Several questions concerning the fall and evil

[MAGSolo]

If they were killed at their first murder, would not that save many more lives? would you agree?
I would say that I dont really find children accountable for their actions. I know that I personally did things as a child that I would never do now. Nothing terrible like murder or rape or anything but I remember a time when I was in high school and I literally cursed the mother of a boy that I was playing basketball with. The boy was somewhat of a brat, I told him he was going into highschool and I told him he would get his behind kicked at the school he was going to because of the way he was. His mother came out to chastise me for this and in my frustration I cursed at her several times. This is something I sorely regret to this day and I often wonder what possessed me to do such a thing but I realize I was just young and immature at that time. Kids bully other kids all the time for the simple reason that kids simply dont always realize the weight and severity of their actions. My brother once told our Aunt that she was fat in the middle of Thanksgiving dinner in front of the entire family. He was a small child and simply didnt realize why what he said was inappropriate and hurtful. I would say that even for something like murder I would absolutely not condone the killing of a child because children very often lack the capacity to realize the gravity of what it is they do.

I would do the same, I do not think children often realize what they do, but here is something to ponder upon, most of the times adults lack this realization as well. wouldn't you agree. However my asking of this question was just to get your view, nothing else. It is a good excuse sometimes "I didn't realize what I was doing", sometimes this excuse is abused and people intentionally do stuff as well.
I can only speak from personal experience and from personal experience I know that children generally dont grasp the full consequences of their actions.

Okay now we come to the children's part, it seems very harsh, but I have come at a conclusion that perhaps it was the only way to end the corruption present in that land. Some times children are indoctrinated at a very young age. I mean look at Pakistan, a lot of fundamental Islam is present here. When I was in school, our text books had lines that would make you think what in the world are we coming too. In first grade these lines was actually taught
So its okay to kill children if they were taught bad things from a young age? Im almost at a loss for words here, but I could it was you at the beginning of this discussion talking about how people deserve a chance at redemption and mercy and so forth. Here is a specific quote from you: "
And Should not God use more wisdom than this if he created all life? The fallen humanity deserves a chance. There are those who abuse this grace of God and kill, torture others. If God merely wipes out everyone to get rid of these few, would it be a fair judgement? I do not think so, regardless of what you say. It won't be just. God must be just as he must be loving.
" So how do we go from fallen humanity deserving a chance to the only way to end corruption in that land being to kill all of the children along with everyone else? I would love to here how you mesh these two widely disparate claims.

I am not saying that its okay to kill children because they have been taught bad things, but I do think it is a good point to consider that militancy broods militancy. I do believe people deserve a chance at redemption even the most militant. My point in mentioning this was that if kids are indoctrinated at a very early age there is a very high chance that they will grow up and follow what they were told. This goes back to what I was saying, the Canaanite and the six others that were ordered by God to be killed, was because God did not want any of those nations and their rituals to be carried forward. Because you will agree with me, that killing and sacrificing humans and throwing and slaughtering your children is also an abomination. I also mentioned, perhaps you failed to realize that this was a necessary step, not a favoured one. God does not rejoice when sinners die. He is in fact grieved because his creation has turned too much corrupt. I know of a mother who killed her son, because he was going to kill his wife. I do not think this is justified either but the alternate is no better, would you agree?
I think that there will be times when people have to make tough choices like that and I take my hat off to those with the fortitude to make those choices. There is an episode of Law and Order where this lady has a father that was imprisoned for being a rapist and when he is released he is suspected of raping again. While talking to the police the daughter defends her father to the end saying that he is a loving father and there is no way he would ever do the things he has been accused of. At the end of the show the police have been called because this guy was killed in the act of raping another woman. When they walk in to talk to the person that killed him, they see that it was the daughter. The daughter walked in on her father in the act of raping her friend and she took a baseball bat and killed him with it. Now I know this was only a fictional tv show, but the point is that sometimes when life and death literally hangs in the balance, sometimes we are forced to make decisions that arent easy. Another example is the movie The Good Son. At the end of this movie a mother is holding on to two boys hanging over a cliff, her blood son and a close friend of her son. She can only save one and having come to realize that her blood born son was basically evil for all intents and purposes (and watching the movie it is clear that her son is indeed evil by any reasonable humans standard for the simple fact that he gets enjoyment out off the suffering of others) she makes the hard choice to let her son fall to his death and save the friend. She clearly would have saved both if she could, but being forced to choose she made the choice to let her evil son perish. Now tying this in with your example, the mother simply made a tough choice and I say good for her for having the resolve to take her own sons life to prevent the death of an innocent (i assume)

Most likely they will grow up believing what they were taught, but I fail to see how that justifies killing children especially in light of your earlier comments about fallen humanity deserving a chance. How can you claim that fallen humanity deserves a chance on one hand and then on the other claim that children to young to really think or decide for themselves? You have done basically a complete 180 from your arguments from the start of this discussion. But heres a crazy idea, instead of the Israelites killing all of the children, they could have taken them in and shown them that there are other ways to live and brought them to the Lord. What a crazy idea huh? The funny thing is that this probably would have seemed like a crazy idea to the Israelites. It probably made more sense to them to kill the children of their enemies then to allow them to live, provide for them and show them the ways of the Lord.

This is again an appeal to emotion. Yes in 20th century this seems almost the most right way. I am sure it is to some extent as well. But back in the day, it was not the norm. Lets try your view that God only ordered to kill the men and women and not the children, and the isrealites bring the children with them back and try to teach them. What do you think the children would grow up to be? They would have seen what the Israelites did and at heart they may never be one with them so it is very difficult to imagine that would endorse the view their captors.
But here you are judging people for what you think it is likely they will do in the future. To me you spare the child and then let them pay the price for whatever choices they make when they are accountable. You are saying itit was reasonable to kill these children because they most likely would have grown up to adhere to the teaching they were indoctrinated with as a child. You dont kill children because they were taught certain things and they might adhere to those teachings when they get older. Again, this probably seems obvious now but if biblical morals can only be properly interpreted in the time frame in which it was written, then what good is it to anyone else. If the bible cannot transcend time and and make just as much sense now as it did 2000 years ago, and make just as much sense 2000 years from now, then what good is it? If the bible says that you should put homosexuals to death, then this should be a notion that would make sense to people yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I would expect a book that was supposedly divinely inspired by a God not constrained by time to itself be able to transcend time and be logical to all people. Do you think this is an unreasonable expectation? It is said that God is wise, infinitely wise even, so what sense does it make for someone with infinite wisdom and outside of the boundaries of time to make laws that will only make sense in a relatively very small time frame?

If you one day found out that the couple you thought as your parents are actually the people who killed your biological parents, would you not hate them and be the exact opposite of what they taught you?
What are your thoughts on this?
If they killed them for no just cause then I would probably despise them, if they explained to me that they killed them because they were terrible people that did terrible things to people, I think i would understand. Likewise the Israelites could explain that they wiped out their kingdom because of these practices of human sacrifices and other terrible things they were doing. There would probably be some that harbored grudges but Im sure many would understand provided they had been treated well by the Israelites.

This is of course my rationalization of the matter, there could be more to it that we are simply not aware of.
And I think its terrible that one should have to rationalize children being indiscriminately killed or that any reasonable and sane person would even try. I think its crazy that someone would rather rationalize the indiscriminate killing of children and infants rather than question their beliefs. Can I ask what objective moral standard do you follow that allows you to rationalize such things?

But this all ended when Christ came, I do not know, if you read between my lines or not, but I do think I mentioned that humanity's second chance is Christ alone, nothing else. By second chance I do not mean that you free the next serial rapist, but that people should have a chance before God to redeem themselves. I mean we are all gonna die one day. i do not think any death is something that anywould ever like. But its a reality nonetheless.

This is a very different tone from your earlier claims of God not destroying evil people because fallen humanity deserves a chance. You have gone from that to now basically claiming that it was better to kill children rather than take them in and at least attempt to show them another way.

See the above for the answer to this. Also my tone has nothing to do with the argument. If you wanna attack, attack the argument, not me, that would be a waste of time. I can very well blame the ancients for not having safety belts on their camels too, you know and knowing our latest standards I would be right to blame them. The context of ancient warfare is vital to be understood. I mean ancient tribal warfare is very very different from the warfare, you have grown up to see. Back then, its a matter of family, no outsiders allowed. You are simply ignoring a lot of factors which might have prompted the Israelites to not take away the children as their own. But again, apart from these problems, I think the answer is simple, God did not want those rituals to carried forward, so therefore he ordered such a harsh commandment.
So what about when God specifically commands to kill even babies?

This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

I guess babies who cant remember anything would somehow grow up to carry out the rituals of a people they never new; is that what it is?

For example, lets assume that if by sparing the children, all of them turned good but only one remained which actually turned back to his tribal rituals, and he marries and settles an area and after 10 generations, he has a small tribe, and they are continuing their blood bathing rituals, would that not be a severe loss of life as well? More innocent children would die.
So kill all of the children because one day one of them might grow up to produce a tribe that does the same bad things? I think another quote of yours from earlier was that "God is not out to eradicate evil" or something very close to that. So we go from God is not out to eradicate evil, to killing children because one or some of them might one day grow up to be evil.

Again this is a lack of knowledge perhaps but, you do understand that the old testament is different from the new testament. Please tell me what is your understanding of it? cuz I do not think you are fully aware of the difference. Do you understand the difference between law and grace. Th old testament is law, if you sin you die. Hell, God didn't even forgive Israelites on their mistakes, he was still just. Not unfair. There is no grace in that period, grace came through Christ. So I really do not know what you intend to prove here. If you know the difference you would know why the in the new testament, Christ saved the women from stoning and why it is grace, Christ atoned for us so that we can are free from the law.
So considering that Jesus was/is God, why do you think he had such a complete change of heart? Why did he go from the extreme harshness of commanding stoning people to death for working on Sundays and wiping out enemies down to their babies and the sheep and donkeys they owned to the New Testament God that teaches to turn the other cheek, love your enemies and pray for those who insult you and despise you? Why do you think God changed so drastically from the old testament to the new testament?

Thats not how it reads at all. I said I would kill all those who sought to harm other humans and you said that God should use more wisdom than that because fallen humanity deserves a chance. You specifically said it would not be just if God wiped out everyone to get rid of a few:

Don't quote me out of context. Actually it was because you said that God should wipe out all humanity just to get rid of evil, that was actually a very dramatic statement of yours. That is why I said that wiping out evil does by just bulldozing everyone is simply wrong by God. He is just and fair. And he did not wipe out everyone, only the guilty parties and that so also in the old testament alone. influential as well. Because wiping out everyone doesn't get them to chance to be fixed only terminated. God loves his creation. And that chance is Christ only, before Christ God is using the law and after Christ we have grace.
Okay, yeah I admit I went overboard with that.

Infact I am beginning to doubt as if you have read your bible and understood it (whenever you were Christian), else you would have seen the difference.

So earlier you argued that it wasnt right to eliminate everyone to get rid of a problem but now that Ive shown that this is exactly what God often required of the Israelites, you have been forced to readjust your position to the point of finding justification for killing children. Defending God and the bible is a tricky thing isnt it?

I only argued that wiping all humanity is wrong. God did not required Israel to eliminate all humanity, just six tribal nations, who were too far corrupt and had gone evil. I am not readjusting my position at all. If you would only not mis-match my quotes, you would save us both, time. You could very well keep on insisting that what was done was right for men but not for children. But where do you draw the line, when do you think a child is a child, what age, 10, 9, 8, 12. Can you tell me what exactly in your opinion a child is, by age?
Its hard to say specifically but I would say all those ages you listed are children to me. I would say it is somewhere in your mid to late teens.

Do you know that in many tribes 10 years children are wed, 12 years old have kids. This is however not my argument, I am only pointing out that under "what about the children" you can go into too far emotionalism and miss important factors that might have genuine cause (ALSO SEE THIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_The_Ch ... (politics)).
I told the cause, I told you the reason. You may not agree its the best solution, I never said it was the best, only it was a necessary one, one that was not given out of pride but in sadness. That is the long and short of it, you may disagree but I do think you should have a fair assessment, rather than looking through the secular shoes cuz you have been enlightened by this view.
Again its only necessary when you use an ancient book, written by and intended for the people of that time period, as some type of timeless objective standard. It was necessary because to the people who wrote it, that was life back then. An infinitely wise and timeless God would probably not have inspired them to write something that would seem primitive and barbaric in the near future. This I think is a strong indicator that the bible was not inspired by a timeless and infinitely wise entity but rather simply conceived and written by and for the people of that time. Just like the bible says for slaves to obey their masters most likely not because a timeless and infinitely wise being inspired them to write that but because for whoever wrote that (Paul I believe it was) slavery was very much a way of life at that time. This is what you expect for books written and conceived by men held to a particular time. You expect them to write things in the frame of reference of the world around them. This ties into the point about subjective notions of right vs wrong. If it was objective good and right to do such things, then it would be as good and right today as it was then but since these notions were written by mere men and their subjective ideas of good and bad, and right and wrong, it no longer makes sense from our perspective. If the bible was a divinely inspired objective standard of right and wrong, we would not have this issue.

Also did you happen to read the two papers Jac mentioned to you on the "Is God good" thread, on goodness? What is your take of it?
I promise I will read them and give my thoughts.

You have alternate standards today. Though I pretty much doubt, 3000 years ago you would have been any different.

[MAGSolo]

You tell me, now that you appear to see the problem in subjectivity, tell me how do you reconcile this with what you are claiming? How do you reconcile objective value in a a subjective world-view. Do you think there is something wrong or have you just avoided the predicament this will lead too?

Also, please do not assume that you can turn theism on itself (by turning to bible pulling out a reference and then using it to prove your point, that would be foul. there are doctrines and rationalization of what we have, we may not know all but do know a much). It is a system that is very old indeed and tried as well and it offers and defends itself in a great way. The problem of evil is not new. As I said if you look up you can find plenty of good books on the subject. Of course you may disagree but at least do a fair analysis, do not assume the position you are attacking. To be fair, at least understand the position that you are attacking and how it tackles such issues in detail. That of course may require some hard work on your part, but I do believe its worth it.

No, Im seriously asking what we should use as the supreme objective moral standard of right and wrong since subjective standards are admittedly problematic?

[MAGSolo]

Perhaps you are misundestanding what I am saying.
Where is the word "saw" in the text?
Hint, it isn't there. You are reading your assumptions into the text. Now, I don't mean to say that God didn't see. What I am speaking of here is how people wrote at that time.
You are reducing God down to your understanding. In other words, how you would act in the situation. Your reading presumes that God didn't know if Uzzah would or wouldn't touch the Ark, which isn't the case. And, it presumes that God's anger is reactionary. The Bible actually says that God is angry with the wicked all the time. You see anger, love, and such as emotive responses that are reactions to what someone has done. And so, you assume that when the Bible uses the word anger in regards to God, that it is the same as you experience anger. But again, that is obviously you reading your presuppositions into the text.

This is how you see it..... (If I'm wrong please feel welcome to correct) God was not angry, He sees Uzzah do something and then becomes angry at that moment in time, has an emotional outburst, and strikes Uzzah down. That is simply incorrect, and no, it's not in the text. It is in your thinking.

The Bible tells this in a sequence. But you are taking the sequence further than the text allows. Touching the Ark would result in death, period. God decreed it as so. God's anger in this case is much like the current running through a high voltage line. Example: Let's just say there is a museum with a sacred artifact. The museum detest theives, so it sets up a security system so that when activated, a high voltage current will shock whoever touches the artifact. The switch is flipped on, and the system is active. Your position would be akin to saying. "I touched the artifact, the museum saw me, and then sent a deadly current into my body."
It assumes that because a sequence happened, (in this case, touching the artifact) that the electric current itself is subject to the sequence. The current is not responding to the touch. You touched the line, it's power raged against you, therefore, you died. Just as if you looked into the sun. The sun is a raging fire, and it didn't start raging because you stared into it. You stared into it, it burned against you, therefore you are blind.

Again, this is simply a matter of understanding the context of how things were written at the time. If I said the Miami Heat are going to slaughter the Thunder, would you literally think that there was going to be genocide at the basketball game?

We don't really speak that way today, but if we did I might say........, Mag touched the artifiact, therefore the museum's anger burned against him, therefore he was electrocuted. Did the museum 'see' you per se? No. Did it lose its temper and then shock you? No. I have set the stage, so that even if no one is at the museum you will still experience the museums hatred of theives.

I think you are stretching, twisting and extrapolating a lot that the bible doesnt actually say. Furthermore the very next verse proves you wrong:

Then David was angry because the Lord’s wrath had broken out against Uzzah, and to this day that place is called Perez Uzzah (outbreak against Uzzah)

So we see that it was clearly a simple matter of God stiking Uzzah dead in a fit of wrath which is what the bible very plainly and clearly indicates...I dont see why you feel the need to extrapolate meaning that isnt there...why cant the text just mean precisely what it says? You are basically saying that God didnt get angry at Uzzah and personally strike him dead when that is literally exactly what the text says happened, and you are arguing this based on the fact that the text doesnt say that God actually saw Uzzah touch it. So because the bible doesnt say God actually saw him touch it, we can totally disregard the rest of the verse that says that God was angry and struck him dead? All because it didnt literally say that God saw him although it did say he was angry and struck him dead?

[Byblos]

Wow there's been a ton of posts since so I'm not sure if this is still relevant but I wouldn't want you thinking I just ignored it so here it goes. First my apologies for not getting to it sooner but work and home have kept me exceptionally busy but for a moment or 2 to catch up on some threads.

Here you go again muddying the waters. This is not about what I believe. How can you bear witness without providing an argument for why the bible has any authority? I would think anyones first question when being told about Jesus or God should be, "why should that book mean anything special to me?" But to answer your question, I feel that way because nobody has presented a compelling argument, nobody has presented any evidence for why I should feel otherwise. Do you think that belief in spectacular claims should be the default position? Do you believe the Book of Mormon is a sacred and divine text because Mormons claim it is? Would you require evidence for such a claim or just believe it because they claimed it to be so? I dont understand why you needlessly complicate these things. Is it so hard to just admit that you dont have a compelling argument for why the bible has any authority. Obviously if you had one you would have given it by now, so why cant you just say you dont have one?

Of course there is one, Mag, there are in fact many. I won't ask if you would accept any of them, I believe I already know the answer to that. But if we do provide answers, will you at least acknowledge the fact that not only they were presented but also if one is to look at them with a neutral view (if that is even possible) that they would make a compelling case for the Bible and for Christ (even though you don't believe that yourself)? Bottom line is, are you intellectually honest enough to admit that?

I will acknowledge that if it is the case yes.

Very well, then. Give me until tomorrow to prepare something (nothing that is not presented on the home page of our website by the way, but I'll make a summary of it).

Okay, I see you've already started another thread on God and goodness and all that happy stuff. I had intended to address it very very briefly but considering the new thread and considering you're getting more than adequate responses there I will leave it at that.

How do Christians know that the Bible is the inspired Word of God?

Now there are, as you know, a multitude of answers all of which are legitimate, yet some carry more weight than others. The question is which ones of these answers would I, as a Christian, consider if I were a skeptic and looking into the claims of Christianity. Before I even start with the Bible and Christianity I would take a step back and first consider the question of the existence of God since, let's face it, if I'm not convinced God even exists there's really no religious claim that will convince me otherwise.

For me the existence of God is a settled issue on 3 levels:

1. Through classical philosophy, i.e. the Aristotelian/Scholastic/Thomsitic kind. I have yet to see and am likely to never see a counter-argument for classical philosophy.

2. Through the natural light of reason. I guess you could lump philosophy in this category as well since philosophy is not only the bedrock of science but the very foundation of rational thinking. But what I term natural light of reason is observational evidence as well.

3. Through personal experience. This is probably the weakest argument of them all by which to convince others since it is highly subjective, but it is nevertheless a very powerful indicator of the existence of God in my life.

Okay, given the above, we have a solid evidence base from which we can argue the existence of God so the next question is well, which god is it? By the same point 1 above, i.e. classical philosophy in general, and divine simplicity in particular, which offers in my opinion the most logical explanation for an all powerful God, we see that the only real choice we have is the God of the Bible. Of course going into the details of this will require volumes but I can offer some references if you're interested.

So, we know that if there is a God (and by classical philosophy there most certainly is), then by divine simplicity it must be the Judeo-Christian God.

Now how do we know that the Bible is the Word of God? Well, there are the traditional Christian arguments of the Bible supported by historical accounts and archaeological finds and those are certainly good supporting arguments. The weight of the argument falls squarely, however, on 2 point. 1) The resurrection of Christ (i.e. proving who he claimed to be), and 2) Fulfillment of Bible Prophecy.

On 1) again, let's face it, Christianity rises or falls on the resurrection, without it then Christ is not who he claimed to be and therefore Christianity is false. It just so happens that there is solid, convincing evidence for the resurrection that cannot simply be dismissed. I'm sure you're familiar with many of the points for or against the resurrection so I won't bother listing them unless you wish to discuss them specifically. Suffice to say that the evidence presented in Lee Strobel's book titled The Case for Christ is enough to make any skeptic step back and consider at a minimum that there indeed is a solid argument for the resurrection, even though they may disagree with it. So given that there's solid evidence for the resurrection and Christ proving that he is who he claimed to be, and given that Christ himself has declared on numerous occasions that scripture is indeed the Word of God, then we do have a very solid case, not only for the authenticity of the Bible, but also for its inspiration.

On 2) Fulfilled Bible prophecy is simply remarkable. Of course there are those who discount them as mere after-the-fact revisionism or self-fulfilling prophecies but that's what skeptics will always do. Beyond that, there are many threads (one is very recent) and a wealth of information on the internet for and against Bible prophecy fulfillment. Irrespective of what side of the fence one finds himself with respect to the subject, one cannot but be forced to admit that prophecy fulfillment makes a compelling case for the authenticity, accuracy, and inspiration of the Bible.

To summarize, we start with evidence for the existence of God from classical philosophy, then to the Judeo-Christian God from divine simplicity, to the resurrection of Christ, then on to biblical authenticity and inspiration supported by fulfillment of prophecies.

Mag if you take nothing else out of this post, here's the point I would most want you to take, and it is that in this entire post, presented as a summary of my belief in God and Christianity, not once, not a single time did I use the word 'faith'. For I firmly believe that our faith (oops I guess I did it now) is a reasonable faith. I.e. a faith grounded in reason and rationality and can be solidly evidenced as such.

[PaulSacramento]

Mag,
you really need to try and understand the language being used, they way the ANE people used langauge and what they were trying to convey.
God's wraith in this case was the wraith of God that God had said BEFORE anything like this ( what happened to Uzzah) has happened.
God being 'angry" or "jealous" or "testing", there are just words trying to convey a "personality" to the actions of God, they do NOT mean that God was actually Angry ( upset with furled brow and red face).
Many times the wording used is used to convey a sense of understanding of the severity of the action and how God "feels" about it.

[MAGSolo]

Okay how do you know this? Does God not get angry or jealous?

[PaulSacramento]

Okay how do you know this? Does God not get angry or jealous?

Why would he?
Why would an all-knowing, all-powerful being get angry at something that doesn't anger Him or get jealous of what?
These are just ways of the writers trying to make their audience understand.
Same as writers do now.

[Byblos]

Okay how do you know this? Does God not get angry or jealous?

No. These are attributes that WE assign to God in order to understand him better. It is called anthropomorphism. God does not get jealous or surprised or angry or any of those that attribute potentiality in God for God is pure actuality, pure existence, in fact he IS existence. Read up on divine simplicity.

[PaulSacramento]

I think the issues seems to be a view of God that is a bit, well...human?
For God to BE God, He must be the greatest thing that the human mind can conceive and that would be the BEGINNING of what God is.
That we say "him" when God has no gender doesn't mean that God is Male, same goes for anger and pretty much any petty human emotion.
Perhaps the best definition for God is Paul's definition for Love in 1Corinthians.
Just substitute the word God for the word love.
Other than the judgment part of course
God is the ONLY ONE that can judge.

1If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have GOD, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have GOD, I am nothing. 3And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have GOD, it profits me nothing.

4GOD is patient, GOD is kind and is not jealous; GOD does not brag and is not arrogant, 5does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8GOD never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. 11When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. 12For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. 13But now faith, hope, GOD, abide these three; but the greatest of these is GOD.

[MAGSolo]

Okay, you do realize there are numerous bible verses where God speaks of his anger and jealousy right?

I have wiped out many nations, devastating their fortress walls and towers. Their cities are now deserted; their streets are in silent ruin. There are no survivors to even tell what happened. I thought, 'Surely they will have reverence for me now! Surely they will listen to my warnings, so I won't need to strike again.' But no; however much I punish them, they continue their evil practices from dawn till dusk and dusk till dawn." So now the LORD says: "Be patient; the time is coming soon when I will stand up and accuse these evil nations. For it is my decision to gather together the kingdoms of the earth and pour out my fiercest anger and fury on them. All the earth will be devoured by the fire of my jealousy. "On that day I will purify the lips of all people, so that everyone will be able to worship the LORD together. My scattered people who live beyond the rivers of Ethiopia will come to present their offerings.

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me

[Byblos]

Okay, you do realize there are numerous bible verses where God speaks of his anger and jealousy right?

I have wiped out many nations, devastating their fortress walls and towers. Their cities are now deserted; their streets are in silent ruin. There are no survivors to even tell what happened. I thought, 'Surely they will have reverence for me now! Surely they will listen to my warnings, so I won't need to strike again.' But no; however much I punish them, they continue their evil practices from dawn till dusk and dusk till dawn." So now the LORD says: "Be patient; the time is coming soon when I will stand up and accuse these evil nations. For it is my decision to gather together the kingdoms of the earth and pour out my fiercest anger and fury on them. All the earth will be devoured by the fire of my jealousy. "On that day I will purify the lips of all people, so that everyone will be able to worship the LORD together. My scattered people who live beyond the rivers of Ethiopia will come to present their offerings.

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me

Really Mag? No, we weren't aware of that.

You've been given a rational explanation. Whether or not you accept it is on you.

[jlay]

Okay, you do realize there are numerous bible verses where God speaks of his anger and jealousy right?

I have wiped out many nations, devastating their fortress walls and towers. Their cities are now deserted; their streets are in silent ruin. There are no survivors to even tell what happened. I thought, 'Surely they will have reverence for me now! Surely they will listen to my warnings, so I won't need to strike again.' But no; however much I punish them, they continue their evil practices from dawn till dusk and dusk till dawn." So now the LORD says: "Be patient; the time is coming soon when I will stand up and accuse these evil nations. For it is my decision to gather together the kingdoms of the earth and pour out my fiercest anger and fury on them. All the earth will be devoured by the fire of my jealousy. "On that day I will purify the lips of all people, so that everyone will be able to worship the LORD together. My scattered people who live beyond the rivers of Ethiopia will come to present their offerings.

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me

I assume you are speaking to me. And yes, I've studied the subject a little.
And I hope you realize the same errors you make, which I pointed out, you are making again. You can talk about anger, hatred, love, jealousy, etc. If you refuse to acknowledge how you are imposing your understanding and application of those words onto the text then we are just talking in circles. We can continue this ad naseum. Basically no answer will satisfy you, and you've said as much. I gave you a very clear concise answer. You may not like the answer, and may reject it, but you can't say it is incorrect. Throwing out more verses you don't like, based on your bad exegesis, doesn't prove anything. Just because you've found some atheistic websites to supply you with lots of ammo, doesn't mean a thing. Why don't you be consistently skeptical and be skeptical of your skepticsim, or your sources where you are cherry picking your "objections."

If you really want a great book that addresses all of these difficulties, I would suggest Paul Copan's, Is God a Moral Monster. Heck, if you'll pledge to read it, I'll buy it for you. Just pmail your info and your pledge to read the book, and I'll cover the whole bill. Your pledge will be, that you will give us an honest review on this forum that demonstrates that you read the book. I'll ask you some simple questions from a few chapters. Although I'm betting you find some reason to renege.

I think you are stretching, twisting and extrapolating a lot that the bible doesnt actually say. Furthermore the very next verse proves you wrong:

Really? Under what hermaneutic method are you making such a criticism? Please break down the next verse, as I did, and show me where I'm wrong. Otherwise, stop making bald assertions with absolutely nothing to back it up. Copying and pasting a verse and offering no literary analysis is NOT an argument. Perhaps if you cross your arms and stick out your bottom lip it will make it so.

[MAGSolo]

Okay, you do realize there are numerous bible verses where God speaks of his anger and jealousy right?

I have wiped out many nations, devastating their fortress walls and towers. Their cities are now deserted; their streets are in silent ruin. There are no survivors to even tell what happened. I thought, 'Surely they will have reverence for me now! Surely they will listen to my warnings, so I won't need to strike again.' But no; however much I punish them, they continue their evil practices from dawn till dusk and dusk till dawn." So now the LORD says: "Be patient; the time is coming soon when I will stand up and accuse these evil nations. For it is my decision to gather together the kingdoms of the earth and pour out my fiercest anger and fury on them. All the earth will be devoured by the fire of my jealousy. "On that day I will purify the lips of all people, so that everyone will be able to worship the LORD together. My scattered people who live beyond the rivers of Ethiopia will come to present their offerings.

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me

I assume you are speaking to me. And yes, I've studied the subject a little.
And I hope you realize the same errors you make, which I pointed out, you are making again. You can talk about anger, hatred, love, jealousy, etc. If you refuse to acknowledge how you are imposing your understanding and application of those words onto the text then we are just talking in circles. We can continue this ad naseum. Basically no answer will satisfy you, and you've said as much. I gave you a very clear concise answer. You may not like the answer, and may reject it, but you can't say it is incorrect. Throwing out more verses you don't like, based on your bad exegesis, doesn't prove anything. Just because you've found some atheistic websites to supply you with lots of ammo, doesn't mean a thing. Why don't you be consistently skeptical and be skeptical of your skepticsim, or your sources where you are cherry picking your "objections."

If you really want a great book that addresses all of these difficulties, I would suggest Paul Copan's, Is God a Moral Monster. Heck, if you'll pledge to read it, I'll buy it for you. Just pmail your info and your pledge to read the book, and I'll cover the whole bill. Your pledge will be, that you will give us an honest review on this forum that demonstrates that you read the book. I'll ask you some simple questions from a few chapters. Although I'm betting you find some reason to renege.

So what were ancient people to do that didnt have access to the internet and libraries and other means to do all of this research? Was the true meaning of all of this just completely lost to them? I asked this earlier but do you not think its an issue that you have to do extensive research outside of the bible to learn what it really means? Basically you give a man a hundred years ago a bible out on a farm somewhere and it seems that it would basically be useless because a lot of stuff doesnt mean what it actually says and he would have no convenient means to find out what it meant. This makes the bible more or less useless to a vast majority of people outside of the last few decades. Even just 15 years ago it would have been extremely time consuming and inconvenient to do the research required to understand the bible. Are you arguing that only people alive during the internet era (the last 15 years) can truly understand the bible? Im sure my reasoning is wrong somewhere so please explain what I am missing.

I think you are stretching, twisting and extrapolating a lot that the bible doesnt actually say. Furthermore the very next verse proves you wrong:

Really? Under what hermaneutic method are you making such a criticism?
Under what hermaneutic method did you make the initial claim that God didnt get angry and strike him down?
Please break down the next verse, as I did, and show me where I'm wrong.
It says that David was angry because the Lords wrath broke out against Uzzah, which indicates that the act was an outbreak of wrath not that Uzzah died from any properties of the ark itself. It seems that you are saying that God did not strike Uzzah down but that some inherent properties of the ark caused Uzzah to die. Nothing in the bible indicates this, thus it is an extrapolation you have made with no indication that it is based on anything but your personal opinion. You have done nothing but say that in your opinion the text doesnt mean what it says. Now if you want to show the sources that led you to this conclusion, then feel free to do so, until then you have done nothing but offer an opinion with nothing to back it up.
Otherwise, stop making bald assertions with absolutely nothing to back it up. Copying and pasting a verse and offering no literary analysis is NOT an argument. Perhaps if you cross your arms and stick out your bottom lip it will make it so.

[jlay]

Grammatical historical.

[MAGSolo]

okay so what were ancient people to do that didnt have knowledge of or access to such techniques? The true meaning of passages was just lost to them?