for the innocent child victim.

I know many that pray for the life of the abortionist. Still, the straw man doesn't hold up. God said not to murder and every nation has such laws. If infanticide is not considered murder, then we are wrong and can drop it. If an unborn child is not human, then no need to have laws protecting him.

Would you use the same argument to protect 2 years old from infanticide? The question boils down to is a fetus human or not. If it is human life, then we should protect that life as we are taught in scripture. If not, then it doesn't really matter.

punk
Oct 10th 2007, 11:51 PM
I know many that pray for the life of the abortionist. Still, the straw man doesn't hold up. God said not to murder and every nation has such laws. If infanticide is not considered murder, then we are wrong and can drop it. If an unborn child is not human, then no need to have laws protecting him.

Would you use the same argument to protect 2 years old from infanticide? The question boils down to is a fetus human or not. If it is human life, then we should protect that life as we are taught in scripture. If not, then it doesn't really matter.

I'm not arguing about social policy.

I am arguing about an inherent contradiction in what commonly passes for "Christian teaching".

I'm not saying abortion should be legal, I'm not saying infanticide should be legal.

I'm saying that if people really took what commonly passes for "Christian teaching" seriously and consistently, then they ought to advocate abortion and infanticide as good things.

Brother Mark
Oct 10th 2007, 11:56 PM
I'm saying that if people really took what commonly passes for "Christian teaching" seriously and consistently, then they ought to advocate abortion and infanticide as good things.

But that is a contradictory statement. Let's advocate sin so that blessings may come. That's the point I am arguing against. Should we abuse the verse that says "all things work to good" and say because the end is good the thing is good? No.

Will babies go to heaven? Perhaps. David said he would see his dead son from Bathsheba again. But do we know if babies of unsaved parents go? I think a case can be made for it, but I wouldn't call it rock solid. Even so, that doesn't justify abortion in any way.

I think you create a straw man. Murder is fine if the victim goes to heaven. Therefore Christians should cheer murder. :rolleyes:

punk
Oct 11th 2007, 12:00 AM
But that is a contradictory statement. Let's advocate sin so that blessings may come. That's the point I am arguing against. Should we abuse the verse that says "all things work to good" and say because the end is good the thing is good? No.

Will babies go to heaven? Perhaps. David said he would see his dead son from Bathsheba again. But do we know if babies of unsaved parents go? I think a case can be made for it, but I wouldn't call it rock solid. Even so, that doesn't justify abortion in any way.

I think you create a straw man. Murder is fine if the victim goes to heaven. Therefore Christians should cheer murder. :rolleyes:

See, you've gone and denied one of the premises that we started with:

=> Anyone who dies below the age of accountability goes automatically to heaven.

If you want to go ahead and deny that, well that's fine. That would be one of the difficult choices I mentioned earlier.

The argument in question only goes through if one affirms that proposition (which seems to be the case with popular contemporary understandings of Christianity).

My point was that if you actually affirm that proposition, then abortion and infanticide must be good things.

If you think it is a strawman, then fine, there is nothing more for you to discuss. I don't see it as a strawman, just a glaring problem with simplistic theologies.

Brother Mark
Oct 11th 2007, 12:23 AM
My point was that if you actually affirm that proposition, then abortion and infanticide must be good things.

This is simply a false proposition. As I stated before, scripture says all things work to good for them that love God. Does that mean all things are good? No. On the contrary, only what God does is truly good. But that is what you are suggesting. If it ends good, then it must be good. You see the act of murder as sending someone to heaven without seeing the consequence of the abortionist or the loss of rewards for the baby, loss of choice, loss of influence through eternity, loss opportunity.

There are other points to make, but I wish to let this one stand for a moment. Evil is never good even if it can be used to further God's eternal plan.

punk
Oct 11th 2007, 12:27 AM
This is simply a false proposition. As I stated before, scripture says all things work to good for them that love God. Does that mean all things are good? No. On the contrary, only what God does is truly good. But that is what you are suggesting. If it ends good, then it must be good. You see the act of murder as sending someone to heaven without seeing the consequence of the abortionist or the loss of rewards for the baby, loss of choice, loss of influence through eternity, loss opportunity.

There are other points to make, but I wish to let this one stand for a moment. Evil is never good even if it can be used to further God's eternal plan.

Well then you appear to disagree with what passes for doctrine in contemporary popular Christianity as well.

The whole point of the affirmation that if one dies sufficiently young then one goes straight to heaven is to affirm that none of that matters.

Brother Mark
Oct 11th 2007, 12:32 AM
The whole point of the affirmation that if one dies sufficiently young then one goes straight to heaven is to affirm that none of that matters.

No it doesn't. Let's say all babies aborted go to heaven. It still matters because it is still murder. The end does not justify the means. Or does it to you? Can evil be good?

SammeyDW
Oct 11th 2007, 03:38 AM
Exodus 20:13 NASB
(13) "You shall not murder. "

Abortion is murder, because it takes a life unjustly.

Isaiah 5:20 NASB
(20) "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! "

No matter what we may think about abortion.
God says it is a sin and to be avoided, because it is murder.
We must accept and follow God's ruling no matter how we feel about the subject.

mikebr
Oct 11th 2007, 07:21 PM
Exodus 20:13 NASB
(13) "You shall not murder. "

Abortion is murder, because it takes a life unjustly.

Isaiah 5:20 NASB
(20) "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! "

No matter what we may think about abortion.
God says it is a sin and to be avoided, because it is murder.
We must accept and follow God's ruling no matter how we feel about the subject.

We seem to be missing the point of this whole discussion. :confused


What is the goal of evangelism? If it is to get people to heaven and abortion serves the same purpose then abortion is responsible for more being in heaven than evangelism, in the US anyway.

Your feelings on the subject are irrelevant. Now can we admit that we could be wrong about preborn children going to heaven or maybe the outcome of abortion being something that God is using to get people to heaven. I admit that I could be wrong about the whole thing. But I'm not opposed to the question being asked.

AlainaJ
Oct 11th 2007, 08:46 PM
I can't beleive I just read all of this.......:o

We are Christians, we love people and want to tell them how to be saved.......God wants to save our bodies and our souls. He loves us.

Isaiah, speaks of God knowing him before he was born. John the baptist lept in his mothers womb......

Luke.1 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=4609547)


[15] For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
[31] And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
[41] And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
[42] And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
[44] For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.God has a purpose for each of us....who are we to decide who should be born or who should die...or who shall fufill God's purpose? We aren't God. What right do we have to kill an innocent baby.....that blood would be on your hands.

God Bless

Gal.1 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=5163541)


[15] But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,Read the scripture...God decides, not man.

punk
Oct 11th 2007, 08:49 PM
No it doesn't. Let's say all babies aborted go to heaven. It still matters because it is still murder. The end does not justify the means. Or does it to you? Can evil be good?

I think in the case of heaven the end (being in heaven scores a plus infinity whereas being in hell scores a minus infinity) does justify the means (which probably score a big, but finite, negative number).

Sorry plus infinity - some big finite number is still an infinity.

Brother Mark
Oct 11th 2007, 08:59 PM
I think in the case of heaven the end (being in heaven scores a plus infinity whereas being in hell scores a minus infinity) does justify the means (which probably score a big, but finite, negative number).

Sorry plus infinity - some big finite number is still an infinity.

And that is why we won't agree. Paul said where sin abounds, grace much more abounds. But then he went on to say that should we sin so that grace should abound more? God forbid!

So, though grace may come from the sin of abortion, we should not wish for more sin in order to have more grace. It goes against scripture and the ways of God.

punk
Oct 11th 2007, 09:12 PM
And that is why we won't agree. Paul said where sin abounds, grace much more abounds. But then he went on to say that should we sin so that grace should abound more? God forbid!

So, though grace may come from the sin of abortion, we should not wish for more sin in order to have more grace. It goes against scripture and the ways of God.

Wouldn't it just be easier to give up the notion that all infants that die automatically go to heaven?

Brother Mark
Oct 11th 2007, 09:13 PM
Wouldn't it just be easier to give up the notion that all infants that die automatically go to heaven?

I've already suggested something along those lines might be possible. But even so, the argument I pose is in perfect agreement with what Paul wrote in Romans. Sin should never abound so that grace can abound more.

punk
Oct 11th 2007, 09:17 PM
I've already suggested something along those lines might be possible. But even so, the argument I pose is in perfect agreement with what Paul wrote in Romans. Sin should never abound so that grace can abound more.

Paul had in mind sins by people that are saved. The issue was whether the saved now have a free pass to sin all they want since grace abounds.

We are talking about saving people from hell (by abortion or infanticide).

So, no, the argument doesn't apply.

rchivers
Oct 11th 2007, 09:18 PM
Wouldn't it just be easier to give up the notion that all infants that die automatically go to heaven?

I've always had a suspicion that souls get recycled when they are young enough. Who knows though.

Brother Mark
Oct 11th 2007, 09:26 PM
Paul had in mind sins by people that are saved. The issue was whether the saved now have a free pass to sin all they want since grace abounds.

We are talking about saving people from hell (by abortion or infanticide).

So, no, the argument doesn't apply.

Evil never approved of anywhere in scripture as a good thing. Though it is often used to accomplish good things, the evil is then judged by God after he has used it.

No matter how long you argue it, as long as the premise of abortion is murder, it is not a good thing. Sin is evil regardless of the end result.

punk
Oct 11th 2007, 09:32 PM
Evil never approved of anywhere in scripture as a good thing. Though it is often used to accomplish good things, the evil is then judged by God after he has used it.

No matter how long you argue it, as long as the premise of abortion is murder, it is not a good thing. Sin is evil regardless of the end result.

Never?

In scripture?

Not even when Joshua is commanded to kill all the Canaanites, even women and children?

Genocide isn't evil?

Interesting, since the premise that genocide is evil seemed to crop up in another thread.

Brother Mark
Oct 11th 2007, 09:38 PM
Never?

In scripture?

Not even when Joshua is commanded to kill all the Canaanites, even women and children?

Genocide isn't evil?

Interesting, since the premise that genocide is evil seemed to crop up in another thread.

When God tells us to kill all the babies, then I will agree it is not evil, for that is God's call to make. But for me to do it without a direct command, is murder.

As for genocide with Joshua, you now the story and the command. And you know that the canaanites weren't innocent. And yes, I know what I am implying.

DSK
Oct 11th 2007, 09:41 PM
Or kill them before the age of accountability. I've said before if innocence gets us to heaven then abortion is the most evangelical tool around.

OK, but what would be the final destination of the one killing the infant? We may win the innocent infant, but what about the abortionist?

punk
Oct 11th 2007, 09:42 PM
When God tells us to kill all the babies, then I will agree it is not evil, for that is God's call to make. But for me to do it without a direct command, is murder.

As for genocide with Joshua, you now the story and the command. And you know that the canaanites weren't innocent. And yes, I know what I am implying.

So you're only argument against me comes down to:

It would be okay if God told us to, but He hasn't.

Otherwise any notions of an action being intrinsically good or evil are by the wayside.

Well it is good to know that you don't think abortion is intrinsically evil.

Brother Mark
Oct 11th 2007, 09:44 PM
So you're only argument against me comes down to:

It would be okay if God told us to, but He hasn't.

Otherwise any notions of an action being intrinsically good or evil are by the wayside.

Punk, you know the difference between murder and killing. We can try all day long to find fine lines to discuss. Bottom line... if a baby is indeed human, they are being murdered which breaks the commandment. While war can be murder, scripture clearly develops the difference between killing people in war and murder.

Slice it or dice it, the distinction can be found whether we like it or not. God told Joshua to go to war and kill everyone. That is different than murder or infanticide like what happened with Pharaoh and Herod.

punk
Oct 11th 2007, 09:47 PM
Punk, you know the difference between murder and killing. We can try all day long to find fine lines to discuss. Bottom line... if a baby is indeed human, they are being murdered which breaks the commandment. While war can be murder, scripture clearly develops the difference between killing people in war and murder.

Slice it or dice it, the distinction can be found whether we like it or not. God told Joshua to go to war and kill everyone. That is different than murder or infanticide like what happened with Pharaoh and Herod.

That's all irrelevant.

You've told me that anything is permitted as long as it is sanctioned by God.

Killing is okay if sanctioned by God.

Murder is okay if sanctioned by God.

Anything.

Don't even bother to argue that there are any nuances beyond that, because you'll only be contradicting yourself.

Brother Mark
Oct 11th 2007, 09:50 PM
That's all irrelevant.

You've told me that anything is permitted as long as it is sanctioned by God.

Killing is okay if sanctioned by God.

Murder is okay if sanctioned by God.

Anything.

Don't even bother to argue that there are any nuances beyond that, because you'll only be contradicting yourself.

I will retract the statement I made that "if God tells us to commit abortions then it would be OK". I was trying to make a point that all morality flows from God and I did it poorly.

However, what I stated above stands. There is a difference between murder and war/killing. It is shown throughout scripture. You well know that Joshua did nothing wrong when he killed all the canaanites during war. He would have sinned had he not acted that way and it would have been evil. God has and does sanction killing. He does not sanction murder.

You are also aware that when Pharaoh and Herod ordered the murder of Hebrew children they were sinning.

I know you would like to focus on the nuances. But I also believe that you are aware it is not as fuzzy as you are perhaps indicating it to be.

punk
Oct 11th 2007, 10:03 PM
I will retract the statement I made that "if God tells us to commit abortions then it would be OK". I was trying to make a point that all morality flows from God and I did it poorly.

However, what I stated above stands. There is a difference between murder and war/killing. It is shown throughout scripture. You well know that Joshua did nothing wrong when he killed all the canaanites during war. He would have sinned had he not acted that way and it would have been evil. God has and does sanction killing. He does not sanction murder.

You are also aware that when Pharaoh and Herod ordered the murder of Hebrew children they were sinning.

I know you would like to focus on the nuances. But I also believe that you are aware it is not as fuzzy as you are perhaps indicating it to be.

So how does the killing of non-combatants like children qualify as "killing" (a part of war), and not "murder"?

Joshua said to the two men who had spied out the land, "Go into the prostitute's house and bring her out and all who belong to her, in accordance with your oath to her." 23 So the young men who had done the spying went in and brought out Rahab, her father and mother and brothers and all who belonged to her. They brought out her entire family and put them in a place outside the camp of Israel.
24 Then they burned the whole city and everything in it, but they put the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron into the treasury of the LORD's house. 25 But Joshua spared Rahab the prostitute, with her family and all who belonged to her, because she hid the men Joshua had sent as spies to Jericho—and she lives among the Israelites to this day.

It sounds to me like Joshua murdered quite a few non-combatants there.

Brother Mark
Oct 11th 2007, 10:19 PM
So how does the killing of non-combatants like children qualify as "killing" (a part of war), and not "murder"?

Joshua said to the two men who had spied out the land, "Go into the prostitute's house and bring her out and all who belong to her, in accordance with your oath to her." 23 So the young men who had done the spying went in and brought out Rahab, her father and mother and brothers and all who belonged to her. They brought out her entire family and put them in a place outside the camp of Israel.
24 Then they burned the whole city and everything in it, but they put the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron into the treasury of the LORD's house. 25 But Joshua spared Rahab the prostitute, with her family and all who belonged to her, because she hid the men Joshua had sent as spies to Jericho—and she lives among the Israelites to this day.

It sounds to me like Joshua murdered quite a few non-combatants there.

Here's what God said about non-Combatants with Amalek, one of the nations that attacked Israel when they first left Egypt.

1 Sam 15:1-3

Then Samuel said to Saul, " The LORD sent me to anoint you as king over His people, over Israel; now therefore, listen to the words of the LORD. 2 "Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalekfor what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 3'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"
NASU

As for the residents of Canaan at the time...

God told Joshua to drive out all the inhabitants. Those that stayed, got killed. Those that fled, they pursued until they were gone. The command was to utterly destroy them. Jerico was the first city and not many of them wanted to flee. In later cities, all the kings were killed and people were pursued. The idea was to dispossess the land.

With the amelakites, God told King Saul to kill them all.

Again, murder and killing are different. Did Saul murder the children when he killed them in war? Not according to scripture, unless you want to say that God told Saul to murder and break one of the commandments.

punk
Oct 11th 2007, 10:30 PM
Here's what God said about non-Combatants with Amalek, one of the nations that attacked Israel when they first left Egypt.

1 Sam 15:1-3

Then Samuel said to Saul, " The LORD sent me to anoint you as king over His people, over Israel; now therefore, listen to the words of the LORD. 2 "Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalekfor what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 3'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"
NASU

As for the residents of Canaan at the time...

God told Joshua to drive out all the inhabitants. Those that stayed, got killed. Those that fled, they pursued until they were gone. The command was to utterly destroy them. Jerico was the first city and not many of them wanted to flee. In later cities, all the kings were killed and people were pursued. The idea was to dispossess the land.

With the amelakites, God told King Saul to kill them all.

Again, murder and killing are different. Did Saul murder the children when he killed them in war? Not according to scripture, unless you want to say that God told Saul to murder and break one of the commandments.

Ah, so abortion as part of a war is okay then?

Studyin'2Show
Oct 11th 2007, 10:41 PM
Ah, so abortion as part of a war is okay then?Is that what legalized, on-demand abortion is...a part of war? I wasn't aware of this war against pre-born children. :rolleyes:

punk
Oct 11th 2007, 10:42 PM
Is that what legalized, on-demand abortion is...a part of war? I wasn't aware of this war against pre-born children. :rolleyes:

Well that wasn't what I asked, now was it?

Do you think abortion is okay as part of war?

Brother Mark
Oct 11th 2007, 10:49 PM
Ah, so abortion as part of a war is okay then?

Trying to cloud the issue again?

Are you trying to justify abortion?

Call it what you will, but as I said earlier, killing and murder are two different things. Saul was told to kill ALL the Amalekites. That was not murder. Abortion, in my opinion is murder. Two different things.

How many times you want me to say it? Killing infants as Saul did was not sinful nor murder. Killing infants as Pharaoh and Herod did was sinful and murder.

Studyin'2Show
Oct 11th 2007, 10:57 PM
Well that wasn't what I asked, now was it?

Do you think abortion is okay as part of war?Killing in war is not murder, but we are not talking about war, are we? We are talking about legalized, on-demand abortion.

punk
Oct 11th 2007, 11:03 PM
Trying to cloud the issue again?

Are you trying to justify abortion?

Call it what you will, but as I said earlier, killing and murder are two different things. Saul was told to kill ALL the Amalekites. That was not murder. Abortion, in my opinion is murder. Two different things.

How many times you want me to say it? Killing infants as Saul did was not sinful nor murder. Killing infants as Pharaoh and Herod did was sinful and murder.

Well you said it was okay to kill children as part of war, I was just wondering if that extended to aborting them.

punk
Oct 11th 2007, 11:04 PM
Killing in war is not murder, but we are not talking about war, are we? We are talking about legalized, on-demand abortion.

So if side A decides to kill all the children of side B and abort any unborn babies of side B, it is okay as part of war?

I'm just trying to figure out if you all think there are cases in which abortion is legitimate.

Brother Mark
Oct 11th 2007, 11:05 PM
Well you said it was okay to kill children as part of war, I was just wondering if that extended to aborting them.

Actually, I didn't say that. God did. You disagree with his command to Saul? Was God wrong to give such a command? Was Saul wrong to follow it?

punk
Oct 11th 2007, 11:08 PM
Actually, I didn't say that. God did. You disagree with his command to Saul? Was God wrong to give such a command? Was Saul wrong to follow it?

Okay, so we are back to the notion that anything God tells someone to do is fine.

That's fine, there is no such thing as an intrinsically evil act, and acts all fall into one of three categories:

1. Commanded by God
2. Forbidden by God
3. Neither Commanded nor Forbidden by God

There is no moral law apart from obeying what God says, and God could well command apparently contradictory things in various instances.

That is fine.

Sometimes it is okay to kill sometimes it isn't, sometimes it is okay to murder sometimes it isn't. It all depends on what God said.

That's fine.

I'm all over that. Abortion may or may not be wrong depending on the circumstances.

Got it.

Brother Mark
Oct 11th 2007, 11:13 PM
Okay, so we are back to the notion that anything God tells someone to do is fine.

That's fine, there is no such thing as an intrinsically evil act, and acts all fall into one of three categories:

1. Commanded by God
2. Forbidden by God
3. Neither Commanded nor Forbidden by God

There is no moral law apart from obeying what God says, and God could well command apparently contradictory things in various instances.

That is fine.

Sometimes it is okay to kill sometimes it isn't, sometimes it is okay to murder sometimes it isn't. It all depends on what God said.

That's fine.

I'm all over that. Abortion may or may not be wrong depending on the circumstances.

Got it.

No. I am making a distinction that God makes in scripture. That killing in war is not murder. I think murder is intrinsically evil but killing is not.

As for abortion, when it is murder it is wrong. When it is not murder, it is not wrong.

Teke
Oct 11th 2007, 11:18 PM
Trying to cloud the issue again?

Are you trying to justify abortion?

Call it what you will, but as I said earlier, killing and murder are two different things. Saul was told to kill ALL the Amalekites. That was not murder. Abortion, in my opinion is murder. Two different things.

How many times you want me to say it? Killing infants as Saul did was not sinful nor murder. Killing infants as Pharaoh and Herod did was sinful and murder.

Oh the questions.......

Did God kill or murder the first born of Egypt for Israel?
Do people bear the burden of their transgressions?
Who understands the wisdom of God?

Did you know that the Levites, who's father Levi was cursed by his father Israel, were made the representatives of all the first born of Israel sparing their very lives, which God could have commanded to be given?
Does scripture not demand that we are to give our life (mortality on earth) to God?

mikebr
Oct 11th 2007, 11:20 PM
Three positions:


God can save everyone he has chosen not to. Calvinism
God wants to save everyone but He can't. Arminianism
God wants to, can, and will save everyone. Universal Reconciliation

The only one of these that takes care of abortion being evil yet getting folks to heaven is the third position. Evil stuff happens, Yet God in His infinite wisdom allows such because He has taken care of it before the foundations of the world.

Innocence won't get you to heaven.

Ignorance won't get you to heaven.

So neither of these will ensure that pre-born babies go to heaven.

Jesus, by His spilled blood will ensure that they get to Heaven.

punk
Oct 11th 2007, 11:21 PM
No. I am making a distinction that God makes in scripture. That killing in war is not murder. I think murder is intrinsically evil but killing is not.

As for abortion, when it is murder it is wrong. When it is not murder, it is not wrong.

Well it is good to know that abortion is perfectly okay if not commendable in the right circumstances.

mikebr
Oct 11th 2007, 11:23 PM
Oh the questions.......


Who understands the wisdom of God?



I know this is what I was saying. I think that this is what Punk is saying.

Brother Mark
Oct 11th 2007, 11:27 PM
Well it is good to know that abortion is perfectly okay if not commendable in the right circumstances.

The only right circumstance is when it is not murder.

punk
Oct 11th 2007, 11:28 PM
The only right circumstance is when it is not murder.

Hey I'm not the one saying abortion can be justified.

Brother Mark
Oct 11th 2007, 11:31 PM
Oh the questions.......

Did God kill or murder the first born of Egypt for Israel?
Do people bear the burden of their transgressions?
Who understands the wisdom of God?

Did you know that the Levites, who's father Levi was cursed by his father Israel, were made the representatives of all the first born of Israel sparing their very lives, which God could have commanded to be given?
Does scripture not demand that we are to give our life (mortality on earth) to God?

Does God murder? Of course not. He won't break his commands. But does he kill? Oh yea. He does that! Jesus said for this reason we should fear him. Fear him who is able to destroy both body and soul.

punk
Oct 11th 2007, 11:31 PM
I know this is what I was saying. I think that this is what Punk is saying.

You can pretty safely put me in the:

People like to think they know more than they really do

camp.

Oh Socrates you annoying scamp you!

Brother Mark
Oct 11th 2007, 11:32 PM
Hey I'm not the one saying abortion can be justified.

Sure seems that way to me.

punk
Oct 11th 2007, 11:33 PM
Does God murder? Of course not. He won't break his commands. But does he kill? Oh yea. He does that! Jesus said for this reason we should fear him. Fear him who is able to destroy both body and soul.

Well according to you God can't murder by definition.

If God says it is okay, it ceases to be murder.

punk
Oct 11th 2007, 11:34 PM
Sure seems that way to me.

Where did I ever say abortion was justified?

Studyin'2Show
Oct 11th 2007, 11:36 PM
So if side A decides to kill all the children of side B and abort any unborn babies of side B, it is okay as part of war?

I'm just trying to figure out if you all think there are cases in which abortion is legitimate.What exactly does any of this have to do with legalized abortion? :confused War stinks, but that's not what the topic is.

Brother Mark
Oct 11th 2007, 11:36 PM
Well according to you God can't murder by definition.

If God says it is okay, it ceases to be murder.

And you disagree? Does God murder?

punk
Oct 11th 2007, 11:37 PM
What exactly does any of this have to do with legalized abortion? :confused War stinks, but that's not what the topic is.

This topic has never been about legalized abortion.

It has been about abortion in general.

Brother Mark
Oct 11th 2007, 11:38 PM
What exactly does any of this have to do with legalized abortion? :confused War stinks, but that's not what the topic is.

It's a way of parrying the thrust of the argument. He's not interested in discussing abortion because to get his political way, he has to vote for those that support it.

punk
Oct 11th 2007, 11:38 PM
And you disagree? Does God murder?

According to you, no.

I mean if we define the words your way it is an impossibility isn't it.

Brother Mark
Oct 11th 2007, 11:39 PM
Where did I ever say abortion was justified?

Is it justified? You did say you were glad that it was justified in some circumstances. Say what you will, but you said it above.

Brother Mark
Oct 11th 2007, 11:39 PM
According to you, no.

I mean if we define the words your way it is an impossibility isn't it.

Well, can God break his command and murder according to you?

punk
Oct 11th 2007, 11:40 PM
It's a way of parrying the thrust of the argument. He's not interested in discussing abortion because to get his political way, he has to vote for those that support it.

Uh Brother Mark...

This thread started with the topic:

If all infants go to heaven, then abortion is a good thing, since it sends more souls to heaven.

I don't know where issues of law and public policy came in.

Try to stay on topic, please.

punk
Oct 11th 2007, 11:42 PM
Is it justified? You did say you were glad that it was justified in some circumstances. Say what you will, but you said it above.

When did I say I was glad it was justified in some circumstances?

I never said that.

Quote me.

I actually thought it odd that you thought it was justified in the right circumstances.

Brother Mark
Oct 11th 2007, 11:42 PM
Uh Brother Mark...

This thread started with the topic:

If all infants go to heaven, then abortion is a good thing, since it sends more souls to heaven.

I don't know where issues of law and public policy came in.

Try to stay on topic, please.

I am. My whole argument has been abortion is not a good thing regardless of the end result.

I am completely on topic that abortion is bad and murder.

Now, war on the other hand is not on topic.

punk
Oct 11th 2007, 11:43 PM
Well, can God break his command and murder according to you?

I don't draw a distinction between "kill" and "murder".

Brother Mark
Oct 11th 2007, 11:43 PM
Well it is good to know that abortion is perfectly okay if not commendable in the right circumstances.

Here's your quote Punk.

punk
Oct 11th 2007, 11:43 PM
I am. My whole argument has been abortion is not a good thing regardless of the end result.

I am completely on topic that abortion is bad and murder.

Now, war on the other hand is not on topic.

Really, because I distinctly recall you saying abortion was okay during a war.

punk
Oct 11th 2007, 11:45 PM
Here's your quote Punk.

The intent there was irony and sarcasm.

I was actually mocking your assertion that abortion could be okay in a war (or rather when it wasn't "murder", which appeared to be possible during a war).

Brother Mark
Oct 11th 2007, 11:46 PM
I don't draw a distinction between "kill" and "murder".

Right. And that is what I have been driving at. But scripture does draw a distinction between killing and murder. Saul was not guilty of murder but he did kill. Yet, abortion, is not an act of war by governmental authority or self defense by a government.

Did Saul do right by killing all the baby Amalekites?

punk
Oct 11th 2007, 11:48 PM
Right. And that is what I have been driving at. But scripture does draw a distinction between killing and murder. Saul was not guilty of murder but he did kill. Yet, abortion, is not an act of war by governmental authority or self defense by a government.

Did Saul do right by killing all the baby Amalekites?

No.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Brother Mark
Oct 11th 2007, 11:49 PM
The intent there was irony and sarcasm.

I was actually mocking your assertion that abortion could be okay in a war (or rather when it wasn't "murder", which appeared to be possible during a war).

I won't say abortion in war is OK. Keeping a woman alive to kill her unborn baby is not something I would endorse. Just to clear up any confusion.

Yea, I saw the mocking from you in other post too. Thought I saw it in that one along with your posted position.

punk
Oct 11th 2007, 11:50 PM
I won't say abortion in war is OK. Keeping a woman alive to kill her unborn baby is not something I would endorse. Just to clear up any confusion.

Yea, I saw the mocking from you in other post too. Thought I saw it in that one along with your posted position.

My posted position?

Brother Mark
Oct 11th 2007, 11:50 PM
No.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Was God's command to Saul wrong? It was disobedience to this command to kill all the babies, men, women and animals that cost Saul his kingdom.

punk
Oct 11th 2007, 11:52 PM
Was God's command to Saul wrong? It was disobedience to this command to kill all the babies, men, women and animals that cost Saul his kingdom.

Go back to Genesis and read the portion where God is going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and Abraham argues with Him.

Now Abraham was a just man, and felt no problem with arguing with God.

Saul should have argued that it was unjust.

Brother Mark
Oct 11th 2007, 11:58 PM
Go back to Genesis and read the portion where God is going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and Abraham argues with Him.

Now Abraham was a just man, and felt no problem with arguing with God.

Saul should have argued that it was unjust.

And this is why we can't agree. Because if Saul was wrong, then God's command was wrong. Because Saul was commanded by God to do it. There was a reason God commanded the Amalekites to be killed. He had sworn when they attacked Israel that he would destroy them from the face of the earth. Saul was whom he chose to do it. Saul disobeyed a direct command. God did not tell Abraham to destroy Sodom. He shared with Abraham what he was going to do. Same with Moses and Israel. Moses and Abraham rightly interceded for mercy.

But with the Amalekites, God was determined to destroy them for what they did earlier. The book of Esther continues this saga as Haman was a descendant of Agag, the Amalekite king.

God told Abraham to offer Isaac but he stopped Abraham. If God did not want the Amalekites destroyed, he would have stopped Saul too. Instead, He punished Saul severely for his disobedience to destroy them. Saul had the opportunity to be in the line of Jesus but blew it.

Teke
Oct 11th 2007, 11:59 PM
Go back to Genesis and read the portion where God is going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and Abraham argues with Him.

Now Abraham was a just man, and felt no problem with arguing with God.

Saul should have argued that it was unjust.

Amen, now we're talkin.:saint:

punk
Oct 12th 2007, 12:01 AM
And this is why we can't agree. Because if Saul was wrong, then God's command was wrong. Because Saul was commanded by God to do it. There was a reason God commanded the Amalekites to be killed. He had sworn when they attacked Israel that he would destroy them from the face of the earth. Saul was whom he chose to do it. Saul disobeyed a direct command. God did not tell Abraham to destroy Sodom. He shared with Abraham what he was going to do. Same with Moses and Israel. Moses and Abraham rightly interceded for mercy.

But with the Amalekites, God was determined to destroy them for what they did earlier. The book of Esther continues this saga as Haman was a descendant of Agag, the Amalekite king.

God told Abraham to offer Isaac but he stopped Abraham. If God did not want the Amalekites destroyed, he would have stopped Saul too. Instead, He punished Saul severely for his disobedience to destroy them. Saul had the opportunity to be in the line of Jesus but blew it.

What Saul did was to kill everything except the best livestock and the king.

He didn't exactly fail to kill the Amelekites (okay the king was left alive). What he failed to do was destroy their property.

Saul was punished for trying to get rich off the whole thing. He had no problem with killing women and children.

Saul should have followed Abraham and argued that killing women and children was wrong.

But Saul was no Abraham.

mikebr
Oct 12th 2007, 12:51 AM
Does God murder? Of course not. He won't break his commands. But does he kill? Oh yea. He does that! Jesus said for this reason we should fear him. Fear him who is able to destroy both body and soul.

He also said the He was able to make the rocks cry out. When's the last time you saw that?

Brother Mark
Oct 12th 2007, 12:54 AM
What Saul did was to kill everything except the best livestock and the king.

He didn't exactly fail to kill the Amelekites (okay the king was left alive). What he failed to do was destroy their property.

Saul was punished for trying to get rich off the whole thing. He had no problem with killing women and children.

Saul should have followed Abraham and argued that killing women and children was wrong.

But Saul was no Abraham.

Agreed that Saul was no Abraham. Disagree that God wanted Saul to intercede for them. He told Samuel not to intercede for Saul once his mind was made up. God wanted the Amalekites dead and told Saul to do it.

As for the King, Samuel also showed what God wanted and killed the king himself.

But now we are getting off topic. Might make for an interesting discussion elsewhere.

And as I mentioned before, God commanded Joshua to dispossess the people from their land. Those that stayed got killed but those that left were chased until they wouldn't return.

mikebr
Oct 12th 2007, 12:54 AM
You can pretty safely put me in the:

People like to think they know more than they really do

camp.

Oh Socrates you annoying scamp you!

Not really sure how to take this. But I am definitely one of those people who likes to think he knows more that he really does. If I misspoke I apologize.

Brother Mark
Oct 12th 2007, 12:56 AM
He also said the He was able to make the rocks cry out. When's the last time you saw that?

Since I am a rock, I cry out. ;) We are all stones that cry out.

He destroyed the rich man in hell. When he gets thrown into the lake of fire, he will experience the second death. But again, now we are getting off topic.

SammeyDW
Oct 12th 2007, 02:45 AM
We seem to be missing the point of this whole discussion. :confused


What is the goal of evangelism? If it is to get people to heaven and abortion serves the same purpose then abortion is responsible for more being in heaven than evangelism, in the US anyway.

Your feelings on the subject are irrelevant. Now can we admit that we could be wrong about preborn children going to heaven or maybe the outcome of abortion being something that God is using to get people to heaven. I admit that I could be wrong about the whole thing. But I'm not opposed to the question being asked.

No I'm not.
Even if abortion was an evangelistic tool.
God has already said quite clearly that He does not want His children
participating in it no matter how good the out come may seem to us.

And no they are not just my feelings.
I quoted, and agreed with scripture.
Thus, my feelings are God's feelings also.
At least on this topic anyway.

punk
Oct 12th 2007, 05:04 PM
Agreed that Saul was no Abraham. Disagree that God wanted Saul to intercede for them. He told Samuel not to intercede for Saul once his mind was made up. God wanted the Amalekites dead and told Saul to do it.

As for the King, Samuel also showed what God wanted and killed the king himself.

But now we are getting off topic. Might make for an interesting discussion elsewhere.

And as I mentioned before, God commanded Joshua to dispossess the people from their land. Those that stayed got killed but those that left were chased until they wouldn't return.

Joshua should have been a man and stood up and said it was unjust.

Like Abraham.

Brother Mark
Oct 12th 2007, 05:08 PM
Joshua should have been a man and stood up and said it was unjust.

Like Abraham.

Just tell God he is unjust?

God had determined in his heart to wipe out the Amelakites and we know Saul did not do this because they turn up later.

As for the land, God told them to disposses it, told them how to do it and when to do it. He told Abraham it was going to be his land. Could God go back on his word?

When Joshua made covenant with some in the land, it was not a good thing!

Why would you go against his command?

The two examples you gave earlier were God sharing what he was going to do and men standing in the gap in intercession. When Samuel tried the same thing concerning Saul, God told him to stop the deed was going to be done.

punk
Oct 12th 2007, 05:12 PM
Just tell God he is unjust?

God had determined in his heart to wipe out the Amelakites and we know Saul did not do this because they turn up later.

As for the land, God told them to disposses it, told them how to do it and when to do it. He told Abraham it was going to be his land. Could God go back on his word?

When Joshua made covenant with some in the land, it was not a good thing!

Why would you go against his command?

The two examples you gave earlier were God sharing what he was going to do and men standing in the gap in intercession. When Samuel tried the same thing concerning Saul, God told him to stop the deed was going to be done.

Saul was punished for trying to get rich off the whole thing. He had no sympathy for any of the Amelakite people. Saul had no concern for justice, only for wealth.

And yes, I'd go against the command.

Better that, than take your stand that the most heinous and evil deed is okay so long as God says so.

Brother Mark
Oct 12th 2007, 05:24 PM
Saul was punished for trying to get rich off the whole thing. He had no sympathy for any of the Amelakite people. Saul had no concern for justice, only for wealth.

And yes, I'd go against the command.

Better that, than take your stand that the most heinous and evil deed is okay so long as God says so.

Then are you saying you know better than God?

Saul did not kill them all. Many lived and we see that in scripture. Of course, he kept some things he should have also killed. Did he have mercy? Way more than he should have had according to God's command.

Here is what God swore concerning the Amalekites...

Ex 17:14-16

14 Then the LORD said to Moses, " Write this in a book as a memorial and recite it to Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven." 15 Moses built an altar and named it The LORD is My Banner; 16 and he said, " The LORD has sworn; the LORD will have war against Amalek from generation to generation."
NASU

Deut 25:17-19

17 " Remember what Amalek did to you along the way when you came out from Egypt, 18 how he met you along the way and attacked among you all the stragglers at your rear when you were faint and weary; and he did not fear God. 19 "Therefore it shall come about when the LORD your God has given you rest from all your surrounding enemies, in the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance to possess, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven; you must not forget.
NASU

Yet, by the time of Saul, Amalek was still around. So God gave this command to Saul...

1 Sam 15:2-3
2 "Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 3'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"
NASU

and Saul rightly showing mercy...

1 Sam 15:6
6 Saul said to the Kenites, "Go, depart, go down from among the Amalekites, so that I do not destroy you with them; for you showed kindness to all the sons of Israel when they came up from Egypt."
NASU

and Saul's disobedience...

1 Sam 15:7-9
7 So Saul defeated the Amalekites, from Havilah as you go to Shur, which is east of Egypt. 8 He captured Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. 9 But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were not willing to destroy them utterly; but everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed.
NASU

He only destroyed what was despised when he also should have destroyed what he valued.

and God's opinion of Saul because he did not do as he was commanded.

1 Sam 15:10-11

Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel, saying, 11 " I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands."
NASU

God took away the throne from Saul because he did not do as commanded.

Samuel explaining to Saul the reason he was losing the kingdom.

1 Sam 15:17-19

17 Samuel said, "Is it not true, though you were little in your own eyes, you were made the head of the tribes of Israel? And the LORD anointed you king over Israel, 18 and the LORD sent you on a mission, and said, ' Go and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are exterminated.' 19 "Why then did you not obey the voice of the LORD, but rushed upon the spoil and did what was evil in the sight of the LORD?"
NASU

Samuel then explained that rebellion was the same as witchcraft. Look at the mercy the Prophet of God had on Agag.

1 Sam 15:32-33

32 Then Samuel said, "Bring me Agag, the king of the Amalekites." And Agag came to him cheerfully. And Agag said, "Surely the bitterness of death is past." 33 But Samuel said, " As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women." And Samuel hewed Agag to pieces before the LORD at Gilgal.
NASU

Samuel did what Saul would not because God said to.

And finally Samuel mourned for Saul and look at what God said about that.

1 Sam 16:1

Now the LORD said to Samuel, " How long will you grieve over Saul, since I have rejected him from being king over Israel?
NASU


Punk, to rebel against a command of God is as
the sin of witchcraft. Such sins are punished harshly by God.

God had his reasons for destroying Amalek and they can be found in scripture. He was just in doing so.

Even if you find it distasteful, you must admit that God defines justice, not us. Can we miss justice and not understand it? Sure. But we don't define it. Obviously many evils have been done in God's name, but destroying Amalek was not one of them. Just because we believe God says something doesn't make it so and many evils have been done as a result. But scripture does not lie as man lies.

punk
Oct 12th 2007, 05:31 PM
Well I'll take the loss by Godwin's Law:

You are basically saying that if God had commanded Hitler to commit the Holocaust, then it would have been a commendable and noble thing.

I'm sorry, I've been to a concentration camp. Nothing at all could have made that commendable or noble.

You win.

Brother Mark
Oct 12th 2007, 05:37 PM
Well I'll take the loss by Godwin's Law:

You are basically saying that if God had commanded Hitler to commit the Holocaust, then it would have been a commendable and noble thing.

I'm sorry, I've been to a concentration camp. Nothing at all could have made that commendable or noble.

You win.

Well, you know I would respond to this one.

Look deeper Punk. I am not saying that what Saul did was right for all wars. But it is in this one. God tells us many of the reasons in scripture. And if you get technical, the concentration camp doesn't even apply cause that was torture and used for prisoners. Saul was instructed to kill not to torture or capture. Again, it seems to me that the comment about concentration camps is trying to make fuzzy that which is clear.

As for Hitler, I think we both know he didn't hear from God.

Why the resistance to being obedient to God?

If you are saying that any mad man can claim to hear God and justify his actions, I know that fear. Goodness, the crusades seem to be a very bad example of that. But that has nothing to do with did Saul sin or not. Because we KNOW he heard God.

punk
Oct 12th 2007, 06:08 PM
Well, you know I would respond to this one.

Look deeper Punk. I am not saying that what Saul did was right for all wars. But it is in this one. God tells us many of the reasons in scripture. And if you get technical, the concentration camp doesn't even apply cause that was torture and used for prisoners. Saul was instructed to kill not to torture or capture. Again, it seems to me that the comment about concentration camps is trying to make fuzzy that which is clear.

As for Hitler, I think we both know he didn't hear from God.

Why the resistance to being obedient to God?

If you are saying that any mad man can claim to hear God and justify his actions, I know that fear. Goodness, the crusades seem to be a very bad example of that. But that has nothing to do with did Saul sin or not. Because we KNOW he heard God.

So if God commanded Saul to torture the Amelakites to death, then it would have been okay for Saul to refuse?

I recall your position is that anything God commands is automatically good.

I believe God wants a heaven populated by people like Abraham that will stand up against God out of love for justice.

Why is it so hard to believe that God wants His children to be able stand up against Him?

Brother Mark
Oct 12th 2007, 06:41 PM
So if God commanded Saul to torture the Amelakites to death, then it would have been okay for Saul to refuse?

God never commanded anyone, anywhere to torture someone. But if God said torture was good, BUT HE DIDN'T, then it would be good. God defines goodness. Not us. Right? What I am suggesting is that we learn what is moral from God. Not the other way around. He is the one that teaches us right and wrong. "There is none good, no not one." But God is good and He defines goodness.



I recall your position is that anything God commands is automatically good.

I believe God wants a heaven populated by people like Abraham that will stand up against God out of love for justice.

Why is it so hard to believe that God wants His children to be able stand up against Him?Alright, here's the deal...

God did not command Abraham nor Moses to destroy anything. He shared with them what he intended to do and they interceded. That fits with what God says in other places about how he is looking for someone to stand in the gap.

Show me a place where God gave a command and the man said no and God blessed it. When God gives a command as a test, he will withdraw it as he did with Isaac and Abraham. God never withdrew his command to kill all the Amalekites. Sometimes, God gives a command and then explains it further at a later time.

Where in scripture did God give a command to a person and then that person said "No" that God blessed that man for his no?

punk
Oct 12th 2007, 06:47 PM
God never commanded anyone, anywhere to torture someone. But if God said torture was good, BUT HE DIDN'T, then it would be good. God defines goodness. Not us. Right? What I am suggesting is that we learn what is moral from God. Not the other way around. He is the one that teaches us right and wrong. "There is none good, no not one." But God is good and He defines goodness.

Well there you go, if God commanded Hitler to do the Holocaust, it would then, by definition be good.


Alright, here's the deal...

God did not command Abraham nor Moses to destroy anything. He shared with them what he intended to do and they interceded. That fits with what God says in other places about how he is looking for someone to stand in the gap.

Show me a place where God gave a command and the man said no and God blessed it. When God gives a command as a test, he will withdraw it as he did with Isaac and Abraham. God never withdrew his command to kill all the Amalekites. Sometimes, God gives a command and then explains it further at a later time.

Where in scripture did God give a command to a person and then that person said "No" that God blessed that man for his no?

Well God ordered Ezekiel to cook his food using human excrement, Ezekiel said "no", and God allowed him to use animal excrement.

I see no evidence that God otherwise punished Ezekiel for disobedience.

Now note:

According to you there would be no problem for Ezekiel regarding cooking his food in this way, since God commanded it. Ezekiel argued it would make him unclean. God doesn't say "No it wont make you unclean since I commanded it", he accepts the argument from cleanliness and permits a change.

Brother Mark
Oct 12th 2007, 06:57 PM
Well there you go, if God commanded Hitler to do the Holocaust, it would then, by definition be good.

But he didn't did he? If gravity didn't exist we would all float. It's a bad argument and doesn't even fit.



Well God ordered Ezekiel to cook his food using human excrement, Ezekiel said "no", and God allowed him to use animal excrement.

I see no evidence that God otherwise punished Ezekiel for disobedience.

Yep. Ezekial appealed and God honored his appeal. But God had not sworn an oath either. I am not saying man can't sway God. Of course he can. But not on something like what happened with Saul. God had sworn to destroy Amalek. It was going to happen. As for Ezekiel, had God not modified his order, Ezekiel would have been in rebellion. But God did modify it. Now, show me a place where God swore something and man said no?

I think you see the difference between the command given to Saul and that given to Ezekiel. There are many such examples as the one Ezekiel had. But nowhere does God go back on his promises. That is the problem faced with the command God gave to Saul. He had promised to war against and to destroy Amalek.

So tell me Punk, does God define that which is good? Or are you advocating that man defines it?

punk
Oct 12th 2007, 07:03 PM
But he didn't did he? If gravity didn't exist we would all float. It's a bad argument and doesn't even fit.




Yep. Ezekial appealed and God honored his appeal. But God had not sworn an oath either. I am not saying man can't sway God. Of course he can. But not on something like what happened with Saul. God had sworn to destroy Amalek. It was going to happen. As for Ezekiel, had God not modified his order, Ezekiel would have been in rebellion. But God did modify it. Now, show me a place where God swore something and man said no?

I think you see the difference between the command given to Saul and that given to Ezekiel. There are many such examples as the one Ezekiel had. But nowhere does God go back on his promises. That is the problem faced with the command God gave to Saul. He had promised to war against and to destroy Amalek.

So tell me Punk, does God define that which is good? Or are you advocating that man defines it?

Well maybe if Joshua or Saul had bothered to object, then God would have gladly taken back His order to slaughter innocents.

I see no difference.

In fact, the way I see it, the part about whether to use human excrement is so trivial in comparison to slaughtering women and children, that if God is willing to relent on so minor a point, how much more would He relent in the case of killing?

God defined good and evil once and for all at the beginning. He created mankind able to see that.

Good and evil aren't merely God's whim for a particular situation.

Genocide is just wrong, no matter what the circumstances.

Personally, I think God was disappointed with Joshua for not objecting.

Brother Mark
Oct 12th 2007, 07:07 PM
Well maybe if Joshua or Saul had bothered to object, then God would have gladly taken back His order to slaughter innocents.

I see no difference.

In fact, the way I see it, the part about whether to use human excrement is so trivial in comparison to slaughtering women and children, that if God is willing to relent on so minor a point, how much more would He relent in the case of killing?

God defined good and evil once and for all at the beginning. He created mankind able to see that.

Good and evil aren't merely God's whim for a particular situation.

Genocide is just wrong, no matter what the circumstances.

Personally, I think God was disappointed with Joshua for not objecting.

So when God promised to kill all the Amalekites, he was wrong. For God cannot go back on his promise. That's what Hebrews says.

He was wrong to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (genocide) and he was wrong to destroy the world with a flood and he will be wrong when he destroys it again. Is that what you are saying?

Is it OK for God to break his promise? He promised to destroy Amalek. He promised Abraham that his descendants would get the land. Had the Canaanites simply left, God and Joshua would have let them live. But they didn't. They had to die.

punk
Oct 12th 2007, 07:32 PM
So when God promised to kill all the Amalekites, he was wrong. For God cannot go back on his promise. That's what Hebrews says.

He was wrong to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (genocide) and he was wrong to destroy the world with a flood and he will be wrong when he destroys it again. Is that what you are saying?

Is it OK for God to break his promise? He promised to destroy Amalek. He promised Abraham that his descendants would get the land. Had the Canaanites simply left, God and Joshua would have let them live. But they didn't. They had to die.

God can do whatever He wants to, He is perfectly free to break a promise.

Or is God a prisoner to some higher law?

You think that even if the Amalekites had repented at the last minute God wouldn't have spared them? He spared Ninevah at the last minute when they repented and made a fool of Jonah.

Do you think that if the world had repented before the Flood He wouldn't have relented, and made Noah look the fool?

Oh, your "god" is more a force of nature or a law of physics than a god.

I think God would be glad to go back on a promise if the people gave Him good reason.

Brother Mark
Oct 12th 2007, 07:47 PM
God can do whatever He wants to, He is perfectly free to break a promise.


Heb 6:17-18
17 In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath, 18 so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie , we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.
NASU

So we know he can't lie by breaking a promise.


Or is God a prisoner to some higher law?

You think that even if the Amalekites had repented at the last minute God wouldn't have spared them? He spared Ninevah at the last minute when they repented and made a fool of Jonah.Perhaps. But they didn't repent. Nor did Sodom. So again, we are playing the what if game instead of looking at exactly what happened.


Do you think that if the world had repented before the Flood He wouldn't have relented, and made Noah look the fool?Yep. Had they repented, God would have spared them. But again, you don't answer the question.
Was God unjust when he killed them?


I think God would be glad to go back on a promise if the people gave Him good reason.He wouldn't go back on a promise, but certainly a threat. ;) Moses repented but didn't get to go into the promised land. Israel repented but that generation didn't go into the promised land and God made sure they died in the wilderness.

A threat is meant to turn a man from evil. A threat he will break as he discussed in Jer. 18. A promise, God will not break for he said in Hebrews it was impossible for him to break it.

punk
Oct 12th 2007, 08:51 PM
Heb 6:17-18
17 In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath, 18 so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie , we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.
NASU


This is an affirmation of a particular promise. Not a statement about all promises. He can break it if He wants to, but He is affirming that He will not.

In this case this a promise to Abraham and his heirs regarding His covenant with them (rather than a promise of woe to people).

I fail to see how it applies as a universal principle.

God does not here state that He will never break any promise. He simply affirms that He does not intend to break a particular promise.

Brother Mark
Oct 13th 2007, 12:24 AM
This is an affirmation of a particular promise. Not a statement about all promises. He can break it if He wants to, but He is affirming that He will not.

In this case this a promise to Abraham and his heirs regarding His covenant with them (rather than a promise of woe to people).

I fail to see how it applies as a universal principle.

God does not here state that He will never break any promise. He simply affirms that He does not intend to break a particular promise.

The problem is that the writer of Hebrews defines breaking the oath as a lie. God doesn't lie. Now, he may use blindness or deception, but he doesn't himself lie. From the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. From God's heart came his law about bearing false witness and lying. God even said himself that there would be no liars in heaven. All evidence points to that God won't lie.

Can he change his mind? Yep. Can he lie and break an oath? Nope. Since God decided to write in Hebrews that breaking an oath is considered a lie, we know that God will not break an oath.

Teke
Oct 13th 2007, 12:42 PM
This is an affirmation of a particular promise. Not a statement about all promises. He can break it if He wants to, but He is affirming that He will not.

In this case this a promise to Abraham and his heirs regarding His covenant with them (rather than a promise of woe to people).

I fail to see how it applies as a universal principle.

God does not here state that He will never break any promise. He simply affirms that He does not intend to break a particular promise.

Yeah, as "Everlasting" is "unchangeable", meaning Him and His purpose. And the promise is of Messiah, which He fulfilled.

Teke
Oct 13th 2007, 12:47 PM
Can he change his mind? Yep. Can he lie and break an oath? Nope. Since God decided to write in Hebrews that breaking an oath is considered a lie, we know that God will not break an oath.

If breaking an oath is a lie, is getting a divorce (breaking an oath) a lie?
Scripture says He divorced Israel. (Jer. 3:8)

Studyin'2Show
Oct 13th 2007, 01:19 PM
We are still talking about abortion, right? :rolleyes: Such a long rabbit trail.

punk
Oct 13th 2007, 09:54 PM
The problem is that the writer of Hebrews defines breaking the oath as a lie. God doesn't lie. Now, he may use blindness or deception, but he doesn't himself lie. From the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. From God's heart came his law about bearing false witness and lying. God even said himself that there would be no liars in heaven. All evidence points to that God won't lie.

Can he change his mind? Yep. Can he lie and break an oath? Nope. Since God decided to write in Hebrews that breaking an oath is considered a lie, we know that God will not break an oath.

Where does it say God cannot lie?

And if you find one, how do you know God wasn't lying when He said it?

All you really know is that God told humans not to lie, but (according to you) if He tells us to lie about something then it becomes okay.

How do you know God will not break any oath?

I'm sorry, I still say that even God pledges and oath to destroy a people, if they repent He will gladly go back on it.

punk
Oct 13th 2007, 09:55 PM
We are still talking about abortion, right? :rolleyes: Such a long rabbit trail.

Well we were never really talking about abortion.

NHL Fever
Oct 29th 2007, 02:49 AM
Where does it say God cannot lie?

And if you find one, how do you know God wasn't lying when He said it?

All you really know is that God told humans not to lie, but (according to you) if He tells us to lie about something then it becomes okay.

How do you know God will not break any oath?

I'm sorry, I still say that even God pledges and oath to destroy a people, if they repent He will gladly go back on it.

Interesting discussion, I hope I can jump in without being too disruptive to the general train of thought. I was just curious where are you coming from Punk? What is the end goal of what your are trying to establish? Or are you being the devil's advocate doing the 'practice debating against the atheist position' type of thing?

Anyway,

Where does it say God cannot lie?

Titus 1:2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began,...
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
John 1:1 IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

God is by definition the truth, and therefore cannot lie. Paul also explicitly says God can't lie. He is also the word, and therefore cannot break his word as that would be breaking himself. His word is much more than his oral word.

In the example about Abraham changing Gods mind, he didn't actually ever change Gods mind. God agreed that he would spare the city if there were some righteous, all along knowing there was none. God never did change his mind based on Abraham's objections, since God has been working all along under the same premise that Abraham was suggesting anyway (that any righteous could save the city), but the fact was there were none, and God knew this. He destroyed the city, and allowed Abraham to see into his reasoning via some communication. Abraham was privy to this because he was called friend of God, not because he was God's advisor or plan modifier.



And if you find one, how do you know God wasn't lying when He said it?


If God is lying, we should all just stop posting and kill ourselves now because there would no point in trying to live. Clearly we must operate on hope, which is the definition of faith. Do you not operate under the assumption God is telling the truth? This entire discussion is moot if you don't, because there can be no universal right and wrong, and therefore whatever end point you're trying to make would be likewise futile.



I'm sorry, I still say that even God pledges and oath to destroy a people, if they repent He will gladly go back on it.You're right, there's evidence of that when Israel is disobedient and God says he will spare them if they shape up. But they don't. And that's the point with all these examples. The people in the path of Gods wrath did not shape up, and his execution of his wrath was justice.

Obeying God outright is never the wrong choice. When Abraham is asked to sacrifice Issac, he does so and is commended for his obedience. It could be that yes, if Abraham has pleaded with God not to do it, then God would have allowed him, since as in the other example, that was His plan anyway, but perhaps Abraham would have missed a chance to grow more intimate with God had he done that.

Even when God allows an alternate situation to take place, that does not mean that its a good thing. When Jesus talked about marriage and divorce, he told the people that "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." The hardness of the hearts yielded the optional situation, but it was less that the ideal. You can sabotage Gods plan for your life by disobedience, and God can still work in you later despite your disobedience, but you missed the best possible for yourself in doing so. Obeying at first intent is always the best choice.

The overwhelming evidence in the bible points to the fact that first-response obedience is always the best option, and had the best outcomes for those that practiced it. Gods optimal plan is always the best one. Battling for an alternate is less than ideal. You cannot determined whether Gods plan is moral or not, since whatever God does in any situation is moral by definition. God is the truth, he is not simply likely to do the right thing, but open to our input on it.

Yes, God has sanctioned the mass-killing of peoples in the past. The difference between this and what Hitler did is of course that Hitler wasn't sanctioned by God, whereas Moses and Samuel were. You can like it or not like it, that is simply how it is. Rare is the time when somebody who wants to be a follower of God finds it easy. Following God requires abandoning the idea that you can understand all of Gods ways, and abandoning the condition that you will do or believe something based on whether it fits into your personal box definition of morality.

If you want an answer for why not kill before the age of accountability, then just think about your reason for why not start influencing everybody to sin and cause massive wars everywhere since that will hasten the day of judgment which we are supposed to be looking forward to as well. If you have an answer for that, then you'll have an answer for why not use the ends to justify in means in all the many analogous philosophical arguments such as the one your bring up.

punk
Oct 29th 2007, 09:11 PM
God is by definition the truth, and therefore cannot lie.

A square has - by definition - four equal sides.
A sonnet consists - by definition - of fourteen verses.

Definitions are things of words and language. They are not things of the empirical real world. God is not by definition "truth".


Paul also explicitly says God can't lie. He is also the word, and therefore cannot break his word as that would be breaking himself. His word is much more than his oral word.

But how does Paul know this? I can say all sorts of things. The rub is the why and the how of it.


In the example about Abraham changing Gods mind, he didn't actually ever change Gods mind. God agreed that he would spare the city if there were some righteous, all along knowing there was none. God never did change his mind based on Abraham's objections, since God has been working all along under the same premise that Abraham was suggesting anyway (that any righteous could save the city), but the fact was there were none, and God knew this. He destroyed the city, and allowed Abraham to see into his reasoning via some communication. Abraham was privy to this because he was called friend of God, not because he was God's advisor or plan modifier.

I disagree.


If God is lying, we should all just stop posting and kill ourselves now because there would no point in trying to live. Clearly we must operate on hope, which is the definition of faith. Do you not operate under the assumption God is telling the truth? This entire discussion is moot if you don't, because there can be no universal right and wrong, and therefore whatever end point you're trying to make would be likewise futile.

Just because it might be an unpleasant position to be in doesn't establish that it isn't the position we are in.

Your only argument is that we be ostriches.


You're right, there's evidence of that when Israel is disobedient and God says he will spare them if they shape up. But they don't. And that's the point with all these examples. The people in the path of Gods wrath did not shape up, and his execution of his wrath was justice.

Ninevah shaped up.


Obeying God outright is never the wrong choice. When Abraham is asked to sacrifice Issac, he does so and is commended for his obedience. It could be that yes, if Abraham has pleaded with God not to do it, then God would have allowed him, since as in the other example, that was His plan anyway, but perhaps Abraham would have missed a chance to grow more intimate with God had he done that.

Perhaps Abraham missed a chance to grow more intimate with God by not standing up against an injustice.


Even when God allows an alternate situation to take place, that does not mean that its a good thing. When Jesus talked about marriage and divorce, he told the people that "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." The hardness of the hearts yielded the optional situation, but it was less that the ideal. You can sabotage Gods plan for your life by disobedience, and God can still work in you later despite your disobedience, but you missed the best possible for yourself in doing so. Obeying at first intent is always the best choice.

How do you know that "obeying at first intent is always the best choice"? Based on what? You are just assuming the conclusion.


The overwhelming evidence in the bible points to the fact that first-response obedience is always the best option, and had the best outcomes for those that practiced it. Gods optimal plan is always the best one. Battling for an alternate is less than ideal. You cannot determined whether Gods plan is moral or not, since whatever God does in any situation is moral by definition. God is the truth, he is not simply likely to do the right thing, but open to our input on it.

I disagree.


Yes, God has sanctioned the mass-killing of peoples in the past. The difference between this and what Hitler did is of course that Hitler wasn't sanctioned by God, whereas Moses and Samuel were.

How do you know God didn't come to Hitler and tell him to do the things he did? Based on what?


You can like it or not like it, that is simply how it is. Rare is the time when somebody who wants to be a follower of God finds it easy. Following God requires abandoning the idea that you can understand all of Gods ways, and abandoning the condition that you will do or believe something based on whether it fits into your personal box definition of morality.

I don't see how you can get all up on a pedestal and lecture here, when you are taking the easiest of all roads - doing what you are told.

It is always easiest to give up all responsibility and do what you are told. Don't pretend it is at all hard.


If you want an answer for why not kill before the age of accountability, then just think about your reason for why not start influencing everybody to sin and cause massive wars everywhere since that will hasten the day of judgment which we are supposed to be looking forward to as well. If you have an answer for that, then you'll have an answer for why not use the ends to justify in means in all the many analogous philosophical arguments such as the one your bring up.

Why do you think wars will hasten a day of judgement?

NHL Fever
Oct 30th 2007, 12:07 AM
Definitions are things of words and language. They are not things of the empirical real world. God is not by definition "truth".


Jesus said "I am the truth". God is truth.



But how does Paul know this? I can say all sorts of things. The rub is the why and the how of it.
Perhaps you're lying about everything. If we can't assume certain people are truthful, there's no basis for the discussion.


Just because it might be an unpleasant position to be in doesn't establish that it isn't the position we are in.
I didn't say anything about being pleasant or not. The fact is if there is no way to trust God's word, then all is hopeless.



Your only argument is that we be ostriches.
If being ostriches you mean trusting that God does not lie.



Ninevah shaped up.
What's your point?



Perhaps Abraham missed a chance to grow more intimate with God by not standing up against an injustice.
Pure speculation, and in the face of endless of examples of rewards for obedience and punishment or missing out on something great for disobedience. All the biblical evidence of God's actions contradicts you.



How do you know that "obeying at first intent is always the best choice"? Based on what? You are just assuming the conclusion.
Because Jesus said if you love me, you will obey me. If you're a Christian you love Jesus. If you don't love Jesus, you're not a Christian. Jesus said you love him by obeying him.

I'm not just assuming. There is nowhere in the bible where not obeying yielded a better result than obeying, or when obeying yielded a worse result than not obeying. There are plenty of places where not obeying yielded a worse result than obeying.


How do you know God didn't come to Hitler and tell him to do the things he did? Based on what?
Because Hitler made statements contradictory to the bible.
Because there is no biblical precedent for his actions.
Because he failed.
Because of quotes like "National Socialism has succeeded where Christianity failed" and "We do not want any other God than Germany itself".
Because he said numerous things that were factually false.

A person truly led by God does not do any of those things, as biblical precedent indicates.


I don't see how you can get all up on a pedestal and lecture here, when you are taking the easiest of all roads - doing what you are told.

It is always easiest to give up all responsibility and do what you are told. Don't pretend it is at all hard.
You're dead wrong. The easiest thing is to do whatever the heck you want, or whatever you feel like. This is the world's philosophy. What's hard is sacrifice, obligation, responsibility. What's hard to going against the natural state of wanting to fulfill one's immediate impulses. Ask any child or wife how easy it is to be obedient to their father or husband when they don't agree. It's not easy, its the hardest thing to listen to authority and be obedient instead of obstinate. Your statement about responsibility is a lie, obeying God's calling in our life is the most important display of responsibility there is. In reality, claiming you don't need to follow Gods words is running from your responsibility.



Why do you think wars will hasten a day of judgement?Realize what I'm saying and substitute whatever works for you.

punk
Oct 30th 2007, 12:45 AM
Jesus said "I am the truth". God is truth.

Here is a true statement:

2 + 2 = 4

Please, tell me how God figures into that.


Perhaps you're lying about everything. If we can't assume certain people are truthful, there's no basis for the discussion.

A good lawyer would tell you that what a person lies about and how they lie about it tell you something about the person.

Everything said communicates something, just not necessarily the face value of what is said.

There is an art to reading, and it is a very deep one.


I didn't say anything about being pleasant or not. The fact is if there is no way to trust God's word, then all is hopeless.

This isn't an argument to trust God's word though.

All may well be hopeless.


If being ostriches you mean trusting that God does not lie.

I mean being unwilling to confront potentially uncomfortable issues.


What's your point?

My point is we don't know much of what we think we know. Most of our "knowledge" is a shakey edifice indeed.

Yet we presume to judge others based on that shakey edifice!


Pure speculation, and in the face of endless of examples of rewards for obedience and punishment or missing out on something great for disobedience. All the biblical evidence of God's actions contradicts you.

It is no less speculation than what you are giving. All the "biblical evidence" you state amounts to nothing more than:

"This all runs counter to my reading of the Bible."

So you see, all you are saying is "it is so because I say it so because I read the Bible that way".

It all comes back to the ego.

I read the Bible otherwise, but I am not better nor worse than you.


Because Jesus said if you love me, you will obey me. If you're a Christian you love Jesus. If you don't love Jesus, you're not a Christian. Jesus said you love him by obeying him.

He told us to do the will of the Father, not obey Jesus himself. But you assume doing the will of the Father amounts to doing what the Father says. But what if the will of the Father is to do what is right despite what the Father says?

Why this letting all things rest on mere words? Is there not something deeper than words?


I'm not just assuming. There is nowhere in the bible where not obeying yielded a better result than obeying, or when obeying yielded a worse result than not obeying. There are plenty of places where not obeying yielded a worse result than obeying.

How do you know a better result would have happened with obedience? What makes one outcome "better"? The Bible is history. It is a record of what happened. You are filling in the blanks of what "might have been", and assuming it would have been better.

How? It didn't happen, so you can invent what you will.


Because Hitler made statements contradictory to the bible.

So?


Because there is no biblical precedent for his actions.

Really. The Bible specifically states that he uses gentiles to punish the Jews as part of his will. Hitler could very well have been carrying out the will of God as did other gentile rulers in the Bible.


Because he failed.

Failed to do what? It depends on what the real goals were, now doesn't it?


Because of quotes like "National Socialism has succeeded where Christianity failed" and "We do not want any other God than Germany itself". Because he said numerous things that were factually false.

David is recorded as having done things wrong, and still stands well in the Bible.

Maybe God told Hitler to say "National Socialism has succeeded where Christianity failed."

Again, you are assuming the conclusion and just looking for reasons.


A person truly led by God does not do any of those things, as biblical precedent indicates.

So Joshua didn't commit genocide against the Canaanites? David didn't have a woman's husband killed so he can marry her? David didn't take a census of the Israelites which God opposed?

There are biblical precedents for all the atrocities the sinful heart can imagine.


You're dead wrong. The easiest thing is to do whatever the heck you want, or whatever you feel like. This is the world's philosophy. What's hard is sacrifice, obligation, responsibility. What's hard to going against the natural state of wanting to fulfill one's immediate impulses. Ask any child or wife how easy it is to be obedient to their father or husband when they don't agree. It's not easy, its the hardest thing to listen to authority and be obedient instead of obstinate. Your statement about responsibility is a lie, obeying God's calling in our life is the most important display of responsibility there is. In reality, claiming you don't need to follow Gods words is running from your responsibility.

Realize what I'm saying and substitute whatever works for you.

Righteousness consists in doing what is right.

Righteousness does not consist in doing what one is told by the appropriate "authorities".

Blind obedience is the road of the coward who will not take responsibility for what they do. It is the easy road...the too easy road.

What was the defense at the Nuremberg Trials:

"Oh, but you don't understand, I was only following orders!"

Take responsibility!

NHL Fever
Oct 30th 2007, 03:02 AM
Here is a true statement:

2 + 2 = 4

Please, tell me how God figures into that.


Please tell me how that figure into this discussion.


A good lawyer would tell you that what a person lies about and how they lie about it tell you something about the person.


Why would I believe a good lawyer? If he's good, he's probably good at lying. More to the point, what does a good lawyer have to do with the concept of truth?


There is an art to reading, and it is a very deep one.

Some people can't read others, some can, and some over-read everything. Its not a deep mystery. Everyone can read things how they want. Nonetheless, truth exists.


This isn't an argument to trust God's word though.


If the alternative is hopeless, then yes obviously it would be a good reason to go for it, even if its not perfect. In this case however, it is, because its from God.



All may well be hopeless.


Not to the Christian, because he/she has faith, which is hope.


I mean being unwilling to confront potentially uncomfortable issues.


The most uncomfortable truth is that there is a purpose greater than you, and an obligation for your to play a role in that purpose and not pursue your own desires. Most people do not have the courage to confront that.


My point is we don't know much of what we think we know. Most of our "knowledge" is a shakey edifice indeed.


Then why are you posting based on such a shakey edifice? Why expose me and everyone else to your shakiness?


Yet we presume to judge others based on that shakey edifice!


You've judged that we presume to judge people. That must be a shakey proposition since you're a shakey guy, using a shakey edifice. Therefore I shouldn't believe it, and should rather assume we judge people on a strong foundation. But wait I'm basing that again on what you're said as well, which is shakey as we know. So why should you or I comment on anything? To avoid shakey judgments, best not to respond to this post or say or think anything ever again.



It is no less speculation than what you are giving. All the "biblical evidence" you state amounts to nothing more than:

"This all runs counter to my reading of the Bible."


But you're not using the bible, so how would we know?



So you see, all you are saying is "it is so because I say it so because I read the Bible that way".

It all comes back to the ego.

I read the Bible otherwise, but I am not better nor worse than you.


You haven't offered any interpretation of the bible.



He told us to do the will of the Father, not obey Jesus himself. But you assume doing the will of the Father amounts to doing what the Father says. But what if the will of the Father is to do what is right despite what the Father says?


What if I'm supposed to shoot a potato gun while on skates? Can you back that supposition up with anything in the bible?



Why this letting all things rest on mere words? Is there not something deeper than words?
[/quotes]

We have the holy spirit, which we know about from the words in the bible promising it to us. We have only so many faculties of communication, God made us like that, and communicates to us through them.

[quote]
How do you know a better result would have happened with obedience?


Because God said, if you had done such and such, I would have done such and such. But since you did this, this bad thing happened (destroyed, lost kingdom, family dispersed, etc - ie bad stuff). See examples of dealing with nation of Israel, Saul, David, Solomon, etc.



What makes one outcome "better"? The Bible is history. It is a record of what happened. You are filling in the blanks of what "might have been", and assuming it would have been better.


Except that God specifically tells us in several stories of what he wanted, what went wrong, why its wrong, and what the consequences were.

If I hate somebody or get insanely jealous and fixated on myself, and God says that because I did that, I lose my kingdom, then its pretty clear if I didn't do that, I wouldn't have lost my kingdom. Keeping the kingdom is good, losing it is bad.



Really. The Bible specifically states that he uses gentiles to punish the Jews as part of his will. Hitler could very well have been carrying out the will of God as did other gentile rulers in the Bible.


In every case of that in the bible, there was an issue of a sinful/wicked nation being punished. Unless you can establish that for the Jews, blacks, and retarded people simultaneously at that time, then there is no precedent.



Failed to do what? It depends on what the real goals were, now doesn't it?


Failed to accomplish his stated goals, and was defeated.



David is recorded as having done things wrong, and still stands well in the Bible.


His wrongs are clearly identified and consequences met. He was also repentant, which is the key to him being a model of how to act both in times of success and times of sin.


Maybe God told Hitler to say "National Socialism has succeeded where Christianity failed."

Again, you are assuming the conclusion and just looking for reasons.


God said to put no other Gods before him. If Hitler called Germany his only God, then that the exact description of what not to do according to God.



So Joshua didn't commit genocide against the Canaanites? David didn't have a woman's husband killed so he can marry her? David didn't take a census of the Israelites which God opposed?


Joshua did killed the Canaanites, and he was told to by God. David did kill a husband, and take a census, and he wasn't told to. Joshua was blessed for his obedience, David was punished for his disobedience. There's a theme here.

In none of those examples, is there any similarities fulfilling the criteria of why Hitler's actions were not from God as I outlined above.



There are biblical precedents for all the atrocities the sinful heart can imagine.


No, there aren't, because as I demonstrated the reasons are consistent for destruction in the bible, whereas the reasons could be just anything if man thinks them up.



Righteousness consists in doing what is right.


Which you have no chance of doing, since you're thinking is shakey. Doing right is doing what is of God, since he defines right. There is no right without God.



Righteousness does not consist in doing what one is told by the appropriate "authorities".


If that authority is God, then yes, that's exactly what righteousness is.



Blind obedience is the road of the coward who will not take responsibility for what they do. It is the easy road...the too easy road.


That's the flimsiest of staw men. The blind man said of what Jesus did for him - "I was blind, and now I see." It's the man who pursues his own will who is the true coward, because he hides fearfully from his God-given responsibility, and runs from accountability. The bible states, and many here can testify, that the road with Christ can be the hardest in this life. Indeed, we are promised strife. Do you believe the disciplines who got up and followed Christ were cowards?



"Oh, but you don't understand, I was only following orders!"

Take responsibility!

That's where the holy spirit comes in, who convicts of wrong from the inside. Obviously following a human without thinking can get one into trouble, which is why we are supposed to follow God.

You have a role in life, and you are not bigger than life. Life is bigger than you, and you have a job to fulfill. If you run from your true responsibilities that's your choice. If you want to be at fault for all the world's ills then so be it, it will neither empower you to change them nor make you a more special person for trying to bear them. Jesus gives us purpose, which is why when considering our responsibilities we are to "trust in the Lord your God, and lean not on your own understanding."

punk
Oct 31st 2007, 06:50 PM
Please tell me how that figure into this discussion.

Well I asserted that "God is by definition truth" was a pretty useless statement (actually I asserted it was nonsense since "definition" is a thing of language and not nature), so I'm giving you something we both agree is "true" (namely 2+2=4) and asking you how, since "God is by definition truth" we can relate that to 2+2=4.

I mean what do I do:

2+2=4 is true
God is truth

=> 2+2=4 is godlike?

What is that supposed to mean?

The point is "God is by definition truth" is nonsense, and as such not what the biblical text is getting at.


Why would I believe a good lawyer? If he's good, he's probably good at lying. More to the point, what does a good lawyer have to do with the concept of truth?

The point was that there are always truths to be found even when what constitutes the "face value" is not true.


Some people can't read others, some can, and some over-read everything. Its not a deep mystery. Everyone can read things how they want. Nonetheless, truth exists.

Now you are reifying an abstract notion about the relation of statements to the nature of the universe. In what sense does truth "exist"? I mean a rock exists, can you point to "truth" somewhere in the world around me?

But you hit the nail on the head with "everyone can read things how they want". So what do we make of the person that reads the Bible "how they want", and then claims to be doing exactly what God is telling them (well really they are reading what they want into the Bible then doing what they find there, but claiming they aren't responsible since they are just doing what God told them to do.) What is really going on? They are doing what they choose to do, and claiming that they didn't choose, but God told them.


If the alternative is hopeless, then yes obviously it would be a good reason to go for it, even if its not perfect. In this case however, it is, because its from God.

First all this concern for "truth", then this disdain for "truth" by going for whatever works and makes one feel good, then finally an assertion that it must be true because you have decided it is from God. (And again, that's all that has happened, you decided it was from God, why? because you need it to be true).


Not to the Christian, because he/she has faith, which is hope.

Faith isn't hope. Faith is trust.


The most uncomfortable truth is that there is a purpose greater than you, and an obligation for your to play a role in that purpose and not pursue your own desires. Most people do not have the courage to confront that.

Wait, I'm the one asserting there is a purpose greater than me, and that purpose would have preferred Joshua not to commit genocide even when ordered to do so. I'm obviously saying there is a great purpose which we should see and allow us to ignore obviously criminal orders, no matter what the source of them.

You on the other hand are failing to have the courage to confront that since you are content to give up all responsibility and simply do what you are told, like some sort of automaton.


Then why are you posting based on such a shakey edifice? Why expose me and everyone else to your shakiness?

Because that is reality, and there is no hiding from it. This is the position we find ourselves in. It doesn't matter whether you or I like it or not, because our liking or not liking isn't going to change the situation.


You've judged that we presume to judge people. That must be a shakey proposition since you're a shakey guy, using a shakey edifice. Therefore I shouldn't believe it, and should rather assume we judge people on a strong foundation. But wait I'm basing that again on what you're said as well, which is shakey as we know. So why should you or I comment on anything? To avoid shakey judgments, best not to respond to this post or say or think anything ever again.

If you don't think we judge, that's great. I think we are all merely human and imperfect. We can be aware of our imperfections and live accordingly, or we can claim more certain knowledge than we are entitled to and commit attrocities.


But you're not using the bible, so how would we know?

You've already admitted that anyone can read the Bible how they want. So what are you doing but reading your own prejudices into the Bible and getting them back embued with authority? Shall we make the Bible nothing more than a pedestal upon which to set our prejudices (and thereby our own egos)?


You haven't offered any interpretation of the bible.

I don't presume to know a definitive reading. I can give my thoughts on this or that section in another thread if you like.


What if I'm supposed to shoot a potato gun while on skates? Can you back that supposition up with anything in the bible?

I'm clever, I probably could. But where would we be? Two clever types reading what they want into a text and claiming that their prejudices constitute the intent of God.

That is the greatest conceit throughout history: See! Look here, God agrees with ME!

Of course the "ME" is so much more important than the "God" in that sentence.


We have the holy spirit, which we know about from the words in the bible promising it to us. We have only so many faculties of communication, God made us like that, and communicates to us through them.

Funny how it is nevertheless the case that no one really agrees.


Because God said, if you had done such and such, I would have done such and such. But since you did this, this bad thing happened (destroyed, lost kingdom, family dispersed, etc - ie bad stuff). See examples of dealing with nation of Israel, Saul, David, Solomon, etc.

Have you never had an arguably "bad thing" happen to you that in the end turned out to be the best thing possible?

Have you never had an arguably "good thing" happen to you that you later wished never happened?

What is ultimately "good" and "bad"? They both make you what you are.

Bad things have brought people close to God, and good things have made people indifferent to God.


Except that God specifically tells us in several stories of what he wanted, what went wrong, why its wrong, and what the consequences were.

And?


If I hate somebody or get insanely jealous and fixated on myself, and God says that because I did that, I lose my kingdom, then its pretty clear if I didn't do that, I wouldn't have lost my kingdom. Keeping the kingdom is good, losing it is bad.

Maybe having the kingdom was the worst thing for you and those around you and losing it was for the best.

Why do you assume that having the kingdom is better than not having it?


In every case of that in the bible, there was an issue of a sinful/wicked nation being punished. Unless you can establish that for the Jews, blacks, and retarded people simultaneously at that time, then there is no precedent.

Well according to you if God says they are wicked, then they deserve to be punished.

I'm the one arguing we can question the will of God, you are the one arguing that justice consists in doing what God says.

If God says Jews, black and retarded people are to be punished, then, according to you, it is just.


Failed to accomplish his stated goals, and was defeated.

Why do you assume the stated goals were the real goals? Perhaps the goals "stated" were falsehoods aiming at getting the real goal achieved.


His wrongs are clearly identified and consequences met. He was also repentant, which is the key to him being a model of how to act both in times of success and times of sin.

And just because you don't know what was going on between Hitler and God in private (whereas you do know what was going on between David and God in private) you presume that Hitler could not have been in a similar boat? Or even a saint carrying out God's will.

How can you be so confident in judging a man you know next to nothing about?


God said to put no other Gods before him. If Hitler called Germany his only God, then that the exact description of what not to do according to God.

Unless God told Hitler to say that. How do you know He didn't?


Joshua did killed the Canaanites, and he was told to by God. David did kill a husband, and take a census, and he wasn't told to. Joshua was blessed for his obedience, David was punished for his disobedience. There's a theme here.

Again, how do you know God didn't tell Hitler to do the things he did? If God told him to, then it is all just by your account.


In none of those examples, is there any similarities fulfilling the criteria of why Hitler's actions were not from God as I outlined above.

I suppose you have extensive accounts of what went on with Hitler in private?


No, there aren't, because as I demonstrated the reasons are consistent for destruction in the bible, whereas the reasons could be just anything if man thinks them up.

I don't see where you have demonstrated anything. You've merely uttered your own prejudices forcefully (as if "volume" makes up for lack of argument).


Which you have no chance of doing, since you're thinking is shakey. Doing right is doing what is of God, since he defines right. There is no right without God.

According to you there is no "right" at all. Only what God tells to do or not to do. An act is neither intrinsically right or wrong by your account.

This means you really have to check with God every time you do anything, because you have no way of knowing if it is wrong.


If that authority is God, then yes, that's exactly what righteousness is.

No responsibility there, just what you are told.


That's the flimsiest of staw men. The blind man said of what Jesus did for him - "I was blind, and now I see." It's the man who pursues his own will who is the true coward, because he hides fearfully from his God-given responsibility, and runs from accountability. The bible states, and many here can testify, that the road with Christ can be the hardest in this life. Indeed, we are promised strife. Do you believe the disciplines who got up and followed Christ were cowards?

No strawman. The fact is the majority of people do as they are told. I think it is safe to say that the majority of people tend to do what is the easiest.

Blind obedience is the easiest thing in the world. It doesn't get easier than that.

As the Japanese say: The nail that sticks out gets hammered.

I will note that your remark presumes that the disciples agreed with you, which I (of course) disagree with.


That's where the holy spirit comes in, who convicts of wrong from the inside. Obviously following a human without thinking can get one into trouble, which is why we are supposed to follow God.

You have a role in life, and you are not bigger than life. Life is bigger than you, and you have a job to fulfill. If you run from your true responsibilities that's your choice. If you want to be at fault for all the world's ills then so be it, it will neither empower you to change them nor make you a more special person for trying to bear them. Jesus gives us purpose, which is why when considering our responsibilities we are to "trust in the Lord your God, and lean not on your own understanding."

I'm advocating following God.

I'm simply saying that God doesn't want a heaven filled with sycophants and toadies.

NHL Fever
Nov 1st 2007, 12:32 AM
Well I asserted that "God is by definition truth" was a pretty useless statement (actually I asserted it was nonsense since "definition" is a thing of language and not nature), so I'm giving you something we both agree is "true" (namely 2+2=4) and asking you how, since "God is by definition truth" we can relate that to 2+2=4.

I mean what do I do:

2+2=4 is true
God is truth

=> 2+2=4 is godlike?

What is that supposed to mean?

The point is "God is by definition truth" is nonsense, and as such not what the biblical text is getting at.


Who knows what that means, you said it not me. Whether God being truth is a useless statement to you is irrelevant, Jesus said he is the truth. I assume a priori that Jesus tells the truth, therefore I accept that statement. It secondly makes sense to me, because if God created and sustains the universe then God existing is all that ever matters about anything, and is the reason for anything existing, or any concept being true.



Now you are reifying an abstract notion about the relation of statements to the nature of the universe. In what sense does truth "exist"? I mean a rock exists, can you point to "truth" somewhere in the world around me?
A rock no more exists than truth, on what basis does the rock exist? How do you define existence?


But you hit the nail on the head with "everyone can read things how they want". So what do we make of the person that reads the Bible "how they want", and then claims to be doing exactly what God is telling them (well really they are reading what they want into the Bible then doing what they find there, but claiming they aren't responsible since they are just doing what God told them to do.) What is really going on? They are doing what they choose to do, and claiming that they didn't choose, but God told them.
Those who were directed by God in the bible never evaded responsibility on that basis, nor I am advocating it. It's the opposite, which you insist on not recognizing. The disciples as well as others went to prison, or were convicted for their actions/beliefs, ostracized, etc. No body ever said "hey man, don't blame me it was God".



First all this concern for "truth", then this disdain for "truth" by going for whatever works and makes one feel good, then finally an assertion that it must be true because you have decided it is from God. (And again, that's all that has happened, you decided it was from God, why? because you need it to be true).
I assume that Gods actions in the bible are legitimate, and that his statements are true in the bible. While possibly confusing to you, I can sometimes like the truth and sometimes not and thats life. A good example comes to mind from my line of work - if I was 75 and I had prostate cancer, I would not want to know it. I would greatly prefer to no nothing about it, since I also happen to know that its extremely unlikely that the cancer, being slow growing as it is, would ever affect me before I died of other natural causes. But if I knew, that could greatly affect me psychologically. That's totally separate from accepting truth in the word of God however, which I accept not because I want or don't want it to be true, but simply because I accept it.


Faith isn't hope. Faith is trust.
What I'm going for is Hebrews 11:1.


Wait, I'm the one asserting there is a purpose greater than me, and that purpose would have preferred Joshua not to commit genocide even when ordered to do so. I'm obviously saying there is a great purpose which we should see and allow us to ignore obviously criminal orders, no matter what the source of them.
The idea that the 'greater purpose' would have wanted Joshua to do the opposite of what that same greater purpose explicitly said to do, is pure speculation on your part. If its not, back it up with something scriptural, or anything with a basis outside what simply makes sense to your logic construct. Because anything you think is, admittedly by you, a shakey edifice, you will need something outside.

The way you twist that concept I believe really gets to the bottom of where this is all coming from. The only greater purpose you can accept - is one that is in fact not greater at all, but rather all about you. A greater purpose that only carries out actions within your personal set of moral values. You've erected a convoluted mechanism through which God acts - if you're morally opposed to something God advocates - then it must be a test to see if you can stand up to 'injustice'. If it sounds nice though, then it probably means just what God said. What God truly wants is for you to monitor his proposals and modify them according to year 2007 culture trends of a progressive mindset, punk edition. Nothing God says can be taken at face value, because that would run the risk of coming into conflict with your values of right and wrong. This mechanism, while mentally comfortable and fitting nicely within your ability to understand and categorize it, is 100% nothing more than what you want to be true.



You on the other hand are failing to have the courage to confront that since you are content to give up all responsibility and simply do what you are told, like some sort of automaton.
This is a common mantra of atheists and seems fun to say, but its a dead end. Making up an alternate plan for how God thinks and acts is not courage, its simply avoiding accountability, the path of moral least resistance. Instead of going through the arduous convicting process of changing your will to Gods, you simply change God's will into yours. That's easy if I'm a human, because my natural state is pride, and it feels good to reinforce my own viewpoints by believing important beings agree with me. It doesn't require character, or having to actively think things that don't come naturally to me.

Praise is the bible is clearly bestowed upon those who obeyed, and destruction or other negative consequence on those who did not. If you take the biblical account as true, you cannot demonstrate otherwise.



Because that is reality, and there is no hiding from it. This is the position we find ourselves in. It doesn't matter whether you or I like it or not, because our liking or not liking isn't going to change the situation.
But you admitted its a shakey edifice, and are now insisting on the plain fact that something simply 'is reality'.

Perhaps my liking it will change the situation. You say it won't - but that is admittedly shakey statement since you a human said it, so maybe it will.

I think one think you have not grasped about me is that I have no desire to see any genocides. My agreement with God's genocides has nothing to do with my personal view on it, its completely irrelevant, I accept it because God willed it.

Its kind of going in circles again with the the rest of the points. At the end of the day, your argument kills itself. You want to have your cake and eat it too. On the one hand, much of what you're saying boils down to an argument for uncertainty, but then you also want some kind of certainty about something so you can find a way to be right. You state that anything we posit is a shakey edifice, but then want me or others to take what you say as having more than no value. You say God sometimes means what he says, and sometimes he just wants us to figure out that what he's saying is wrong, but you have no concrete biblical support for that. Your only support is to suggest than another person's opinion of God's mechanism, for example that is he says genocide then do it, is only based on their own interpretation. So everyone's point of view is totally biased, and because of that your point of view holds water? As very best, all that proves is that nobody including yourself has anything reliable to say. Which begs the question - why talk or think at all?

Brotherken
Nov 1st 2007, 12:54 AM
Wow..Punk

I think you may have picked the perfect name for yourself here

Jesus IS God
Jesus said He is the Truth
So He Is Truth
and Thats That.


Pray for wisdom Brother

Brotherken
Nov 1st 2007, 01:02 AM
I thought God wanted everyone to be saved and dwell with Him in eternity.

If we can do that by killing babies, why wouldn't God approve?

I mean we evangelize to get as many people to heaven as possible, why not just do it earlier and more efficiently....


I just can't believe you could say something like that. and many of the other things you have said here..

I Do admit there is a good possibility that It must be over my head

And I am Willing to give you the benefit of the doubt

punk
Nov 2nd 2007, 12:27 AM
Wow..Punk

I think you may have picked the perfect name for yourself here

Jesus IS God
Jesus said He is the Truth
So He Is Truth
and Thats That.


Pray for wisdom Brother

But what does that mean?

I mean, I know what "truth" means.

"2+2=4" is a truth
"the sky is blue" is a truth
"the earth is round" appears to be a truth

I think I know what the word "god" refers to.

The way I see it either the word "truth" in the statement "God is truth" has nothing in common with the word "truth" in "2+2=4 is a truth" (in which case it means that "truth" is a mistranslation into English in that passage, as truth normally means things like "2+2=4 is a truth", so I have no idea what the scriptural passage could possibly be saying), or indeed the word "truth" is correctly used in both cases so "2+2=4" has something to do with God in someway (I don't really understand what though).

I suppose the scripture could simply be saying "God is a truth", but then that only amounts to the statement that god exists, or it could mean "God is the only truth", in which case it isn't really true that 2+2=4, nor is anything else really true (including the Bible).

I honestly don't have any idea what to make of it.

punk
Nov 2nd 2007, 12:38 AM
Who knows what that means, you said it not me. Whether God being truth is a useless statement to you is irrelevant, Jesus said he is the truth. I assume a priori that Jesus tells the truth, therefore I accept that statement. It secondly makes sense to me, because if God created and sustains the universe then God existing is all that ever matters about anything, and is the reason for anything existing, or any concept being true.

A rock no more exists than truth, on what basis does the rock exist? How do you define existence?
Those who were directed by God in the bible never evaded responsibility on that basis, nor I am advocating it. It's the opposite, which you insist on not recognizing. The disciples as well as others went to prison, or were convicted for their actions/beliefs, ostracized, etc. No body ever said "hey man, don't blame me it was God".

I assume that Gods actions in the bible are legitimate, and that his statements are true in the bible. While possibly confusing to you, I can sometimes like the truth and sometimes not and thats life. A good example comes to mind from my line of work - if I was 75 and I had prostate cancer, I would not want to know it. I would greatly prefer to no nothing about it, since I also happen to know that its extremely unlikely that the cancer, being slow growing as it is, would ever affect me before I died of other natural causes. But if I knew, that could greatly affect me psychologically. That's totally separate from accepting truth in the word of God however, which I accept not because I want or don't want it to be true, but simply because I accept it.
What I'm going for is Hebrews 11:1.
The idea that the 'greater purpose' would have wanted Joshua to do the opposite of what that same greater purpose explicitly said to do, is pure speculation on your part. If its not, back it up with something scriptural, or anything with a basis outside what simply makes sense to your logic construct. Because anything you think is, admittedly by you, a shakey edifice, you will need something outside.

The way you twist that concept I believe really gets to the bottom of where this is all coming from. The only greater purpose you can accept - is one that is in fact not greater at all, but rather all about you. A greater purpose that only carries out actions within your personal set of moral values. You've erected a convoluted mechanism through which God acts - if you're morally opposed to something God advocates - then it must be a test to see if you can stand up to 'injustice'. If it sounds nice though, then it probably means just what God said. What God truly wants is for you to monitor his proposals and modify them according to year 2007 culture trends of a progressive mindset, punk edition. Nothing God says can be taken at face value, because that would run the risk of coming into conflict with your values of right and wrong. This mechanism, while mentally comfortable and fitting nicely within your ability to understand and categorize it, is 100% nothing more than what you want to be true.

This is a common mantra of atheists and seems fun to say, but its a dead end. Making up an alternate plan for how God thinks and acts is not courage, its simply avoiding accountability, the path of moral least resistance. Instead of going through the arduous convicting process of changing your will to Gods, you simply change God's will into yours. That's easy if I'm a human, because my natural state is pride, and it feels good to reinforce my own viewpoints by believing important beings agree with me. It doesn't require character, or having to actively think things that don't come naturally to me.

Praise is the bible is clearly bestowed upon those who obeyed, and destruction or other negative consequence on those who did not. If you take the biblical account as true, you cannot demonstrate otherwise.

But you admitted its a shakey edifice, and are now insisting on the plain fact that something simply 'is reality'.

Perhaps my liking it will change the situation. You say it won't - but that is admittedly shakey statement since you a human said it, so maybe it will.

I think one think you have not grasped about me is that I have no desire to see any genocides. My agreement with God's genocides has nothing to do with my personal view on it, its completely irrelevant, I accept it because God willed it.

Its kind of going in circles again with the the rest of the points. At the end of the day, your argument kills itself. You want to have your cake and eat it too. On the one hand, much of what you're saying boils down to an argument for uncertainty, but then you also want some kind of certainty about something so you can find a way to be right. You state that anything we posit is a shakey edifice, but then want me or others to take what you say as having more than no value. You say God sometimes means what he says, and sometimes he just wants us to figure out that what he's saying is wrong, but you have no concrete biblical support for that. Your only support is to suggest than another person's opinion of God's mechanism, for example that is he says genocide then do it, is only based on their own interpretation. So everyone's point of view is totally biased, and because of that your point of view holds water? As very best, all that proves is that nobody including yourself has anything reliable to say. Which begs the question - why talk or think at all?

I've tired of the point by point response thing.

If you have any particular points you made that you feel I'm evading in this, feel free to point to them.

My argument doesn't kill itself, it is simply the following:

1. We are all uncertain about all our beliefs and moreover
2. We each have our own reading of the Bible which we cannot be certain is the correct reading
3. Nevertheless we must act and moreover
4. We are absolutely and personally responsible for all of our actions and their consequences

=> We should act accordingly

the which means that at no point can we ever say we are doing something because someone else told us and it is their responsibility, or they make it somehow "okay".

The vast bulk of theology and philosophy exists so that the individual may renounce responsibility.

Brotherken
Nov 2nd 2007, 12:52 AM
"2+2=4" is a truth
"the sky is blue" is a truth
"the earth is round" appears to be a truth


Actually the sky is not really Blue
It Just looks Blue in the Day time. it's black at night isn't it?


And the Earth is Not actually Round
The earth is a sphere



Because of the centrifugal effects, the
distance from the center of the earth to the surface
of the earth is about 0.33% shorter at the poles
compared to the equator.



I admit Im a Simple man. but,
Your last post didn't make any sense to me



John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me.



Every word that came from the mouth of Jesus was and IS the Truth!

NHL Fever
Nov 2nd 2007, 01:47 AM
I've tired of the point by point response thing.

If you have any particular points you made that you feel I'm evading in this, feel free to point to them.

My argument doesn't kill itself, it is simply the following:

1. We are all uncertain about all our beliefs and moreover
2. We each have our own reading of the Bible which we cannot be certain is the correct reading
3. Nevertheless we must act and moreover
4. We are absolutely and personally responsible for all of our actions and their consequences

=> We should act accordingly

the which means that at no point can we ever say we are doing something because someone else told us and it is their responsibility, or they make it somehow "okay".

The vast bulk of theology and philosophy exists so that the individual may renounce responsibility.

Your ID says you're a Christian, and you claim to follow God. What makes you a follower of God? Can you connect your idea of a follower of God to the scripture's examples or descriptions or what a follower of God is?

Matthew
Nov 2nd 2007, 03:22 AM
I haven't read the whole thread, but I want to address one particular point. The point has been raised that if those who have not been born or have not reached the age of accountability go to heaven at death then what is wrong with killing them.


I'm saying that if people really took what commonly passes for "Christian teaching" seriously and consistently, then they ought to advocate abortion and infanticide as good things.

Hogwash.


20The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 6
Dead to Sin, Alive in Christ
1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
5If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with,[d] that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

8Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

11In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. 14For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.

The idea that someone can have such strong faith that they would sin to achieve a good end for someone else is impossible. Being made alive in Christ entails that you have died to sin.

Teke
Nov 2nd 2007, 12:55 PM
1. We are all uncertain about all our beliefs and moreover
2. We each have our own reading of the Bible which we cannot be certain is the correct reading
3. Nevertheless we must act and moreover
4. We are absolutely and personally responsible for all of our actions and their consequences

=> We should act accordingly

the which means that at no point can we ever say we are doing something because someone else told us and it is their responsibility, or they make it somehow "okay".

The vast bulk of theology and philosophy exists so that the individual may renounce responsibility.

I don't know if that "vast bulk" exists "so that the individual may renounce responsibility". Theoretical unity seems to be something we seek with one another as well as in our own persons. We feel more certain about our beliefs in unity. With that comes a certain amount of collective responsibility, maybe as a necessity of that unity, but to remain non sectarian there has to be that individual responsibility.

punk
Nov 2nd 2007, 05:05 PM
Actually the sky is not really Blue
It Just looks Blue in the Day time. it's black at night isn't it?

In conventional English usage the color of the sky refers to the daytime sky on a typical cloudless day.


And the Earth is Not actually Round
The earth is a sphere

If you really want to be pedantic, the earth isn't a sphere, it is more pear shaped and wider in the southern hemisphere than the northern.

Technically though it is still "round", round doesn't mean "spherical".


I admit Im a Simple man. but,
Your last post didn't make any sense to me

Try this:

Explain the statement "God is truth" to me without using the words "god" or "truth".

Let's see what you think it means.



Every word that came from the mouth of Jesus was and IS the Truth!

But what constitutes "truth"? I've given examples of conventional "truths" and don't see the connection.

punk
Nov 2nd 2007, 05:13 PM
Your ID says you're a Christian, and you claim to follow God. What makes you a follower of God? Can you connect your idea of a follower of God to the scripture's examples or descriptions or what a follower of God is?

I view things this way:

1. I believe God exists
2. I believe God is communicating something through the biblical text
3. I do my best to discern what appears to be in there

punk
Nov 2nd 2007, 05:15 PM
I haven't read the whole thread, but I want to address one particular point. The point has been raised that if those who have not been born or have not reached the age of accountability go to heaven at death then what is wrong with killing them.



Hogwash.



The idea that someone can have such strong faith that they would sin to achieve a good end for someone else is impossible. Being made alive in Christ entails that you have died to sin.

The argument went that Joshua sinned for a good end in committing genocide in Canaan.

punk
Nov 2nd 2007, 05:18 PM
I don't know if that "vast bulk" exists "so that the individual may renounce responsibility". Theoretical unity seems to be something we seek with one another as well as in our own persons. We feel more certain about our beliefs in unity. With that comes a certain amount of collective responsibility, maybe as a necessity of that unity, but to remain non sectarian there has to be that individual responsibility.

Well it is in the nature of "unity" to elevate responsibility to the group that is "united" and thus make the individual within the group less responsible.

But isn't this sort of thing just what allows people within a mob to do things they never would have done as an individual?

Teke
Nov 2nd 2007, 06:26 PM
Well it is in the nature of "unity" to elevate responsibility to the group that is "united" and thus make the individual within the group less responsible.

That is not the goal of family unity. If the individual was less responsible, then the family would feel they failed in their unified attempt to empower the individual to be responsible.


But isn't this sort of thing just what allows people within a mob to do things they never would have done as an individual?

No one begins as an individual.
Do external and internal forces influence actions, yes they do. So the only "individual" aspect is choice.

Brotherken
Nov 3rd 2007, 01:17 AM
Try this:

Explain the statement "God is truth" to me without using the words "god" or "truth".

Let's see what you think it means.

To Me,

The Creator Of Everything Created Reality. What He says is So, Is

"Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? "




But what constitutes "truth"?


If God says it, THAT Makes IT TRUE and The Truth



Every word that came from the mouth of Jesus was and IS the Truth!

NHL Fever
Nov 3rd 2007, 04:21 PM
I view things this way:

1. I believe God exists
2. I believe God is communicating something through the biblical text
3. I do my best to discern what appears to be in there

There's an absence of scripture in there. Can you use scripture to defend your position that God would for examples what Joshua or Moses to not commit genocide when instructed to do so.

punk
Nov 4th 2007, 12:31 AM
To Me,

The Creator Of Everything Created Reality. What He says is So, Is



That sounds more like "God is truthful", rather than "God is truth".

punk
Nov 4th 2007, 12:32 AM
There's an absence of scripture in there. Can you use scripture to defend your position that God would for examples what Joshua or Moses to not commit genocide when instructed to do so.

How can I use scripture, when the question at hand appears to be "how does one go about reading scripture?"

Don't we have to agree on how to read it before we can go around citing it?

KATA_LOUKAN
Nov 4th 2007, 01:28 AM
Wouldn't it just be easier to give up the notion that all infants that die automatically go to heaven?

Why dont we give this up? Where in the Bible does it tell us that anyone dying under the age of accountability goes automatically to heaven??

NHL Fever
Nov 4th 2007, 02:44 AM
How can I use scripture, when the question at hand appears to be "how does one go about reading scripture?"

Don't we have to agree on how to read it before we can go around citing it?

That's my point more or less. You can't start with an internal-to-yourself source of interpretation then apply that to scripture reading. I'm sure you'd agree that there are areas of scripture that are unambiguous and areas that are not as clear. You need internal (within the scripture) consistency to put strength behind an interpretation. If you believe for example as you stated, that Joshua was supposed to not commit genocide when explicitly told to do so, then you would go ahead and show another example of when somebody resisted God's instructions and was ultimately blessed/congratulated/otherwise rewarded such that it was evident God sometimes worked in such a way. Show anywhere where there's any hint that God wants or accepts something other than what he specifically orders.

If otherwise, then when God orders me to love my neighbor as myself, I can possibly conclude that maybe he just wants me to use my own reasoning about whether loving my neighbor is appropriate. Maybe I should break into your house and take your computer and TV and beat you up, maybe God is trying to teach you a lesson anyway of thinks you spend too much time on the internet. By your line of reasoning, there's no reason I would need to doubt that, if that's my mentality to begin with.

I could be speculating but it sounds like you might be going through some cognitive dissonance, trying to find a way to rectify what on paper looks like a war-mongering and vengeful tyrant with the loving and compassionate God you believe in. I struggled and do still struggle to some degree with that same problem, and its the issue that often makes a Christian an atheist. You are in danger of living 'practical atheism' if you try to apply humanistic values to a God who does things you don't understand or agree with, in order to try to understand Him better. Practical atheism will eventually lead to atheism. As a guy who obviously likes to think, you're going to be naturally drawn to the general ideas of humanism, but the round peg of Christianity will never fit into the square hole of secular humanism, trust me I mentally kicked myself around with this for several years. You may never be able to make an intellectual argument to convince your atheist or educated friends, because belief in God may simply be unreasonable at some point. God does not need your understanding, he does need your obedience. Poor illiterate ladies in Africa are not unable to live Godly lives because of lack of reasoning abilities or thoughtful appraisal of situations. They, as we, access God through faith in God, not understanding or consensus with God

Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all your heart,And lean not on your own understanding

Gen 27:8
Now therefore, my son, obey my voice according to that which I command thee.

John 14:15
If you love me, you will obey what I command.

Exodus 19:5
Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth [is] mine

Proverbs 3:7
Do not be wise in your own eyes;

Genesis 15:6
And he believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.

Exodus 23:22
But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries

Deut 11:27, 28
A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day
And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God

1 John 2:3.4
Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

2 Cor 10:5
Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ

Hebrews 5:8
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered

Teke
Nov 4th 2007, 03:10 PM
If you believe for example as you stated, that Joshua was supposed to not commit genocide when explicitly told to do so, then you would go ahead and show another example of when somebody resisted God's instructions and was ultimately blessed/congratulated/otherwise rewarded such that it was evident God sometimes worked in such a way. Show anywhere where there's any hint that God wants or accepts something other than what he specifically orders.



As rebellious as mankind is portrayed in scripture, how many people do you believe did what God wanted for a reward. They wrestled with Him, argued with Him and got their way, as did God. So where does the "reward" part come in.

I assume by, what God orders, you mean His will being done. That could surely be accomplished with or without mankinds involvement.

Pro 26:2 As the bird by wandering, as the swallow by flying, so the curse causeless shall not come.

NHL Fever
Nov 4th 2007, 04:09 PM
They wrestled with Him, argued with Him and got their way, as did God. So where does the "reward" part come in.

Apart from Jacob, who did this?

Teke
Nov 4th 2007, 07:18 PM
Apart from Jacob, who did this?

Yeah, and Jacob did that after stealing his brothers blessing.

Moses for one, refused to go and speak to pharoah, so God had Aaron go with him. Moses also didn't follow instruction when he struck the rock. None of the prophets wanted to fool with people knowing what their response would be. Do we really think that everyone just said, yeah God that sounds good I'd be glad to make a __________________ of myself for you.

Israel as a whole kept rebelling both against God and other nations. Yet God kept blessing them (even in their punishments).

Levi was cursed by his father, yet God blessed him in the Levites.
King David, spoken of as a bloody man, was also very much loved by God in spite of his actions which were his own. Which is also why he allowed the prophet Shemi to curse him.

NHL Fever
Nov 4th 2007, 07:53 PM
Yeah, and Jacob did that after stealing his brothers blessing.

Moses for one, refused to go and speak to pharoah, so God had Aaron go with him. Moses also didn't follow instruction when he struck the rock. None of the prophets wanted to fool with people knowing what their response would be. Do we really think that everyone just said, yeah God that sounds good I'd be glad to make a __________________ of myself for you.

Israel as a whole kept rebelling both against God and other nations. Yet God kept blessing them (even in their punishments).

Levi was cursed by his father, yet God blessed him in the Levites.
King David, spoken of as a bloody man, was also very much loved by God in spite of his actions which were his own. Which is also why he allowed the prophet Shemi to curse him.

But each of those situations had their consequences. Firstly Moses did not refuse to go. He made excuses for why God would send someone else, but he never outright refused. Further, God's "anger was kindled" at Moses complaining about being 'slow of speech'. When Moses struck the rock, God said "Because you did not believe Me, to hallow Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them." Both Levi and David had serious consequences, even if they benefited from prior blessings promised to them.

Maybe I'm missing your point here - are you trying to point out that people in the bible were rebellious? If so then I have no disagreement there. My point is that when rebellious or in disagreement, there was universally looked upon as a bad thing by God, resulting in his disapproval and/or adverse consequences. The bible doesn't say God does not forgive, but it does portray that obedience is the right choice in any circumstance.

punk
Nov 4th 2007, 10:15 PM
That's my point more or less. You can't start with an internal-to-yourself source of interpretation then apply that to scripture reading. I'm sure you'd agree that there are areas of scripture that are unambiguous and areas that are not as clear. You need internal (within the scripture) consistency to put strength behind an interpretation. If you believe for example as you stated, that Joshua was supposed to not commit genocide when explicitly told to do so, then you would go ahead and show another example of when somebody resisted God's instructions and was ultimately blessed/congratulated/otherwise rewarded such that it was evident God sometimes worked in such a way. Show anywhere where there's any hint that God wants or accepts something other than what he specifically orders.

If otherwise, then when God orders me to love my neighbor as myself, I can possibly conclude that maybe he just wants me to use my own reasoning about whether loving my neighbor is appropriate. Maybe I should break into your house and take your computer and TV and beat you up, maybe God is trying to teach you a lesson anyway of thinks you spend too much time on the internet. By your line of reasoning, there's no reason I would need to doubt that, if that's my mentality to begin with.

I could be speculating but it sounds like you might be going through some cognitive dissonance, trying to find a way to rectify what on paper looks like a war-mongering and vengeful tyrant with the loving and compassionate God you believe in. I struggled and do still struggle to some degree with that same problem, and its the issue that often makes a Christian an atheist. You are in danger of living 'practical atheism' if you try to apply humanistic values to a God who does things you don't understand or agree with, in order to try to understand Him better. Practical atheism will eventually lead to atheism. As a guy who obviously likes to think, you're going to be naturally drawn to the general ideas of humanism, but the round peg of Christianity will never fit into the square hole of secular humanism, trust me I mentally kicked myself around with this for several years. You may never be able to make an intellectual argument to convince your atheist or educated friends, because belief in God may simply be unreasonable at some point. God does not need your understanding, he does need your obedience. Poor illiterate ladies in Africa are not unable to live Godly lives because of lack of reasoning abilities or thoughtful appraisal of situations. They, as we, access God through faith in God, not understanding or consensus with God

Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all your heart,And lean not on your own understanding

Gen 27:8
Now therefore, my son, obey my voice according to that which I command thee.

John 14:15
If you love me, you will obey what I command.

Exodus 19:5
Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth [is] mine

Proverbs 3:7
Do not be wise in your own eyes;

Genesis 15:6
And he believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.

Exodus 23:22
But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries

Deut 11:27, 28
A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day
And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God

1 John 2:3.4
Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

2 Cor 10:5
Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ

Hebrews 5:8
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered

Ah but I'm arguing that some things are right and some things are wrong, and God has no wish for one to do wrong, even if God orders it.

Do I love my neighbor because I think it is a command from God. Emphatically NO. I love my neighbor because I think it is right.

Would I refuse to commit genocide if orderd by God? Emphatically YES. I would not do it because it is simply wrong, and no order can make it otherwise.

The problem with saying right and wrong is simply what God says are right and wrong at this moment is that there is no rhyme or reason to what makes something right and something wrong.

But as for the Bible: at least we agree that it is ambiguous, and subject to as many readings as there are human beings.

Ultimately when people read the Bible they find what they want to find. In fact a given reading of the Bible tells us far more about the individual espousing the reading than it does about the Bible.

I for one find this authoritarian streak in some people's readings disturbing.

NHL Fever
Nov 4th 2007, 11:13 PM
Ah but I'm arguing that some things are right and some things are wrong, and God has no wish for one to do wrong, even if God orders it.


But you cannot reconcile that to the fact that while He does punish His followers in the bible for doing counter to his verbal command, he bestows blessings on those who carry out actions according to His verbal command, some of which actions you perceive to be wrong.



Do I love my neighbor because I think it is a command from God. Emphatically NO. I love my neighbor because I think it is right.

In other words, its about what you think is right.


Would I refuse to commit genocide if ordered by God? Emphatically YES. I would not do it because it is simply wrong, and no order can make it otherwise.


What you are stating is that God can be wrong. If that's your belief, then that's simply where we differ and we'll have to agree to disagree. If you believe sometimes we do according to His command, and sometimes we're supposed to figure out when He's deceiving us, then you must show some kind of evidence for that mechanism of God from other than simply your opinion. If you're a loving father, you will never tell your son to go hire a prostitute, hoping he will figure out your trick and not do it.


The problem with saying right and wrong is simply what God says are right and wrong at this moment is that there is no rhyme or reason to what makes something right and something wrong.

Precisely the opposite is true. If you cannot count on God for His Word being reliable, that's when there is no rhyme and reason for anything. When its up to man to deduce right and wrong according to his own understanding, absolutely anything goes. God's reasons are noble and consistent, more so that yours or mine, even if we don't understand them. If you only do Gods will when you agree with him or completely understand the reason, then you do not trust God at his word.

What you espouse is humanism. A commitment to the search for truth and morality through human means in support of human interests. Here's the wikipedia link, is there any statement in there you disagree with?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism


But as for the Bible: at least we agree that it is ambiguous, and subject to as many readings as there are human beings.


That God lies to you and hopes you figure out his lies, is not a reasonable reading of the bible anymore than removing every second word would be. There is no internal consistency there, its purely a personal opinion.


Ultimately when people read the Bible they find what they want to find. In fact a given reading of the Bible tells us far more about the individual espousing the reading than it does about the Bible.

Most people in the world do not find what they want to hear. They find that they are sinners and requiring of repentance and a savior because they are incapable on their own and their deeds are morally futile. Very few people I know are keen on that.


I for one find this authoritarian streak in some people's readings disturbing.
Using the personal interpretation of morality resulting in justification of disposal of millions of fetuses, that would likewise be disturbing to some people.

punk
Nov 4th 2007, 11:45 PM
But you cannot reconcile that to the fact that while He does punish His followers in the bible for doing counter to his verbal command, he bestows blessings on those who carry out actions according to His verbal command, some of which actions you perceive to be wrong.

If I didn't know better, I'd say that you just told me that Christianity consists in nothing more than doing whatever God tells us so the we can be rewarded rather than punished.

We don't ever do anything because it is right, we do whatever it is that we think will result in God giving us all the best goodies.

We don't ever not do anything because it is wrong, we just try not to do anything that will peeve the almighty and result in nasty things happening.

Forget about good and evil! Just do whatever it is that gets you the most stuff!

That has to be the most selfish and self-serving take on Christianity I can imagine.

Name it and claim it baby!


In other words, its about what you think is right.

In the end each of us (ultimately) only does what we (for whatever reason) think is right.

You are just advocating what you happen to think God wants as being what is right.

But in the end you are only doing what you think God told you.

So we aren't that different.

The problem is you keep trying to pretend you have perfect knowledge somewhere.


What you are stating is that God can be wrong. If that's your belief, then that's simply where we differ and we'll have to agree to disagree. If you believe sometimes we do according to His command, and sometimes we're supposed to figure out when He's deceiving us, then you must show some kind of evidence for that mechanism of God from other than simply your opinion. If you're a loving father, you will never tell your son to go hire a prostitute, hoping he will figure out your trick and not do it.

No, I think I've only ever said that God may not want us to do what He says.

Just because He says it doesn't mean He wants us to do it.

You can't imagine that maybe God would want us to do something other than what He says?

This is so impossible?


Precisely the opposite is true. If you cannot count on God for His Word being reliable, that's when there is no rhyme and reason for anything. When its up to man to deduce right and wrong according to his own understanding, absolutely anything goes. God's reasons are noble and consistent, more so that yours or mine, even if we don't understand them. If you only do Gods will when you agree with him or completely understand the reason, then you do not trust God at his word.

Whether or not God's word is reliable, our understanding is unreliable.

We are finite and imperfect.

You are again trying to pretend you somehow get to have perfect understanding.


What you espouse is humanism. A commitment to the search for truth and morality through human means in support of human interests. Here's the wikipedia link, is there any statement in there you disagree with?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism


Humanism originated as a Christian undertaking. There was Christian-humanism long before there was Secular-humanism.

But let's look at what you are doing. You are pretending that calling something a nasty name constitutes an argument.

I believe that is a well-known fallacy.


That God lies to you and hopes you figure out his lies, is not a reasonable reading of the bible anymore than removing every second word would be. There is no internal consistency there, its purely a personal opinion.

It is absolutely a reasonable reading.

There is nothing that makes it unreasonable other than you assume it is unreasonable.

Obviously that is an assumption you make before you even open the Bible. It can't be derived from scripture, since you assume it is true before you read scripture.

Based on what do you make that assumption then?


Most people in the world do not find what they want to hear. They find that they are sinners and requiring of repentance and a savior because they are incapable on their own and their deeds are morally futile. Very few people I know are keen on that.

Using the personal interpretation of morality resulting in justification of disposal of millions of fetuses, that would likewise be disturbing to some people.

Ah so a particular take on the Bible is tantamount to abortion now?

I missed the intervening train of argument.

Could it be that you are once again substituting mere name-calling for argumentation?

....

I've started a thread in Bible Chat called "Joshua and the Canaanites" to discuss another aspect of the whole genocide issue that I thought merited its own thread.

NHL Fever
Nov 5th 2007, 03:10 AM
If I didn't know better, I'd say that you just told me that Christianity consists in nothing more than doing whatever God tells us so the we can be rewarded rather than punished.

We don't ever do anything because it is right, we do whatever it is that we think will result in God giving us all the best goodies.

We don't ever not do anything because it is wrong, we just try not to do anything that will peeve the almighty and result in nasty things happening.

Forget about good and evil! Just do whatever it is that gets you the most stuff!

That has to be the most selfish and self-serving take on Christianity I can imagine.

Name it and claim it baby!


You've got to be kidding me. If its the thing that gains us the most favor with God, then that would be the thing that is right. You seen to be suggesting that God is on one hand going to hand goodies for a behavior, but then on the other hand have a different behavior that he considers is right. Also its irrelevant weather you get goodies or not - if God speaks it, its both the right thing, and the thing you should do. Who got the goodies or the punishment however is the evidence in the bible of what the right actions were, both because it happens on unlimited occasions, and because God in no uncertain terms states that's precisely how he worked it in those circumstances. "Honor God such that I may do such and such good thing in your life" [paraphrase] is repeated about a million times in the bible. The way you describe 'goodies' really cheapens Gods blessings as well, completely discounting his giving you better relationships, more peace, becoming more wise, etc.


In the end each of us (ultimately) only does what we (for whatever reason) think is right.

You are just advocating what you happen to think God wants as being what is right.

But in the end you are only doing what you think God told you.

So we aren't that different.

The problem is you keep trying to pretend you have perfect knowledge somewhere.
I don't have perfect knowledge for me, but I have great knowledge about bible characters for example Joshua. Because it plainly states what he was supposed to do, and that God was happy in the times he obeyed.

You are the one claiming to have superhuman knowledge - because you're claiming you know something about the bible that is beyond the rest of us who read the bible as God telling the truth, with no apparent need to validate your belief with any source of authority. You use an fallacious approach of "well since you're not perfect, my idea must be just as valid". Whereas one can simply point out the sequence of 'obedience - Gods approval' all over the bible, your theory has no evidence in the bible that you have presented so far. The fact that you don't use the bible in your arguments lays this out. You keep claiming anyone can use the bible however, but for you this seems to simply be an excuse to not use it. If its true that it can used for anything, lets see you do it.



No, I think I've only ever said that God may not want us to do what He says.

Just because He says it doesn't mean He wants us to do it.

You can't imagine that maybe God would want us to do something other than what He says?

This is so impossible?
Can you imagine that the earth is on the back of a giant turtle? Why aren't you fixated on this idea, since its imaginable? I can imagine anything. Whether something has biblical evidence, precedent, or logic is a different story altogether. Show a single example where God wants different actions than what he plainly instructs.


Whether or not God's word is reliable, our understanding is unreliable.

We are finite and imperfect.

You are again trying to pretend you somehow get to have perfect understanding.
Every time you makes this argument for uncertainty, I have to ask you - why are you posting? If your understanding and mine are both flawed, and further no biblical text can be used for us, then what is the point of even coming here? Its merely mental masturbation, since no plan for daily living or rationale for morality can ever be extracted, apart from your personal sentiments at a particular moment.



Humanism originated as a Christian undertaking. There was Christian-humanism long before there was Secular-humanism.

But let's look at what you are doing. You are pretending that calling something a nasty name constitutes an argument.

I believe that is a well-known fallacy.
I asked you a straight-forward question. How do you even know my perspective on humanism? The same way you know God periodically means the opposite of what he says?


It is absolutely a reasonable reading.

There is nothing that makes it unreasonable other than you assume it is unreasonable.

Obviously that is an assumption you make before you even open the Bible. It can't be derived from scripture, since you assume it is true before you read scripture.

Based on what do you make that assumption then?
In other words, you don't believe the bible is reliable.


Ah so a particular take on the Bible is tantamount to abortion now?

I missed the intervening train of argument.

Could it be that you are once again substituting mere name-calling for argumentation?
This from the guy who says " That has to be the most selfish and self-serving take on Christianity I can imagine."

You claim that you find something disturbing, and I point out that its possible your own beliefs, if you justify abortion, is also disturbing.



I've started a thread in Bible Chat called "Joshua and the Canaanites" to discuss another aspect of the whole genocide issue that I thought merited its own thread.That might be better to try nailing down that specific point.

Teke
Nov 5th 2007, 05:25 PM
My point is that when rebellious or in disagreement, there was universally looked upon as a bad thing by God, resulting in his disapproval and/or adverse consequences.

The parable of the prodigal seems to make your point not true.


The bible doesn't say God does not forgive, but it does portray that obedience is the right choice in any circumstance.

How does one know the right choice without making some mistakes.

Pro 24:16 For a just [man] falleth seven times, and riseth up again: but the wicked shall fall into mischief.

punk
Nov 5th 2007, 07:00 PM
Approaching uncertainty isn't "mental masturbation" for the simple reason that we have to act, and we have to act on a day-to-day basis.

I think my actions matter, I can't speak for others.

In fact I think my actions are so important that I want to have some confidence that they are right.

I equate the pretense to certainty as an attempt to have much less concern about our actions and their consequences, either by moving the responsibility to someone else, or otherwise giving an excuse to put less thought into things.

The uncertainty doesn't end the argument unless you don't plan on doing anything either way.

If we are just going to live our lives however, and this is just an idle discussion, then sure, why bother to argue about uncertainty? It is just a waste of time.

If we are just going to live our lives however, then there isn't much point to anything at all.

If on the other hand was suppose that our every action is truly important, then we have to deal honestly with uncertainty.

NHL Fever
Nov 6th 2007, 01:31 AM
Approaching uncertainty isn't "mental masturbation" for the simple reason that we have to act, and we have to act on a day-to-day basis.

I think my actions matter, I can't speak for others.

In fact I think my actions are so important that I want to have some confidence that they are right.


How can you have confidence of that when the basis of your actions is yourself, an admittedly faulty source?


I equate the pretense to certainty as an attempt to have much less concern about our actions and their consequences, either by moving the responsibility to someone else, or otherwise giving an excuse to put less thought into things.
But you just laid claim to same certainty above. You are certain that you have a mechanism which may lead to knowing what a right action is.

If one claims the bible as a potential source of becoming confident of a right action, that actually puts more responsibility on the person because it implies that a right choice actually exists, and that one's own preferences cannot alter what that right choice is, and the person must answer to a higher authority for their choice. When the choice is derived from within the human, there is no accountability because any choice can be correct.


The uncertainty doesn't end the argument unless you don't plan on doing anything either way.
But if you do decide to so something, it makes the action pointless, unless there is a mechanism to compare the action to an absolute source of right and wrong.


If we are just going to live our lives however, and this is just an idle discussion, then sure, why bother to argue about uncertainty? It is just a waste of time.
Because uncertainty brings despair if there is no chance of establishing any degree of likelihood of rightness to any choice.


If on the other hand was suppose that our every action is truly important, then we have to deal honestly with uncertainty.If there is no certainty, then our every action is automatically not important. If there is certainty, then in order to connect any right and wrong to our action, we need a way to access that source of right and wrong. The Christian believes the bible represents one of those ways. If the bible is uncertain, then there is no objective method to access it.