Evidence for God from Science

Atheist can pose some tricky questions that seemingly, at fist, prove some sort of biblical contradiction. I recently came across this one – let’s see how you would respond

Jesus said in Matthew 5:22 not to call someone a fool, yet, other verses imply that He and the Father both called folks fools as well as Paul - were they in danger as Jesus mentioned then?

As one non-religious person put it, this is proof of a biblical contradiction… disproving the bible.

I know how I answered and disproved this theorem of contradiction, so then, I would like to see how others on the forum would disprove it.

So - how would you?

A few verses - there are more...

Mat 5:22 - "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

Luke 11:40 - "You foolish ones, did not He who made the outside make the inside also?

Luke 12:20 - "But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your soul is required of you; and now who will own what you have prepared?'

1 Co 15:36 - You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies -

all NKJV quotes

I was looking over this... seems out of context when the first part Jesus says "You have heard that it was said to those of old..." restating the general rule or thought, but the word "Raca" was an insult. To warn someone that he is acting unwisely and thoughtlessly is a gracious act (Galatians 6:1). To call someone raca is to refute God's nature in them. Its like condemning and judging vs. saying how one is acting and we are to instruct them.

zacchaeus wrote:I was looking over this... seems out of context when the first part Jesus says "You have heard that it was said to those of old..." restating the general rule or thought, but the word "Raca" was an insult. To warn someone that he is acting unwisely and thoughtlessly is a gracious act (Galatians 6:1). To call someone raca is to refute God's nature in them. Its like condemning and judging vs. saying how one is acting and we are to instruct them.

Zach, you are correct - in discussions with person's who brings this up - go to the context first and have them read it themselves...

The conversation template would go something like this...

They say -- Bible is full of contradictions – example – Jesus says not to call anyone a fool and he does and so does god…

You respond -- Where?

They answer -- Matthew 5 and elsewhere

Okay let’s look – fair? (Have them read out out loud the actual context verse 21-22)

Matthew 5:21, 22, "You have heard what was said to people who lived long ago. They were told, 'Do not commit murder. (Exodus 20:13) Anyone who murders will be judged for it.' 22 But here is what I tell you. Do not be angry with your brother. Anyone who is angry with his brother will be judged. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' must stand trial in the Sanhedrin (lower judical cout of its day). But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire in hell." NIrV

The context is judgment that convicts a person of Murder... Right?

(They’ll answer yes if they are honest keep going as they are reasonable or evasive (unreasonable) by going into the topic of hell unjust to throw you off track to change the subject – don’t be swayed – stay the course)

Anyone angry with their brother (own known folks) will be judge of what?

Murder…

Correct

Do you know what Raca means? It is from the Aramaic rēqā and it is a word that expresses utter contempt because they view someone as empty, worthless, empty, vain.

And they’ll stand trial where? A court of law – aren't most lawsuits today based on that principle: do to the actions of so and so to whomever was committed because of contempt shown to the victim due to some empty stupid unnecessary arbitrary act? Correct?

In the cases involving murder – some stand trial in court and their defense was that the slew so and so because they were stupid and deserved it – what do you think would happen?

(They’ll answer many ways – no matter quickly bring the topic back to the context)

Now when Jesus warned not to call - someone you fool – do you know that from the word fool used in the verse we get the word moron from it?

(They’ll answer however they will – if they know the topic they may jump to another verse where this word is used – do fall for it stay of topic)

The context Jesus is speaking here is calling someone a moron to justify murdering them – isn’t that the context?

Yes…

You appear to be angry with Christians and atheist are calling Christians Raca in courts of law are they not desiring to murder faith because in their opinion Christianity is moronic – correct?

(They’ll say many things here – so be prepared to always stay on topic)

Hold there - let's read the verse out loud again to me…

Matthew 5:21, 22, "You have heard what was said to people who lived long ago. They were told, 'Do not commit murder. (Exodus 20:13) Anyone who murders will be judged for it.' 22 But here is what I tell you. Do not be angry with your brother. Anyone who is angry with his brother will be judged. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' must stand trial in the Sanhedrin (lower judical cout of its day). But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire in hell." NIrV

Keeping reading

Mat 5:23-26 "Suppose you are offering your gift at the altar. And you remember that your brother has something against you. 24 Leave your gift in front of the altar. First go and make peace with your brother. Then come back and offer your gift. 25 "Suppose someone has a claim against you and is taking you to court. Settle the matter quickly. Do it while you are still with him on your way. If you don't, he may hand you over to the judge. The judge may hand you over to the officer. And you may be thrown into prison. 26 What I'm about to tell you is true. You will not get out until you have paid the very last penny!"

Stop… So the context in calling someone a fool form what you have read in context here is about murder – murdering in your heart – another faith, life, hope, and dreams… How have you contributed to this in your life?

The context is murder and elsewhere when Jesus or God called folks a fool – was he trying to murder them or convict them of changing their foolish ways?

Which is just and which is not?
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

zacchaeus wrote: They say -- Bible is full of contradictions – example – Jesus says not to call anyone a fool and he does and so does god…

You respond -- Where?

They answer -- Matthew 5 and elsewhere

Okay let’s look – fair? (Have them read out out loud the actual context verse 21-22)

Matthew 5:21, 22, "You have heard what was said to people who lived long ago. They were told, 'Do not commit murder. (Exodus 20:13) Anyone who murders will be judged for it.' 22 But here is what I tell you. Do not be angry with your brother. Anyone who is angry with his brother will be judged. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' must stand trial in the Sanhedrin (lower judical cout of its day). But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire in hell." NIrV

The context is judgment that convicts a person of Murder... Right?

(They’ll answer yes if they are honest keep going as they are reasonable or evasive (unreasonable) by going into the topic of hell unjust to throw you off track to change the subject – don’t be swayed – stay the course)-

This is the point you lost me.

Where do you get the idea that this is about a judgement that convicts a person of murder from?

This reads to me like Jesus saying 'it was the case that you were judged for big things like murder, but I expect better of you and I also judge you for being angry and/or disparaging of your fellow men'

It also doesn't talk about someone describing their brother as 'raca' in evidence or anything like that - it says "anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' must stand trial ..." not 'anyone who says about his brother during a trial'

Calling your brother an idiot seems quite mild anyway, compared to what Jesus asks of us in Luke 14 - 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."

But then if we did that we'd need to go back to your murder trail again because 1 John 3 15 says "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." and 1 John 4 says the exact opposite to Luke on the question as to whether you must hate your brother - Luke says that Jeus said you can't be a disciple if you don't hate your brother, but John says you can't love God if you don't love your brother - 1 John 4 20-21 "If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother."

For a book that is the inspired word of God and the only written and permanent message He has left for us, it's riddled with things that have to be taken in context and explained away, and not just implied contradictions either - really obvious ones. On a broader note, why do you think God allowed the one book that describes him and the way he wants us to behave to be so superficially confusing, misleading, contradictory and open to interpretation?

DowTingTom wrote: Calling your brother an idiot seems quite mild anyway, compared to what Jesus asks of us in Luke 14 - 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."

But then if we did that we'd need to go back to your murder trail again because 1 John 3 15 says "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." and 1 John 4 says the exact opposite to Luke on the question as to whether you must hate your brother - Luke says that Jeus said you can't be a disciple if you don't hate your brother, but John says you can't love God if you don't love your brother - 1 John 4 20-21 "If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother."

What Jesus is doing in Luke is merely employing hyperbolic language. He doesn't actually mean that you have to hate your family and yourself to be his disciple, only that you must put your discipleship above them. This is one alleged contradiction that I just don't understand; are we really to believe that the Gospels (even if Christianity is false and they are merely human products) are so improbably flawed that they can't agree on whether it is love or hate that is most important to a follower of Christ? Are we to assume (over the idea that the suggestion to hate is not to be taken literally) that either Jesus or whoever is putting those words in his mouth has suddenly and inexplicably forgotten the meaning of his entire ministry? It may require admittedly fallible interpretation to find the precise meaning of the verses in question, but in this instance the harmonization is astronomically more likely than the contradiction.

Icthus wrote:What Jesus is doing in Luke is merely employing hyperbolic language. He doesn't actually mean that you have to hate your family and yourself to be his disciple, only that you must put your discipleship above them. This is one alleged contradiction that I just don't understand; are we really to believe that the Gospels (even if Christianity is false and they are merely human products) are so improbably flawed that they can't agree on whether it is love or hate that is most important to a follower of Christ? Are we to assume (over the idea that the suggestion to hate is not to be taken literally) that either Jesus or whoever is putting those words in his mouth has suddenly and inexplicably forgotten the meaning of his entire ministry? It may require admittedly fallible interpretation to find the precise meaning of the verses in question, but in this instance the harmonization is astronomically more likely than the contradiction.

Ah - hyperbolic language. Do you think it was hyperbolic language when he said that homosexual sex in an abomination? Or when he said women raped in the city walls should be stoned, for example?

I repeat my question - why has God made the bible so hard to understand?

DowTingTom wrote:

Icthus wrote:What Jesus is doing in Luke is merely employing hyperbolic language. He doesn't actually mean that you have to hate your family and yourself to be his disciple, only that you must put your discipleship above them. This is one alleged contradiction that I just don't understand; are we really to believe that the Gospels (even if Christianity is false and they are merely human products) are so improbably flawed that they can't agree on whether it is love or hate that is most important to a follower of Christ? Are we to assume (over the idea that the suggestion to hate is not to be taken literally) that either Jesus or whoever is putting those words in his mouth has suddenly and inexplicably forgotten the meaning of his entire ministry? It may require admittedly fallible interpretation to find the precise meaning of the verses in question, but in this instance the harmonization is astronomically more likely than the contradiction.

Ah - hyperbolic language. Do you think it was hyperbolic language when he said that homosexual sex in an abomination? Or when he said women raped in the city walls should be stoned, for example?

I repeat my question - why has God made the bible so hard to understand?

"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool. " Isaiah 1:18 NASB

Because some folks refuse to reason by demanding God bow to them....

For example, Christians don't stone a woman - Muslims do - strawman argument...

The OT Covenantual laws of Moses are over now - get used to it... the New Covenant is now

Romans 1:18-32 - all sin is an abomination in God's eyes and homosexuality is but one minor part. So tell me, why is homosexual love far superior to all manner of love? Next, is it an act of love to allow someone to drink a slow acting poison because that allowing is deemed as a superior loving act by those who seek to destroy procreation?

Next - reason is not fitting for one wise in his or her own eyes...

Proverbs 26:12
-
-
-

DowTingTom wrote:

B. W. wrote:

zacchaeus wrote: They say -- Bible is full of contradictions – example – Jesus says not to call anyone a fool and he does and so does god…

You respond -- Where?

They answer -- Matthew 5 and elsewhere

Okay let’s look – fair? (Have them read out out loud the actual context verse 21-22)

Matthew 5:21, 22, "You have heard what was said to people who lived long ago. They were told, 'Do not commit murder. (Exodus 20:13) Anyone who murders will be judged for it.' 22 But here is what I tell you. Do not be angry with your brother. Anyone who is angry with his brother will be judged. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' must stand trial in the Sanhedrin (lower judical cout of its day). But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire in hell." NIrV

The context is judgment that convicts a person of Murder... Right?

(They’ll answer yes if they are honest keep going as they are reasonable or evasive (unreasonable) by going into the topic of hell unjust to throw you off track to change the subject – don’t be swayed – stay the course)-

This is the point you lost me.

Where do you get the idea that this is about a judgement that convicts a person of murder from?

This reads to me like Jesus saying 'it was the case that you were judged for big things like murder, but I expect better of you and I also judge you for being angry and/or disparaging of your fellow men'

It also doesn't talk about someone describing their brother as 'raca' in evidence or anything like that - it says "anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' must stand trial ..." not 'anyone who says about his brother during a trial'

Calling your brother an idiot seems quite mild anyway, compared to what Jesus asks of us in Luke 14 - 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."

But then if we did that we'd need to go back to your murder trail again because 1 John 3 15 says "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." and 1 John 4 says the exact opposite to Luke on the question as to whether you must hate your brother - Luke says that Jeus said you can't be a disciple if you don't hate your brother, but John says you can't love God if you don't love your brother - 1 John 4 20-21 "If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother."

For a book that is the inspired word of God and the only written and permanent message He has left for us, it's riddled with things that have to be taken in context and explained away, and not just implied contradictions either - really obvious ones. On a broader note, why do you think God allowed the one book that describes him and the way he wants us to behave to be so superficially confusing, misleading, contradictory and open to interpretation?

Read the context of scripture - who was Jesus speaking too and what where they plotting to do? Many of these same folks were in essence calling a Jesus a Fool and desiring to put him to death - are You?

Context is important...
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool. " Isaiah 1:18 NASB

Because some folks refuse to reason by demanding God bow to them....

For example, Christians don't stone a woman - Muslims do - strawman argument...

The OT Covenantual laws of Moses are over now - get used to it... the New Covenant is now

Romans 1:18-32 - all sin is an abomination in God's eyes and homosexuality is but one minor part. So tell me, why is homosexual love far superior to all manner of love? Next, is it an act of love to allow someone to drink a slow acting poison because that allowing is deemed as a superior loving act by those who seek to destroy procreation?

Next - reason is not fitting for one wise in his or her own eyes...

Proverbs 26:12
-
-
-

I don't understand why God had rules which required people to get stoned for all sorts of things that might not even have been their fault, which allowed slavery and forbade all sorts of weird an wonderful things, and then changed his mind.

If you are God, surely you don't change your mind (unless it's about whether or not you should drown people - hence then rainbow)

It is abundantly clear that your God was all in favour of stoning for a long time. It is disingenuous to suggest that it is invalid for me to mention it because, generally speaking, Christians don't stone people anymore.

When given the chance to condemn stoning outright, Jesus did not. Sure, you will say that the 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' effectively stopped someone being stoned, but I'd have thought a more appropriate response to the question 'Is it ok to stone this person?' would be 'Of course it isn't you nut-job. Why on earth would you think it would ever be ok to stone someone to death?' Sadly we just got the rather limp co-op (with the chilling suggestion that it was perfectly OK for Jesus to stone the person in question)

The bit about asking God to bow to me I don't understand.

I don't understand why you seem to have the impression that I think any kind of love is "far superior" to any other kind. I make no such claim about any love. You, it seems, do think that heterosexual relationships are superior to homosexual.

I don't really understand the bit about poison either. Are you suggesting that any sex (which you seem to confuse with love) that isn't procreative is sinful? My wife went through the menopause at 32 and cannot have any more children. Is it sinful for us to have sex as it isn't procreative?

The "reason not fitting" bit is lost on me too. I'm asking questions. Does that mean you think that I think I am wise, and therefore I can't be helped? So it's best not to ask questions?

B. W. wrote:
Read the context of scripture - who was Jesus speaking too and what where they plotting to do? Many of these same folks were in essence calling a Jesus a Fool and desiring to put him to death - are You?

Context is important...
-
-
-

The fact that 'context' is required to explain away lots of the weirdness - and the fact that what is explained away / not exaplined away often tends to coincide with the views of the explainer, makes the bible appear less genuine.

My question as to why God would make it so open to interpretation remains.

If asking questions is calling someone a fool, then I am calling Jesus a fool. I thought I was asking questions though. Where do you think I've called him a fool?

What is the 'context' that makes the fact that an all-loving, benevolent, caring God murders millions of people in the Old Testament ok with you?

DowTingTom wrote:What is the 'context' that makes the fact that an all-loving, benevolent, caring God murders millions of people in the Old Testament ok with you?

It appears we have another Magsolo/Snowrider here, seriously what does this have to do with the topic at hand.

I would also recommend a book called "Is God a Moral Monster" by Paul Copan, your answers lie there.

DowTingTom wrote:...The fact that 'context' is required to explain away lots of the weirdness - and the fact that what is explained away / not exaplined away often tends to coincide with the views of the explainer, makes the bible appear less genuine.

My question as to why God would make it so open to interpretation remains.

If asking questions is calling someone a fool, then I am calling Jesus a fool. I thought I was asking questions though. Where do you think I've called him a fool?

What is the 'context' that makes the fact that an all-loving, benevolent, caring God murders millions of people in the Old Testament ok with you?

You had forgotten one important thing: True dye in the wool Atheist point of view (POV) is that there is no God and nothing is truly relevant because only an empty nothing awaits all. There are no morals, only the convenient here and now to create any morals that a later generation will eventually change. The earth spins for no reason, all random chance, there is no hope - nothing. In other words, such a person cannot morally judge anything or anyone because anything goes and anything is okay - there is no way to hold anyone accountable for their actions (after all - all die). People made their own ever changing morals in ancient times too. They justified brutality, bestiality, burning babies alive, or leaving them in some vacant area to die, justified, lust, sexually abusing children, teaching others to live by these moral codes and teach that it is perfectly acceptable to carry on in like manner. Think of it, today, there are folks who desire to go that route again and are doing so., slowly, step by slow step... Which side are you on?

Have you actually read the facts recorded in archaeology, or ancient period writings found that demonstrate that these 'alleged murdered by God people' were not the noble pure sweat innocent pagans who love Mom and ate apple pie types you attempt to make them out to be?

The context is simple, you are judging events in ancient times from your 21st Century mindset and are guilty of viewing ancient times through the prism of 21'st century ethnocentrism. This is done just to make a moral argument against a God whom you say cannot exist and that you must with all moral might destroy any concept of God in humanity for their own good, when you have no moral ground upon which to stand on to do so because in the atheist POV - there is no accountability - no way to measure right / wrong / good /bad as there is no means to enforce any concept you morally devise. You die and poof, into nothingness you go. Life is a waste of time. It doesn't matter then if folks believe in God or not - poof you are gone... You can't even live by the live and let live ideal can you instead must force your views upon everybody else...

In other words, there is no moral ground by which you can say God did wrong as you cannot enforce it because you will not last and a future generation inspired by militant atheism will continue to justify more and and more depravity, and in the process, forgetting you had ever existed or had any sense decency guiding you - after all - all is vanity...

There is more to context than meets the eye...
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

DowTingTom wrote:...The fact that 'context' is required to explain away lots of the weirdness - and the fact that what is explained away / not exaplined away often tends to coincide with the views of the explainer, makes the bible appear less genuine.

My question as to why God would make it so open to interpretation remains.

If asking questions is calling someone a fool, then I am calling Jesus a fool. I thought I was asking questions though. Where do you think I've called him a fool?

What is the 'context' that makes the fact that an all-loving, benevolent, caring God murders millions of people in the Old Testament ok with you?

You had forgotten one important thing: True dye in the wool Atheist point of view (POV) is that there is no God and nothing is truly relevant because only an empty nothing awaits all.

1) Atheists don't believe there is a God. They do not share a uniform belief in whether or not things are "relevant"
2) 'Nothing' awaits me in the sense that when I die my person will cease to exist. You make it sound like an eternity in a room with no windows - it's not that, it's a full stop.

B. W. wrote:There are no morals, only the convenient here and now to create any morals that a later generation will eventually change. The earth spins for no reason, all random chance, there is no hope - nothing. In other words, such a person cannot morally judge anything or anyone because anything goes and anything is okay - there is no way to hold anyone accountable for their actions (after all - all die).

If I spend time explaining why I disagree with this, will you bother to read it?

Have you actually read the facts recorded in archaeology, or ancient period writings found that demonstrate that these 'alleged murdered by God people' were not the noble pure sweat innocent pagans who love Mom and ate apple pie types you attempt to make them out to be?

I've read the bit in the bible where it says God sent a flood to kill everyone. I've read the bit in the bible where it says God killed all the first born in Egypt. I presume that some of those will have been quite nice. Certainly with the first-born God, they were killed because they were the first-born and because their killing would shock a Pharoah whom God had intervened to make stubborn - he seems to have done this largely to 'justify' the killing.

Regardless of that, I don't think it's fair of God to kill some people for being 'not noble, sweet and pure' and allow others to live long, healthy lives.

B. W. wrote:The context is simple, you are judging events in ancient times from your 21st Century mindset and are guilty of viewing ancient times through the prism of 21'st century ethnocentrism. This is done just to make a moral argument against a God whom you say cannot exist

I am judging the manner in which the bible describes God as behaving. If God is always right, and always loving, then his behaviour should not change much. Whether I am right or wrong is academic - if he is unchanging (as you would expect someone who is all powerful and knows everything to be) then I should find everything he does to be immoral or moral - not a mix of both. Equally, his actions should be consistent, but they are not. No matter how you spin it, killing every first born to change the mind of a Pharoah you have made stubborn is not loving.

God, if he exists, is bigger than time, so my 21st century mindset shouldn't matter. He should be more consistent.

B. W. wrote:In other words, there is no moral ground by which you can say God did wrong as you cannot enforce it because you will not last and a future generation inspired by militant atheism will continue to justify more and and more depravity,
-
-

Justifying depravity? Tell me more. (Are you one of the Christians who think that without God we'd all be running about killing each other, as if we don't already?)

DowTingTom wrote:

B. W. wrote:

DowTingTom wrote:...The fact that 'context' is required to explain away lots of the weirdness - and the fact that what is explained away / not exaplined away often tends to coincide with the views of the explainer, makes the bible appear less genuine.

My question as to why God would make it so open to interpretation remains.

If asking questions is calling someone a fool, then I am calling Jesus a fool. I thought I was asking questions though. Where do you think I've called him a fool?

What is the 'context' that makes the fact that an all-loving, benevolent, caring God murders millions of people in the Old Testament ok with you?

You had forgotten one important thing: True dye in the wool Atheist point of view (POV) is that there is no God and nothing is truly relevant because only an empty nothing awaits all.

1) Atheists don't believe there is a God. They do not share a uniform belief in whether or not things are "relevant"
2) 'Nothing' awaits me in the sense that when I die my person will cease to exist. You make it sound like an eternity in a room with no windows - it's not that, it's a full stop.

1) Atheists don't believe there is a God. They do not share a uniform belief in whether or not things are "relevant"

This poses a logical contradiction - what does it really matter what an atheist thinks is relevant? Maybe for the 50 million dead Chinese and 20 plus million in the USSR and who knows how many in North Korea does it really matter...

2) 'Nothing' awaits me in the sense that when I die my person will cease to exist. You make it sound like an eternity in a room with no windows - it's not that, it's a full stop

Nothing describes eternal emptiness a life with no purpose - all is futile - including all personal moral codes... in atheist POV there are no windows... hopelessness...

Bottom line - atheism produces hopelessness - keeps selfishness alive to the extreme. Altruism a total waste of time...

DowTingTom wrote:

B. W. wrote:There are no morals, only the convenient here and now to create any morals that a later generation will eventually change. The earth spins for no reason, all random chance, there is no hope - nothing. In other words, such a person cannot morally judge anything or anyone because anything goes and anything is okay - there is no way to hold anyone accountable for their actions (after all - all die).

If I spend time explaining why I disagree with this, will you bother to read it?

On this forum, we here have been down this road many times before. How can you argue that future generation will not change your forced moral laws? History proves me right on this. There are no moral codes that can last based solely on subjective relativistic standards when objective morals are ignored. You, by you own code will agree that it is a moral wrong to steal, yet, you justify theft of people's faith in God as a moral right to be enforced at all hazards - makes no sense...

Oh I forgot, you must explain why it is necessary and yet forbid the bible to explain itself due to human interpretation factor - so what's the difference when it comes to justifying relativistic moral codes that enforce theft? Enforce murder of the unborn? Enforce lifestyles that ensure the demise of the human race due to the fact that such behavior mocks procreation? Enforce Political correct speech and the cost to true choice? Or deny rights of opposing political parties their rights in the political process? How just and fair are you? What lengths would you go through to take away by theft those that oppose the regime desired to be based on? And folks try to indict God of wrong and not being just? Hmmm... all a matter of human interpretation, I guess...

DowTingTom wrote:

B. W. wrote:Have you actually read the facts recorded in archaeology, or ancient period writings found that demonstrate that these 'alleged murdered by God people' were not the noble pure sweat innocent pagans who love Mom and ate apple pie types you attempt to make them out to be?

I've read the bit in the bible where it says God sent a flood to kill everyone. I've read the bit in the bible where it says God killed all the first born in Egypt. I presume that some of those will have been quite nice. Certainly with the first-born God, they were killed because they were the first-born and because their killing would shock a Pharoah whom God had intervened to make stubborn - he seems to have done this largely to 'justify' the killing.

Regardless of that, I don't think it's fair of God to kill some people for being 'not noble, sweet and pure' and allow others to live long, healthy lives.

God did not kill everyone in the Flood, if you read the bible at all, you would have stated this - next, you think those is ancient times were just like 21'st century westernized educated folks who are so nice and sweat so how dare evil god kill such, Again - atheism has no moral grounds it can stand upon to attempt to convict people they are wrong in believing in Christianity. Get it? Those folks back then were not sweat and innocent. Next, since your only concept is the mortal here and now, you cannot fathom that God does not murder someone off into a state of non-existence as Atheism adheres too. No, God brings those that die to face his just judgment.

Are you bigger and badder than God to say he is unjust for foreknowing who will believe and who will not and doing with those who will not as he pleases? Your comments betray an ax to grind more against Hyper Calvinistic doctrine than what the bible teaches. When you read the bible - were you actually intellectually honest and actually looked at the whys God did things as these to protect the people he called from the cancer of living in a sea of moral relativism?

I find it odd that, human beings abort multiplied millions of babies in abortion clinics than ever were lost in Egypt - yet you attempt to indict God of a great wrong, yet, weep not for the modern day human massacre of the born and unborn? Yep, that is atheisms morality exposed - is it not?

Again, God does not send babies to hell - if you actually understood the bible you would have read this from Jesus' own words, this does not condone Humanities atheism espousing of the need to regulate the world’s population by means of abortion's murder. You have more an ax to grind against hyper Calvinism and out of balanced Substitutionary Atonement theorem than anything else.

Since the atheistic POV states there is windowless nothingness that awaits all - then what you think would be fair or not fair would not matter - would it?

DowTingTom wrote:

B. W. wrote:The context is simple, you are judging events in ancient times from your 21st Century mindset and are guilty of viewing ancient times through the prism of 21'st century ethnocentrism. This is done just to make a moral argument against a God whom you say cannot exist

I am judging the manner in which the bible describes God as behaving. If God is always right, and always loving, then his behaviour should not change much. Whether I am right or wrong is academic - if he is unchanging (as you would expect someone who is all powerful and knows everything to be) then I should find everything he does to be immoral or moral - not a mix of both. Equally, his actions should be consistent, but they are not. No matter how you spin it, killing every first born to change the mind of a Pharoah you have made stubborn is not loving.

God, if he exists, is bigger than time, so my 21st century mindset shouldn't matter. He should be more consistent.

No, you are not. You are judging based on not even attempting to understanding things from God's POV in his dealing with humanities sin in an intellectually honest fashion. You judge by your pride and your concept of what Love should be/is, and what behavior must match. In this, you are not wise.

We were attacked on 9/11/2001. There are enemies out there in the world that desire to destroy, punish, and enslave. How would you deal with such folks?

You have kids? does your love for them let them play in the middle of a busy highway? Drink poison? Never disciple them - never protect them - never tell them what is right and wrong? Use this for our enemies who teach it is okay to enslave, conquer, kill, invade, destroy, bestiality is okay, child abuse is normal, spearing sexually diseases in the gene pool okay, do whatever to whomever is okay... How would you deal with them?

Think if you gave dominion to someone and they abused it, how can you be considered just if you took it away unjustly without exposing the need for why? and offering a second chance to change one's ways?

God is consistent - far above what you or I can conceive. Jesus died by man's hands - exposing sin and, now, here you are attempting to put God on trial again just as they did to Jesus did long ago...

What does this say about you and your motives?

Isaiah 26: 10 is true.

DowTingTom wrote:

B. W. wrote:In other words, there is no moral ground by which you can say God did wrong as you cannot enforce it because you will not last and a future generation inspired by militant atheism will continue to justify more and more depravity,

Justifying depravity? Tell me more. (Are you one of the Christians who think that without God we'd all be running about killing each other, as if we don't already?)

Open your eyes, watch the news, what is going on and you claim humanity is not going around murdering each other physically and emotionally? Seriously, what planet do you live on? You think atheism’s ever changing morals will save the world? You may have noble intentions but those that come after you will not. World history proves me right on this. It is human beings who spread sin - not God. God is doing what he knows to do justly and fairly to all and for all to stop sin, and being accused by those like yourself for not arresting evil and then being some evil moral monster for stopping it thru human means. What is amazing is how slow to anger God is, seeing who will change verse who will not, and instead, not destroying the whole lot eons ago, in one fell swoop. He is offer you a choice and for that, you declare that unfair? Without choice how could one define fairness, justice, love, mercy, grace, punishment, consequences. responsibility? How God deals with human choice is amazingly consistent.

Again, there is no moral ground by which you can say God does wrong as you cannot enforce your verdict because of the windowless eternity atheism holds too. Any noble good morality you choose and mandate by law a future generation inspired also by militant atheism will change in order to justify more and more depravity... Look in the mirror and stop blaming God for what you see... Be reconciled back to God thru Jesus Christ and be amazed how he will change you, speak to you, and answer the why's in your life: the rejection somewhere that made you - you.
-
-
-

There is a wonderful song by Michael Jacskon - Man in the mirror http://youtube.com/watch?v=TxVoo0iUVDA

(As mirror was mentioned here...)