another church burning

[~Derek~]

^That was meant for childrengrinder

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

^I figured as much.

 

[~Derek~]

I just told my grandmother yesterday I was an atheist, but she asked so what was I supposed to do?

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

Lie. It's not a sin.

All things are possible without God.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

this thread is great. christianity can eat a dick. islam can eat some pork. and the jews can choke on my pee.

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

this thread is great. christianity can eat a dick. islam can eat some pork. and the jews can choke on my pee.

Indeed they can krigloch... indeed they can.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Well I don't see it as setting a precident. Those were specific instructions for specific reasons in specific circumstances (not that I know all the reasons). It's ridiculous to take everything that you are told as precident. Not everything you are told is meant to be a precident. I think if it was meant to be a precept of the faith, it would have been given in some form of command, and it wasn't. Further, Judaism and Christianity are different. Maybe more like two different stages of one plan, but still very different.

I'm not sure you are getting my point. In those OT passages I cited God is clearly ordering GENOCIDE of man, woman and child for specific reasons. Now the Christian Church looks at such passages as those and goes "Hmmm... well God ordered the Israelites to slaughter those people because they were against Israel and tried to lead her astray... THERFORE we as God's chosen people (i.e. the Church) have the right, nay the obligation to do the same with those who try to opress us or lead us astry (i.e. heretics, jews, muslims, etc.)" It is a perfectly logical deduction from what the bible teaches and furthermore those passages clearly show that God ordered genocide against infants and people for 'sins' which they never even committed (i.e. the example in 1 Sam. 15 where he orders the Israelites to wipe out all of Amalek for crimes their ancestors did). And yes while Judaism and Christianity are different the morality of the God pictured in the old testament is clearly out of line with the morality of how God is (usually) pictured in the New Testament, i.e. there is a moral contradiction between the two arising from the fact that the different authors of those books had different beliefs about how God really is. Hence the bible is not a divine revelation but a fallible human work just like the Koran, etc.

I don't find contradictions, however I do find things I don't understand. I think it's much weaker to make up your own religion than it is to come to a belief and stick to it. If one believes there is an all-powerful being that has communicated through a book, then why would one have a problem believing that being could preserve that book and present it in the form that the being wants it presented in?

And here is the problem itself... you have started with the assumption that there is an all-powerful God, then you have assumed that he has communicated through a book and then you have assumed that this book is the bible. Then whatever problems you find in the bible you just say "oh, I don't understand that but it can't prove the bible is false the bible is God's word". Once you get rid of your assumptions and then examine the bible to see whether there is sufficient reason to believe that an all-powerful deity inspired this book the problems and errors become plain as day.

 

[Alter]

so God plays favorites?

"Gee, Timmy, I'd love to take away your leukemia, but little Johnny over there has the flu, and he has said more hail mary's."

No but I think he picks the most sincere people. I doubt if you had a choice you would not let your best friend die over your enemy just becuase your enemy was being nice to you at the moment.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

No but I think he picks the most sincere people. I doubt if you had a choice you would not let your best friend die over your enemy just becuase your enemy was being nice to you at the moment.

I thought God was supposed to love everyone equally, etc. But even if God is only healing his "friends" then this really doesn't explain anything as just as many Christians die of terrible diseases as everyone else.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

because the religion is false.
every one who believes it is being duped.

 

[Vitor]

^Why don't you go do it then?
You'll be wasting thousands of Big Macs, you Food Killer!

i would eat the big macs first

 

[AchrisK]

I'm not sure you are getting my point. In those OT passages I cited God is clearly ordering GENOCIDE of man, woman and child for specific reasons. Now the Christian Church looks at such passages as those and goes "Hmmm... well God ordered the Israelites to slaughter those people because they were against Israel and tried to lead her astray... THERFORE we as God's chosen people (i.e. the Church) have the right, nay the obligation to do the same with those who try to opress us or lead us astry (i.e. heretics, jews, muslims, etc.)" It is a perfectly logical deduction from what the bible teaches and furthermore those passages clearly show that God ordered genocide against infants and people for 'sins' which they never even committed (i.e. the example in 1 Sam. 15 where he orders the Israelites to wipe out all of Amalek for crimes their ancestors did). And yes while Judaism and Christianity are different the morality of the God pictured in the old testament is clearly out of line with the morality of how God is (usually) pictured in the New Testament, i.e. there is a moral contradiction between the two arising from the fact that the different authors of those books had different beliefs about how God really is. Hence the bible is not a divine revelation but a fallible human work just like the Koran, etc.

I think I do get your point, but I do not agree. I don't think there is a contradiction. Yes, God ordered genocide for reasons he had. Yes, I agree that the crusaders probably did see them as a precident, and felt justified. But that doesn't mean it was meant as an example to follow at will. There are so many commands in the OT that if it was meant to be an order to be carried out, it would have been outlined somewhere. Again, I do not claim to understand the reason why God did this or that, and I can understand it not sitting well with people. There are things that don't sit well with me too.

I don't see a contradiction from old to new testaments. Different things were happening. The OT spans thousands of years and deals with the formation of the nation Israel and its rise, downfall and future, and has God interacting directly at different times. The gospels in the NT only span about 3 years and introduce the messiah and the "New Covenant". Acts covers more time, but is focused on the activities of a few people. There is more discussion of the spiritual realm and practical spiritual matters. There is much less direct communication from God in heaven, and much more communication from the messiah in regards to where they were going wrong, and the new direction of the religion. At that time there was no war or imminent military threat. So you don't have God changing his tune, you just have a different focus and new type of things happening. Further you have Revalation (in the NT) which sees the more wrathful side of God, and you have it stated in the NT that God does not change. I see no contradiction.

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

because the religion is false.
every one who believes it is being duped.

.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

I think I do get your point, but I do not agree. I don't think there is a contradiction. Yes, God ordered genocide for reasons he had. Yes, I agree that the crusaders probably did see them as a precident, and felt justified. But that doesn't mean it was meant as an example to follow at will. There are so many commands in the OT that if it was meant to be an order to be carried out, it would have been outlined somewhere. Again, I do not claim to understand the reason why God did this or that, and I can understand it not sitting well with people. There are things that don't sit well with me too.

I don't see a contradiction from old to new testaments. Different things were happening. The OT spans thousands of years and deals with the formation of the nation Israel and its rise, downfall and future, and has God interacting directly at different times. The gospels in the NT only span about 3 years and introduce the messiah and the "New Covenant". Acts covers more time, but is focused on the activities of a few people. There is more discussion of the spiritual realm and practical spiritual matters. There is much less direct communication from God in heaven, and much more communication from the messiah in regards to where they were going wrong, and the new direction of the religion. At that time there was no war or imminent military threat. So you don't have God changing his tune, you just have a different focus and new type of things happening. Further you have Revalation (in the NT) which sees the more wrathful side of God, and you have it stated in the NT that God does not change. I see no contradiction.

Even if it is not outlined per se as you suggest you can clearly see how they arrived at the conclusion that persecuting others was the moral thing to do given that God clearly does not have an aversion to genocide as many biblical passages suggest.
Also in regards to not knowing the reasons why God would order such genocidal acts... the texts themselves say why... "Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam to commit trespass against the Lord"... i.e. because some people enticed the Israelites to committ idolatry back in Num. 25 all the men, women and children should be slaughtered and the virgins can be kept for the Israelites (i.e. you can rape them); and because the ancestors of the Amalekites attacked the ancestors of the Israelites, therefore all of the Amalekites deserve to die because of something their ancestors did. That's like killing all white americans because a few hundred years ago white americans had slaves.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

because the religion is false.
every one who believes it is being duped.

I think my point was that God isn't looking out for friends or enemies... bad things happen to people because the get in bad situations not because they are moral or not and sometimes people get better and sometimes they don't and it has nothing to do with their religion.

 

[AchrisK]

And here is the problem itself... you have started with the assumption that there is an all-powerful God, then you have assumed that he has communicated through a book and then you have assumed that this book is the bible. Then whatever problems you find in the bible you just say "oh, I don't understand that but it can't prove the bible is false the bible is God's word". Once you get rid of your assumptions and then examine the bible to see whether there is sufficient reason to believe that an all-powerful deity inspired this book the problems and errors become plain as day.

I have not started with that assumption. I have seen the bible itself only be proven more accurate over time and I have seen it contain incredible wisdom and insight. I have also seen things in my own and the lives of some others around me. It's not just a one time acceoptance and then fit everything into it mentality. I am alive and am a thinking person and I do not just accept things people tell me. I am not afraid to learn and am not even close to being done learning...and I don't just mean to read "Christian books". I want unbiased evaluation, of which I don't believe there is much. So I have no problem reading stuff from both sides of the arguments.

Even if it is not outlined per se as you suggest you can clearly see how they arrived at the conclusion that persecuting others was the moral thing to do given that God clearly does not have an aversion to genocide as many biblical passages suggest.

Yeah, I can see that.

Also in regards to not knowing the reasons why God would order such genocidal acts... the texts themselves say why... "Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam to commit trespass against the Lord"... i.e. because some people enticed the Israelites to committ idolatry back in Num. 25 all the men, women and children should be slaughtered and the virgins can be kept for the Israelites (i.e. you can rape them); and because the ancestors of the Amalekites attacked the ancestors of the Israelites, therefore all of the Amalekites deserve to die because of something their ancestors did. That's like killing all white americans because a few hundred years ago white americans had slaves.

I guess I meant I don't necessarily understand how it is justified and what it means in the bigger picture...though I don't think it means KILL THE HEATHEN!!!

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Yeah, I can see that.

OK, cool.

 

[Vitor]

it's very funny and sad to see many people discussing about a presumptive god that the same people believes he doesn't exist

 

[~Derek~]

Jesus didn't fulfill the Messianic prophecies need to be the Jewish Messiah anyways, He was supposed to rebuild Solomon's Temple, be a great military leader who would bring all the Jews back to Israel, and not die on a cross and be born of a virgin birth or be a God, just a man, and people always say look at the Book of Revelation when I mention this but that book is the most debated book in the Bible about whether it should even be in the bible.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Jesus didn't fulfill the Messianic prophecies need to be the Jewish Messiah anyways, He was supposed to rebuild Solomon's Temple, be a great military leader who would bring all the Jews back to Israel, and not die on a cross and be born of a virgin birth or be a God, just a man, and people always say look at the Book of Revelation when I mention this but that book is the most debated book in the Bible about whether it should even be in the bible.

Correct. And one of the most sited Messianic prophecies by Christians in Micah 5:2 if you read just a few verses longer Jesus does not fulfill that segment of it... "And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land" (Micah 5:5). When did Jesus fulfill that? Never. Apparently Micah thought that the Messiah would protect them against the assyrians... well Jesus came WAY too late for that.