100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
There are thousands, perhaps millions of people screaming for god to give them proof, to talk to them not in some dusty old book but in real life and he gives them nothing. Far as I'm concerned even if he does exist(and that's one hell of a stretch) He is so condescending and rude that I want nothing to do with him. I mean he must not be a very good spirit in the first place considering the only way he can get people to choose him is by giving them a 2 step multiple choice. Choose him or burn in the fires of hell for eternity. He's like Hitler but worse... I mean sure, maybe I'm wrong and he is a loving god, a VERY loving god, problem is all that love is going directly into a mirror.. There it is, right there. Well said, Lazarus. If he exists, he is like a man driving a car while his children fight with each other in the back seat over something he instructed them to do. And, he continues driving along obliviously as his children's arguing turns violent and they kill each other. But, he says nothing the whole time. Think of all the arguing and violence in the world that stems from arguments over who's version of Skydaddy is the correct one. Not just between differing religions, but between different sects of the same religion. (Catholics and Protestants, anyone?) Meanwhile, the one person in all the universe who could end it sits on his cloud and remains strangely silent. Oh well. Perhaps he is preoccupied with something. Like whittling. Or playing Grand Theft Cherub on his GodBox. :P That would kind of beat the purpose of this life and the level of "love". We believe in God because we've seen and felt his presence, his love. We "choose" to obey God, follow after him and love him in all his wondrous ways. If he made some grand appearance, people wouldn't believe/follow out of "wanting to" or "faith"... they would believe because they had to, they would have no other choice. And we've seen how that obviously works with mankind, even personally knowing God. We still turned away from God and his desires, still was disobedient even knowing him first hand person to person. Ah, so the purpose of this life is to suffer for God. Endure all the pain and anguish, while still loving and obeying this cosmic-level deadbeat dad. And you call that "love?" Once again, you describe an unloving god as well as I can. No offense, but it is my thought that what you perceive of as God's presence is merely a case of your mind telling you what you want to hear. But, let's just say you're right. If you really have felt God's presence, then you at least have some reason for believing what you believe. But, what about all the people like me, who sincerely worshiped this god for decades, yet never felt anything? What about all the people out there who suffer, day after day, crying out to this god, who never feel anything...or hear anything...or receive any relief. What makes you, and some of the other people that I've debated this topic with who make similar claims of feeling God's presence or hearing him speak to them, so special? Why do you guys get "Damscus road" stuff, and the rest of us don't? In addition to the fact that there is an unstated conceit contained in these claims in many cases (i.e. "Well, I guess I'm just more holy than you are. That's why God helped me find my car keys, while at the same time letting your wife die of cancer." I'm not accusing you of that. You haven't acted that way thus far. But I have actually witnessed exchanges very similar to my example.), it is also quite unfair for an omnipresent god, who supposedly loves his children, to make his presence felt by some and not by others. You say you "choose" to follow God, and that if he made a grand appearance, that would change; that we would have to. I'm sorry, but isn't that what most Christians believe is going to happen at some point anyway? If so...if that is the ultimate solution that God is going to employ at some point...why wait?! If it's the thing to do, then do it already! End the needless fighting and suffering. That said, I wasn't thinking of that kind of action on his part anyway. Going back to my illustration of the man driving the car while his children fight in the back seat-We would expect this man to do something before his children kill each other, right? However, we would NOT expect him to pull over and kill the children who are incorrect about what he instructed them to do, while leaving alive the one(s) who are correct. No, what we would expect him to do is to open his damn mouth and tell the children who is correct, thus ending the argument by removing the reason for the argument. That's what I mean that God could do; open his mouth and state for the record who is right. Then, it would still be up to all of us to decide if we want to toe his line or not. But, at least we would all know for certain, without needing to have it explained to us by middlemen who all say something different, where his line is. I reject your assertion anyway. For one thing, according to the Bible, Israel received Yahweh's commands straight from the horse's mouth, or at least from one of his angels, yet they still chose whether or not they wanted to obey him. So, just because he overcomes his shyness and speaks up, that doesn't mean that we no longer have a choice. Of course, the argument can be made that none of us really has a choice anyway since, as Lazarus said, our choices are: 1.Serve God. 2. Don't serve God. Get obliterated. Or burn in Hell. (Depending on which middleman who are speaking to.) Finally, consider this:The angels are heavenly beings, superior to we lowly humans in every way. Right? Well, according to the Bible, vast numbers of them (Revelation seems to be saying that it was a third of them, as you no doubt know.) rebelled against God. This, despite the fact that they never had to suffer with infirmities, starvation, illness, or any number of things that go hand in hand with being human. Furthermore, they never had to suffer any of those things while at the same time having to wonder whether or not God even exists! They knew full well of his existence, having been in his presence. They also knew what he was like better than any of us ever can. They knew whether or not he always keeps his promises, for instance. And, yet...many, many of them rebelled. So, I maintain that it is unfair, and unloving, for God to demand that we lesser beings, who have so much less to go on than his angelic sons did, to credulously accept the muddled, boring, convoluted, and inconsistent writings of ancient primitives as HIS WORD; and follow whichever version of its story we may have been taught, by whichever middleman that taught it to us, unquestioningly. That said, I wasn't thinking of that kind of action on his part anyway. Going back to my illustration of the man driving the car while his children fight in the back seat-We would expect this man to do something before his children kill each other, right? However, we would NOT expect him to pull over and kill the children who are incorrect about what he instructed them to do, while leaving alive the one(s) who are correct. No, what we would expect him to do is to open his damn mouth and tell the children who is correct, thus ending the argument by removing the reason for the argument. That's what I mean that God could do; open his mouth and state for the record who is right. Then, it would still be up to all of us to decide if we want to toe his line or not. But, at least we would all know for certain, without needing to have it explained to us by middlemen who all say something different, where his line is But God has, he just did it "yesterday" and you don't believe in what we have gathered together through many many separate situations and times in what we now call the "Holy Bible". No, he hasn't. What we have is a collection of ancient writings that translators have to translate for us, as most of us cannot read Hebrew and Greek, that claim to be speaking for him. Furthermore, as you probably know, there was much controversy in the early days regarding which books were going to be included in the canon. In fact, the debates over which books to include in the canon went on for much longer than you and I have even been alive. And, there still isn't one definitive version. After all, Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish Bibles are all different. That adds another layer of uncertainty. How does one even determine which collection of books to accept? On this topic, consider this: The Book of Enoch was one of the most highly attested books in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Ethiopian Orthodox Christian church still consider it canonical, and the canonical book of Jude quotes from it. Yet, it is not a part of the Bible canon. Sounds like we have a real clear picture of what God wanted us to know. Not. Going back to my example again-We wouldn't expect that father driving the car to scribble down a note, written in Chinese, that explains what he actually said, toss it on the floor of the car, and then expect his kids to notice it, pick it up, and figure out how to read Chinese, before killing each other. No, we would expect him to open his mouth and communicate with his children in a clear and understandable manner exactly what he wanted them to know. I expect the same from an All-Knowing and All-Wise God. No, he hasn't. What we have is a collection of ancient writings that translators have to translate for us, as most of us cannot read Hebrew and Greek, that claim to be speaking for him. Not too point out the obvious, but that is because that was the language spoken at that time. Of course the original wouldn't have been in english, it wasn't even in existence at that time. Furthermore, as you probably know, there was much controversy in the early days regarding which books were going to be included in the canon. In fact, the debates over which books to include in the canon went on for much longer than you and I have even been alive. And, there still isn't one definitive version. After all, Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish Bibles are all different. That adds another layer of uncertainty. How does one even determine which collection of books to accept? That is because the bible only contains the important books that we have pertaining to salvation and or how things came about that possibly effected such. Eg., reason the OT is included in most bible even though they pertain no direct knowledge/information regarding salvation. And of course Catholics, Protestant, and Jewish bibles are different, they are different beliefs in the long run. Jews are still waiting for their promised messiah as they didn't believe Jesus was whom the prophecies spoke of that was to come. Catholics are not "Christian". Thus they have confession booths, the pope, ect. And Jesus has said he is the only path too Heaven. No one comes between man and Jesus or before Jesus. Now confession booths in general, not saying they are a bad thing. As we are told to confess our sins. But more towards the pope and what not area. Nothing wrong with him per say, just he's no more important in that way then Joe Bob down the street, he's no closer too God then anyone else. On this topic, consider this: The Book of Enoch was one of the most highly attested books in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Ethiopian Orthodox Christian church still consider it canonical, and the canonical book of Jude quotes from it. Yet, it is not a part of the Bible canon. Sounds like we have a real clear picture of what God wanted us to know. Not. The book of Enoch is a Jewish book, and again as my previous statement has nothing too do with Jesus Christ or "Christians". So still no comparison between them and isn't another "canonical" in it all. Not the same belief, no fighting or arguing, no nothing of such. All the books of the OT are Jewish books, too! Anyway...that's what you say now. But, it was considered to be the word of God for longer than you and I have been alive by many who called themselves Christians. And, as I said, the Ethiopian Orthodox CHRISTIAN Church still considers it to be. How can you be so sure that you are right, and they are wrong. You're a Christian, and they are Christians. I would also point out that many of the books in the Bible do not mention Jesus. Are you saying that they shouldn't be in the Bible, either? But, once again, you're making my point for me. You say one thing, other Christians say something else...meanwhile "Dad" just keeps driving, saying nothing. You'd think he could at least speak up and tell us which holy books are his official holy books. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jesus is Lord. Get used to it  You know, Rooster, I am always blown away by the depth of understanding that your posts bring to these discussions. You are a master at developing a complex and nuanced argument.  Here's an equally complex and nuanced reply: Zeus could kick the living **** out of Jesus. If he could spare the time. After all, all those comely women aren't going to boink themselves. Deal with it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More semantics. Trying to muddy the water. I know from reading your posts that you possess the intelligence to grasp the point of my Ra illustration. To truly be honest, don't know how to exceptionally take this post... nor do I know the "ra illustration" reference... if it was a previous reference in the thread, I apologize for my memory. All right, then. I'll take your word for it. I will now explain. In your previous post, you quoted part of one of my statements where I said: "Again, if I was trying to sell you on worshiping Ra..." and you replied, "Who's "selling" anything? We're here for the discussions at hand. Not trying to convert you or make you believe my friend. Just expressing details/information(s) on the discussion at hand." I suppose it's my fault for wording it that way, but that wasn't even the point. I know that you're not trying to convert me, any more than I'm trying to "unconvert" you. We are just having a discussion. I realize that. Allow me to rephrase the Ra illustration, and hopefully the point will now be clear: If we were debating the historical accuracy of the stories about Ra, and I was arguing in favor of accepting these stories as being factual based on flimsy evidence, spin, and special pleading like you have at times throughout our discussion thus far, you would call me on it. You would examine the evidence that I put forward with logic and common sense, because you wouldn't be biased in favor of the Ra stories. Quite the opposite, actually. And, this would be true regardless of which deity (Other than Jesus and Yahweh, of course.) we were discussing. I just picked Ra at random. While I am not trying to talk you out of your belief, I would hope that at some point you would at least realize how weak the evidence you have offered throughout this debate really is. That's what I've been demonstrating. While I am not trying to talk you out of your belief, I would hope that at some point you would at least realize how weak the evidence you have offered throughout this debate really is You can elaborate on that if you wish. But "evidence" is only as valuable as one wishes for it to have or allows it to have. There is no 100% accurate for sure evidence for anything in this world, of course unless one allows it to "persuade" them it does have the sufficient evidence they need or are looking for. Well, I already have been, throughout this debate. But, I will continue to do so, for as long as I have the time. And, yes, I agree that there is no evidence that is 100% proof of anything. We established that already. That said, most of us have fairly equivalent standards for quantifying the relative strength or weakness of evidence, as long as we have no bias for or against said evidence. Which, again, was my point with the Ra illustration. For instance, if Lazarus showed up on this forum claiming he could fly, I think that it's safe to assume that you, the Christian, and I, the atheist, would both require some really strong evidence, like seeing him perform the feat in person with our own eyes, before we would accept his assertion as being factual. However, if he also said that the Lord Jesus had appeared to him and empowered him to perform this feat in order to prove to him that his atheist philosophy was wrong, I daresay that, while you would still be highly skeptical of his claim, your skepticism would be slightly less than before, because of your personal belief that Jesus can do pretty much anything. So, your bias would affect how you would weigh his evidence, even if only slightly in this case. For instance, if Lazarus showed up on this forum claiming he could fly, I think that it's safe to assume that you, the Christian, and I, the atheist, would both require some really strong evidence, like seeing him perform the feat in person with our own eyes, before we would accept his assertion as being factual. You say that today, but would it have any merit as of tomorrow that it happened? Merit enough to even pursue the possible evidence of it happening? Those questions miss the point, but I will nevertheless answer them with a question of my own: How much less merit, then, should extraordinary claims made two thousand years ago have? Because of the direction of the discussion and according... Siberian unicorn Tomsk State University believe they've found fossil evidence of a Siberian unicorn prancing around just 29,000 years ago — more than 300,000 years after they were thought to have gone extinct. So in fact "unicorns" actually scientifically "did" exist. Mmm, not really. A rhino is not a unicorn. See, for example:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/03/29/did-unicorns-co-exist-with-humans-yes-but-they-were-just-rhinos/ Of course, I did note that you put quotation marks around the word "unicorns," so I am assuming that you are implying that these ancient rhinos were the basis of the unicorn legend, and that therefore, in a sense, unicorns did exist. If so, I have to agree that that is a plausible theory. That said, I probably gave you the wrong impression when I quoted the Bible verses about unicorns, anyway. I wasn't saying that since the Bible refers to unicorns, and unicorns are mythical animals, that that proves the Bible is wrong. I only posted those quotes because Lazarus mentioned these mythical animals, and I thought it ironic that he mentioned them in a thread where we were discussing the Bible and I knew that the Bible referred to them. My guess is that the translators of the KJV needed a word to describe a large, four-footed, horned animal, and they picked "unicorn" because that was a term for such a creature that most people at the time were familiar with. I don't think the animal in question was really a unicorn. (BTW-The Strong's definition of the Hebrew word in question is "wild ox.") |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More semantics. Trying to muddy the water. I know from reading your posts that you possess the intelligence to grasp the point of my Ra illustration. To truly be honest, don't know how to exceptionally take this post... nor do I know the "ra illustration" reference... if it was a previous reference in the thread, I apologize for my memory. All right, then. I'll take your word for it. I will now explain. In your previous post, you quoted part of one of my statements where I said: "Again, if I was trying to sell you on worshiping Ra..." and you replied, "Who's "selling" anything? We're here for the discussions at hand. Not trying to convert you or make you believe my friend. Just expressing details/information(s) on the discussion at hand." I suppose it's my fault for wording it that way, but that wasn't even the point. I know that you're not trying to convert me, any more than I'm trying to "unconvert" you. We are just having a discussion. I realize that. Allow me to rephrase the Ra illustration, and hopefully the point will now be clear: If we were debating the historical accuracy of the stories about Ra, and I was arguing in favor of accepting these stories as being factual based on flimsy evidence, spin, and special pleading like you have at times throughout our discussion thus far, you would call me on it. You would examine the evidence that I put forward with logic and common sense, because you wouldn't be biased in favor of the Ra stories. Quite the opposite, actually. And, this would be true regardless of which deity (Other than Jesus and Yahweh, of course.) we were discussing. I just picked Ra at random. While I am not trying to talk you out of your belief, I would hope that at some point you would at least realize how weak the evidence you have offered throughout this debate really is. That's what I've been demonstrating. While I am not trying to talk you out of your belief, I would hope that at some point you would at least realize how weak the evidence you have offered throughout this debate really is You can elaborate on that if you wish. But "evidence" is only as valuable as one wishes for it to have or allows it to have. There is no 100% accurate for sure evidence for anything in this world, of course unless one allows it to "persuade" them it does have the sufficient evidence they need or are looking for. Well, I already have been, throughout this debate. But, I will continue to do so, for as long as I have the time. And, yes, I agree that there is no evidence that is 100% proof of anything. We established that already. That said, most of us have fairly equivalent standards for quantifying the relative strength or weakness of evidence, as long as we have no bias for or against said evidence. Which, again, was my point with the Ra illustration. For instance, if Lazarus showed up on this forum claiming he could fly, I think that it's safe to assume that you, the Christian, and I, the atheist, would both require some really strong evidence, like seeing him perform the feat in person with our own eyes, before we would accept his assertion as being factual. However, if he also said that the Lord Jesus had appeared to him and empowered him to perform this feat in order to prove to him that his atheist philosophy was wrong, I daresay that, while you would still be highly skeptical of his claim, your skepticism would be slightly less than before, because of your personal belief that Jesus can do pretty much anything. So, your bias would affect how you would weigh his evidence, even if only slightly in this case. For instance, if Lazarus showed up on this forum claiming he could fly, I think that it's safe to assume that you, the Christian, and I, the atheist, would both require some really strong evidence, like seeing him perform the feat in person with our own eyes, before we would accept his assertion as being factual. You say that today, but would it have any merit as of tomorrow that it happened? Merit enough to even pursue the possible evidence of it happening? Those questions miss the point, but I will nevertheless answer them with a question of my own: How much less merit, then, should extraordinary claims made two thousand years ago have? depends on the "merit" you give them, or the "faith" you give them. Well, the degree of merit one grants them should be based on logic and common sense, as far as I'm concerned. (Otherwise, anyone can claim anything.) And, as I have been demonstrating, these stories don't hold up very well to logical scrutiny. Granted, that doesn't automatically mean that they are false, but I think it should cause us to seriously question their accuracy. After all, truth (Regardless of its source.) is truth. It should be able to withstand logical scrutiny. All that said, would I be correct in assuming that, if Lazarus did claim he could fly (Thanks to Jesus), you would not give much merit his claims? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
Also Cowboy, I'm sorry, I've seen your picture so many times now, you have such chiseled features, you look like some guy that would apply for the role of hercules in a movie or something. I'm not hitting on you, I'm just sayin, with a face like that you should have a girlfriend for sure. No doubt! Cowboy kinda' reminds me of Tom (Loki) Hiddleston. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
You have your god along with whatever other friends and family that you have accumulated. I have random forum threads and not much else. I was never that close to my family and pretty much no friends. I know, off-topic, just opening a window to me and why I may be so cynical and not believe in a god so easily as you. Off topic as well and probably will be the end of this thread. But I too have no friends, and only family I have are mom and dad due too brother's choices of life that ended in prison or after prison along with the life that proceeds. None of which that has directed me toward my belief. I personally feel as I do because I have personally felt and experienced it. I've always been "raised" a Christian. But I've come too my own thoughts and my own conclusions from my own research and discover in the matter. I do give my condolences that this is the reason you've come too your conclusion. In the area of "friends/family" remember we all have free will. It's not God's will specifically, or God's choice on who/what stays in your life or accumulates in your life. That is their own choice, their decision. Not 100% of what happens in our life is accordance too God's desire. As people have free will... and if "free will" was foreknown, there would be no such thing as free will and judgement together. Regardless of the choice you make in the end my friend, I wish all happens greatly in your life and everything that happens for a reason, hope you see the reason in whatever you choose to be. I'll add to this off-topic part of the discussion that I, too, have little family left, and even less friends. So, it's unanimous. Maybe it's because we are on a dating site, debating philosophy and religion! Just kidding. FWIW-I respect, and like, both of you, and wish you both the best. I suppose we could be cyber-friends, at least. That you David, would like to also accommodate you for your "generosity" through the discussions on here. Never take it personally offensive or state/post anything personally offensive toward another :). Just keep in the "discussion" level, and appreciate that VERY MUCH. You're welcome, Sir. And, I appreciate the fact that you have extended the same cordiality and respect to me. :) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
There are thousands, perhaps millions of people screaming for god to give them proof, to talk to them not in some dusty old book but in real life and he gives them nothing. Far as I'm concerned even if he does exist(and that's one hell of a stretch) He is so condescending and rude that I want nothing to do with him. I mean he must not be a very good spirit in the first place considering the only way he can get people to choose him is by giving them a 2 step multiple choice. Choose him or burn in the fires of hell for eternity. He's like Hitler but worse... I mean sure, maybe I'm wrong and he is a loving god, a VERY loving god, problem is all that love is going directly into a mirror.. There it is, right there. Well said, Lazarus. If he exists, he is like a man driving a car while his children fight with each other in the back seat over something he instructed them to do. And, he continues driving along obliviously as his children's arguing turns violent and they kill each other. But, he says nothing the whole time. Think of all the arguing and violence in the world that stems from arguments over who's version of Skydaddy is the correct one. Not just between differing religions, but between different sects of the same religion. (Catholics and Protestants, anyone?) Meanwhile, the one person in all the universe who could end it sits on his cloud and remains strangely silent. Oh well. Perhaps he is preoccupied with something. Like whittling. Or playing Grand Theft Cherub on his GodBox. :P That would kind of beat the purpose of this life and the level of "love". We believe in God because we've seen and felt his presence, his love. We "choose" to obey God, follow after him and love him in all his wondrous ways. If he made some grand appearance, people wouldn't believe/follow out of "wanting to" or "faith"... they would believe because they had to, they would have no other choice. And we've seen how that obviously works with mankind, even personally knowing God. We still turned away from God and his desires, still was disobedient even knowing him first hand person to person. Ah, so the purpose of this life is to suffer for God. Endure all the pain and anguish, while still loving and obeying this cosmic-level deadbeat dad. And you call that "love?" Once again, you describe an unloving god as well as I can. No offense, but it is my thought that what you perceive of as God's presence is merely a case of your mind telling you what you want to hear. But, let's just say you're right. If you really have felt God's presence, then you at least have some reason for believing what you believe. But, what about all the people like me, who sincerely worshiped this god for decades, yet never felt anything? What about all the people out there who suffer, day after day, crying out to this god, who never feel anything...or hear anything...or receive any relief. What makes you, and some of the other people that I've debated this topic with who make similar claims of feeling God's presence or hearing him speak to them, so special? Why do you guys get "Damscus road" stuff, and the rest of us don't? In addition to the fact that there is an unstated conceit contained in these claims in many cases (i.e. "Well, I guess I'm just more holy than you are. That's why God helped me find my car keys, while at the same time letting your wife die of cancer." I'm not accusing you of that. You haven't acted that way thus far. But I have actually witnessed exchanges very similar to my example.), it is also quite unfair for an omnipresent god, who supposedly loves his children, to make his presence felt by some and not by others. You say you "choose" to follow God, and that if he made a grand appearance, that would change; that we would have to. I'm sorry, but isn't that what most Christians believe is going to happen at some point anyway? If so...if that is the ultimate solution that God is going to employ at some point...why wait?! If it's the thing to do, then do it already! End the needless fighting and suffering. That said, I wasn't thinking of that kind of action on his part anyway. Going back to my illustration of the man driving the car while his children fight in the back seat-We would expect this man to do something before his children kill each other, right? However, we would NOT expect him to pull over and kill the children who are incorrect about what he instructed them to do, while leaving alive the one(s) who are correct. No, what we would expect him to do is to open his damn mouth and tell the children who is correct, thus ending the argument by removing the reason for the argument. That's what I mean that God could do; open his mouth and state for the record who is right. Then, it would still be up to all of us to decide if we want to toe his line or not. But, at least we would all know for certain, without needing to have it explained to us by middlemen who all say something different, where his line is. I reject your assertion anyway. For one thing, according to the Bible, Israel received Yahweh's commands straight from the horse's mouth, or at least from one of his angels, yet they still chose whether or not they wanted to obey him. So, just because he overcomes his shyness and speaks up, that doesn't mean that we no longer have a choice. Of course, the argument can be made that none of us really has a choice anyway since, as Lazarus said, our choices are: 1.Serve God. 2. Don't serve God. Get obliterated. Or burn in Hell. (Depending on which middleman who are speaking to.) Finally, consider this:The angels are heavenly beings, superior to we lowly humans in every way. Right? Well, according to the Bible, vast numbers of them (Revelation seems to be saying that it was a third of them, as you no doubt know.) rebelled against God. This, despite the fact that they never had to suffer with infirmities, starvation, illness, or any number of things that go hand in hand with being human. Furthermore, they never had to suffer any of those things while at the same time having to wonder whether or not God even exists! They knew full well of his existence, having been in his presence. They also knew what he was like better than any of us ever can. They knew whether or not he always keeps his promises, for instance. And, yet...many, many of them rebelled. So, I maintain that it is unfair, and unloving, for God to demand that we lesser beings, who have so much less to go on than his angelic sons did, to credulously accept the muddled, boring, convoluted, and inconsistent writings of ancient primitives as HIS WORD; and follow whichever version of its story we may have been taught, by whichever middleman that taught it to us, unquestioningly. That said, I wasn't thinking of that kind of action on his part anyway. Going back to my illustration of the man driving the car while his children fight in the back seat-We would expect this man to do something before his children kill each other, right? However, we would NOT expect him to pull over and kill the children who are incorrect about what he instructed them to do, while leaving alive the one(s) who are correct. No, what we would expect him to do is to open his damn mouth and tell the children who is correct, thus ending the argument by removing the reason for the argument. That's what I mean that God could do; open his mouth and state for the record who is right. Then, it would still be up to all of us to decide if we want to toe his line or not. But, at least we would all know for certain, without needing to have it explained to us by middlemen who all say something different, where his line is But God has, he just did it "yesterday" and you don't believe in what we have gathered together through many many separate situations and times in what we now call the "Holy Bible". No, he hasn't. What we have is a collection of ancient writings that translators have to translate for us, as most of us cannot read Hebrew and Greek, that claim to be speaking for him. Furthermore, as you probably know, there was much controversy in the early days regarding which books were going to be included in the canon. In fact, the debates over which books to include in the canon went on for much longer than you and I have even been alive. And, there still isn't one definitive version. After all, Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish Bibles are all different. That adds another layer of uncertainty. How does one even determine which collection of books to accept? On this topic, consider this: The Book of Enoch was one of the most highly attested books in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Ethiopian Orthodox Christian church still consider it canonical, and the canonical book of Jude quotes from it. Yet, it is not a part of the Bible canon. Sounds like we have a real clear picture of what God wanted us to know. Not. Going back to my example again-We wouldn't expect that father driving the car to scribble down a note, written in Chinese, that explains what he actually said, toss it on the floor of the car, and then expect his kids to notice it, pick it up, and figure out how to read Chinese, before killing each other. No, we would expect him to open his mouth and communicate with his children in a clear and understandable manner exactly what he wanted them to know. I expect the same from an All-Knowing and All-Wise God. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More semantics. Trying to muddy the water. I know from reading your posts that you possess the intelligence to grasp the point of my Ra illustration. To truly be honest, don't know how to exceptionally take this post... nor do I know the "ra illustration" reference... if it was a previous reference in the thread, I apologize for my memory. All right, then. I'll take your word for it. I will now explain. In your previous post, you quoted part of one of my statements where I said: "Again, if I was trying to sell you on worshiping Ra..." and you replied, "Who's "selling" anything? We're here for the discussions at hand. Not trying to convert you or make you believe my friend. Just expressing details/information(s) on the discussion at hand." I suppose it's my fault for wording it that way, but that wasn't even the point. I know that you're not trying to convert me, any more than I'm trying to "unconvert" you. We are just having a discussion. I realize that. Allow me to rephrase the Ra illustration, and hopefully the point will now be clear: If we were debating the historical accuracy of the stories about Ra, and I was arguing in favor of accepting these stories as being factual based on flimsy evidence, spin, and special pleading like you have at times throughout our discussion thus far, you would call me on it. You would examine the evidence that I put forward with logic and common sense, because you wouldn't be biased in favor of the Ra stories. Quite the opposite, actually. And, this would be true regardless of which deity (Other than Jesus and Yahweh, of course.) we were discussing. I just picked Ra at random. While I am not trying to talk you out of your belief, I would hope that at some point you would at least realize how weak the evidence you have offered throughout this debate really is. That's what I've been demonstrating. While I am not trying to talk you out of your belief, I would hope that at some point you would at least realize how weak the evidence you have offered throughout this debate really is You can elaborate on that if you wish. But "evidence" is only as valuable as one wishes for it to have or allows it to have. There is no 100% accurate for sure evidence for anything in this world, of course unless one allows it to "persuade" them it does have the sufficient evidence they need or are looking for. Well, I already have been, throughout this debate. But, I will continue to do so, for as long as I have the time. And, yes, I agree that there is no evidence that is 100% proof of anything. We established that already. That said, most of us have fairly equivalent standards for quantifying the relative strength or weakness of evidence, as long as we have no bias for or against said evidence. Which, again, was my point with the Ra illustration. For instance, if Lazarus showed up on this forum claiming he could fly, I think that it's safe to assume that you, the Christian, and I, the atheist, would both require some really strong evidence, like seeing him perform the feat in person with our own eyes, before we would accept his assertion as being factual. However, if he also said that the Lord Jesus had appeared to him and empowered him to perform this feat in order to prove to him that his atheist philosophy was wrong, I daresay that, while you would still be highly skeptical of his claim, your skepticism would be slightly less than before, because of your personal belief that Jesus can do pretty much anything. So, your bias would affect how you would weigh his evidence, even if only slightly in this case. For instance, if Lazarus showed up on this forum claiming he could fly, I think that it's safe to assume that you, the Christian, and I, the atheist, would both require some really strong evidence, like seeing him perform the feat in person with our own eyes, before we would accept his assertion as being factual. You say that today, but would it have any merit as of tomorrow that it happened? Merit enough to even pursue the possible evidence of it happening? Those questions miss the point, but I will nevertheless answer them with a question of my own: How much less merit, then, should extraordinary claims made two thousand years ago have? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
You have your god along with whatever other friends and family that you have accumulated. I have random forum threads and not much else. I was never that close to my family and pretty much no friends. I know, off-topic, just opening a window to me and why I may be so cynical and not believe in a god so easily as you. Off topic as well and probably will be the end of this thread. But I too have no friends, and only family I have are mom and dad due too brother's choices of life that ended in prison or after prison along with the life that proceeds. None of which that has directed me toward my belief. I personally feel as I do because I have personally felt and experienced it. I've always been "raised" a Christian. But I've come too my own thoughts and my own conclusions from my own research and discover in the matter. I do give my condolences that this is the reason you've come too your conclusion. In the area of "friends/family" remember we all have free will. It's not God's will specifically, or God's choice on who/what stays in your life or accumulates in your life. That is their own choice, their decision. Not 100% of what happens in our life is accordance too God's desire. As people have free will... and if "free will" was foreknown, there would be no such thing as free will and judgement together. Regardless of the choice you make in the end my friend, I wish all happens greatly in your life and everything that happens for a reason, hope you see the reason in whatever you choose to be. I'll add to this off-topic part of the discussion that I, too, have little family left, and even less friends. So, it's unanimous. Maybe it's because we are on a dating site, debating philosophy and religion! Just kidding. FWIW-I respect, and like, both of you, and wish you both the best. I suppose we could be cyber-friends, at least. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
There are thousands, perhaps millions of people screaming for god to give them proof, to talk to them not in some dusty old book but in real life and he gives them nothing. Far as I'm concerned even if he does exist(and that's one hell of a stretch) He is so condescending and rude that I want nothing to do with him. I mean he must not be a very good spirit in the first place considering the only way he can get people to choose him is by giving them a 2 step multiple choice. Choose him or burn in the fires of hell for eternity. He's like Hitler but worse... I mean sure, maybe I'm wrong and he is a loving god, a VERY loving god, problem is all that love is going directly into a mirror.. There it is, right there. Well said, Lazarus. If he exists, he is like a man driving a car while his children fight with each other in the back seat over something he instructed them to do. And, he continues driving along obliviously as his children's arguing turns violent and they kill each other. But, he says nothing the whole time. Think of all the arguing and violence in the world that stems from arguments over who's version of Skydaddy is the correct one. Not just between differing religions, but between different sects of the same religion. (Catholics and Protestants, anyone?) Meanwhile, the one person in all the universe who could end it sits on his cloud and remains strangely silent. Oh well. Perhaps he is preoccupied with something. Like whittling. Or playing Grand Theft Cherub on his GodBox. :P That would kind of beat the purpose of this life and the level of "love". We believe in God because we've seen and felt his presence, his love. We "choose" to obey God, follow after him and love him in all his wondrous ways. If he made some grand appearance, people wouldn't believe/follow out of "wanting to" or "faith"... they would believe because they had to, they would have no other choice. And we've seen how that obviously works with mankind, even personally knowing God. We still turned away from God and his desires, still was disobedient even knowing him first hand person to person. Ah, so the purpose of this life is to suffer for God. Endure all the pain and anguish, while still loving and obeying this cosmic-level deadbeat dad. And you call that "love?" Once again, you describe an unloving god as well as I can. No offense, but it is my thought that what you perceive of as God's presence is merely a case of your mind telling you what you want to hear. But, let's just say you're right. If you really have felt God's presence, then you at least have some reason for believing what you believe. But, what about all the people like me, who sincerely worshiped this god for decades, yet never felt anything? What about all the people out there who suffer, day after day, crying out to this god, who never feel anything...or hear anything...or receive any relief. What makes you, and some of the other people that I've debated this topic with who make similar claims of feeling God's presence or hearing him speak to them, so special? Why do you guys get "Damscus road" stuff, and the rest of us don't? In addition to the fact that there is an unstated conceit contained in these claims in many cases (i.e. "Well, I guess I'm just more holy than you are. That's why God helped me find my car keys, while at the same time letting your wife die of cancer." I'm not accusing you of that. You haven't acted that way thus far. But I have actually witnessed exchanges very similar to my example.), it is also quite unfair for an omnipresent god, who supposedly loves his children, to make his presence felt by some and not by others. You say you "choose" to follow God, and that if he made a grand appearance, that would change; that we would have to. I'm sorry, but isn't that what most Christians believe is going to happen at some point anyway? If so...if that is the ultimate solution that God is going to employ at some point...why wait?! If it's the thing to do, then do it already! End the needless fighting and suffering. That said, I wasn't thinking of that kind of action on his part anyway. Going back to my illustration of the man driving the car while his children fight in the back seat-We would expect this man to do something before his children kill each other, right? However, we would NOT expect him to pull over and kill the children who are incorrect about what he instructed them to do, while leaving alive the one(s) who are correct. No, what we would expect him to do is to open his damn mouth and tell the children who is correct, thus ending the argument by removing the reason for the argument. That's what I mean that God could do; open his mouth and state for the record who is right. Then, it would still be up to all of us to decide if we want to toe his line or not. But, at least we would all know for certain, without needing to have it explained to us by middlemen who all say something different, where his line is. I reject your assertion anyway. For one thing, according to the Bible, Israel received Yahweh's commands straight from the horse's mouth, or at least from one of his angels, yet they still chose whether or not they wanted to obey him. So, just because he overcomes his shyness and speaks up, that doesn't mean that we no longer have a choice. Of course, the argument can be made that none of us really has a choice anyway since, as Lazarus said, our choices are: 1.Serve God. 2. Don't serve God. Get obliterated. Or burn in Hell. (Depending on which middleman who are speaking to.) Finally, consider this:The angels are heavenly beings, superior to we lowly humans in every way. Right? Well, according to the Bible, vast numbers of them (Revelation seems to be saying that it was a third of them, as you no doubt know.) rebelled against God. This, despite the fact that they never had to suffer with infirmities, starvation, illness, or any number of things that go hand in hand with being human. Furthermore, they never had to suffer any of those things while at the same time having to wonder whether or not God even exists! They knew full well of his existence, having been in his presence. They also knew what he was like better than any of us ever can. They knew whether or not he always keeps his promises, for instance. And, yet...many, many of them rebelled. So, I maintain that it is unfair, and unloving, for God to demand that we lesser beings, who have so much less to go on than his angelic sons did, to credulously accept the muddled, boring, convoluted, and inconsistent writings of ancient primitives as HIS WORD; and follow whichever version of its story we may have been taught, by whichever middleman that taught it to us, unquestioningly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
There are thousands, perhaps millions of people screaming for god to give them proof, to talk to them not in some dusty old book but in real life and he gives them nothing. Far as I'm concerned even if he does exist(and that's one hell of a stretch) He is so condescending and rude that I want nothing to do with him. I mean he must not be a very good spirit in the first place considering the only way he can get people to choose him is by giving them a 2 step multiple choice. Choose him or burn in the fires of hell for eternity. He's like Hitler but worse... I mean sure, maybe I'm wrong and he is a loving god, a VERY loving god, problem is all that love is going directly into a mirror.. There it is, right there. Well said, Lazarus. If he exists, he is like a man driving a car while his children fight with each other in the back seat over something he instructed them to do. And, he continues driving along obliviously as his children's arguing turns violent and they kill each other. But, he says nothing the whole time. Think of all the arguing and violence in the world that stems from arguments over who's version of Skydaddy is the correct one. Not just between differing religions, but between different sects of the same religion. (Catholics and Protestants, anyone?) Meanwhile, the one person in all the universe who could end it sits on his cloud and remains strangely silent. Oh well. Perhaps he is preoccupied with something. Like whittling. Or playing Grand Theft Cherub on his GodBox. :P |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
Who says God caused the man to be blind? Jesus, possibly. The Greek sentence structure allows for that reading. I realize that it's difficult for you to consider that, as it doesn't put God in a very good light, but don't blame me; I didn't write the passage. Let alone write it in an ambiguous way that could be interpreted in this fashion. What if it was due to some abnormalities in the parents genes that gave birth to him that in turn caused him to blind in the first place? I agree. Please note that I also said "or, at least, allow." And why isn't it specifically "loving" for God to have allowed it to happen? That is one of the downfalls of us not being in the paradise any longer, sicknesses, abnormalities, and so forth. The fact that you can ask this question demonstrates what I said earlier about how religion skews ones perception. How can an All-Powerful, All-Loving entity do nothing to end the suffering of sick and diseased people? And, how can you defend said entity? This specific person did see shortly after, but that wasn't the case obviously for all who have been born blind. But one day they will see. We'll see. (No pun intended.) But, why wait? He could cure blindness with but a thought, right? It's not loving to withhold relief from his children, that he supposedly loves, when it would be so easy for him to provide it. This life is but temporary and a very short time span in comparison to eternity. That's assuming, of course, we actually have the opportunity to see eternity. That's another extraordinary claim. Have you any extraordinary evidence to support it? He got to experience life not distracted by appearances. OMG! Did you really just type that?! That's almost as bad as claiming that David's son was better off dying as an infant. The fact that you can ask this question demonstrates what I said earlier about how religion skews ones perception. How can an All-Powerful, All-Loving entity do nothing to end the suffering of sick and diseased people? And, how can you defend said entity? Nothing skewed, just have come too the acknowledgement this life isn't forever and but a blink of an eye. And have faith in my God to do as he said he will. I don't have to defend anything, God does that on his own. I myself am a disabled man from the age of 18. I don't blame God for placing this burden on me. I take it as a blessing, a blessing to use to hopefully better help someone else in the long run. Well, let me just say that I am very sorry to hear that you yourself are disabled. And, I salute you for maintaining a positive outlook, and for trying to help others in any way you can. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
People are flawed, even the bible says it. We lie, we make stuff up. All that "proof" is words in a book made by man. Why believe in god and not in unicorns, dragons and other such fairy tales? I think that you believe in him not because the stories make sense or even because you see them as logically plausible but because it is a story of an all powerful being that loves you and it gives your life a false sense of purpose and you fear that without that, you would have nothing. Are you able to reflect upon that and still tell me that there's no way I'm right? Well, Lazarus, it just so happens that the Bible does refer to unicorns and dragons! Job 39:9-12 "9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? 10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?11 Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?12 Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?" Psalm 29:6 "6 He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn." Isaiah 34:7 "7 And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness." Isaiah 27:1 "27 In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea." And, there are actually more verses that mention dragons, but I didn't feel like listing them all. Oh, here's a bonus mythological creature mentioned in the Bible for you: Isaiah 13:21 "21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there." Cowboy will probably now tell me that this was just symbolic language, or a translation issue and that the unicorns mentioned weren't really unicorns, but possibly rhinos, or wild oxen, as many apologists do. But I couldn't resist mentioning these passages when I saw your post. Oh, and I should mention that, regardless of how some apologists want to explain away these passages, there are some fundamentalists who defend some of these passages as actually being legit, as translated. Sorry for disappointing you with not specifically saying it's symbolic language. On Thursday, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), the North Korea’s government mouthpiece, said scientists “reconfirmed” the location of the burial site of the unicorn ridden by King Dongmyeong, the founding father of the ancient Korean kingdom of Goguryeo (37 BC-668 AD). http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/30/unicorns-existence-proven-says-north-korea/ And that's not the only reference "source" for this found unicorn. No problem. It was just a guess.:) Well, I wouldn't get too worked up about that story just yet. Anything coming out of North Korea is at best suspect. Here's a couple of brief articles you might want to check out: http://www.livescience.com/25208-real-story-north-korea-unicorn.html http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/30/unicorns-existence-proven-says-north-korea/ Also, correct me if I am wrong, but I missed any mention of actual unicorn remains in the grave. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
Edited by
DavidM616
on
Thu 11/03/16 11:49 AM
|
|
Who says God caused the man to be blind? Jesus, possibly. The Greek sentence structure allows for that reading. I realize that it's difficult for you to consider that, as it doesn't put God in a very good light, but don't blame me; I didn't write the passage. Let alone write it in an ambiguous way that could be interpreted in this fashion. What if it was due to some abnormalities in the parents genes that gave birth to him that in turn caused him to blind in the first place? I agree. Please note that I also said "or, at least, allow." And why isn't it specifically "loving" for God to have allowed it to happen? That is one of the downfalls of us not being in the paradise any longer, sicknesses, abnormalities, and so forth. The fact that you can ask this question demonstrates what I said earlier about how religion skews ones perception. How can an All-Powerful, All-Loving entity do nothing to end the suffering of sick and diseased people? And, how can you defend said entity? This specific person did see shortly after, but that wasn't the case obviously for all who have been born blind. But one day they will see. We'll see. (No pun intended.) But, why wait? He could cure blindness with but a thought, right? It's not loving to withhold relief from his children, that he supposedly loves, when it would be so easy for him to provide it. This life is but temporary and a very short time span in comparison to eternity. That's assuming, of course, we actually have the opportunity to see eternity. That's another extraordinary claim. Have you any extraordinary evidence to support it? He got to experience life not distracted by appearances. OMG! Did you really just type that?! That's almost as bad as claiming that David's son was better off dying as an infant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
DavidM616
on
Thu 11/03/16 12:07 PM
|
|
More semantics. Trying to muddy the water. I know from reading your posts that you possess the intelligence to grasp the point of my Ra illustration. To truly be honest, don't know how to exceptionally take this post... nor do I know the "ra illustration" reference... if it was a previous reference in the thread, I apologize for my memory. All right, then. I'll take your word for it. I will now explain. In your previous post, you quoted part of one of my statements where I said: "Again, if I was trying to sell you on worshiping Ra..." and you replied, "Who's "selling" anything? We're here for the discussions at hand. Not trying to convert you or make you believe my friend. Just expressing details/information(s) on the discussion at hand." I suppose it's my fault for wording it that way, but that wasn't even the point. I know that you're not trying to convert me, any more than I'm trying to "unconvert" you. We are just having a discussion. I realize that. Allow me to rephrase the Ra illustration, and hopefully the point will now be clear: If we were debating the historical accuracy of the stories about Ra, and I was arguing in favor of accepting these stories as being factual based on flimsy evidence, spin, and special pleading like you have at times throughout our discussion thus far, you would call me on it. You would examine the evidence that I put forward with logic and common sense, because you wouldn't be biased in favor of the Ra stories. Quite the opposite, actually. And, this would be true regardless of which deity (Other than Jesus and Yahweh, of course.) we were discussing. I just picked Ra at random. While I am not trying to talk you out of your belief, I would hope that at some point you would at least realize how weak the evidence you have offered throughout this debate really is. That's what I've been demonstrating. While I am not trying to talk you out of your belief, I would hope that at some point you would at least realize how weak the evidence you have offered throughout this debate really is You can elaborate on that if you wish. But "evidence" is only as valuable as one wishes for it to have or allows it to have. There is no 100% accurate for sure evidence for anything in this world, of course unless one allows it to "persuade" them it does have the sufficient evidence they need or are looking for. Well, I already have been, throughout this debate. But, I will continue to do so, for as long as I have the time. And, yes, I agree that there is no evidence that is 100% proof of anything. We established that already. That said, most of us have fairly equivalent standards for quantifying the relative strength or weakness of evidence, as long as we have no bias for or against said evidence. Which, again, was my point with the Ra illustration. For instance, if Lazarus showed up on this forum claiming he could fly, I think that it's safe to assume that you, the Christian, and I, the atheist, would both require some really strong evidence, like seeing him perform the feat in person with our own eyes, before we would accept his assertion as being factual. However, if he also said that the Lord Jesus had appeared to him and empowered him to perform this feat in order to prove to him that his atheist philosophy was wrong, I daresay that, while you would still be highly skeptical of his claim, your skepticism would be slightly less than before, because of your personal belief that Jesus can do pretty much anything. So, your bias would affect how you would weigh his evidence, even if only slightly in this case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
I'm sure Christ just wants us to know how much of a liar and evil worker the King of lies and Demonds of him are,before Christ lets us in on who God really is?THINK ABOUT IT!!!!! My apologies, but I don't see how your assertion addresses the point of this thread. Or, even what your point is, for that matter. Could you clarify it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
People are flawed, even the bible says it. We lie, we make stuff up. All that "proof" is words in a book made by man. Why believe in god and not in unicorns, dragons and other such fairy tales? I think that you believe in him not because the stories make sense or even because you see them as logically plausible but because it is a story of an all powerful being that loves you and it gives your life a false sense of purpose and you fear that without that, you would have nothing. Are you able to reflect upon that and still tell me that there's no way I'm right? Well, Lazarus, it just so happens that the Bible does refer to unicorns and dragons! Job 39:9-12 "9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? 10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?11 Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?12 Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?" Psalm 29:6 "6 He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn." Isaiah 34:7 "7 And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness." Isaiah 27:1 "27 In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea." And, there are actually more verses that mention dragons, but I didn't feel like listing them all. Oh, here's a bonus mythological creature mentioned in the Bible for you: Isaiah 13:21 "21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there." Cowboy will probably now tell me that this was just symbolic language, or a translation issue and that the unicorns mentioned weren't really unicorns, but possibly rhinos, or wild oxen, as many apologists do. But I couldn't resist mentioning these passages when I saw your post. Oh, and I should mention that, regardless of how some apologists want to explain away these passages, there are some fundamentalists who defend some of these passages as actually being legit, as translated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
Found an interesting "explanatory" of these verses. And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them, There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people: Among his people — None of the priests shall touch the dead body, or assist at his funeral, or eat of the funeral feast. The reason of this law is evident, because by such pollution they were excluded from converse with men, to whom by their function they were to be serviceable upon all occasions, and from the handling of holy things. And God would hereby teach them, and in them all successive ministers, that they ought entirely to give themselves to the service of God. Yea, to renounce all expressions of natural affection, and all worldly employments, so far as they are impediments to the discharge of their holy services. ---- But for his kin, that is near unto him, that is, for his mother, and for his father, and for his son, and for his daughter, and for his brother, Near to him — Under which general expression his wife seems to be comprehended, though she be not expressed. And hence it is noted as a peculiar case, that Ezekiel, who was a priest, was forbidden to mourn for his wife, Ezekiel 24:16, etc. These exceptions God makes in condescension to human infirmity, because in such cases it was very hard to restrain the affections. But this allowance concerns only the inferior priest, not the high-priest ----- And for his sister a virgin, that is nigh unto him, which hath had no husband; for her may he be defiled. That is nigh him — That is, by nearness not of relation, (for that might seem a needless addition) but of habitation, one not yet cut off from the family. For if she was married, she was now of another family, and under her husband's care in those matters. ------ But he shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people, to profane himself. Being — Or, seeing he is a chief man, for such not only the high-priest, but others also of the inferior priests were. He shall not defile himself for any other person whatsoever. To profane himself — Because such defilement for the dead did profane him, or make him as a common person, and consequently unfit to manage his sacred employment. Yes, Sir. I read that one, too. I don't imagine we are going to come to much of an agreement on this point, and I would just as soon move on to another example, so I'll just say that my thought on this example is that, while God certainly had the right to choose who he wanted to invite to his special party, barring people with deformities wasn't very loving. (Unless there actually were some good reasons, other than their appearance, for so doing.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is NOT a loving god.
|
|
I quoted Romans 3:23 merely to demonstrate that, according to "God's Word," everyone sins. And, presumably, everyone always had. Including the aforementioned beautiful priests. But, if you want OT verses that also say that everyone sins, here you go: 1 Kings 8:46 "46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;" Ecclesiastes 7:20 "20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not." So, again, taking the story at face-value, even the Yahweh-approved studly priests were sinners. Therefore, it was unloving of God to discriminate against the disabled sinners. He didn't plainly discriminate against the disabled sinners. That is why I said to keep the verses in context. The referenced disabled people in question, were specifically disabled due to sin. Leviticus 21 1 And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them, There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people: 2 But for his kin, that is near unto him, that is, for his mother, and for his father, and for his son, and for his daughter, and for his brother. 3 And for his sister a virgin, that is nigh unto him, which hath had no husband; for her may he be defiled. 4 But he shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people, to profane himself. He wasn't saying in general that "disabled" people or people of abnormalities were "defiled". Just these specific people in this specific reference for the specific reasoning on what this book is talking about at that moment. Not like it was a law at that time in that covenant. I am keeping the verses in context. The verses you just quoted, which open the chapter in question, warn against specific acts that would bring defilement, or uncleanness, upon the priests, such as touching a dead body. (As mentioned in verse 1.)The disabled people in question were already disabled, so these warnings to avoid doing anything that would cause defilement didn't apply to their already present disabilities. These verses also do not state that the disabled people who were here prohibited from priestly duties were defiled, and that that was why they were prohibited. It was all about appearances. For example, allow me to quote from the Jamieson-Faust-Brown Commentary: "As visible things exert a strong influence on the minds of men, any physical infirmity or malformation of body in the ministers of religion, which disturbs the associations or excites ridicule, tends to detract from the weight and authority of the sacred office. Priests laboring under any personal defect were not allowed to officiate in the public service; they might be employed in some inferior duties about the sanctuary but could not perform any sacred office." |
|
|
|
|
Previous
