Anything Divine in the Bible?

1. It would only make sense for the reasons I have explained and if Jehovah god is the true god and the Bible is a credible historical record. (Abe: Btw, you have yet to respond to the specificis of the reasons I posted. I'm convinced that the record is true.) Each must decide for themselves.2. If God be supreme master of the Universe, we his wee creatures lose by shaking our itty bitty fists at him in rebellion.3. In the end when righteousness, peace and all the the messianic kingdom brings mankind will begin to understand how just and necessary all that God saw fit to do was.4. Look at it this way, Cavediver. Last century the forces of secularist evil empires murdered over a hundred million of their own citizens due to the deterioration of moral values such as the Golden Rule.Ancient Israel, when subjected to these harsh laws thrived and prospered as a nation, though a few harsh punishments were implemented to maintain what blessed the messianic nation in times of peace and prosperity.Also, the nation of Israel full well knew the law and the consequences of rebellion against their god. They also knew the consequences of disobedience.3. Of course it's been proven that Hitler is was not supreme majesty of the planet, much less the Universe. He had no prophets to verify anything relative to his agenda and none of the evidences cited in this thread as to the status of divinity. Edited by Buzsaw, : As noted:

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

D A, perhaps it would be good for you to review the beginning messages of the thread where evidences have been cited and elaborated on. I suggest you read the whole linked message of mine for a starter.The Bible is a large compilations of books written by some 30 to 40 people ranging from shepherds to kings and which like physics or any other study is not (especially the prophecies) mastered by novices in a few sittings.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

As noted Buz. You've got your history wrong again. Various formulations of this idea appeared in many cultures before Jesus had a chance to articulate it.You'be also managed to miss where it fits in the discussion here.
I used it because it is a good way to summarize a rational approach to arriving at a basis for morality that is based on our status as social animals. No one has made it clear to me how my post doesn't answer that question.The question put was how could we have morality without a law giver. Some people don't need to be terrorized into being moral. That seems to be one big difference between us.

Thanks Buzzsaw for resurrecting these so we can analyze them. I appreciate your polite candor.So lets break this down shall we. Yes, I realize this claim of the Bible. I have read Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict as well.Again back on topic, I will tackle these one at a time: Again, like I said in my previous post, you interpret these to prophecy to the creation of the Israel in 1947. However, much of what Ezekiel states could be applied to the Jews migrating back to Palestine after their captivity in Babylonia and this could have been written after the fact. Can you prove me wrong on this? Israel has always been part of the fertile crescent of western Asia and has been rather fertile compared to the deserts surrounding it. Can you point to specifics as to an increase in vegetation? Yes agricultural productivity is going to increase (as it has in nearly every developed country) with an increase in technology. It does not take a rocket scientist or a prophet to figure this out. Also one of the reasons the Romans were attracted to Palestine was because of its agricultural productivity. Again how can you be certain that this does not apply to the time in which the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Arabs, the Holy Roman Empire, the Ottomans, the British, or any others occupied Palestine? Boy, you read a lot into the scriptures, if you are going to use this as evidence you need to provide specific versus, I find no mention of a messiah here unless you are referencing verse 25. How do we know this is not just wishful thinking on Ezekiel's part? Again this is all part of self-fulfilling prophecy even if he is speaking about a future messiah (which is not explicitly stated). Again how do you not know if this applies to the return of the Jews to Palestine after being released from captivity by the Babylonians? Where is Armageddon mentioned here? The only place I know that mentions Armageddon is Revelations. Armageddon is more of a place than a time. It refers to the hill and valley area near the ancient city of Megiddo in Northern Israel. This was a strategic stop along an ancient trade route between Egypt and other surrounding civilizations as well as the site of many bloody battles.Can you tell me who these nations mentioned here are and when these events will supposedly take place? Have you been reading a little too much of the Left Behind series? Even many Christians disagree and some say these events already took place. Are you a premillennialist, postmillennialist or an amillennialist? That will determine how you interpret these scriptures i.e. events that have yet to take place or have already occurred. How hard would it be for the early Christian writers and Church Fathers to shape the stories of Jesus (if ever existed) to match the prophecies of the Old Testament? That is a real question not a rhetorical one. Of all your evidence this would be your strongest point of contention and good fodder for you to use since the whole of the scroll of the Book of Isaiah can be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls dating to approx 150 B.C. Religious scholars and historians have been debating the question I proposed for centuries, though this may require a whole topic in itself. Again could not the early church fathers and scholars write this into the gospel accounts? Again not a rhetorical question but would like some in depth discussion on this.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

But the original formulation of what we consider the Golden Rule on record, as is my understanding was the Ten Commandments written some 14 centuries BC or so.All Jesus did was to summarize the Ten Commandments into two which were vertical and lateral, i.e. loving God with all of one's being and the Golden Rule of loving one's neighbor as one's self. All of the Ten Commandments had to do with man's duty to his god and his neighbor. Since it has been picked up by many major religions in various formulations, the fact that the original inspiration of it came from the Bible lends evidence to the case for the divinity of the scriptures. The reality is that most Eastern, Pagan and secularist cultures as well as the RCC have a poor track record of implementing the Golden Rule, especially when it comes to outsiders who wish to practice in nations where their culture is the majority.It is the Christian fundamentalists such as the Voice of The Martyrs, Franklin Graham's Samaritan's Purse, the Salvation Army and Christian missions etc by and large who are benevolent helpers of the destitute both in our nation and abroad. This, imo, is where the rubber meets the road relative to a divinely inspired Golden Rule as per what Jesus the Christ and his apostles advocated.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

But Protestants do it GREAT! Ask the Apache, or Chickasaw, or Navaho! Or the !Kung or Bantu in South Africa! You could ask some of the New England Indians, but Protestants killed 'em all....BS, Buz. That's wishful thinking.

D A, thanks very much for responding to the specifics in a kindly manner. I like the way you go at contending for truth. That's what we all really need is the truth in all of these debate topics. Over the decades of Bible study, I've found it necessary to revise my thinking on a number of issues.1. I believe Israel officially became a nation in 1948.2. Israel was not dispersed to all nations/worldwide until the Romans initiated this phenomenon. Their captivity in Egypt or Babylon did not effect a global dispersion.3. Edomites have not claimed the holy mountain of Israel and the land of Israel to be added to their own land until these modern times. See Ezekiel 35:10 and 36:2 and 36:5. I am not aware of Edom ever claiming their land as well as Israel until modern times.4. Ezekiel 36:27. ".....I will put my Spirit within you......." It was not until the NT phenomenon of Pentecost that God's Holy Spirit actually entered the bodies/minds of believers, i.e. the new birth (born again), i.e baptism of the Holy Spirit. This was a NT phenomenon that was not implemented in the ancient days of the Babylonian captivity.5. The revived nation of Israel was not to be two nations; i.e. Israel and Judah, but one nation. Not so in the days of Babylon captivity. See chapter 37.6. Ezekiel 37:28 (ASV) "And the nations shall know that I am Jehovah that santifieth Israel when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.Note that the nations will be acknowledging Jehovah and the revived nation shall never again be dispersed etc. This could not have been the case with the return from Babylon. D A, I saw a TV documentary of modern Israel which showed how via modern irrigation tech the land is so lush with produce that this tiny nation has been a significant exporter of produce to the nations.When the shepherd nomadic tribes and other cultures occupied the land for many centuries the land was pretty much of a desolate waste land. Of course, after Israel irrigated, planted and built it up, their hostile neighbors began claiming it. Compared to Israel, the surrounding nations are non-productive and far less productive and prosperous.It's my bed time. I hope to address more when I can get to it.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

But, of course, you're referring to the Indian Wars where there were numerous casualties on both sides.Then too, it was not Biblical Christians who did the torturing such as live scalping and live disembowelment of their prisoners including women and children after they were often forced through a gauntlet of beatings and floggings.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

DA thanks for all your kind comments in this post. Besides my crimson tide getting smoked today, Im am otherwise in a good mood.My sense of humor is sometime missed, The Autunman can confirm this for you. Your still missing the point here, I am not saying that humans cannot contrive what they consider as morality. If fact Humans have a great ability toi invent and and make many things. However, if one chooses to declare God as evil because of this or that action, he one is acknowledging the existence of morality and then he is also admitting the possiblity that an eternal and omniscient morality exists beyond our own perspective. Now watch this.He cannnot however, deny the existence of God, absolute morality and with the same breath condemn anyone elses actions, even a being that operates in this or that fashion. This is self contradictory behavior. My only point was initially that Brian and CD have no platform from which to make such an accusation.There is no way to reconcile this type of reasoning, no matter the language CD uses. If God can go F... himself, then it would follow that God could also praise himself for such actions, if there is no absolute standard.If an alien laid claim to this region of space, saying he had owned it for 100 trillion years and he started to harvest everything on the planet including us, not acknowledging us anymore than we do bacteria on an apple when we eat it, what right or moral would we use to condemn his actions. He would not rcognize our morals anymore than we would his. Now we could not say that we have a right to this or that, or even our lives anymore than we worry about a bacterias life when consuming food, correct?Without God and an absolute standard, there is no standard that really applies that is not subjective. Anyones actions no matter how terrible to us, could not be condemned, correct? If they could, what is the standard going to be? Yes, all of them. None of them are relative if God exists. Because God is eternal and omniscient, then any edict, would be absolute. For what court would you appeal outside of these two categories. I dont know really how to make this point any clearer to you, but I will try. Self destructive behavior my friend is a relative postion, depending on a point of view. The alien that does not care about you or your life, or your morals, or your standards, will shatter your reality of ethics and morals and he would not be evil or bad for soing so, because there is no standard for him to allign himself with, other than his own. Now do you see?Without an absolute standard of morals, Albert's appraisal is nothing more than an eloquent observation of practical application, having meaning only to his and others situation. It is not morality, it is only classified as such because he and others wish to designate it as such. Dahmer (how ever you spell it) may view, the Silence of the lambs, as a documentary, while you view it as a fictional movie.Question was Albert a theist? If he was not, then he has no way to designate anything as good or evil, or even use the words. If he wants to use the words,they are only relative desgnations. I dont know what the context of his statement was, or what exacally he meant, seeing that the quote is limited in scope. Perhaps you could present it in context. Right back at you. Hope you had fun. I think Cavediver has invited me over for Christmas this year, it should be a real blast, ha ha.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

So the definition of Biblical Christian is that of one who never committed a crime against humanity.Did you vote for the creators of Abu Gahrib and Guantanamo, my always blameless friend?

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

No, Ned you missed the point completely. It is how do you desribe as true evil, that for which you have no platform to make such an accusation. On what are you basing your condemnation, if there is no absolute standard? Having standards is not the same as saying they are absolute. Sure we have rules but how do you condemn with no absolute standard. You can have rules without a lawgiver, but they will be relative and if one chooses to disobey, you really have no right to condemn thier actionsD BertotD BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Since my refutation has been ignored again, I'll deal with these assertions:

quote:

---

3. Edomites have not claimed the holy mountain of Israel and the land of Israel to be added to their own land until these modern times. See Ezekiel 35:10 and 36:2 and 36:5. I am not aware of Edom ever claiming their land as well as Israel until modern times.

---

In these days there is no Edom to claim anything. The last record of the Edomites (or Idumaeans as they were called) as a specific people mentions a large force sent to aid the Jews besieged in Jerusalem.There is no clear link between the modern Palestinians and the ancient Idumaeans. The West Bank does not even overlap with the ancient Kingdom of Edom. Mount Seir which God threatens to devastate is not in the West Bank, but in modern Israe.Even worse for you is that Ezekiel's message to the Edomites was that they would be punished for what they had already done. (35:5, 35:10).So essentially your argument is that God got it completely wrong. Ezekiel 35 was meant to be delivered in modern times to modern Palestinians. God sent it to the wrong person at the wrong time, about the wrong people and even threatened to devastate the wrong land.And your evidence for this is that you personally haven't heard of the Edomites wanting to conquer ancient Israel and Judah.I don't know about you, but I don't take the simple fact that I haven't heard of something as proof that it never happened. And according to Ezekiel 35:10 God personally said that it did happen. It seems that you need very little evidence to set aside the Bible when it suits you

Now that you mention that the Bible infallibly predicts the future, I am wondering if you have anything for once to say about Tyre and those fishing nets we have gone over here ad infinitum.Obviously Israel is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Nearly everyone involved in setting up the current nation made it true.Edited by anglagard, : get rid of extraneous buz bashing sentence

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

I see prefectly. By alien, you are obviously referring to the Christian crusaders carrying out their pogrom, the Christian pioneers carrying out their pogrom, the Christian conquistadors carrying out their pogrom. Yes, I'm sure the inhabitants of Istanbul, North America, South America felt their reality of ethics shattered by these murderous aliens.This is so simple, I cannot believe you cannot grasp it. Morality and ethics have evolved at a social level for the simple reason that they are beneficial to that social grouping. Unconstructive social behaviour (theft, violence, eating each other) is discouraged as it is not socially beneficial. When two different societies meet, there could well be a complete clash of ideals leading to conflict and the stronger society may well end up annihilating the weaker society. However, over time it is realised that absorbing the weaker society may well be more beneficial, especially if the difference between the societies is not so great. After even more time, it is realised that joining with the other society creates the largest benefits. If any of this were true, we would see this behaviour throughout history. Hmmm...If space aliens descend upon the earth, we will defend ourselves - not because they are "evil", not because this planet is ours by God-given right, but simply to defend our society, as we have done for the past several million years, whether at the level of the pack, the tribe, the village, the town, the city-state, the country, the allied-pack, or the entire world.Is this so difficult to understand???Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Subbie,Be careful of your replies and pastes. I never wrote this which you attribute to jaywill (me): So whoever did say that to you, I will let that person respond to the rest of your comments in that post.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.