Smiting

[topic]

Your Critical and analytical analysis is very fleeting and without substance. I can only look at how you have responded to myself from this thread with your reply.The appearance you are giving is that once you have a critisism or set a Critique , you do not value the impute,nor digest it but mearly let it go and continue with your dogma until you believe you get the answer you are looking for and not what is there. Well it just does not work that way.

Case in point -

The contradiction is that the christian god is often referred to as being infinitely loving (or words to that effect), which just doesn't tally with the account of the bible.

You know just because you keep saying the same mantra will not make it any more truthful or validated.
There is NO contradiction when you take every attribute of God into consideration. You either again missed, just wanted to disregard the matter or alternativly again i did not convey my answer with clarity. Go read the bible and you will find righteousness (plus the others i highlighted) throughout the bible and always relaited to Gods actions and manner.So why don't you go and look at how this puts God into another perspective so you can at least get a partial revelation. I am not disputing that one of Gods attributes is Love nor how important this is; clearly it is profound, however it is NOT all that God is and especially in relation and with relationship too man.While you are at it, also look at Gods Sovereignty, which will also reveal the answers you appear to be looking for. Another warning though you won't like what you find because it is not within your Paradigm.
The statement you have made above is also very unsubstantial . You give no foundation to your view and make it frivolous with "or words to that effect", surley this is not how you conduct your research?When you put an answer like that on your science exam and give it to your Professor, tell me so can watch.

next point in case -

The biblical evidence to support that view of satan just isn't there.

I am really not one that values how many words are in a piece of literature, but since you brought it up, i will oblige on this occasion. I do not know how you Quantify the value for the amount of a word that is mentioned, i look at the intent and content of the text for value, however regarding your above statement in an earlier post, this is what i found in the bible.
The names mentioned are (NIV) - Satan, devil, Leviathan, the serpent, coiling serpent, Beelzebub, Abaddon, Apollyon, gliding serpent, the dragon, Belial, the wolf, the great dragon, the monster of the sea, ancient serpent, lord of the flies, morning star and son of the dawn; i am sure there are more, however in the 18 usages, these referances are used within the parameter of 77 textual entrees.
When you consider that Adam of Genesis is mentioned in textual entrees of only 30times, the comparision speaks of its self.So from an empirical perspective does this mean that the mention of satan 77 times holds more value than the 30 of Adam?? If you then say(as you have said above, so this must be your view) that 77 times is of little value then this would mean that Adam has no Signifigance at all,especially from a percential value!Or again did you actually investigate your statement with findings or use the unscientific approach of "gut feeling", "my personal opinion'", or worse " this is what someone told me "!

The point about the age of the universe is not moot; the bible purports that the earth was created ~6,000 years ago - we know that this is not even close to the truth. The bible also states that man and all the animals were created fully formed and as they appear today - we know that this too is not even close to the truth.

I don't know why you keep bring this up, since you have already stated that "The biblical evidence to support that view of satan just isn't there" and he is mentioed more than Adam so in with your logic - Adam doesn't matter - so get over it and move on.
Clearly you didn't read or understand what i said, or maybe i didn't explain myself correctly again. I do not perpetuate the "Young Earth Creation", but, to expand on this, the bible does not say the world was only 6,000 yrs old - YEC people say this, so go ask them what they mean. All you are doing again is holding fast to your dogma, bringing up for attention, yet not responding to the answer i have given. You are trying to prove a worth that for me shows no significance.
Again you pout a statement with no value of substance to your claim.How about some depth of knowledge on your part, so how does the bible say the world is only 6,000 yrs old ?where does it say that God produced living beings in their completeness?

The bible says that god specifically hardened the Pharaoh's heart, not that god simply didn't "force" the Pharaoh to release them.

Did you even read or understand what i was refering to when i said "parallel poetry" ? does it not bring any worth to your enquiry?
Again you have misquoted me or again i did not reply with clarity. I did not say God "forced' the Pharaoh. What i said is that God let Pharaoh's heart fall into his own desire. If you look at the text ( do you actually go and look ? ), what you have done is islotate a piece of text and looked at it without value of inclusion. Look at and try to understand the conversation Moses has with God at the start of the chapter. Notice Moses great reluctance to do what God asks for fear of failure (again free will ), but God gives Moses guidance and tells him to also take Aaron. When you get to Exodux4:21, again what God is saying here is that Moses although he will have God with him, will not have an effect on the Pharaoh becasue God will not influence the Pharaoh by subduing and forcing the Pharaoh by changing his heart as the Pharaoh already has a hardened heart.
To put it plainly - Moses is totally worried that he will fail Gods plan and be blamed by God for not succeeding. God is telling Moses he will fail because the Pharaoh will not listen even though Moses will show him by sight that God of the Hebrews is with him. This is so Moses will not loose heart and not wish to carry on with Gods plan.
OK i know i am going to regret this but look at this passage ( actully look at the complete chapter,then isolate the passage and compare it to the Pharaoh.Genesis20:6. Look at the position( standing) of the Abimelech and the Pharaoh and then take particular attention to the differance in attitude that each one has to the situation they face with God.
To your above comment, God does FORCE pharaoh to release his people but he does it by action not by the slight of hand.
Do you also understand what the Jewish belief is when they refer to the heart? it is not the same as the Western view.

The point about "his people" is particularly repulsive; a major tenet of christianity is that men are created in god's image yet god harbours this lust for one particular ethnic group and often exhibits deep and violent xenophobia towards other groups.

Again just words with no substance. How about showing some?? and not merely give your rhetoric.

Christianity is for everyone,those are "his people" (your term not mine)it is not exclusive,unless that person does not want to be included - their choice.Your view is actually an isolational perspective, it is the impression you give by your writting.

this is made very much worse when some primitives in the desert a few thousand years ago decided to write down that they were superior to all other ethnic groups in god's eyes, then to pass this bigotry down the generations.

For someone who states they have read Middle Eastern history, this statement is an affront of historical secular records.By your standards your own comment is actually bigotry. How do you come to the conclusion that they are "primitives" in the desert? What time period are you refering too and where is your Anthropological benchmark?
If they are only "His people" as you have stated in the paragraph within where this statement is included,you theninfer, they bring this bigotry down the generations, then "who actual are his people are you refering too?"
Up to an including the 21st century, if you are claiming, his people are those who have written and follow these books and they are then tranfered down through the generations with bigotry. You must therefore be including All Nations of the world who expout this believe? so how is it then inclusive to only those who wrote the bible ??
In your last paragraph you have made a paradox.

If you want to find "A" truth or "THE" truth , you need to bring substance, evidance with your words or all your words are nothing more than just blowing in the wind. Asking the right question(s) will give you the right answers, just asking a question will only give you an answer.

[touchingcloth]

[cslewislover]

There are other threads that discuss this issue of Israel's wars, and in fact, some go into great detail (if I have time I'll get the links, and an outside link or two that go into even greater detail).

If you didn't know of the OT, what would you think of the NT? What would you think of Christ? Is he telling us, his church body in this current era, to go out and kill people that disagree with us? No, just the opposite. The OT times and culture are far different than today, and God is able to know possible future outcomes and had helped Israel accordingly. In the book Hard Sayings of the Bible, one of the beginning chapters goes over this issue - why God seems harsh in the OT and loving in the NT. You could read that.

But if you continue to judge God - that his decision to use a certain people to convey his message and to be an example to other people was wrong or immoral - then I'm not sure how you'll get anywhere. You have to be open to the possibility that God knows more than you do, and that his judgments and actions that affect us now (or had affected those in the past), are the best for everyone in the long term. If good things cannot result from pain and suffering, then the cross means nothing either.

[touchingcloth]

[cslewislover]

The OT times and culture are far different than today

That's exactly my point; man makes god, and not vice versa. The OT god was all smitey, then as sensibilities have become more liberal so people have shifted interpretations of scripture.

So as far as I can tell, your mind is already made up on this matter. You could read the reference I gave you, but you insist that it's all just made up anyway . . . (so what is the point of your seeking anything here?).

There would have to be objective evidence that god exists before I accepted the possibility that it knows more than I do. I, mere mortal that I am, can think of myriad compelling ways that any all-powerful being could reveal itself to us.

The cross means nothing anyway and is one of the more absurd religious concepts I've come across; god sacrificing himself...to himself...to appease himself.

I thought you said you understood Christian concepts? Your concept of what the cross is . . . is odd. God sacrificed himself for his own creation, out of love (blood is life, and Christ ended all blood sacrifices by his act - not just Israel's). But love isn't objective . . . so maybe you just can't see it. God is love and he is truth, both things being manifested more by results from actions, not by "objective facts," such as "my shoe is black." One could question the objectivity or truth of that statement as well, since I could question what a "shoe" is and what "black" is.

[touchingcloth]

[cslewislover]

The purpose of the cross is (as I understand it, and I believe I do understand it) that god (father) sacrificed jesus (son) in order to take on the sin of all humanity and (amongst other things) remove the need for atonement in the form of animal sacrifices etc. That is summed up by "sacrificing himself to himself to appease himself".

But you are making him out to be selfish, as if he feels guilty about what happened to humanity and he's only doing it to appease his own feelings. Otherwise, why would it be for himself? He did it for others.

I have my mind made up about the existence of (the biblical) god. I'm a sceptic at heart, though, and my views are always subject to change on the face of new and compelling evidence...I like having my beliefs challenged and the reality is that nothing you have presented me with is what I'd call compelling...that's different to having a closed mind.

Can I ask if there's anything that would change your beliefs? What, if anything, would make you a) question god's existence and/or b) change/relinquish your faith?

I have been through some really tough times since becoming a Christian, and am still going through some. But this hasn't altered my faith. If I were to tell you why I could never give up my faith, there'd be no reason for you to believe me or to consider it as evidence in the way you are seeking. There is more to us than being like a reasoning computer. I can identify a rose, but how do I make a claim for its beauty? I can say I have a soul, which cannot be physically identified . . . so my claim as having become one with the Lord would have no validity to you.

I would hope, however, that someone presents something to you that will suffice as compelling evidence.

The authors of that book, Hard Sayings of the Bible, are Walter C. Kaiser Jr, et al., (InterVarsity Press 1996).

[topic]

I should have made it more clear that by "primitive" i was referring to the mindset of those lawmakers and elders who codified and archived early jewish law, rather than everyone of that ethnicity in that time.

and -

The beliefs were inclusive of only those who wrote the bible as that's the group the beliefs were originally kept in...regardless of how those beliefs have been adopted and twisted over the millenia

From a scientific observational perspective, anthropologically speaking; the relation of a species or subspecies to its surroundings and within the context of its community dynamics are also within this parameter is fact. This is supported by Secular historical writings and evidential findings from archaeology.So what you are infering is nothing new.

Here is the paradox of your argument. Scientifically it is imposable for a lesser species of its on class, to subject its own criteria to a superior species of its own class. Evolutional concepts confirm this affirmation.On your process of evalutaion and within the text of your own paramiters,everything that has a starting point falls into the dymanics you are pouting,all things are inclusive and nothing is exclusive.Does your Critquie avail to everything or are you making it selective?In reality you are actually arguing against yourself, which in effect is a wonderful dichotomy

the bible absolutely gives an age of 6,000 years. Trace back the ages and lineages and see what figure you come out with.

That reference is an inference to when Adam was thrown out of Eden. There is no mention of how long they lived in Eden. Time and sin did not exist in Eden.A day is not 24hrs; within the context of the writing following the emperical value of Jewish writing methodology , 24hrs does not comply to this structure. The story of the beginning is not to support time, but to address the other dogma that existed in that era. Since your reference is that God created all creatures in completeness? Philosophically, Time is an anomaly which at this point its understanding of originality (concept) cannot be understood. Time can be empirically revelled and mathematically calculated known as “time dilation” which is in the parameter of the “theory of relativity”, but its origins are the issue. This is also within evolutionary conceptualisation, where science evaluates its theories from the big bang but not before. Even science agrees that time starts from awareness not from the origin of molecules. An agreement to time has not be validated. Time theory falls into many categories such as - Fatalism, Reductionism and Platonism with Respect to Time, The Topology of Time, McTaggart's Argument, The A Theory and The B Theory, Presentism, Eternalism, The Growing Universe Theory, Time Travel, The 3D/4D Controversy. Therefore, engaging from the perspective that EDEN was not in time, Adam therefore did not have an age. If you then extrapolate this and Adam was created out of Pure Earth (and this is what Genesis 2 is highlighting) you do not and cannot have a starting point inside this dynamics. So your evaluation is not from empirical foundation but from hypothetical conclusion. In regards to this Eden is closed to Man Genesis3:24, therefore it is not part of the temporal world, nor controlled by its boundaries.

god creates man in his image

I agree with this observation,

god picks a group of men of a certain ethnicity as his "chosen" people

I do not agree with this observation.History shows us that it is not a valid observation.God is the creator, but it is Man who has the choice to decide if they want God in there live not the other way around - again there is no exclusivicty in this area. Any race or individual could have come into the"chosen people" even inthis era ( you are perpetuating a non-truth without validation) - again their choice, it was then as it is now.

That's exactly my point; man makes god, and not vice versa. The OT god was all smitey, then as sensibilities have become more liberal so people have shifted interpretations of scripture

Actually that is incorrect. God has not changed at all either in the O.T. or the N.T. Christ didn't come to the earth to change the laws but too fulfil them. In other words he came to show the truth to them but not to create a different ethos. Since your premise is that those who wrote the laws created God. Then explain to me how prophecy fulfilled by Christ disenfranchises the validity of the O.T.?Or was this again written by a primitive society. Your concept of primitive is actually disconcerting.No sciences looks at “primitive” in the same way you look at it — which is “uncivilised”. The two concepts are actually bi-polar.

There would have to be objective evidence that god exists before I accepted the possibility that it knows more than I do. I, mere mortal that I am, can think of myriad compelling ways that any all-powerful being could reveal itself to us.

From your perspecive - define "objective evidence".

I have my mind made up about the existence of (the biblical) god. I'm a sceptic at heart, though, and my views are always subject to change on the face of new and compelling evidence...I like having my beliefs challenged and the reality is that nothing you have presented me with is what I'd call compelling...that's different to having a closed mind

By definition having your mind "made up" about the exisitence of ( the biblical ) god is a Closed mind.You don't address anything that i have put to you, but mearly skip over it and then keep saying your mantra. Again by definition this is a closed mind.

Can I ask if there's anything that would change your beliefs? What, if anything, would make you a) question god's existence and/or b) change/relinquish your faith?

There would have to be objective evidence that God does not exists before I accepted the possibility that they know more than I do. I, mere mortal that I am, can think of myriad compelling ways that any of them could reveal itself to us

[touchingcloth]

[topic]

POINT 1.

- An personal appearance by a god/gods such that I could be sure (to a reasonable level) that I was not hallucinating. This would mean being in the presence of multiple other people who could confirm the event. The event would have to be concrete rather than a group of people feeling "overcome by a spirit" or talking in tongues etc. This point would be less likely to convince me than my previous point, due to the relative ease of creating illusions and peoples' capacity to fool themselves.

POINT 2.

- An accurate, specific and verifiable prediction or scientific statement, that could not have been the result of chance, self-fulfillment, and could not have been known at the time of writing. (For example - a text that could be verified as being 1,000 years old, but stated the formula "e=mc2" with some context. This is something that could not have been known to the person writing that transcription or anyone of that time period. This would be very powerful evidence of a "higher intellect".)

I understand what you are saying, however you are puting yourself as an "absolute" and you are not an "absolute" and cannot be one.

-Observation of Point 1 - First what by definition would your "god be"? and would your definition be equal to those who also see your view of god? Are you then saying that Your view/opinion is and has more weight than anyone else?
A hypothesis - if you have 5 people who witness the event, and 3 say they have seen god but 2 others say they did not, did it happen or not? again if all 5 say they saw god, would it be accurate if their interpretation of god differ in and actually conflict with each others view, so again did you view god?if all 5 view god and agree with what they saw and then they tell others what they saw, but those who they tell, express that their view of god is not what god should be, then did you actually see god?what if god appears but you do not recognise it because the appeance is not within the boundaries you have set. Reasoning ( do you understand the term from a scientific perspective ?) - if god shows himself to you in what you want to see, then in effect it is not god but god presenting himself in a form that is not him, so therefore he is not god.Because you are not an "absolute" and God is an "absolute",how can your value be equal to his?

- Observation of Point 2. is also filled with false hood. Again your are being an "absolute" which you can't (do you understand what an absolute is in scientific terms?). So what if the evidance given is above your intellect or understanding -does this then negate the "proof"?What if what you are asking is not what the god wants, how can you set a standard, that is not yours to set. How can a inferior over ride a superior intelect.? what if your proof of evidance is not within the boundries of the scientific community or any other theological community? what proof would need to be sustained that the discovered article is real and not a fake. would it have to be one incident or more, because one incident is not a value for varification, you would need more and would it hold if all the values came from one location? so who sets the standard of proof? YOU????
You need to read Job!!

Again you have still negated not replied to my suppositions to you. I am still waiting for your observations to them i.e. the supposed 6,000 yr claim, biblical content of satan etc.
or is this all a one sided conversation where you spout your purpose but don't actually contribute to the conversation?
you have not counter claimed my observations - i am waiting for your sceptical insight

[Santa]

In other words, if youhave been honestly seeking, you shouldbe going to books from Christians, not atheist websites.

Um, no. That'd be bias.

It's basically the same as a Muslim telling you to only visit Muslim sites if you questioned one of them over their faith.

You need to look at both sides to make a decision.

[cslewislover]

In other words, if you have been honestly seeking, you should be going to books from Christians, not atheist websites.

Um, no. That'd be bias.

It's basically the same as a Muslim telling you to only visit Muslim sites if you questioned one of them over their faith.

You need to look at both sides to make a decision.

Santa, I think Zoe knows that, um, like, you know? I reread these posts and I think you could cut her a little slack for maybe leaving out "just," as in "not just atheist websites." Is there something you want to contribute to the discussion besides telling a professional, mature, adult what "bias" is?

[jlay]

Going back to (sort of) my original point in this thread though, I think it's best summed up by:
- god creates man in his image
- god picks a group of men of a certain ethnicity as his "chosen" people
- god's chosen people are given his authority to annihilate lots of other groups

Where does the bible say anyone was chosen because of ethnicity? Abraham, a man, was chosen to give rise to the chosen people. It is likely the early Israelites were no differently ethnically than any other inhabitants of Palastine or Canaan. The distinction was through a covenant, not because the color of one's skin. It is not that Jews were forbid from other races, but from pagan religion.

God's chosen people were called to live at peace with their neighbors, to even provide for aliens living in and passing through their land, and God said they would be a blessing to all nations.

David, the King of Israel had a pagan grandmother, who was married into the Hebrew people.

We see ethnic and discrimination creep in over time, but not because the scriptures endorsed it. In fact the NT addresses the Samaritans. The NT addresses this as well. Acts 10:34-35 Romans 2:9-10 Gal 3:28

[jlay]

Um, no. That'd be bias.

It's basically the same as a Muslim telling you to only visit Muslim sites if you questioned one of them over their faith.

You need to look at both sides to make a decision.

And you need to ask the right questions to get the right answers. I would disagree that wanting to know more about the USA would require me to get advice from anti-American sources.
If you are a skeptic, then perhaps a good starting point would be the perspective of a former skeptic, such as Lee Strobel.

An personal appearance by a god/gods such that I could be sure (to a reasonable level) that I was not hallucinating.

OK, the only way I am going to believe in Democracy is if the president of the USA appears in my living room and explains it to me. If I want to meet with the Pres. am I going to do it on my terms, or his?

[B. W.]

...The contradiction is that the christian god is often referred to as being infinitely loving (or words to that effect), which just doesn't tally with the account of the bible...The biblical evidence to support that view of satan just isn't there. However there is an over abundance of scripture that portrays god as a jealous, violent, petty, racist bully. Why would anyone want to talk about someone so decisive and repulsive?

...The bible says that god specifically hardened the Pharaoh's heart, not that god simply didn't "force" the Pharaoh to release them....The point about "his people" is particularly repulsive; a major tenet of christianity is that men are created in god's image yet god harbours this lust for one particular ethnic group and often exhibits deep and violent xenophobia towards other groups...

I will deal with these two statements below

The argument usually and unequivocally used to thwart Christians an entrap them is the oft used — God's Love statement(s).

The argument goes like this: How can a Loving God smite anyone? How can a loving God be so-cruel as order the extermination of those in ancient Canaan land etc and etc…How can God really be a loving God if he is like this?

Questions:

Why is it alright for a female bear to defend her cubs when they are threatened and not for God to defend those whom are his? Who loves more — God or the bear?

If Love never acted in a manner to protect what is beloved — how can that be truly love?

What the 'God Love argument' poses is a love incapable of protecting and being — well — love! If you, the reader, saw your beloved being viciously attacked, would you love the attacker so much as to let them have their way as that would prove beyond all doubt the superiority of your love? Or do you do your best to protect your beloved as much as possible from this twisted world even providing loving discipline when needed?

Why does God do so much smiting of other nations? Maybe it is because it is we who make the world dark and mean? Back in the Old Testament, God smote those ancient nations in order to protect his people because one who loves indeed will protect their beloved (Read Deuteronomy 12:29, 30, 31 and note verse 31 for details).

There was a reason for God smiting those ancient nations. These nations were not made up of a noble and pure people. Love indeed protects as well as lets people make their own minds. Again, why is it alright for a female bear to defend her cubs when they are threatened and not for God to defend those whom are his?

Remember, collectively we are not all God's children. That is an erroneous statement made in ignorance. Please note: Ephesians 5:5, 6, 7, 8 and 1 Thessalonians 5:5 and 1 John 3:10 as there are two kinds of children to God. What child are ye?)

What about Pharaoh

Next, people are born into sin. Everyone's heart is hard. God, being who is he is according to his all knowing nature and perfect justice would call out to humanity and offer a choice. Since all knowing, and knowing that there will be some people who will not freely respond to his call but rather reject it, then he can with faultless right make that heart harder and turn them into a Pharaoh to use as howsoever He so-ever wills.

God is dealing with rebels and sinners whose heart is hard and rebellious (evidence: man's inhumanity toward man is one example of this). Perfect Love offers a choice to surrender and be purified or remain as you are to all but not all will accept the offer God offers. Instead many just look to excuses and use the God so loving argument as an excuse to dodge the choice the Lord cast before them. Is that you, Touchingcloth?

God knows the answer of everyone's heart before we were ever born, yet, he still allows us to be born and live! What great justice is shown in this as well as love, yet, his love calls to his known beloved and seeks to protect them from the ways of rebellion's corrupting influences and propensity for sin (making life all ugly and mean which misses the mark God intended). His love offers you, Touchingcloth, a choice to escape loves wrath or be changed by God love, grace, and truth, which is Jesus Christ.

How could perfect love truly be-loving if it did not protect the beloved from those bent on destroying the beloved as well as the one who loves? Even the stuff within us that make our lives dark and mean?

Why is it alright for a female bear to defend her cubs when they are threatened and not for God to defend those whom are his? Who loves more — God or the bear?

(Hosea 13:8, Proverbs 17:12)
-
-
-