Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus and his sacrifice is Satan’s test of man’s morality.
Bob Bobber
Member (Idle past 2935 days)
Posts: 187
Joined: 12-30-2015


Message 136 of 478 (775409)
01-01-2016 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Aussie
01-01-2016 11:11 AM


Re: misrepresentation
What I meant was the progeny of the fallen angels during the flood. These fallen angels instructed people how to mix animal DNA with human DNA. These abnormal beings, their destruction was necessary for the preservation of the human race, and for the faithfulness of Yahweh’s Word (Gen. 3:15)

There was a second irruption of these fallen angels, smaller in number and more limited in area, for they were for the most part confined to Canaan the nations of Canaan. These abnormal beings is what Yahweh was getting rid of. But this second irruption took place on Yahweh’s land, the land he promised to Abraham.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Aussie, posted 01-01-2016 11:11 AM Aussie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by herebedragons, posted 01-01-2016 1:58 PM Bob Bobber has replied
 Message 195 by Aussie, posted 01-04-2016 8:57 AM Bob Bobber has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 137 of 478 (775412)
01-01-2016 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Bob Bobber
01-01-2016 12:12 PM


Re: misrepresentation
Are you running for loony of the week?
What is the evidence for all this nonsense and how does it relate to the topic?
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Bob Bobber, posted 01-01-2016 12:12 PM Bob Bobber has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Bob Bobber, posted 01-01-2016 2:30 PM herebedragons has replied
 Message 164 by Bob Bobber, posted 01-02-2016 12:20 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 138 of 478 (775414)
01-01-2016 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Omnivorous
12-31-2015 5:19 PM


Re: misrepresentation
You make the mistake of thinking they are "innocents." That's the whole point everybody is missing. God is punishing accumulated sins. In some cases there is a report about those sins so you don't have to just assume it, but I am writing from a vacation place and don't want to take the time to look stuff up. The OT is supposed to teach us about how judgment comes against us, for what reasons and so on, but if you call them "innocents" you miss the whole point. Allah murders innocents, Jehovah does not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Omnivorous, posted 12-31-2015 5:19 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by GDR, posted 01-01-2016 5:40 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 139 of 478 (775415)
01-01-2016 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Aussie
12-31-2015 2:54 PM


Re: misrepresentation
Murder is the unprovoked killing of innocents. God is judging nations when He has armies attack them, and the Flood was one gigantic judgment against the rampant sins on the earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Aussie, posted 12-31-2015 2:54 PM Aussie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Aussie, posted 01-04-2016 9:02 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 140 of 478 (775416)
01-01-2016 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Aussie
12-31-2015 2:54 PM


Re: misrepresentation
"The wages of sin is death." When Adam and Eve disobeyed God they became subject to death. Same with all of us, we die when we sin, and our ultimate death is because of our sins.
The death of one innocent capable of saving all us sinners is a great gracious wonderful gift that will restore those who trust in Him to sinless purity in a completely new creation in which neither human beings nor animals will suffer from our sin. To twist it into something evil is disgusting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Aussie, posted 12-31-2015 2:54 PM Aussie has not replied

  
Bob Bobber
Member (Idle past 2935 days)
Posts: 187
Joined: 12-30-2015


Message 141 of 478 (775418)
01-01-2016 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by herebedragons
01-01-2016 1:58 PM


Re: misrepresentation
Not nonsense, these abnormal beings were to be cut off, and driven out, and utterly destroyed (Deut. 20:17; Josh. 3:10) but Israel failed. We do not know how many got away to other countries to escape the general destruction. If this were recognized, it would go far to solve many problems connected with Anthropology?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by herebedragons, posted 01-01-2016 1:58 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by herebedragons, posted 01-01-2016 3:53 PM Bob Bobber has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 142 of 478 (775419)
01-01-2016 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Bob Bobber
12-31-2015 2:42 AM


Bob Bobber writes:
If i am off topic sorry, but remember Leviticus 26, beginning with verse 40, is the confession Israel would be called upon to make. Israel would also have to accept the remainder of her punishment, that failure under the contract would call for and that would be the seven year tribulation. When John the Baptizer came along, had anything new begun? He simply called upon Israel to change their minds about their righteousness. 

John the Baptizer came in connection with Yahweh’s earthly nation Israel and in accordance with an offer to confess their failure under the contract in order to gain their promised land. That confession itself would be considered a fruit of righteousness in the eyes of Yahweh. The focus during John the Baptizer’s ministry was still Israel and the issue continued to be the land. Nothing had changed except that Israel was being offered the opportunity to confess their failure under the contract. Israel continued to be the focus and the land continued to be the issue.
Israel was singled out not because they were special, but because they had been given a job to do which goes back to the Abrahamic covenant where the Jews were to be a blessing for all.
The message was of course that they were chosen, and again, it wasn't because they were special, it was because they were to spread God's love to the world so that the whole world would be blessed.
Instead the early Jews made it about them and the land with Yahweh being exclusively their god. They then set about attempting to control Yahweh through their military and other means.
I think that as Christians we have the same lesson to learn. God is god of all and not just Christians. Christians aren't special. The more we focus on personal salvation making it all about us, the further we are removed from the mission that we have been given, through the Word of God as embodied in Jesus, which is to lovingly serve God's good creation. It is again like the early Jews who believed that if they strictly followed all the laws that Yahweh would return and give them victory.
This is the problem with inerrancy. In order to maintain that doctrine one winds up focusing on minor or temporary details, and missing the big picture that can be found by reading the Bible as a the human account of the narrative of God working through humans from our earliest accounts to that part of the narrative that climaxes in Jesus.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Bob Bobber, posted 12-31-2015 2:42 AM Bob Bobber has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Bob Bobber, posted 01-01-2016 3:13 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 01-04-2016 9:24 AM GDR has replied

  
Bob Bobber
Member (Idle past 2935 days)
Posts: 187
Joined: 12-30-2015


Message 143 of 478 (775422)
01-01-2016 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by GDR
01-01-2016 2:34 PM


The singling out of Israel? But what is interesting is the complete reversal of this ritual ceremony for that land. Only Yahweh is obligated by the covenant for the land grant? Here is something I wrote about this covenant. After Yahweh Gave up on the nations, Yahweh experiments with a single individual of believing; Abraham’s believing withstands many a trial.
Yahweh is the owner of the land, Abraham was called to. Yahweh is empowered to set conditions or residency requirements for those who would reside in it, like a landlord. Yahweh is seeking replacement tenants who are going to follow the moral rules of residence that Yahweh has established for his land. 
Yahweh’s promise to Abraham is formalized in a ritual ceremony called a suzerainty covenant. The patriarchical covenant, which is a covenant in which a superior party, a suzerain dictates the terms of a political treaty usually, and an inferior party obeys them.
The arrangement primarily serves the interest of the suzerain, and not the vassal or the subject. So Yahweh is making a land grant to a favored subject, and there’s an ancient ritual that ratifies the oath. In this kind of covenant, the parties to the oath would pass between the split carcass of a sacrificial animal, as if to say, that they agree they will suffer the same fate as this animal, if they violate the covenant. 

Abraham cuts sacrificial animals in two, and Yahweh, but only Yahweh, passes between the two halves. Only Yahweh seems to be obligated by the covenant, obligated to fulfill the promise that he’s made. Abraham doesn’t appear to have any obligation in return. In this case, it is the subject, Abraham, and not the suzerain, Yahweh, who is benefited by this covenant, and that’s a complete reversal of this ritual ceremony.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by GDR, posted 01-01-2016 2:34 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by herebedragons, posted 01-01-2016 3:59 PM Bob Bobber has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 144 of 478 (775423)
01-01-2016 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Tangle
12-31-2015 3:34 AM


Tangle writes:
There! You've done it again! Make something up - your belief - and present it as evidence.
Not at all. I clearly state that it is my belief with which obviously infers that it is not evidence.
Tangle writes:
You've also done away with one of the major characteristics of a god - omniscience.
Omniscience is about knowing everything there is to know. It is my belief, (which for your benefit is not evidence), that the future is open and unknowable even to God.
If the future is knowable then all of history is pre-ordained. There would be no free will and everything becomes purposeless. This is not the message of the Bible, where we see in the OT Yahweh negotiating with the Jews, nor do we see it in the NT where Jesus exhorts people to change their ways. The whole point of Jesus doing what He did becomes pointless if all history is pre-ordained.
Tangle writes:
But there is no new information possible about either your god or your religion. All there is is new information about the natural not the supernatural. What that's doing is chipping away at the things you believed as science makes some of them look rather daft to make it continue to fit what you want to believe. So now god is no longer all knowing.... What next? Is omnipresence up for grabs?
As I have said, religions are mankind's attempt to understand the nature of god or gods and then working out how that should influence our lives. As a Christian, as I have said before, I have two things that are essential to calling myself a Christian. The first is that God is always good and the second is that He resurrected Jesus from which we can gain a much clearer picture of how we are to interact with His creation and to also give us a glimpse of the final chapter in human history.
With that in mind I view science as a natural theology so that as we learn new things we can gain additional insights of how God is working and has worked in the world.
As far as theology is concerned I learn new things all the time, I change my views and adapt to new information. I gained understanding of God working through us by reading Polkinghorne. N T Wright is a theologian, and a first century historian who is extremely knowledgeable when it comes to understanding what an early Jew would have understood of the books of the Bible within that culture. The additional knowledge I have gained form him has had a large impact on what it is I believe.
So yes, our views should be adjusted as we continue to gain knowledge which is true of the narrative that is the Bible. We can see a progression of the understanding of Yahweh from the rule bound dictatorial god of Leviticus, to the more compassionate god that we see in Isaiah, to the full revelation of God that we see in Jesus.
Tangle writes:
If you keep whittling away at this you'll be an atheist in a few years. Welcome :-)
That's not likely to happen but I actually have learned a lot by listening to atheists. Actually, thinking about Dawkins memes, or social replicators if you like, has given me a clearer understanding of how God's love is spread. People are not just influenced by what we say but by how we interact with others and for that matter the world, which by extension changes the world and lives well into the future or even forever if you like.
I listened to debates between Hitchens and Christians and I some times thought that Hitchens had a better understanding of the nature of God without believing in Him than the people he was debating.
Edited by GDR, : I had missed the last sentence of Tangle's post.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Tangle, posted 12-31-2015 3:34 AM Tangle has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 145 of 478 (775425)
01-01-2016 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by PaulK
12-31-2015 4:01 AM


PaulK writes:
Evolution requires that the replication process does not always make exact copies, and that those differences are at least sometimes inheritable. This is what I mean by "imperfect replicators". Given this, evolution will occur in the absence of any external interference.
Sure, no problem with that, but just as humans are learning to do, it is possible that the process can be interfered with. Possibly God intervened or possibly God simply works with whatever came out of the process. If we had evolved with three eyes and walking on all fours presumably God could have worked through our hearts and minds in the same way I believe He does now.
PaulK writes:
Naturalism does not require an infinite regress.
Sure it does right back to the big bang and that presumably required processes to cause that to happen. (Although in fairness Straggler in another thread had me think differently about the origins of the big bang by pointing out to me the relationship between cause and effect.)
PaulK writes:
Science, in the other hand, is (rightly) reluctant to conclude that we have reached the end of explanation and will continue to look until it is certain we can go no further.
No problem with that.
PaulK writes:
The pint is, of course, that while you claimed to be "only defending" your own views you were in fact only attacking an opposing view. And doing so dishonestly.
Dishonesty denotes a lie. Frankly I don't lie. I am expressing a POV. Very little that we have discussed is based on empirical evidence. We are both expressing our own POV. If you believe I am wrong then correct me but I'd appreciate not being accused of dishonesty.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by PaulK, posted 12-31-2015 4:01 AM PaulK has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 146 of 478 (775426)
01-01-2016 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Bob Bobber
01-01-2016 2:30 PM


Re: misrepresentation
Do you want to start a new topic to discuss these genetically engineered humans?
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Bob Bobber, posted 01-01-2016 2:30 PM Bob Bobber has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Bob Bobber, posted 01-01-2016 9:27 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 147 of 478 (775427)
01-01-2016 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Bob Bobber
01-01-2016 3:13 PM


You are the Prince of Non-Sequiturs aren't you? What does any of this have to do with GDR's post?
Here is something I wrote about this covenant.
This isn't new or revolutionary information. I, for one, already knew this about the covenant between God and Abraham.
The point is... what does any of this have to do with anything??
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Bob Bobber, posted 01-01-2016 3:13 PM Bob Bobber has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 148 of 478 (775428)
01-01-2016 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Tangle
12-31-2015 4:04 AM


Tangle writes:
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god. That's it, nothing else. Nothing more complicated than that. No-one knows whether god exists or not, but some people are pretty convinced that he doesn't - I'm one of them - but most atheists will say that they don't know if god exists or not. Nevertheless, they don't have a belief that he does.
Here is what wiki says.
quote:
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists
This pretty much agrees with your position, although frankly I don't get it. Can you explain to me why it is that atheists are so vehemently opposed to saying that they believe that there is nothing but natural processes and that no deity exists. I could just as easily say that I don't believe that humans along with the rest of the world are strictly the result of natural mindless processes.
I would have thought that if you can't make the I believe statement that you would be considered an agnostic. However, this is a matter of interest and in the end we both know where you stand on the subject.
Tangle writes:
Almost all atheists accept that there may be a god. A god can not be ruled out because we have incomplete knowledge of the universe. Most atheists - like me - that actively research and discuss these things have come to the conclusion that there is also no god(s), but in Scandanavia where most people are atheists, it's just a deafault position. Similar to the situation here 500 years ago where Christianity was the default position and to not believe in god would have been nearly impossible. It's just programming. Not something that requires the taking of a position or making a statement for - just life.
Yes, they may believe that religion and church does not have a place in their life and don't really think about it, but that doesn't mean that, in the Scandanvian case, religion doesn't play a role in their life.There are still active religious people that have a voice along with everyone else in our societies and in this case they do have a Judeo/Christian heritage which still has an impact.
Tangle writes:
But I doubt that most church attending Christians have put much thought into it either - that is, thought outside their belief - they just believe because they've been taught to believe. Similarly people who were never taught to believe, mostly don't. If asked they probably wouldn't claim to be atheists, they'd probably say they don't know. Nevertheless, they don't believe in god and are therefore default atheists.
I partially agree. When I was young it was considered the norm to go to church and I agree that it was more by social convention than anything else. Now, it is pretty much the social convention to not attend church, so I think that your statement is not nearly as true as it was in the past.
In the case of the church I also would contend that people are being put in the position where they have to think more and more about why and what they believe. There are a variety of reasons and one of them is the existence of evangelical atheists such as Dawkins and Hitchens. Personally I view this as a good thing.
Edited by GDR, : Percy pointed out that I had missed the letter "a" and atheist became theist. Maybe it could have worked as a subliminal message but it appears that didn't happen.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Tangle, posted 12-31-2015 4:04 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Admin, posted 01-01-2016 5:19 PM GDR has replied
 Message 155 by kbertsche, posted 01-01-2016 8:12 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 149 of 478 (775430)
01-01-2016 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Omnivorous
12-31-2015 12:50 PM


Omnivorous writes:
Yet the founding of other faiths and their persistence over time do support it.
Perhaps, if Yahweh hardened Pharoah's heart, he also made Jesus' Jewish disciples remarkably fickle, despite the miracles they witnessed.
If I shared your faith in the Gospels, no doubt I would agree with your position.
Well I'm not an inerrantist so the idea that God specifically hardened Pharoah's is not consistent with how we see God who's Word and wisdom is embodied by Jesus. Again though, just because God performed miracles through the man Jesus does not make Jesus any more than a prophet, let alone the messiah and particularly not part of the god-head.
Omnivorous writes:
If I shared your faith in the Gospels, no doubt I would agree with your position.
Pity. One thing about the Gospels is that it really is clear that they weren't making it up for some obscure reasons. Nobody really expected anyone to be resurrected into a new form of bodily life in the middle of human history. There was a belief that there would be a general resurrection at the end of time but that was as far as it went. They wouldn't have had women as the first ones at the tomb. There wouldn't be so many minor discrepancies in the accounts which would point to collusion. There is nothing really to be gained and in fact there is much to lose including their lives.
I suggest then that the question is whether or not they got it right or wrong. At that point we just form our own conclusions.
Omnivorous writes:
Have a great New Year, GDR. It's always a pleasure to disagree at length with a calm Christian.
...and a great 2016 to you as well. One of the reasons I like this forum is it gives me the ability to discuss my beliefs calmly with people like yourself who, disagree with me. I have my views on many things changed by this forum and I have learned to better understand how others think and why they believe as they do. Positive forums such as this can be such a great tool for bringing people of different beliefs together. It is so Christian that way.
At any rate thank you for that statement.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Omnivorous, posted 12-31-2015 12:50 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 150 of 478 (775431)
01-01-2016 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Omnivorous
12-31-2015 5:19 PM


Re: misrepresentation
Omnivorous writes:
It's good to be reminded of my childhood moral outrage at the slaughter of the innocents in the Bible. Those stories made me question my church, and the inadequate answers made me leave. My long ago revulsion still makes me question the moral sanity of Biblical Inerrantists.
That's the problem isn't it. Christians who in an attempt to justify the belief that God actually did those things in order to support and inerrant Bible so discredit God and the faith that it is no wonder people who see that as representing it leave. If I believed that to be a Christian I had to essentially make an idol out of the Bible, and believe that God actually did those things, then I too would reject the faith.
Following God whose Word and wisdom is incarnate in Jesus is a very different form of Christianity than those who believe that God would be guilty of some of the things attributed to Him in the OT. One of things that Jesus did actually was to abrogate the notion that God was like that when He told them that they were to love their enemy. That was in a society where His countrymen were being brutalized by the Romans.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Omnivorous, posted 12-31-2015 5:19 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024